Adams— Challenges for 2007

AS the celebrations, mount for Adams Oshiomhole’s victory at the Court of Appeal, the primitiveness of our electoral laws resounds. How can we have laws that admit that crimes have been committed, give verdicts based on the conviction that crimes were committed, yet nobody is punished?
The ruling in essence was that Professor Oserheimen Osunbor, former law teacher and former senator became governor by unwholesome means. He was not “duly elected” as the courts would say.
Would it not have been important to identify those who aided and abetted tampering with the electoral process? Was it enough to award the governor’s seat to Oshiomhole?

These questions have been asked times over without any appropriate response from the authorities. Though Section 227 of the Constitution forbids thuggery (the foundation of rigging), it is a common denominator of our politics.

Says the Section, “No association shall retain, organise, train or equip any person or group of persons for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force or coercion in promoting any political objective or interest or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and trained or equipped for that purpose”.

At least seven governorship results have been upturned since the April 2007 election. Adamawa, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River, Edo, Kogi, and Rivers States have governors who were either sworn in after re-run elections, or those through Court of Appeal verdicts. In all these cases, electoral malfeasance was an issue.

Nobody was prosecuted, which leaves a void that can ruin future elections.
Is it possible that a governor is thrown out of his seat without any punishment meted to those who caused the disruption? What about the opportunities he illegally dispensed, the laws he assented to, the millions of public funds he illegitimately earned? Would these opportunities not continue providing incentives for future election riggers?


Court decisions have provided the unexpected benefit of staggering some gubernatorial elections.
However, they have not addressed electoral improprieties beyond reversing the results, an important factor in dealing with rigging.

Each court decision that does not punish election offenders makes room for new offenders to plan better and turn up with rigging strategies that would be more difficult to detect.
If they are found out, it could have been years after they illegally got into office, enough time to have freely dipped their hands into the public coffers, usually the major attraction in seeking public office.

The Electoral Act appears to be in abeyance in these matters. It is also overdue for another amendment –– one of the indications of the poor thinking that goes into our law making –– to tackle issues that elections throw up.

No one who has a case pending in court should be sworn in, especially into executive offices. Election cases should be given speedy hearing and concluded before the constitutionally prescribed swearing in date.

As we congratulate Adams for his doggedness, these issues are present and rear their ugliness against the future.

Reforming the Nigerian Stock Exchange

THE recent announcement of the reorganisation of its processes and management structure by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) is an opportunity to reflect on the place of the NSE in both the lives of the investing public and as an operator of a critical market in Nigeria.

Part of the proposed restructuring is the de-mutualisation of the NSE whereby it also becomes a trade-able stock of its own listed on the NSE and on other exchanges around the world. In another year, too, the NSE plans to transform its Governance rules, Technology platform and develop products for Derivatives trading and Exchange Traded Funds.

Another landmark decision is that the management team is now invited to join the governing Board of the NSE with the creation of the position of a Group Chief Executive Officer and three Executive Directors for Compliance and Surveillance, Quotation and Listings, Market Operations and Technology directorates. At present, only the chief executive sits on the 13-member board while the directorates exist as already functioning departments at the NSE.

We are pleased that the NSE has continued the effort in reinventing itself. It is very commendable that since its inauguration as the Lagos Stock Exchange in 1960 and its transmutation as Nigeria Stock Exchange in 1977, the NSE has veritably become an institution that is well-regarded in the international securities markets forum. Up till the past few weeks, it was still being acclaimed as one of the most profitable emerging markets stock exchange.

The NSE runs a network of branches in Nigeria's urban centres namely Lagos, Ibadan, Abuja, Kano, Kaduna, Onitsha, Port Harcourt, Yola and Ilorin. To that extent, it has grown the investment culture and habit among Nigerians such that it is estimated that, currently, three million Nigerians are investors directly involved with the vagaries of the Nigerian stock market. The NSE is also reputed to possess an efficient automation system with its seamless on-line technology, across the branches and off-site remote trading centres by brokers, rarely impaired.

Within the past five years, a combination of factors has elevated the NSE to a success story status in the Nigerian economy. The main stimulus, but certainly not the solitary instrument, for this fame has been traced to the banking consolidation exercise and the deluge of Initial Public Offers that it spewed forth. Many international and institutional investors spied undervalued stocks and dipped their feet in the Nigerian market. Within months, portfolio traders worldwide had a slice of Nigerian stocks. Entry was liberal and returns were comparatively very high. In what must be seen as a classic win-win situation, the NSE also raked in substantial fees and charges from the unprecedented momentum of its daily operations.

All of this notwithstanding, the Nigerian Stock Exchange is urgently in need of such restructuring that will address critical corporate governance issues that assail it and limit its capacity. The content of the proposed restructuring plans appears to be lopsided in favour of management progress and technology headways. There should be greater emphasis on plans to address the concern of the new millions of adherents to the market about transparency and governance ethos of NSE operations and trading.

Entrance to the NSE is still an experiment open to a group of elite and middle class Nigerians whose appreciation of risk of massive loss is shallow and without market history to learn from. Against the background of the prevailing state of the NSE index, it is appalling for the NSE to ignore the more confidence-building aspects of its functions. It needs to allay fears that this is a market with flexible rules for a few favoured stocks or investors.

In particular, there is still a certain suspicion that the pricing of public offers in recent years, especially of the banks, were inflated and that the subsequent bubble created from that oversight omission was further fuelled by nuances of insider trading. It has also been alleged that there were peculiar arrangements of incestuous margin facility between stockbrokers and parent banks, to pump up the stock market. There is gripe that the NSE closed its eyes to the delirium, a precursor to the current debacle for the new converts to

stock market investment.

Largely, the NSE operates the stock market as a model between a self-regulatory organisation and an institution under the rules and guidance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). There is need to clarify the structure of that relationship between an operator and a regulator.

A selection of policy responses following the present stock market meltdown exposed the dysfunctional relation between the NSE and SEC. It is an open secret that though SEC is the regulator, instances of NSE being insubordinate have created unbeneficial tension for market operators. Finally, as the public gets to understand that stocks are likely to lose or gain over time, it is desirable to restate that the NSE is essentially a club of private members. The individual membership of the NSE by its extant rules subscribed to over 50 years ago, is by invitation only and its Council is dominated by a select few.

The other members of council are the traders or dealing members who are actually part-makers of rules under which they trade for profit. It is a paradox and altogether an enormous responsibility for all these persons to separate self- interest and stick to the narrow path. There is no better time to re-organise the operations of the NSE.

We call for greater candour in the plans for restructuring and look forward to a reorientation of persons who populate both the Management and Council of the Nigeria Stock Exchange, else the reforms being trumpeted may turn futile.

Armed Robberies Rising

THE deafening silence of the police as the crime rate soars is as concerning as government’s thorough failure to address insecurity throughout the country.

Whether it is kidnapping, which has spread from oil workers to anyone the criminals think can pay ransom, or the random incidents of armed robbers snatching cars, invading homes, offices, hospitals, banks, churches, mosques and dispossessing people of cash and cars in traffic jams, the increasing security is becoming alarming.

The few cases that are reported show that the tactics of the robbers keep changing. What has remained constant is that help hardly gets to the victims, even when they call the police. Help, if it ever comes, is usually after the robbers have departed.

The police have essentially restricted their duties to check points where they extort money from motorists, especially commercial vehicle drivers and motorcycle operators. These check points serve only the selfish interest of those who man them.

Some of the nation’s busiest highways have become havens for robbers, who operate unchallenged and sometimes spend hours in their dastardly enterprise. The Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, in the past couple of months, has provided a lair for robbers. The Port Harcourt-Enugu Expressway and the long highways that link various parts of the North, especially the Kano-Maiduguri road, are notorious for fatal robberies.

Many failed portions of these roads ensure motorists must slow down to navigate the dangerous spots. Robbers strike in those areas.

More daring ones simply mount road blocks, sometimes on both sides of the road, and ask motorists to hand over whatever appeals to the robbers. Those who resist lose their lives.
Neither day, nor night is safe. Robbers operating under various guises invade home at their convenience and leave when they please. Some stay long enough to ask for choice meals to be prepared for them. Such confidence baffles those who accuse the police of indifference to their duties.

It is as dangerous to live in the city as in the countryside. When armed robbers invade villages, the raid can last days. Who cares? In the cities, traffic jams work in their favour as they can walk from car to car taking whatever they want, including lives. Nobody challenges them.

At night, poor electricity supply has made neighbourhoods vulnerable to attacks. Hundreds of generators blasting away at the same time provide the perfect cover for robbers. Neighbours cannot hear any distress calls, they learn of the horror the following day.

The usual complaints from the police about poor equipment are no longer tenable. All over the country, governments, organisations and individuals keep donating equipment and vehicles to the police. These have not reflected on improved security. These vehicles are deployed to the personal comfort of officers.

We are not denying the difficulties with which the police operate. What we condemn emphatically is the situation where robbers operate as if police do not exist.

The Federal Government should wake up to its responsibility of securing the people by getting the police to act - urgently.

Thumbs Up FAAN Security

IT is rare for Nigerian public servants to do their work, especially when confronted with the intimidating appurtenances of officialdom. It is in this light that the security officials of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, FAAN, in Ikeja should be praised for standing their grounds against authorised vehicle movement on the tarmac.
This is important because the official involved was the Speaker of the House of Representatives whose aides expected to be assisted in breaking the law on recognition. The media reports tended to present the incident as an affront on the Speaker and his multiple offices –– it was not.
Certain vehicles and persons are permitted to drive through the access gate of airports. The drivers are trained for the purpose and their vehicles equipped to help other airport users and aircraft to identify them.

