The Infiltration of the Church
In the early days after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, the immediate lot of the Christians was persecution-intense persecution. Stephen and James were executed. At the height of Nero’s persecution, Peter was killed. Apostle Paul who had himself been a persecutor-in-chief of the Church before his conversion was imprisoned, beaten and eventually church historians record that he was executed between AD65-68. Martyrdom was the ‘trophy’ of many of the early Christian fathers. Ignatius was scourged and tortured and his flesh was torn apart with hot pincers and then lions were released to devour him. When Polycarp refused entreaties to denounce his God, he was taken into the arena and burnt alive. As the flames enveloped him, the old Bishop took off his garments and looked up to heaven, praising God and thanking him that he was found worthy of the cup of Christ.
In this climate of persecution and martyrdom, there was no incentive except to those who were ready to die for their faith to claim to be Christians. Only an insane person would so claim if he was not completely yielded to the gospel of Christ as the consequences were so dire and terrible. The population of the Church was not large, but the heart of every single one in their company could be presumed for God. Not surprisingly, the Bible records that the early church was filled with power, and with love. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul…And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was with them all” (Acts 4:32-33). The Church endured varying degrees of persecution for many years-until an emperor became a Christian!
Constantine became emperor of Rome in 306. In the course of one battle, he saw a cross of light in the heavens, with an inscription, “By this sign conquer” and that night, Christ appeared to him. Of course he won a complete victory in the campaign. From that point, Constantine effectively supported Christianity and ended the persecution of the church. He abolished state sacrifices, favoured the church, instituted freedom of religion, and returned the properties of Christians hitherto confiscated. He enacted laws based on Christian morality and vested the church with financial and material support. Clergymen occupied important state positions and churches were erected on the sites where martyrs had died. Of course, when a king belongs to a group and favours it, many would be attracted to it, and not necessarily for the same reasons!
Geoffrey Hanks writes in ‘70 Great Christians’ that “Because of the preferential treatment of the Church, Christianity became fashionable. Many pagans started to attend church and became nominal members, perhaps to enjoy some of the benefits Christians had gained. Correct doctrine became more important than right behavior, and there was a lowering of moral standards…formalism in worship appeared; priests repeated set prayers and the congregation listened to a performance…a form of ritual gradually crept into services, replacing the simplicity of earlier years. The Church responded by allowing Constantine to exercise spiritual authority.” So while Constantine ended the persecution of the Church, and ushered in a period of peace and stability, his reign signaled the beginnings of a pattern that has manifested to this day. Constantine was baptized towards the end of his life, and spent the rest of his life wearing his baptismal robes. He died in 337 at the feast of Pentecost with great grief all over the world.
The ‘King’ brought Christianity to Nigeria. There was a conjunction of some sort between the colonial authorities and the European missionaries. Like some have written perhaps skeptically, the British came with the “Bible in one hand and the gun in the other”. After the initial resistance to the white man’s faith, pragmatic natives would soon notice that there were many benefits to be gained from conversion-education for your children, jobs in the civil service, a new status in society (especially for those who may have been previously unimportant)etc. While many were convinced by the gospel many others had no doubt simply made a sensible decision. Not surprisingly most natives took the Christian (and other foreign) faiths and kept their traditional gods and religious practices by the side. Like the Yorubas unabashedly proclaimed, “esin kan ope kawa ma soro, awa o soro ile wa o!” (No religion can stop us from worshipping the gods of our land, we will worship our gods).
The Scripture Union (SU) phenomenon largely founded in the universities and schools introduced a new dimension however, of faith based not on pragmatic compromises but based on adherence to the word of God. Of course SUs were not popular and were regarded in the 1960s and 1970s as extremists, fundamentalists who were being unreasonable. Parents, including nominally Christian ones begged their children not to join the SU. The SU phenomenon did not adopt modern marketing and branding strategies, offered no commercial or social benefits (except of course fellowship with the brethren), and demanded strict moral standards. Many did not find it attractive! The Pentecostal movement was the inheritor of the SU mantle, but perhaps the time was now right. Many were now second and third generation Christians who had come to know God better, and their traditional gods less. Education was more widespread and the international evangelical ministries were more organized. Social, economic and political uncertainty was also higher.