The Speaker’s 11-car convoy wanted to pass through the access gate of the new domestic airport to beat traffic jam on airport road. The Speaker, who is the Amiru Hajj, was heading to the Hajj Camp at the international arm of the airport to address departing pilgrims.
FAAN security officials stood their grounds for the 30 minutes that the Speaker’s security men tried to intimidate them into breaking the rules.


International civil aviation rules on the matter are –– people bearing arms are not permitted to drive through the airside, the vehicles passing through this restricted area must have aviation amber light and a FAAN licensed airside driver is to guide the vehicles for safety and precautionary reasons.

None of these conditions were met.
It is true this was an unexpected situation. It is equally true that violation of these aviation rules could have endangered other airport users as well as the convoy of the Speaker, whose aides did not see the implications of their convoy passing through a restricted area.
FAAN’s insistence on following the rules was not meant to be an affront on the Speaker and it should be understood in this manner. It was good to see FAAN standing on the side of the law, and we expect that it does this always.

However, the incident brings to the fore the deteriorating state of the access road to the international airport in Lagos . The flooding that results from poor drainage each time it rains locks up traffic in the area for hours, that was the situation on the day the Speaker visited.
Bad portions on the road also create traffic jams that make the place impassable. This is an unacceptable situation for an airport of this importance. The untidiness around the road –– a first visitor’s impression of Nigeria –– is a disgrace. Sadly, the authorities are not paying any attention to this.

The airport road has space for expansion to meet increased traffic. FAAN should address this.
Short cuts, like the one the Speaker’s convoy wanted to adopt, is one of the reasons things are never done properly. We hope others have learnt these safety lessons

Nigerians on death row in Indonesia

The recent failure of the Nigerian delegation to Indonesia to obtain clemency for 18 Nigerians on death row for drug trafficking in that country is, undoubtedly, a bitter pill for Nigerians.

The efforts of the delegation, which was led by Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Ojo Maduekwe, came to nothing as the Indonesian president, Susilo Yudhoyono, rejected Nigeria’s plea for clemency for the offenders, based on the fact that even Indonesians who are arrested for similar offences are also executed.

Two Nigerians, Hansen Anthony Nwaolisa and Samuel Iwuchukwu Okoye, who had earlier been executed in June for the same offence, were the first set of drug offenders to be executed in Indonesia in four years. With the failure of Nigeria’s appeal for clemency, the fate of the 18 Nigerian convicts now depends on reviews of their cases by the courts.

The prospect of the loss of as many as 18 of our compatriots to Indonesian executioners is painful. It is a sad reflection of the sorry fate of Nigerians who fall into crime in the desperate effort to make a living in foreign lands.

The attempt by President Yar’Adua to stop the execution of Nigerians who have run foul of the law in Indonesia is appropriate and commendable. It is the duty of responsible governments all over the world to intervene whenever the lives and interests of their compatriots are at stake. The failure to obtain clemency for the Nigerians in this instance should therefore not discourage such efforts to help other Nigerians in similar situations in the future.

Now that the clemency appeal has failed to move the heart of the Indonesian authorities, the best the nation can demand for is a judicious review of the peculiar circumstances of each case, to ensure that the guilt of each of the offenders is established beyond every reasonable doubt, to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.

The plight of the condemned Nigerians should also serve as a lesson to other Nigerians with the proclivity to traffic drugs to foreign lands. Our people need to be warned against drug trafficking and other infractions of the law, more especially when they are in foreign lands. They need to be made to understand that drug trafficking is a serious offence that is taken seriously in many parts of the world with grievous penalties for persons convicted of the crime, unlike Nigeria where drug traffickers get away with a slap on the wrists.

Beyond the admonition to Nigerians to avoid running foul of the laws of the countries that they traverse is the need to nip the desperation of our compatriots to make money by all means, fair or foul, in the bud. The government should address the increasing involvement of Nigerians in drug trafficking and other illegal means of earning a living by making it easy for all to live by honest labour.

This administration must work very hard to turn Nigeria’s economy around so that there can be gainful employment for the people and the propensity to engage in the risky venture of drug trafficking is reduced. The nation also has to work towards the re-orientation of our value system to enthrone respect for hard and honest work, while discouraging the propensity for dishonesty and get-rich-quick schemes that all too soon get our compatriots into trouble outside the country.

Above all, the culture of plundering of our national resources by our leaders which leaves inadequate funds for the productive sector of the economy, with attendant soaring unemployment rates and growing despondency and desperation of our youths, should be addressed.
For so long as Nigerians cannot be empowered to make a worthwhile living in their own country, the desperation to get rich by any means possible in foreign lands will be a constant temptation, with attendant deleterious effects on our national image whenever the long hands of the law catch up with them.

Obama's finest moment

TOWARDS the end of the last millennium, we witnessed one gentleman -whom until this year the United States still listed as a "terrorist" - being sworn in as the first black President of a truly democratic South Africa.

This man, Nelson Mandela, who is now celebrated as a beacon of hope, integrity and great leadership across the world, had been in jail for 27 years. Upon his eventual release, he led his party the African National Congress (ANC) to a landslide victory that ended one era of South Africa's history and changed the country's future forever.

This was a feat that even the most passionate optimists and committed cynics alike thought impossible. Margaret Thatcher, a pioneer in her own right who also expanded the realms of possibility when she became the first woman Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of her party, unfortunately fell into the category of the cynics when she reportedly said that anyone who believed the ANC would ever rule South Africa was "living in cloud cuckoo land". Four years later, Mandela led the ANC into a landslide victory and the ANC has ruled South Africa ever since. 'Cloud cuckoo land' became a reality on planet earth. The boundaries of possibility had been expanded by the conviction of one man standing against the cynicism and pessimism of many others more powerful than he.

Now less than fifteen years after Nelson Mandela made history, another seemingly impossible feat has been achieved. A young man who seemed to have all the odds against him: age, inexperience, race, funds, family background, cultural heritage and even his name, overcame all these gargantuan obstacles to become the first African-American President in US history. This achievement exceeded even the renowned 'dream' of Reverend Martin Luther King of an America without racism. Though Obama's vision was partly inspired, crystallised and catalysed by Reverend King's dream, Obama pushed the boundaries of possibility further.

His vision saw far beyond the good Reverend's dream and he pursued it with sagacious clarity, convincing sincerity, intellectual rigour and relentless vigour that inspired our world like nothing else we have seen in recent times. Even the most committed cynics were left speechless. The boundaries of possibility were tested and the unexpected and seemingly impossible emerged. Perhaps the human race is not as bad we often think. Perhaps the fences between us are not as entrenched as we assume. Perhaps the boundaries of possibility are more expandable than we dare to dream.

This is a euphoric and inspirational moment in world history, and it is one that has sparked a new light of hope in a troubled and conflicted world. However, what happens next and how we all react to this event as individuals, groups or nations is what would be most crucial in consolidating and spreading the gains of Obama's victory. Perhaps a good place to start may be in looking at some of the lessons that could be learnt.

For the US, it may be worthy to note that based on how much attention the whole world paid to this election, it is clear that the world has not turned its back against America. If anything at all, many across the world still need and look to the US for leadership. Leadership, not through aggression or unilateralism but through diplomacy and multilateralism; leadership, not through instruction but through inspiration; leadership not just for America's interests but leadership for shared global interests. It is thus encouraging that President-elect Obama stated in his victory speech that "our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, a new dawn of American leadership is at hand" and he acknowledged that there were "alliances to repair." He seemed to understand in his campaign and at his moment of victory, that he was not about to become just the leader of the United States but possibly the leader of a world where majority want to be united in peace and live in dignity.

Now, if America can keep this promise of a new dawn of American leadership and build on the global goodwill that the Obama presidency has attracted from across the world, very much like after September 11, then it just may regain it respect and its crown of global leadership, and find more real 'friends and allies' across the world - both in nation-states and amongst world citizens. If America can respect and protect the lives, rights and dignity of peoples and nations across the world, then it is more likely that these same nations and peoples will respect and protect America and Americans in return. It's now time to invest more in 'hearts and minds', 'notebooks and pencils', 'bread and butter', 'vaccines and medicines', 'roofs and wells' and less in bullets and bombs.

For Africa and its leadership, we need to ask ourselves serious questions. First, if the President-elect of the world's most powerful and wealthiest nation is a direct descendant of an African and bears an African name, then what excuse do we have today as to why we cannot produce the same calibre leaders within Africa, who can lead our own countries into greater, faster and more sustainable growth, stability and development?

Secondly, we need to ask, if Barack Obama with all his education, knowledge, skills and passion had been a 'young' forty-seven year old from a modest background and a minority ethnic group in an African country, would he have been given a chance to become President, as he was in America? What was the fate of Raila Odinga in Kenya or Morgan Tsvangrai in Zimbabwe in the last two hotly contested African elections which could have facilitated a generational shift in the leadership of these countries? If Obama had been an Africa-based politician liked Odinga or Tsvangrai would he have been given a chance? Would he have been elected an African President?

Perhaps those who deprive Africa's young emerging leaders from opportunities to lead through service, need to see that the political, economic and cultural fences that we place in the path of our youngest and brightest, only stop us from harnessing the energy, the vitality and the freshness of ideas that younger leaders can bring to the leadership table. For as long as we fence, intimidate, antagonise and hound our young stars out of the political sphere, seeing them as threats and not as opportunities, and continue to relegate them to the hidden corners of society, disempowered and unable to contribute to the leadership and the development of their countries, then we will continue to be trapped in the same vicious cycle of poor governance, instability, underdevelopment and conflict, even though we have all it takes to live in prosperity, peace and development. Unless we reverse this trend and create a more equitable political playing field for all Africans old and young, female and male, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or socio-economic background, we will continue to lose our best and our brightest to other regions of the world who appreciate them more and give them more opportunities to be the very best they can be, and to soar to the highest peaks they can reach. Sometimes new ideas and good leadership comes from change. Africa needs this kind of change. Change we can grow with. Change for development.

For the world, we may want to realise that the foreign policies of the outgoing US government do not wholly reflect the aspirations, the nature or the character of the vast majority of American people. How America voted in this election has told us this in no uncertain terms. These votes were not just votes for Barack Obama, they were also votes against George W. Bush's policies and votes for the rest of the world. Like a political Council of Bishops, the Americans have elected a political Pope for the world and several polls confirm that the world agrees with America's choice.

And if the agencies and arms of the American government under President-elect Obama embody the same spirit of change, of dialogue, of responsibility and of global partnerships that Obama espouses, then there is no reason why the world should not give America a chance and support it in this change process. The same way we all need support to get things right, having realised where we went wrong, America will also need the world's support to actualise Obama's change process.

The bottom-line is that all of us from diverse countries, cultures, races and creeds want to live in a world where our dreams can become realties. After all is said and done, and irrespective of America's challenges, America remains the only country where Obama's extraordinary dreams could have become possible. By voting-in Barack Obama in this election, America has chosen to lead once again by showing the world that irrespective of its wealth and its military might that it is still a country that believes in the power of hopes and dreams and of giving ordinary people extraordinary opportunities.

Its democracy has worked and it has delivered a new era of hope to the American people. If a 'new' America can afford and support other countries to actualise the kind of hopes, dreams and opportunities it has just allowed itself, then it would have proven itself a credible leader of the 'free world' and its democracy one worthy of emulation. Then it can lead, with less resistance and more global support.

The election of Barack Obama is one of those transformative experiences that will become one of the key milestones of the evolution of human society. Depending on how we all respond, it could also signal a new direction in international relations and global politics. Its ramifications and impacts are multifarious. On an individual level, it expands the boundaries of imagination, broadens the scope of possibilities of human endeavour and inspires one to overcome the most towering of obstacles. On a societal level, it restores a broken faith in our shared humanity and inspires the belief that we can rise above the physical, economic, political and social boundaries that have kept us apart when in actuality, deep within, we are all the same. On a global level, if offers a new ray of hope and the inspiration to believe that perhaps, a new world order is possible.

Barack Obama's story is one that will inspire several generations to come. This man has not just made history, he has made the future. Through his courage, clarity, competence and conviction, Obama has opened new doors not just for African-Americans, wider America or even Africa. He has opened new doors for the future of human society, simply by expanding the boundaries of possibility. The question now is what we do on the individual, societal and global levels with our new found possibilities.

Friday, November 14, 2008

OUR attention has been drawn to a silly statement credited to the PDP spokesman, Professor Ahmed Alkali that PDP is not happy with the penchant of Nigerians to attribute the flaws in the nation's democracy to its political activities. Alkali stood truth on its head and insulted Nigerians by insisting that instead of blaming the ruling party, it should be praised for not remaining aloof like other parties that have done nothing to move the system forward.

First, Alkali is not happy that Nigerians blame PDP for the flaws in the nation's democracy. Now tell us, whom do we blame for the mess we have found ourselves in Nigeria today? AC, ANPP, PPA, AD, PPP, NDP etc? None of these is the ruling party. PDP is the ruling party. For more than ten years now the party has been in the saddle calling all the shots.

In the past ten years, this country earned more money than any other regime since Independence and yet you cannot readily point to any tangible thing the regime has recorded in terms of achievement. Our Federal roads are in terrible shape, our Universities are in bad shape, our economy is yet to gain momentum, majority of our working class are unemployed, we are still running a generator-driven economy, corruption rating is still high, and our electoral system is in shambles.


Power goes with responsibility. To whom much is given, much is expected. We cannot get our economy right unless we get our politics right. This is because politics is superior to economics. Ask Prof Laski of the London School of Economics. Rather than using the power entrusted in their hands to wipe away tears from the eyes of Nigerians, the Party has been busy sharing the loot. The Party chieftains have become despicable treasury looters, rapacious greedy lots, mindless plunders of common patrimony, notorious election riggers, serial murderers, nest of killers, certificate forgers, Court jesters, manipulators, blackmailers, strange bed-fellows, compromisers, common criminals who divide the nation to 'win' elections. Today, the nation is far more divided than the PDP met it in 1998.

In one fell swoop, the party that claims to be moving the nation forward shamelessly sacked 20 Ministers. And what is most painful in this political rascality and immaturity is the fact that the party could not read the political import of this mass sack. To Nigerians, it is an admission of total failure of governance.

The PDP says Nigerians must praise it for not remaining complacent like other parties to move the system forward. Now ask yourselves, what will Nigerians praise PDP for? For dashing the hopes of 150 million Nigerians, robbing pepper in their eyes and telling them that the pains will continue in the next 60 years? For sitting on the back of Nigerians, choking them, making them to carry it and yet assure itself and a band of criminals in their fold that it is very sorry for Nigerians and wish to ease their lot by all possible means except by getting off their backs? For frittering away lots and lots of opportunities that have been waiting to be exploited since 1999? For encouraging and empowering a band of nonentities and nincompoops to ascend exalted positions they rarely deserve it in the name of party patronage? For the criminal policy of dividing a vibrant nation in order to continue to rule them? No, we cannot reward incompetence, failure, fraud, criminality, laziness. We sanction it.

Professor Alkali of the PDP made reference to Obama's victory in the United States and attributed it to many years of struggle but do we need to wait for 100 years to have free and fair elections? Do we need to reinvent the wheel? Why can't Alkali wait for 100 years to travel by air? Why can't Prof Alkali go to his home town from Abuja on foot? If Alkali wants to wait for 100 years to get it right, we do not think we need to wait that long to get things done.

The shameless clowns in PDP have been praising America for getting it right but the 21st century fools cannot do the same thing here to help the nation because of wickedness, greed, fear of people who are different from us, hatred and political irresponsibility. We must alert PDP that after the Obama phenomenon in the United States a movement is coming up in Nigeria. It is either we build this nation on truth, integrity, and honour or we put it behind us.

Yar'Adua: Two decisions, different effects

PRESIDENT Umaru Musa Yar'Adua took two decisions this week that should impress his supporters and daze his critics. Incidentally, both decisions were driven by provocative actions that affected Yar'Adua directly and indirectly. Outraged by the bestial and brutal treatment of a young woman - Uzoma Okere -- by naval ratings (let's call them naval rookies because that's what they demonstrated by their appalling action) in Victoria Island last week, Yar'Adua requested his Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Paul Dike, to investigate the incident.

But just as Yar'Adua was trying to recover from the anger that had swelled up to his nostrils by the sheer brutalisation of an unarmed woman, a report published in the Leadership newspaper which raised serious questions about Yar'Adua's health triggered off another bout of presidential exasperation. It is embarrassing enough for a president to be confronted with regular rumours of his health which he has laboured to explain repeatedly to a sceptical public. But when a newspaper published a dubious report about the president's health and backed it up by claiming that the president failed to show up at certain public events which he was scheduled to attend, the president's patience snapped. We'll return shortly to this report. But first, let us examine Yar'Adua's decision to inquire into the bashing of Uzoma Okere.

Yar'Adua's decision to order an investigation into the rough treatment of Uzoma Okere struck the right chord in the public. As I argued last week, the president has a duty of care to investigate the inhuman treatment of Uzoma so that he can understand what happened, why it happened and the right course of action to take. The president had to act for a number of reasons: the bashing of Uzoma was in bad taste; it sent a wrong message about the limitless powers of men in uniform; and the incident took place in the public domain. Uzoma's treatment received national and international attention because it was disgustingly high-handed. It was recorded on video and distributed worldwide. The image of Nigeria was on trial, including the way men treated vulnerable women in our society. In this digital age, abuses of human rights which are documented and circulated electronically tend to attract immediate national and international outrage. Photographic images serve as eyewitness accounts of news events. And so did the video account of Uzoma's ordeal.

The naval rookies who brutalised Uzoma, as well as their boss who failed to stop the bashing, must be sweating about how to defend their action. Without prejudging the outcome of the official investigation, no one who saw the video would claim that the incident was a fictional account of what happened. The moral character test for the naval personnel involved in that dishonourable incident is to adduce acceptable reasons to justify why they had to clobber a defenceless woman so badly and still strip her naked in public. Stripping Uzoma naked was the ultimate humiliation and abuse. There are more decent ways to restrain an angry woman than stripping her naked. No man would ever wish to see his wife or daughter or sister humiliated in the manner that Uzoma was treated last week, regardless of the degree of provocation - if any.


Whatever might be the outcome of the investigation, Yar'Adua and the Navy hierarchy must take appropriate action to underline the point that wearing the naval uniform is not a licence to torture or kill any member of the public. As Uzoma's father, a retired army colonel, told the Punch in an interview published three days ago: "I wore the uniform for so many years; and I don't think I went out of my way to humiliate anybody. The mere fact that you are in uniform should make you humble because you are one out of so many." It is in this context that we must commend the ban placed by Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola on use of sirens by governors and government officials moving about in Lagos. For once, we should be free to move about in Lagos without fear of sirens. The ban should be extended to other parts of the country. Surely, what is good for Lagos residents must be good for people in other states.