With the increasing spread of the Pentecostal Church in Nigeria, the adversary changed his strategy. Seeing the Church can not be stopped, he decided to fight the church from inside. Many have joined the church who are not of God. Many may have risen to leading positions in Gods house, who are agents of the other side. Of course that is the nature of warfare, espionage, intelligence and workers of evil will learn from their master, the devil who fought God from right inside heaven! Christians must be vigilant. The Bible warns us that in the last days many will come claiming to be of him. God says we should test every spirit. And says by their fruits we would know them. Is their fruit manipulation, mischief, propaganda, wickedness, politics and deceit? Or is it love, holiness, truth, compassion, encouragement? Test every spirit. I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Please let Iwu Go!
It appears clear that a powerful public relations campaign to persuade Nigerians that Professor Maurice Iwu was not the problem with the discredited April 2007 elections is unfolding. The argument is simple and it goes thus-“Nigerians always complain about elections, so it is nothing new that Nigerians have complained about the 2007 elections; the problem with the 2007 election was institutional (and perhaps Obasanjo and the political class) but not Iwu; Removing Iwu from office will not address the problem”-the unspoken conclusion behind the campaign being “leave Iwu in office!”. It is a shame really that this argument is being made at all.
Actually the arguments are not without some logic even if disingenuous, evidence of the fact that intelligent communicators are at work. As a matter of fact this columnist does not dispute the fact that the problems of the 2007 elections go beyond Maurice Iwu-indeed that point was probably first made on this page on March 21, 2007 in an article titled, “Individuals, Processes and Institutions”. Interestingly this was a month before the elections by which time it was clear that there were going to be serious problems with the approaching elections. In that article, I recounted my off-air discussions several months before the elections with some admirers of Professor Iwu on the set of ‘Patitos Gang’ in which I cautioned that while they believed so much in the professor’s integrity and personal ability, conducting elections went beyond individual attributes, to process and institutional constraints and contexts.
If I may quote from that article, “enduring societies and organizations are built not around individuals-their strengths, weaknesses, predilections, biases etc but on strong processes, systems and laws, and ultimately on strong institutions”. So the first part of the pro-Iwu argument is sound if it is amended to read, “Iwu was not the ONLY problem with the 2007 elections”. There were also leadership, political, institutional, socio-economic factors which contributed to the charade that happened in the name of elections earlier this year. But Iwu was a major part of the problems with the elections! By March 2007 when I wrote the article under reference, Iwu had disqualified all the major opponents of the man who reportedly facilitated his appointment, Andy Uba who was contesting for the Anambra governorship-Peter Obi of APGA, Nicholas Ukachukwu of ANPP and Chris Ngige of AC.
By the time I wrote that article, Professor Iwu’s INEC had introduced an unconstitutional requirement of photographs of candidates beyond just party name and symbol required by law. It was clear that this requirement was targeted at ensuring that the candidates INEC and its masters in the Presidency and PDP were determined to prevent from contesting would not be on the ballot. The principal target of this was of course Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The electoral body under Maurice Iwu had proceeded to disqualify several opposition candidates from contesting the elections, some in the face of High Court decisions to the contrary. In both the Anambra case and the arguments over the eligibility of Alhaji Atiku, it had to take judicial intervention for the rule of law and commonsense to prevail over the shameless gerrymandering of Iwu and co.
During the elections we observed with amusement Iwu’s curious conduct of elections in his home state-Imo. We all know what all these have cost the nation. Elections in several states have being set aside-Governor Idris in Kogi and Admiral Nyako in Adamawa essentially because INEC prevented their opponents from contesting the elections. The elections in Kebbi and Rivers have been faulted by the courts in ways that amount to an indictment of INEC. Indeed in the Anambra case, the court specifically criticized INEC’s behaviour. Just last week two out of the three senatorial elections in Plateau State were set aside because of issues relating to the unlawful exclusions of legally qualified candidates. Is Iwu blameless in all of that?
It is amazing really that given the international odium that the 2007 elections has brought upon Nigeria, some are prepared to have Profesor Iwu preside over other elections in this country. What will the world think of us? Have we so completely lost our values that we have no sense of shame or impropriety any more? Yes it is true that Nigerian politicians always complain about any elections they do not win, but rarely has there ever been such overwhelming consensus amongst local observers, international institutions and countries and until recently the media that any set of elections conducted in Nigeria were a fraud and charade. Indeed international observers include the EU and Commonwealth state categorically that the elections were flawed even by African standards. Don’t we realize the damning implications of these statements?
Nevertheless, we agree that removing Professor Iwu from office will not guarantee perfect elections in Nigeria. But his removal is a mandatory first step, amongst others to send a message to his successors and other Nigerians that absence of integrity in public office will be sanctioned and not rewarded. If I may return to the March article previously quoted, in which having recognized the place of processes and institutions, I recognized that there is also a strong role for the right type of individuals-“Outstanding individuals are of course required to provide leadership at particular points in time; they can provide vision and leadership around which followers can be mobilized; they can reverse a slide to organizational and societal decay”. The point here is if we are not to signal the decay and death of proper electoral behavior in Nigeria, Professor Iwu and his discredited team have to give way to outstanding Nigerians of integrity who will be willing to resign from office rather than compromise their values and principles. That by the way was what another Professor, Eme Awa did, so it is not a standard too high for Nigerians to aspire to!
Thereafter the compulsory work of electoral reform must then be carried out to address fundamental legal and institutional issues such as independence of the electoral agency, funding, capacity building, voting systems and technology, and electoral registers. It is to the credit of President Yar’adua that even though he was the principal beneficiary of the sham supervised by Iwu, he has publicly acknowledged its flaws and set up a process for remedying the situation. It is understandable perhaps (painfully) if President Yar’adua believes he should wait until the electoral challenges to his election are disposed of before firing Iwu, but fire him, he must if he is to be taken seriously in his intention to give Nigeria credible elections as he has so courageously sworn to do.
It appears clear that a powerful public relations campaign to persuade Nigerians that Professor Maurice Iwu was not the problem with the discredited April 2007 elections is unfolding. The argument is simple and it goes thus-“Nigerians always complain about elections, so it is nothing new that Nigerians have complained about the 2007 elections; the problem with the 2007 election was institutional (and perhaps Obasanjo and the political class) but not Iwu; Removing Iwu from office will not address the problem”-the unspoken conclusion behind the campaign being “leave Iwu in office!”. It is a shame really that this argument is being made at all.
Actually the arguments are not without some logic even if disingenuous, evidence of the fact that intelligent communicators are at work. As a matter of fact this columnist does not dispute the fact that the problems of the 2007 elections go beyond Maurice Iwu-indeed that point was probably first made on this page on March 21, 2007 in an article titled, “Individuals, Processes and Institutions”. Interestingly this was a month before the elections by which time it was clear that there were going to be serious problems with the approaching elections. In that article, I recounted my off-air discussions several months before the elections with some admirers of Professor Iwu on the set of ‘Patitos Gang’ in which I cautioned that while they believed so much in the professor’s integrity and personal ability, conducting elections went beyond individual attributes, to process and institutional constraints and contexts.
If I may quote from that article, “enduring societies and organizations are built not around individuals-their strengths, weaknesses, predilections, biases etc but on strong processes, systems and laws, and ultimately on strong institutions”. So the first part of the pro-Iwu argument is sound if it is amended to read, “Iwu was not the ONLY problem with the 2007 elections”. There were also leadership, political, institutional, socio-economic factors which contributed to the charade that happened in the name of elections earlier this year. But Iwu was a major part of the problems with the elections! By March 2007 when I wrote the article under reference, Iwu had disqualified all the major opponents of the man who reportedly facilitated his appointment, Andy Uba who was contesting for the Anambra governorship-Peter Obi of APGA, Nicholas Ukachukwu of ANPP and Chris Ngige of AC.