Sirens constitute public nuisance in Nigeria. Their indiscriminate use should be outlawed. For years, sirens were used as symbols of authority to oppress and harass ordinary road users particularly during the era of military rule. Uzoma's experience at the hands of the naval rookies last week represents a sad throwback to the culture of intimidation that was practiced and sustained during military rule. In more organized societies, sirens are used in restricted circumstances and for specially approved purposes such as when ambulances are dashing to or from an emergency call or when the police are chasing law breakers. I have seen governors and premiers in foreign countries attend public functions without the blare of sirens.

Now, back to Yar'Adua's decision to sue a newspaper over the report of his health. What did the Leadership newspaper say last weekend about Yar'Adua's health? According to The Guardian of last Sunday, the Leadership newspaper claimed in its Saturday edition that: "Yar'Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days... His deteriorating health prevented him from attending yesterday's (last Friday's) Jumma'at prayer at the National Mosque. Earlier, he had also failed to show up at Sheraton Hotel, where he was billed to attend a function along with the visiting German president. No excuse was advanced for the president's absence on both occasions."

Yar'Adua and his aides were rankled by that report particularly when Yar'Adua knew he attended the events but the newspaper report claimed he didn't. He had photos and credible evidence to show that he was present at those public events. On the basis of perceived inaccuracies in the newspaper report, Yar'Adua directed his lawyers to commence legal action against the Leadership newspaper. Presidential adviser on media and publicity Olusegun Adeniyi was left to defend his boss by picking out the flaws in the report. Hear him: "There is no truth in the entire report and the lies on which it hangs are so easy to disprove that the only reasonable conclusion is that the publishers of the newspapers ran the report in furtherance of their reprehensible efforts to embarrass the President and destabilize his Administration... If it had any regard for the truth at all and made the least effort to confirm the veracity of the assertions in its report, Leadership newspaper would know that the claim that Yar'Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days is a big lie."

The tone of Adeniyi's rebuttal pointed to the seriousness with which the Presidency viewed the newspaper report. There are a few comments to be made about the aptness or inappropriateness of a president taking a newspaper to court over a report on the president's health. First, by taking the newspaper to court rather than arrest or detain the journalists or send troops to the newspaper premises, Yar'Adua has chosen to put into practice his rule of law creed. That is an acceptable way to proceed.

Second, Yar'Adua's decision to go to court suggests that he would devote greater time to vetting daily press reports about his health rather than concentrate on the job of governing the nation. The key challenge is: would the president and all his assistants have all the time to comb every paragraph of every newspaper report in search of potential defamatory material? Obviously Yar'Adua is acting on the basis that a lie published in the media which goes unchallenged is likely to be accepted by the public as truth. But if Yar'Adua is prepared to take legal action in order to correct every inaccuracy in the press, he must also be prepared to lodge countless legal actions every week.

Third, Yar'Adua's reaction to media reports about his health highlights a greater need for the Nigerian press to show greater responsibility. The right to publish does not include the right to defame or injure the character of anybody. Press freedom carries with it parallel obligations and responsibilities. The social responsibilities of the press were outlined as far back as the mid-20th century when Theodore Peterson wrote: "Freedom carries concomitant obligations; and the press, which enjoys a privileged position under our government, is obliged to be responsible to society for carrying out certain essential functions of mass communication in contemporary society."

The Conflict in Congo

The Democratic Republic of Congo is a sorry sight at the moment. A country whose chequered history is replete with rebellion, civil conflicts, rapacious exploitation of its abundant natural resources, gross human suffering and wholesale deaths now hosts, yet again, sordid experiences. Only concerted efforts by the international community can halt the deadly slide by a country that has clearly lost the ability to save itself.
The unfolding tragedy is sad, both in its origin and prosecution. Government forces are up against the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), a rebel group led by General Laurent Nkunda, over differences that are partly traceable to the unprecedented Rwandan genocide of 1994. The rebels, backed by the government of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, have sought to control the eastern part of Congo. Kiwanja and the areas surrounding the North Kivu Provincial Capital of Goma now bear the morbid footsteps of the rampaging CNDP soldiers. The ceasefire that was declared by Nkunda last week only proved to be a ploy for reinforcement as his men have - against war conventions -turned on the civilian population in the affected areas, killing, looting and raping - the same crimes they accused Congolese soldiers of committing which had partly triggered off the war. Now, the fate of the several hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and the others in the region hangs in the balance.
That should not be allowed to remain so for long as the consequences would be too grave and constitute yet another scar on the conscience of the world. The events that led to the massacre 14 years ago are too fresh in the minds of the civilised world. The Security Council and the African Union have key roles to play in this regard. They should compel Kagame and President Joseph Kabila of the DRC to honour the spirit of the November 2007 Nairobi Accord which both of them had assented to. That pact derived its strength from Congo's pledge to disarm the Hutu militias within its territory who have remained a threat to the Kagame government. Rwanda's Tutsi – dominated regime had also agreed to fortify its borders to deny Nkunda's mostly Tutsi fighters access to assistance. Any step towards resolving the crisis that omits this basic strategy will hardly succeed as the predicament of the Congo-Rwanda axis is largely ethnic.
But that approach is not exhaustive, as economic considerations have fed the predatory instincts of Congo's leaders and other interests for too long. At a point, one of its former presidents, Mobutu Sese Seko, was richer than his own country through a deliberate process of mineral exploitation. Nkunda and his gang are in fact apprehensive of the present president's perceived design to corruptly enrich himself that way. Those fears should be adequately addressed as world and African leaders attempt to find a lasting solution to the perennial problems of that nation. The penury that the bulk of the 60 million Congolese dwell in despite their country's generous endowment, therefore, makes the issue of wealth distribution inevitable. For a resource rich country like Congo, the level of poverty portrayed in the footage of people fleeing Goma is unacceptable.
The arbiters should boldly put it on the table this time if a more permanent remedy is to be found. The Congolese should also come to terms with the desirability of restructuring the geo-political profile of their vast country. That would make for better accessibility, supervision and good governance. Too much power is concentrated at the centre, which has proven too weak to control the nation. Whatever would be mutually agreeable to the parties should be tried and then thoroughly monitored by the UN and AU.
On a final note, the world community must rise up before it becomes too late. Since the 17,000-strong UN peacekeeping force - its largest mission anywhere - has so far failed to contain the self-inflicted calamities that periodically engulf Congo, it simply means that much more should be done, and urgently too, especially by wealthier, stronger nations.
The world must not be taken through the painful process of negligence, aloofness, reluctance and then the mass slaughter of innocent people over again.

Naval ratings and the assault on Ms Okere

THE recent incident in Lagos in which six armed naval ratings attached to Rear Admiral Harry Arogundade of the Nigerian Navy descended on one Miss Uzoma Okere and mercilessly brutalised her in public for alleged failure "to give way quickly" for a two-car convoy smacks of barbarism and unconscionable use of brute force. The act is totally unacceptable and condemnable. Men in uniform are expected to be officers and gentlemen at all times, no matter the provocation. Assaulting a defenceless citizen falls short of this standard.

It is good enough that the President, Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the Senate Committee on Navy and the Naval authorities have ordered that the matter should be investigated. The Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babatunde Fashola has also condemned the reprehensible act. In addition the Lagos State Government has banned the use of sirens in the state, henceforth, as part of the measures to forestall future occurrence. The investigations would be helpful, but where guilt is established, the culprits should be brought to book accordingly. Ms Okere may also consider the option of seeking legal redress.

She was reportedly battered by the Naval ratings in broad daylight and stripped naked while Rear Admiral Arogundade, unperturbed as it were, sat inside his car and watched the horrid act. He has been accused of failing to intervene on time to stop his boys from manhandling the defenceless lady.

This incident has once again tainted Nigeria's image abroad and portrayed the country as a place where human rights are brazenly abused especially by military personnel and those in positions of authority. This is evidenced by the widespread outrage that has been generated by the incident. A video tape of the incident is being circulated on the internet.

According to the victim, identified as the daughter of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the National Assembly, Col. Emmanuel Okere (rtd), who narrated her ordeal to journalists on her hospital bed at Kamorass Hospital, she was driving home on Muri Okunola Street in Victoria Island on Monday, November 4, when suddenly Arogundade's convoy appeared behind her, with blaring sirens to clear traffic. The convoy consisted of Arogundade's personal Navy Peugeot car and his pilot truck ferrying six armed bodyguards. She said on seeing the convoy, she immediately realised that a Rear Admiral was on the road and quickly gave way.

Ms Okere explained that one of the ratings came out to control the traffic hold-up that had built up. According to her, she was moving on the left side of the road (apparently in a frenzy), when suddenly she was pulled out of her car and dragged into a private house where she was beaten mercilessly. The men, she said, hit her with the butt of their gun and tore her dress. Her head was swollen and blood gushed out, with bruises all over her face and body. She was traumatised. One of her colleagues who had tried to intervene was also manhandled.

And as if the Naval ratings had run amok, several members of staff of PriceWaterHouse Coopers, who reportedly witnessed the incident and protested the harassment in front of a house which Arogundade entered on the same street, were also manhandled. Cameras, belonging to persons who tried to record the show of shame, were reportedly seized and destroyed. But an unidentified passerby managed to record a video clip, which was released to media houses including the Cable News Network (CNN).