By the time I wrote that article, Professor Iwu’s INEC had introduced an unconstitutional requirement of photographs of candidates beyond just party name and symbol required by law. It was clear that this requirement was targeted at ensuring that the candidates INEC and its masters in the Presidency and PDP were determined to prevent from contesting would not be on the ballot. The principal target of this was of course Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The electoral body under Maurice Iwu had proceeded to disqualify several opposition candidates from contesting the elections, some in the face of High Court decisions to the contrary. In both the Anambra case and the arguments over the eligibility of Alhaji Atiku, it had to take judicial intervention for the rule of law and commonsense to prevail over the shameless gerrymandering of Iwu and co.
During the elections we observed with amusement Iwu’s curious conduct of elections in his home state-Imo. We all know what all these have cost the nation. Elections in several states have being set aside-Governor Idris in Kogi and Admiral Nyako in Adamawa essentially because INEC prevented their opponents from contesting the elections. The elections in Kebbi and Rivers have been faulted by the courts in ways that amount to an indictment of INEC. Indeed in the Anambra case, the court specifically criticized INEC’s behaviour. Just last week two out of the three senatorial elections in Plateau State were set aside because of issues relating to the unlawful exclusions of legally qualified candidates. Is Iwu blameless in all of that?
It is amazing really that given the international odium that the 2007 elections has brought upon Nigeria, some are prepared to have Profesor Iwu preside over other elections in this country. What will the world think of us? Have we so completely lost our values that we have no sense of shame or impropriety any more? Yes it is true that Nigerian politicians always complain about any elections they do not win, but rarely has there ever been such overwhelming consensus amongst local observers, international institutions and countries and until recently the media that any set of elections conducted in Nigeria were a fraud and charade. Indeed international observers include the EU and Commonwealth state categorically that the elections were flawed even by African standards. Don’t we realize the damning implications of these statements?
Nevertheless, we agree that removing Professor Iwu from office will not guarantee perfect elections in Nigeria. But his removal is a mandatory first step, amongst others to send a message to his successors and other Nigerians that absence of integrity in public office will be sanctioned and not rewarded. If I may return to the March article previously quoted, in which having recognized the place of processes and institutions, I recognized that there is also a strong role for the right type of individuals-“Outstanding individuals are of course required to provide leadership at particular points in time; they can provide vision and leadership around which followers can be mobilized; they can reverse a slide to organizational and societal decay”. The point here is if we are not to signal the decay and death of proper electoral behavior in Nigeria, Professor Iwu and his discredited team have to give way to outstanding Nigerians of integrity who will be willing to resign from office rather than compromise their values and principles. That by the way was what another Professor, Eme Awa did, so it is not a standard too high for Nigerians to aspire to!
Thereafter the compulsory work of electoral reform must then be carried out to address fundamental legal and institutional issues such as independence of the electoral agency, funding, capacity building, voting systems and technology, and electoral registers. It is to the credit of President Yar’adua that even though he was the principal beneficiary of the sham supervised by Iwu, he has publicly acknowledged its flaws and set up a process for remedying the situation. It is understandable perhaps (painfully) if President Yar’adua believes he should wait until the electoral challenges to his election are disposed of before firing Iwu, but fire him, he must if he is to be taken seriously in his intention to give Nigeria credible elections as he has so courageously sworn to do.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Now the Wilbros Affair!
Its getting more and more interesting, isn’t it? Last week I wrote about the ‘Siemens affair’, and predicted that the story was not going to go away. I asked for more investigation and information on that scandal as well as other developing ones-Wilbros, being one of them. The details of the goings-on at or around Wilbros have unraveled faster than I expected.
What do we know today about the Wilbros affair? Well apparently there was an “Eastern Gas Gathering System” contract (EGGS) to be awarded in which Wilbros was interested. Someone (one report specifically named a former NNPC top shot) intimated Wilbros officials that ‘nothing goes for nothing’ and that some big men will have to be ‘settled’ if the deal was to go through. Two names have been specifically mentioned as having received varying amounts of bribes from Wilbros-former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (otherwise referred to as ‘VP’ or ‘No 2’) and former Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye, from Ogun State, both alleged to have received $250,000. Reports also suggest that several top and middle ranking officers of Shell and NNPC benefited from the loot.