Arogundade was quoted as saying that "the lady should thank her stars that she survived the beating from his men". In other words, she could have been killed like several Nigerians that have died under similar circumstances and nothing happened. The Naval ratings are also said to have claimed that Ms Okere provoked them by attempting to assault a Navy man in uniform. Even if so, does this justify the resort to jungle justice by men who should see themselves as the people's servants?

Without doubt, the act perpetrated by the naval ratings is odious, uncouth and horrifying. Why would six fully-armed naval ratings pounce on one helpless woman, whatever might be her offence? What manner of training did these officers receive? And, what manner of country are we living in? In Nigeria, regrettably, incidents such as this are common. A garrison mentality pervades the land and men in uniform have not learnt to adjust to the democratic dispensation. Senior military officers strut about in siren-bearing convoys, chasing innocent civilians off the roads. Havoc is daily perpetrated and the life of innocent road-users is endangered.

In a place like Lagos where traffic is chaotic, there is unceasing movement of military personnel and government officials in convoys blaring siren, whipping and harassing other road users. The abuse of sirens is a menace that needs to be addressed and Governor Fashola of Lagos State is in order by directing that sirens should no longer be used in Lagos State, except perhaps by ambulances, fire trucks and the police rushing to a crime scene. It is so bad that currently, bank directors, commissioners, visiting ministers, even private persons, abuse the siren.

The Arogundade episode has several precedents. For example, earlier in the year, security guards in a convoy of the Imo State Governor, Ikedi Ohakim, assaulted a woman in a similar situation in Lagos. Violence against women is unacceptable and we strongly condemn it.

Again, a naval officer, sometime last year at Ikeja in Lagos, drew his gun and shot a commercial motorcyclist who allegedly blocked his car. And in Abuja, a legislator's convoy driving against traffic knocked down two young schoolgirls on the way to the airport. Unfortunately, many of the culprits in these obnoxious incidents went scot-free. This gives new offenders the temerity to commit more havoc against motorists and pedestrians.

The National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly should seize this opportunity to address this matter squarely once and for all. The use of siren should be properly regulated. With the exception of fire trucks, ambulances, and the police trying to apprehend fleeing criminals, or rushing to a crime scene, no one else should be allowed to use siren. This rule was made in the past, but it was not enforced. Legislation is required, proper enforcement must follow.

In praise of Susan George

IN a recent editorial comment, The Economist issued a solemn call to all believers in global capitalism not to despair, not to panick, and to do nothing that could endanger the capitalist system (October 18-24, 2008).

The magazine invoked the words and spirit of its founder, the Scottish businessman, James Wilson, who, about 165 years ago, gave the paper the philosophy of "economic liberty". Raising concern over the surge of state intervention in response to the current global financial crisis, the editors of The Economist voiced a fervent hope: "If the worst is avoided, the healthy popular hostility to a strong state that normally pervades democracies should reassert itself". Then the editors' recitation of faith: "Capitalism is at bay; but those who believe in it must fight for it. For all its flaws, it is the best economic system man has invented yet". Embattled Western governments were however warned not to resort to "populism".

As I read this editorial I was reminded of Susan George, and then Karl Marx. Let me first dispose of the latter. Karl Marx lived about the same time as James Wilson, and in England. Somewhere in The Eighteenth Brummaire of Louis Bonaparte, perhaps Marx's most brilliant political commentary, he said: "the Tories of England long imagined they were enthusiastic about the Monarchy, the Church and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they were only enthusiastic about the groundrent". Watch out: The current "global financial crisis" will bring out many "confessions" from both the commanding posts and satellites of the global capitalist system.

It was about a year ago, in a piece titled Notes on the movement of history (The Guardian, October 25, 2007), that I first reported on Susan George's The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the 21st Century. I am today focusing on the author of this terrifying book which, like The Economist, is concerned with how to preserve capitalism. Born in 1934, Susan George is an American who later took up residence in France. She is a political scientist, an activist public intellectual, a powerful speaker, well-known globally, and prolific. Her areas of concentration include Third World poverty underdevelopment and debt. Susan George is a "fierce critic of the present policies of the IMF, World Bank and what she calls their 'maldevelopment model'. She similarly criticises the neoliberal policies of the Washington Consensus on Third World development". She had served, and perhaps still serves, on several international bodies (including those of the United Nations) and has received several awards. Her published books include: How the other half dies (1976); A fate worse than debt (1988); and The debt boomerang (1992).

The book, The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the 21st Century, which Susan George put out in 1999, is in form, a fiction. But it is a product of long and painstaking research which she undertook and decided to attribute to fictional intellectuals, the "Working Party". The latter was commissioned by equally fictional world leaders, the "Commissioning Parties". Why did she adopt this fictional form of presentation? She explained: "I was convinced that another book of analysis and criticism was pointless. I have spent the last 25 years of my life describing hunger, famine, debt and structural adjustment and what they are doing to people, and virtually nothing has changed. So, I thought, why not make things really clear by taking the logic of the global system to its conclusion? I wanted to put the case clinically to show the horrific consequences of continuing down the economic road we are on".

At the end of the book, Susan reveals herself as the author. Why did she not maintain the anonymity? She again explained: "When I first showed the book to a publisher in France they wanted to publish it anonymously but I thought that was too dangerous. Maybe I am flattering myself, but I think if you published this without a confession of authorship at the end and people believed it was real and were convinced that organised genocide was on the cards... Well, I didn't want to take on that big responsibility". The French publisher rejected the book, and Susan George took it to Britain where it was published by the Pluto Press. It is in the 'Afterword' and 'Annex' that Susan George reveals herself and simultaneously demolishes the frightening conclusions of the "Working Party" by simply showing that their premises, including their reading of history, are false.

I shall present a number of "findings" and "recommendations" made by the Working Party, and then return to the author. One: "The intent of our Report is not to shock or blaspheme: the fact remains that in earthly affairs, the market is the closest we are likely to come to the wisdom of the Almighty. Yes the market created suffering for some; its decisions may appear harsh and cruel, but let us not forget the theological parallel to the market according to which "God, the supremely good, would never allow that there be evil in His works unless He were so powerful and so good that even from evil He could do good" (Saint Augustine, quoted in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, question 2, article 3).

Two: "Capitalism, to use its scientific name, is not the natural state of mankind. Rather, it is a product of cumulative human ingenuity, a social construct and, as such, perhaps the most brilliant collective invention in all history". Three: "The means so far devised for overseeing, safeguarding and perpetuating the free market and the globalised economy are grossly inadequate. A brief inventory of existing global institutions shows that most of them are worthless for escaping the dangers on the horizon. They may be worse than useless in so far as they convey a false sense of security. We live today in a tragically under-managed world".

Four: "Despite an uncommon success or two like the World Trade Organisation and a few advances towards binding policies in the global arena, the international regulatory sphere is full of gaping holes. If it is to be self-sustaining, a globalised economy needs rules. Those rules can best be made by the major actors in that economy", that is, the Transnational Companies. Five: "The bedrock of free-market theory and practice is not altruism or self-sacrifice but immediate self-interest and profit... Market players care only about themselves, today, not about transmitting their individual or collective inheritance".

Six: "It should come as no surprise that unregulated (or "self-regulated") markets are quite capable of creating tensions (mass unemployment, social upheaval, environmental degradation, financial crash) that undermine the market system itself, Global shock-absorbers are not being installed on our standard model. Given an inherently fragile system lacking legitimate enforceable rules, we can only warn against global accident sometime in the early twenty-first century - if not before". How prophetic.

Seven: "we believe that to be genuinely free, market requires constraints. Today, the amount of care and protection expended upon the system's maintenance is inversely proportional to the degree of benefit derived from it. In other words, the worst threats stem from the largest players. Eight: "The twenty-first century must choose between discipline and control or tumult and chaos. The only way to ensure the greatest welfare for the greatest number, while still preserving capitalism is to make that number smaller". This radical reduction in the world population must come from the Third World and will be achieved with four weapons: Conquest, war, famine and pestilence which Susan George called the "Four Horsemen".

Nine: "We ask the Commissioning Parties to appreciate that our message is not merely that 'the ends justify the means'', though this may well be so. It is, rather, that Western culture and the liberal market system must, in the twenty-first century, choose between the ends and the End". Ten: "We do not foresee the renaissance of some neo-Soviet empire; we seriously doubt that any alternative world political-economic system can reasonably compete with the global market economy on theoretical or on practical grounds in the decades to come. A resurgent, credible Marxism or to her alternative system is not on the cards". So, the fate of the world is directly tied to the fate of capitalism: If the latter collapses, so will the former!

We may now return to Susan George. She was asked: "Why do you think the market model has such a hold on people?" Susan George replied: "Backers of the global economic model are very clever at paying both hacks and legitimate scholars to spread their propaganda. If a decision were taken that there had to be two billion fewer human beings in 2020 you would soon see all sorts of people developing a new kind of ethics and a new kind of law, and you would have them paid for. You would have a recasting of Malthus and it would be for everyone's own good, of course".

Is Susan George a pessimist? Not exactly, she said: "If you are fatalistic, you say that capitalism just rolls on like a juggernaut, crushing greater parts of humanity and the environment. But the system is fragile, with lots of cracks. We just have to get out there with our pick axes and work along the fault lines."

Getting women on board

I SPOKE recently at the Women In Management & Business (WIMBIZ)'s 7th annual conference, on the topic, "Getting Women on Board", within the context of advocating more opportunities and roles for Nigerian women in the project Vision 2020, our country's avowed aspiration to achieve the enviable status of being among the world's Top 20 economies by the year 2020.

When I was asked to speak on this topic, a number of questions occurred to me: Are we implying that our women are not already on board? Is it a matter of not enough women being on board or lacking the support and resources to stay on board? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then I think the logical follow-up enquiry would be 'why?' and 'what can we do about it?' The concept of Women's Empowerment, especially in developing societies such as ours, means different things to different people. And this is more so when you place it within the context of our diverse, sometimes complex, religious and cultural tendencies.

I believe that as women we are fully conscious of our pivotal roles in society as mothers, bearing and nurturing our children to grow up as useful and productive members of society, as the major pillar of the smallest, yet most important social unit - the family - and also as contributors/engines of the economy and business community. So, the issue of empowerment for women in our society, and indeed any human society for that matter, is not about the why. It is about the how.


It is important for us as women not to look at the issue of Women Empowerment as an abstract, theoretical concept. It is something that we, by virtue of our rich African heritage, already possess. Women in Nigeria have a long history of being economically active. Many of our female ancestors were traders. In fact, many even owned property in their own name. Today, many Nigerian women remain economically active. Next time you drive around any of our major cities, check out most of the people who are trading at the roadsides, oftentimes till very late into the night: they are women -women who support themselves and very often their families. While many women are economic actors in some capacity, they often work in informal sectors of the economy and lack the opportunities they need to fulfill their full economic potential.

My experience as a management-level staff at Mobil Producing Nigeria reinforces the fact that the way to have the most sustainable and lasting impact on the communities where we operate is to work in partnership across sectors - with governments, with NGOs like WIMBIZ, and with other donors, to address issues that relate to women empowerment. Most importantly, we find that there's need to work in close collaboration with those who understand these issues best - local communities and the women themselves.

Our focus on women and girls is not just a philanthropic endeavour, it makes good business sense. Our business thrives when the communities where we operate thrive, and there is abundant research to prove that investing in women's education and leadership leads to positive, long-term economic and social growth.

Everywhere around the country today, and even in the international arena, we see our women at different levels of social, economic and political endeavours giving a very good account of themselves, and pride to womanhood. We are proud and inspired by their achievements, and the real challenge for us is to rapidly grow this group of female icons and role models, for the benefit of our women in general. At the end of the day, we must come to the realization that our destiny, as women, lies in our own hands. While it is important to come together at conferences to share best practices, it is really through actions that we will help break down the unique barriers that women and girls face. We can only imagine all the positive results we will see in the years ahead if we can just help more women and girls reach their full potential!

The significance of Obama's victory

PRESIDENT-ELECT Barack Obama, a lawyer, an African-American, 47, born in Honolulu of a Kenyan father, the late Hussein Barack Obama Snr., and of a white American mother, the late Anna Dunham, the fifth African-American Senator in US history, the third to have been popularly elected and, until he was elected the 44th President of the United States, the only African-American serving in the US Senate, has made great history.

He has become the first American of African provenance to be popularly elected President of the most powerful country on planet Earth. He has also produced the first black-black First Lady of the United States, Barrister (Mrs.) Michelle Obama, a notable woman of letters, in addition to being the father of the first black First Children of the United States of America, Malia Ann and Natasha (Sasha).

To come this far, Barack Obama had won his spurs against several other Democratic Party presidential contenders (all whites), including John Edwards, former US Senator from North Carolina, Mike Gravel, former US Senator and former US Representative from Alaska, Dennis Kucinich, US Representative from Ohio, Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, Joseph R. Biden Jnr., Senator from Delaware, Christopher J. Dodd, Senator from Connecticut and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas and later of the United States of America, being the wife of former President Bill Clinton.

That Senator Clinton is quick on the uptake is not subject to debate; that she is sagacious and uncannily discerning is also not in dispute. From this great woman of letters, Barack Hussein Obama wrested the Democratic presidential nomination ticket during the harrowing primaries and caucuses culminating in Obama's official decoration as the first African-American presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, in Denver, Colorado, in August, 2008. He has now won the presidential election, landslide, against the Republican John Sydney McCain III, a veteran Senator from Arizona and a Vietnam vet.

Of the estimated 187 million registered voters, 58,981,314 (or 52% thereof) voted for Barack Obama, whilst 53,211,821 (or 47% thereof) voted for John McCain, and of the 538 electoral college votes (270 of which are required to win the election), Barack Obama garnered 349 (or 64.8% thereof), whilst a paltry 147 (or 27.3% thereof) smiled on John McCain. Basically, the two major parties, the Democratic Party, founded in 1792, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854, fought the electoral battle along the roots of their earliest influences. Republicans hold to Abraham Lincoln's credo that while the legitimate objective of the government is to do for its citizens "whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves", the government should not interfere "in all that the people can individually do as well for themselves."

Democrats, too, favour private initiative, but they embrace Jefferson's dictum that the government's primary responsibility is to promote the welfare of all the nation's citizens. More often than not, this leads Democrats to experiment in new programmes that insert the federal government into matters previously left to the individual. This largely explains Obama's predisposition to the welfare of the common man in the US, what he called a "redistributive change", to which his opponent, John McCain, gave a racialist construction. But why did Barack Hussein Obama, in spite of the fact that his name "is an irresistible target of mocking websites from overzealous Republican operatives", win the US presidential election, and what is the significance of his victory?

Born of an African father in America and raised partially in Asia and in America, Obama (burning spear) is a product of three continents-Africa, America and Asia-the finest of whose genetic characteristics he imbibed, growing up. He is more than an expression of the American Dream of a classless society, where a poor boy can reach the White House. He is, to be sure, a man of great patience, subtlety, prodigious intellectual acumen, practical wisdom, and, above all, an imaginative and humble young man, endowed with the gift of the gab and savoir faire, which enabled him to weather the strictures of Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who bedubbed him a Moslem, an Islamic fundamentalist and a terrorist who, for those reasons, could not, and should not, be commander-in-chief of the US.

Any sentence, paragraph or page of any of his two books - Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006) (bestsellers in their own right) - carries gems of wisdom, erudition and perspicacity. Barack Obama attended some of the best academic institutions in the United States - Columbia University, founded in 1754 and Harvard University, founded in 1636. The young man's brain is fecund, full of ideas and sound judgments. He has taken bold steps to erase from the mind of the white man the ugly racist stereotypes, which Caucasian pseudo-scientific anthropologists employed to justify the objectification of the Black man. (See this writer's prognostications on the US elections in the April 14, 2008 edition of The Guardian). Obama has actualised the Dream of Martin Luther King Jnr.: No longer will the teleological racism of Thomas Carlyle hold sway in the minds of the Caucasoid race.

Carlyle had seen the African as an inferior being, not merely by chance or for the time being, but as a creature created inferior in order to serve his European master: "That, you may depend on it, my obscure Black friends", Carlyle stated, with aplomb without information, "is and was always the Law of the World, for you and for all men: To be servants, the more foolish of us to the more wise; and only sorrow, futility and disappointment will betide both, till both in some approximate degree get to conform to the same." Obama gave the lie to Carlyle's "Law of the World" by his piquant wits and sharp, appetizing intelligence, even before his election as the 44th President of the US. All of America gave him a loud ovation when, in 2004, he delivered the memorable keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.

President-elect Barack Obama belongs to ethnic minorities both in the US and in Kenya, where his ethnic nationality, the Luo, in Nyanza Province, is an insignificant minority tribe. In the US, he belongs to the African-American race, which constitutes only about 15 percent of the US population. Besides, he is black; not white, yet he was popularly nominated by a white-dominated Democratic Party as its presidential flag-bearer, and now elected by the whites, the Hispanics, the Latinos and the Blacks of the US as President designate of the United States of America and, by extension, of the world. Obama is from the State of Illinois, with a population of about 13 million, and not from California, with a population of over 34 million, yet "democracy is a game of numbers", the selfish mantra accentuating the narcissistic tendencies of the Nigerian ruling class.

Obama's election elicited rapturous and maniacal ovation from all over the sane world and Africa, including Nigeria, where rabid tribalism would never allow the so-called ruling-class to consider the candidature of an Obama (and they are many in Nigeria) from the so-called minority tribes for the office of President, considered a permanent preserve of the so-called major ethnic groups, which unaccountably always ignore their bright minds and sponsor some of the most decrepit and intellectually unsound and morally bankrupt politicians to preside over the affairs of a nation-state abounding in numerous intellectual pundits. On page 348 of his book, Dreams from My Father, President-elect Barack Obama, laments the evil of tribalism in Africa when he writes: "Look what tribalism has done to places like Nigeria or Liberia...", where people refuse to acknowledge the fact that every person in the world belongs to one human tribe.

In most States in Nigeria, Nigerians from other States who may have been born and bred in their States of domicile are regarded as aliens, and chauvinistically denied the rights and privileges accorded to the "sons of the soil". The aetiology of ethnic chauvinism in Nigeria could be located in a situation where some otherwise liberal and hospitable States decide to revenge themselves on "clever" States that are organically united, selfish and aggressively possessive.

Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, one the newest States of the US. He later adopted the State of Illinois, which elected him Senator in 2004. Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, is a native of Illinois. George Herbert Walker Bush Snr. is a native of Massachusetts; his father, Prescott Bush, was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952, and two of his sons, including the out-going President, had been governors of Texas and Florida, etc.

Would Nigeria learn any lesson from the US, after whose Constitution our own 1999 Constitution is nominally patterned? Or are we incorrigible and doomed to eternal socio-economic and political poverty? The answers to these questions depend on the youth of this country and not on the irredeemably corrupt, depraved and recycled greybeards.