Hmmm. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is defending himself quite vigorously, understandably! His name always seems to come up in these matters, whether at the PTDF, in the US I-Gate matter involving Congressman Jefferson and now in the Wilbros affair. In fact, Alhaji Atiku started defending himself even before the public became aware of the details by issuing an advance notification that some people would try to drag him into the matter. Any way the good thing is Atiku is stating his case. He is questioning how and why he should receive bribes on a matter in which he played no roles and in which his ‘traducers’ (read Obasanjo and co.) were in charge. His suggestion is that his name must have been used by impersonators or mischievously in a matter he knows nothing about. I have also read a report in which Atiku specifically mentions Mr Funso Kupolokun as someone who should know more about this matter. We wait to hear from Kupolokun.
Dr Onaolapo Soleye was Minister for Finance under the Buhari/Idiagbon regime. A fellow Owu man, he was widely believed to have been General Obasanjo’s nominee in that government. He was very close to Obasanjo and when Obasanjo became President in 1999, Soleye returned to ‘power’. He served on the board of the NNPC and took care of matters in respect of the President’s business interests, especially we are told the schools and universities the President owned. Unlike Atiku, Soleye is yet to say anything. Of course, Nigerians will expect him to say all he knows about this matter, including in what capacity, or on whose behalf, he took any money he may have received from Wilbros-if indeed he did receive any moneys. Towards the end of Obasanjo’s regime, some reports suggested that the age-long relationship between Soleye and Obasanjo was ruptured for some reasons. Perhaps we will also hear about that now.
Shell of course must tell us its own account of what went on. Did any officers of Shell receive any payments in the Wilbros affair? Is that routine business practice at Shell? If not, what has Shell done about the matter? Have any officers been subjected to disciplinary proceedings over this matter? Has any one been relieved of their duties? Did Shell report the matter to Nigerian law enforcement agencies-the police, EFCC or ICPC? Shell must also understand that this raises wider issues of its role in the Nigerian oil sector in particular and our political economy in general. Is Shell a responsible corporate citizen? Does it abhor corruption and corrupt practices? Does it believe that corruption is a major problem in Nigeria, and what does it propose to contribute towards its eradication? Senior officials of Shell must understand that they would be required to answer these questions.
The Nigerian government appears to have been quite enthusiastic in following up this matter. The government is reported to have sent very senior officials including the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of State for Petroleum to the US to investigate the matter. The government has also handed over the report of the investigating team to the EFCC for further action. That in my view would be the first manifestation of ‘zero tolerance for corruption’ since this government took office in May. It would be encouraging if the government displayed similar zeal in the Ibori, Siemens, Orji Kalu and other corruption case involving the ex-governors and others. A cynical interpretation could in fact be that the government’s enthusiasm in this case is related less to anti-corruption and more to politics (with the involvement of Atiku who insists on pursuing his electoral petition).
The Attorney-General in particular has displayed a very curious attitude in relation to corruption. With the exception of the Wilbros case, in every other case in which his involvement has been public knowledge (particularly Ibori and Orji Kalu, he has appeared to deploy the weight of his office against the EFCC and the London Metropolitan Police rather than against corruption. He has resorted to various technicalities, feigned indignation and raised charges of insubordination and generally done every thing, except fighting corruption. At some point, as long as he continues in this attitude and is not removed from office, Nigerians would conclude that he manifests the real position of his boss, the President in his coldness towards the anti-corruption fight.
Well, whatever the motivation, it is good that government has taken up the investigation of the Wilbros matter. Like I always say, it’s the precedent we set that matters, not really our motives. I believe that there is a global momentum against corruption. The international financial, judicial, and policing systems are united against the flow of dirty money; Nigerians are fed up with corruption and corrupt governments; the institutions of democracy by their very nature-the legislature, media, opposition political parties etc will by their very nature expose corruption, even if initially for self-serving reasons; and ultimately Nigerians will defeat corruption. Amen. Meanwhile more details are needed. The US indictment of Jason Edward Steph, Wilbros’ former General Manager suggests that bribes totaling $6million were paid. The figures disclosed so far do not add up to a significant proportion of that figure. Who took the balance?