Unrecorded excess crude fund

The report by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) that a princely sum of N13.6 trillion, being revenue from excess crude appropriated by both the federal and state governments between 2004 and last year, has been withdrawn and possibly squandered without any record-keeping is, indeed, a very disturbing piece of news.

Chairman of the commission, Alhaji Hamman Tukur, who revealed this last week in Abuja said the expenditures by the two-tiers (Federal and State governments, were even not reflected in subsequent years’ budget proposals sent to the National Assembly and the state legislatures, by the former President and governors, respectively.

The RMAFC is constitutionally mandated to monitor revenue accruing to The Federation Account and its disbursement. The commission is also empowered by section 124, subsections 1 and 2, of the 1999 Constitution to fix remuneration and salaries of public office holders.

One interpretation of the disclosure by the RMAFC is that both the Federal government and state governments have not been rendering returns to their respective legislatures of the monies withdrawn from the Federation Account in respect of the excess crude between the years 2004 and 2007. This implies reckless spendings by the first and second tiers of government.


Given the quantum of money involved, we recommend that the National Assembly should wade in immediately, to ascertain the details of the claims by RMAFC. Transparency and due process require that matters of this nature follow the necessary channels of financial expenditure. To have withdrawn such astonishing amount without records as stated by RMAFC smacks of fraud.

We note that this is not the first time the RMAFC is reporting such disregard to existing rules and regulations guiding the withdrawal of monies from a common pool such as the Federation Account or the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This flagrant disobedience to due process and openness was a common occurrence during the administration of erstwhile President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.

At the twilight of that administration, we recall that the RMAFC alerted the nation of some untoward happenings in the management of the nation’s finances. But nothing concrete was done to stop them. In one instance, the commission found that in the past, some illegal funds were set up into which revenue accruing to the federal government were paid into, and withdrawn at will.

We recommend that henceforth, strict enforcement of the provisions of the constitution must be followed to check such abuse of established processes. Both the National Assembly and the state legislatures need to do a lot in this regard.

The beauty of democracy is that each arm of government checks the perceived excesses of the other arm. When this is done, following laid down procedures, the country is the better for it.

Aliyu's bridge between town and gown

AS Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu, Governor of Niger State, brought his insightful lecture, entitled 'Bridging the Gap between the Town and Gown for socio-economic and Political Development in Nigeria' to a close on Thursday, October 30, 2008, the Trenchard hall of the University of Ibadan erupted into frenzied ovation. Eminent professors, trained in the best academic traditions and hardened by decades of rigorous research and methodological skepticism, are not easily won over. But Dr. Aliyu had delivered the kind of monumentally-enriching discourse which provokes positive action for development.

Aliyu's lecture is not a mere piece of academic discourse, given the orientation in critical discourse which implicitly reduces academic documents to mere intellectual effusions that are not even tangentially relevant to real world problems, let alone proffer and activate solutions to them. Aliyu's Treatise, like Obafemi Awolowo's Voice of Reason, is a blueprint for positive action, a roadmap for Nigeria's development.

It is trite stating that there are now universities almost everywhere one turns in Nigeria. What is of interest, however, is seeking to discover how many of these universities are socially responsive. This is another way of posing the question whether, or which of, the thousands of research essays, theses, dissertations and research papers and projects undertaken in our research institutions are relevant to solving the myriad of problems faced in Nigerian communities?

In this connection, it may not be out of place to pose the question whether, say, the city of Ibadan can survive should the University of Ibadan cease to exist? If it can, then the University of Ibadan should cease to exist. Aliyu does not approach this pessimistic wavelength, but his thesis is clear.

To take the Ibadan city as an example once again, not even the most charitable observer can fail to express dismay at the level of filth and squalor in the city. But if the university can help find a way out of this problem, say through a waste-to-wealth programme, then the community would be willing to give back to the institution, thus contributing to its sustenance. It is in this sense that Dr. Aliyu is a link between the town and gown. This linkage, he terms the 'Town-Gown Transactional model for socio-economic and political development.'

As governor of Niger State, Dr. Aliyu has brought a new perspective into Nigerian politics. Aliyu's uniqueness lies in bringing a developmental philosophy, a vision of what the state should be - and the triumph of the audacity of hope over the audacity of history in the USA is testimony to the effectiveness of the kind of rugged vision that the likes of Aliyu bring into politics and the business of governance.

Caught in the web of neo-imperialism and, consequently, multiple personality disorder, the contemporary African political class, with its appalling lack of cultural literacy, has all too often actively resisted change and promoted the reification of the continent. And where they have chosen to be conscientious, the culturally-liberated elite have often failed to gain access to the seat of power in order to drive change. This lack of a regime propelled by ideas and positive innovations has been at the root of the stagnation of countries like Nigeria. Happily, however, the emergence of philosopher-politicians like Dr. Aliyu in the political space is a salutary development.

Aliyu has brought technocrats into his government, and has even prescribed the possession of at least a Masters degree as a precondition for promotion to the rank of permanent secretary in the state's civil service. According to him, "University intellectuals can become a dynamic force in aiding the nation to realise its socio-economic and political developmental aspirations through adherence to high ethical and professional standards." This endorses the view that politics is too important to be left to the politicians. For the governor, it appears, utilising scholars and linking them to community challenges is a key governance principle.

As a demonstration of how the research institutions can become more relevant, Aliyu proposes the establishment of an Institute for Leadership and Democratic Studies at the University of Ibadan, "where Nigeria's political actors and indeed African public office holders will be required to attend executives courses in leadership, good governance, ethics and democratic studies'', and even offers to be one of its facilitators and students. In Niger State, the governor's Jamaat forum provides a medium through which the people can contribute directly to the governance process. And Nigerlites are encouraged to send text messages to their governor on their problems. This writer is not aware of any other governor in Nigeria whose private GSM number is public knowledge.

All the foregoing can, of course, only be properly appreciated in the context of the governor's concept of servant leadership. Unlike his colleagues, Aliyu has chosen to be referred to as Chief Servant rather than Executive Governor or His Excellency; fixations which are typical of Nigeria's less educated and unconscionable politicians. Skeptics can, of course, claim that appellations do not matter. Any culturally literate African knows, however, that names and appellations can both be definitive of personality and contributory to lifetime achievement.

Aliyu's Town-Gown Transactional model for socio-economic development is not without its challenges. The question that readily comes to mind is that is Nigeria underdeveloped because we do not have enough intellectuals/academics in government? How does one explain, say the Gen. Babangida government, which failed woefully in spite of being filled with academics? Does high intellectual attainment coincide with the high moral standing required to lift Nigeria out of the miry clay of corruption? These questions were not taken up by Dr. Aliyu in his lecture, but the interesting point is that it provides the framework for tackling the challenges.

And the word was made flesh

HE stood on the portals of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., an imposing and stately personality. Before him lay a sea of heads, stretching as far as the eyes could see, the largest ever gathering of civil rights activists and sympathisers in the history of the Black American struggle, numbering well over two hundred thousand men and women, old and young. This, in his own words, was 'the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.' His eyes glowed and glimmered in their moist sockets, as they roved round the sprawling mass of peaceful protesters and beyond the restive mammoth crowd, even beyond the visible horizon and far away into the spaceless void; far, far, into an impenetrable future which still lay in the realms of pure fantasy or wild imagination.

However, his was no mere daydream. It was a dream, all right, but a great dream which he was anxious to share with the unseeing crowd and the rest of blind mortality; a dream which was steadily transforming into a beatific vision before his inner eyes. 'I have a dream,' he dared to predict, '...a dream deeply rooted in the American dream ... that one day, on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!...And when this happens,' he concludes, 'when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'

On that historic autumn day, August 28, 1963, his tremulous voice reverberated with profound emotion to a roaring ovation, which ricocheted beyond the surrounding hills and vales, across the entire American landscape, and all around the globe. It was the finest moment for the legendary Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., outstanding Civil Rights Leader, whose policy of non-violence in the unarmed human rights struggle earned him the Nobel Peace Prize the following year (1964). Two legislative victories came in quick succession: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which conferred electoral and other human rights on the deprived black populace of an unjust American society.

Close to five years afterwards, tragedy struck. On that fateful evening of April 4, 1968, this colossal man of vision was felled by the bullet from the gun of a demented racist assassin and jailbreaker, James Earl Ray - presumably hoping to abort the August 1963 dream. But, oh, it was a trifle too late. The irretrievable word had been spoken; the irrepressible quest for freedom and racial equality had been born and nurtured into a massive social movement that had produced early legislative fruits; the ultimate actualisation of the Kingly dream was now just a matter of time.

That time finally came on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - a little over forty-five years after the dream had been born - when the spoken word became flesh; flesh in the physical shape and form of an American negro of Kenyan extraction, Barack Hussein Obama. The son of a former slave descendant now gained the electoral power to govern the descendants of the former slave owners, thus outstripping the vision of Martin Luther King. Come January 20, 2009, he will be sworn in as the forty-fourth President of the United States of America. Obama scored a resounding victory over his Republican opponent, the septuagenarian Senator John McCain, with an unprecedented majority in a transparently free and fair election. By this spectacular victory, Obama became the very first African American to be elected into the highest political office of the world's most powerful nation. That momentous victory, thunderously re-echoes Martin Luther King's prophetic proclamation round the whole world: 'Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' Yes, indeed, we - all blacks, all victims of racial discrimination, of tribal or ethnic prejudice, all oppressed minorities and marginalised groups everywhere - are free at last!

Obama's sensational victory has sparked off wild jubilations right round the world, particularly in Africa, his continental root. In his Kenyan homeland, public holiday was declared to celebrate this spectacular electoral fortune, in the same country where only recently bloody violence had greeted an electoral misfortune. Thank God that Obama, who was raised by his white grandmother far away in Illinois, did not grow up in Kenya. Had he contested in Kenya, he would almost certainly have been rigged out and forced into exile. Let the message go out loud and clear that Obama is poised to be the President of the entire American nation, regardless of race, colour or creed.

The critical votes which ensured Obama's victory were not the block black minority votes but the liberal votes of the majority white Americans who looked beyond the skin to endorse Obama. Furthermore, the vision of Martin Luther King was not to replace black oppression with white discrimination, but to transform America into a racism-free society, where all citizens - black and white alike - would be judged not by the colour of their skins but by the content of their character. In the same vein, America, and not Africa, will remain the centrepiece of Obama's foreign policy.

African nations should, therefore, resist the temptation of going cap in hand to Obama, or looking forward to a massive flow of aids. Rather, African nations should now evolve sound economic policies, founded on best democratic practices, in the full realisation that the days of kleptocracy, corruption and moral bankruptcy are numbered. African nations should maintain a healthy relationship with Obama's America, working in close collaboration with him for the upliftment of the entire human race.

The ongoing political revolution in America offers instructive lessons for Africa and the rest of the world. It confirms America as the world's greatest democracy, while democracy itself, with all its inherent imperfections, triumphs as the finest system of government ever devised by man. No other political system could have so peacefully produced an Obama presidency in such a deeply divided society. Democracy is an absolute concept, which is either totally present or totally absent. There is nothing like 'African democracy' or 'home-grown democracy'. Democracy is all about giving voice and power to the voiceless majority who reserve the right even to make the wrong decision, live with it and learn by it. With a black man in the White House, African politics must now come of age.

Obama's powerful victory speech, describing himself as the unlikeliest candidate for the office, shows that he is fully appreciative of the enormous tasks ahead of him..'For even as we celebrate tonight,' he enthuses, 'we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime.' Obama must not fail. He shall not fail. He cannot afford to fail if he does not want to have the odd distinction of not only being the first ever black American president, but the only one for the next two centuries.

The chances of future black aspirants will either be brightened or jeopardised by his record of governance. By their votes, the white Americans have simply said: 'Let's give these bloody niggers just one chance and see what black mess they'll make of it.' Obama must let the cynics down by a scintillating performance in office. He has forty-three past presidents (all white) to beat to become the best American president ever. It is no tall order. He only has to work thrice harder than all his predecessors to realise the dream. He can make it. He must make it.

A last word for the American security forces and intelligence agencies. Obama must be provided the tightest protection ever that America can muster, in and out of the White House. There must be regular preventive and preemptive measures to frustrate the evil designs of dream-killers and agents of darkness. Remember the Kennedys? They were silenced, not because they had black blood running in their veins, but because they had 'black' thoughts running in their minds. Barack Obama is the very incarnation of those thoughts, the word-made-flesh who needs maximum human and divine security. The evil ones did it to Abraham Lincoln; they did it to the Kennedys; they did it even to Martin Luther King; they must not be allowed to do it to Obama. The word has been made flesh. Let him be. Let the flesh live to carry out the sacred mandate of the visionary speaker of the word.

The borehole rip-off

Recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Water Resources, Dr. Abba Sayyadi Ruma, gave a shocking revelation that over N24 billion spent on boreholes between 2004 and 2006 by the Federal Government was a waste.

Ruma, who said this during a presentation before the Senate Committee on Water Resources, disclosed that henceforth, the federal government would no longer be directly involved in sinking of boreholes throughout the country.

The minister also explained that as at the time he assumed duty, there was a balance of N3 billion for boreholes that have not been completed. There were others that were said to have been sunk but could not be seen or be validated.

According to the minister, 65 percent of the money spent by government in the provision of boreholes in the last five to six years had been wasted as 65 percent of the boreholes is either not functioning or cannot be seen.

As a matter of fact, most of them cannot be sufficiently proven to be functional.
In view of the importance attached to the provision of water and the need to reduce by half the number of citizens without safe water before 2015, the government had, between 1999 and 2007, increased its budgetary allocation to the water sector from N8.3 billion to N116 billion.

In spite of the colossal amount of money pumped into the sector, the provision of potable water to majority of Nigerians has remained elusive, regardless of the fact that it is one of the achievable set targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set for 2015.

Significantly, the worrisome development did not go unnoticed by the House of Representatives. Last year, the House, through its Committee on Public Accounts, queried the Ministry of Water Resources over its claim that it has spent over N10.5 billion on motorized and hand pump water projects in some constituencies in 2004.

The outcome of the query was that the money had been spent for the earmarked projects but there were no verifiable evidence to show that the work was completed. At best, most of them were abandoned.
Considering the huge amount involved in the borehole rip-off, which we think might be a tip of the iceberg, we call for a high level probe on the matter with a view to apprehending those behind the mindless sleaze and punish them accordingly. We decry the penchant of some unscrupulous Nigerians to engage in corrupt activities to deprive their fellow citizens access to potable water. Those involved in such inimical practices should be treated as economic saboteurs.

Government must ensure that this matter, like others before it, is not swept under the carpet. Past experience has shown that people get away with this kind of fraudulent practice because those in charge of prosecuting such cases, at times, do not pursue them to their logical conclusion.

Since the federal government says that it is no longer going to be directly involved in sinking of boreholes in the country, we suggest that it liaises with the appropriate agencies in the states and the local governments to ensure that water is made available to all Nigerians. It is the duty of government to provide its citizens with potable water. Government must therefore ensure that the country meets its water requirement by 2015.

Besides the provision of drinking water, there is also the need to provide water for sanitation and farming. Without adequate supply of water through irrigation, most of our food producing areas would not be in a position to produce the needed food and vegetables for the sustenance of our teeming population. And such a situation could increase our dependence on food importation.

Rather than abdicate its responsibility on provision of water, government should tidy up the processes of awarding such contracts in future with a view to making them corruption-free. The projects should be adequately monitored from inception to conclusion by the collaborating states and local governments as well as donor agencies.

In keeping with the present administration’s zero-tolerance stance on corruption, we call on the government to plug all the loopholes that give rise to this kind of fraud in the sinking of boreholes. We expect nothing less from it.

The cabinet change

President Umaru Yar’Adua’s long-awaited plan to rejuvenate his administration through the replacement of under-performing ministers in his cabinet eventually got underway with the sack of eight ministers and 12 ministers of state, on October 29, 2008.

The move ended almost six months of dithering over the decision to bring new life into governance in the country but offered little to cheer as there was no discernible pattern for the selection of the dropped ministers even as no immediate replacements were announced for their offices.

A statement from the Presidency simply stated that some of the retained ministers had been mandated to serve as supervising ministers for some of the affected ministries until new ministers are confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office. No date was fixed for the replacement of the dropped ministers.

The reshufflement of the cabinet has, indeed, been long in coming. The replacement of ministers, ordinarily, is a routine administrative exercise which could happen two or three times in the life of an administration with the objective of ensuring that the best persons are brought on board to achieve the government’s goals. In this instance, the process has taken the better part of six months, the nation having first been intimated with the plan by the president in May 2008. We would have expected that five months were long enough for the Presidency to have perfected the confirmation of replacements for ministers that were to be sacked but this has not been the case.

The tardiness in the replacement of the ministers is in tandem with the widely acknowledged, painfully slow pace of the Yar’Adua government. It is a further reinforcement of the people’s perception and complaints over the sluggish pace of this administration. This is rather unfortunate, especially in the face of the growing impatience of Nigerians with the government in the quest for the benefits of democracy.

The cabinet change has involved a lot of time-wasting. The wheel of government has been very slow in turning and the government has not shown itself to be in a hurry to quicken the process of service delivery.
With almost eighteen months already gone in the life of this administration, we advise the government to buckle up and inject some verve into governance. The patience of Nigerians is being overstretched.

The people need to feel the impact of this government. The much-touted 7- point agenda of this administration needs to be brought to life. The machinery of government needs to be seen to be working at top speed to positively improve the lives of the people.

The government should therefore cast away the cloak of lethargy in which it appears to be ensconced and quicken the process of appointment of new persons who can deliver quality service into the cabinet. We expect a list of nominees to replace the sacked ministers to be announced soon and the Senate to expedite the process of their confirmation.

In selecting the new ministers, the presidency should pay attention to the need to appoint persons with the right qualifications and experience to add value to their portfolios and get government’s programmes off the ground. Appointment of persons into the cabinet should not be based on base, primordial considerations or the need to pander to the whims and caprices of political godfathers .

The nation, which appears to have been in a flux in the past 18 months, should be kicked out of the government-imposed lethargy, using purposeful persons who can deliver on the mandates given to them.
Nigeria should learn useful lessons from the recent American presidential election and pick the best persons for the task at hand, irrespective of political and tribal affiliations.

We think the president should also use the opportunity of this cabinet shake –up to reduce the size of his cabinet. The sheer size of this cabinet, with a minister and a minister of state in virtually every ministry, is unwieldly and a drain on the resources of the nation, considering the fact that there are also permanent secretaries with administrative responsibilities in all the ministries.

Governance is a serious business and the hitherto phlegmatic approach to decision making by the president can only set a bad example for the ministers. For instance, the Federal Ministry of Health has remained without a substantive minister since the exit of Professor (Mrs) Adenike Grange, about ten months ago. The boards of parastatals that were dissolved several months ago are also yet to be reconstituted.
President Yar’Adua should demonstrate leadership to bring the urgency of the task of national development to bear on the cabinet.