Its getting more and more interesting, isn’t it? Last week I wrote about the ‘Siemens affair’, and predicted that the story was not going to go away. I asked for more investigation and information on that scandal as well as other developing ones-Wilbros, being one of them. The details of the goings-on at or around Wilbros have unraveled faster than I expected.
What do we know today about the Wilbros affair? Well apparently there was an “Eastern Gas Gathering System” contract (EGGS) to be awarded in which Wilbros was interested. Someone (one report specifically named a former NNPC top shot) intimated Wilbros officials that ‘nothing goes for nothing’ and that some big men will have to be ‘settled’ if the deal was to go through. Two names have been specifically mentioned as having received varying amounts of bribes from Wilbros-former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (otherwise referred to as ‘VP’ or ‘No 2’) and former Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye, from Ogun State, both alleged to have received $250,000. Reports also suggest that several top and middle ranking officers of Shell and NNPC benefited from the loot.
Hmmm. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is defending himself quite vigorously, understandably! His name always seems to come up in these matters, whether at the PTDF, in the US I-Gate matter involving Congressman Jefferson and now in the Wilbros affair. In fact, Alhaji Atiku started defending himself even before the public became aware of the details by issuing an advance notification that some people would try to drag him into the matter. Any way the good thing is Atiku is stating his case. He is questioning how and why he should receive bribes on a matter in which he played no roles and in which his ‘traducers’ (read Obasanjo and co.) were in charge. His suggestion is that his name must have been used by impersonators or mischievously in a matter he knows nothing about. I have also read a report in which Atiku specifically mentions Mr Funso Kupolokun as someone who should know more about this matter. We wait to hear from Kupolokun.
Dr Onaolapo Soleye was Minister for Finance under the Buhari/Idiagbon regime. A fellow Owu man, he was widely believed to have been General Obasanjo’s nominee in that government. He was very close to Obasanjo and when Obasanjo became President in 1999, Soleye returned to ‘power’. He served on the board of the NNPC and took care of matters in respect of the President’s business interests, especially we are told the schools and universities the President owned. Unlike Atiku, Soleye is yet to say anything. Of course, Nigerians will expect him to say all he knows about this matter, including in what capacity, or on whose behalf, he took any money he may have received from Wilbros-if indeed he did receive any moneys. Towards the end of Obasanjo’s regime, some reports suggested that the age-long relationship between Soleye and Obasanjo was ruptured for some reasons. Perhaps we will also hear about that now.
Shell of course must tell us its own account of what went on. Did any officers of Shell receive any payments in the Wilbros affair? Is that routine business practice at Shell? If not, what has Shell done about the matter? Have any officers been subjected to disciplinary proceedings over this matter? Has any one been relieved of their duties? Did Shell report the matter to Nigerian law enforcement agencies-the police, EFCC or ICPC? Shell must also understand that this raises wider issues of its role in the Nigerian oil sector in particular and our political economy in general. Is Shell a responsible corporate citizen? Does it abhor corruption and corrupt practices? Does it believe that corruption is a major problem in Nigeria, and what does it propose to contribute towards its eradication? Senior officials of Shell must understand that they would be required to answer these questions.
The Nigerian government appears to have been quite enthusiastic in following up this matter. The government is reported to have sent very senior officials including the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of State for Petroleum to the US to investigate the matter. The government has also handed over the report of the investigating team to the EFCC for further action. That in my view would be the first manifestation of ‘zero tolerance for corruption’ since this government took office in May. It would be encouraging if the government displayed similar zeal in the Ibori, Siemens, Orji Kalu and other corruption case involving the ex-governors and others. A cynical interpretation could in fact be that the government’s enthusiasm in this case is related less to anti-corruption and more to politics (with the involvement of Atiku who insists on pursuing his electoral petition).
The Attorney-General in particular has displayed a very curious attitude in relation to corruption. With the exception of the Wilbros case, in every other case in which his involvement has been public knowledge (particularly Ibori and Orji Kalu, he has appeared to deploy the weight of his office against the EFCC and the London Metropolitan Police rather than against corruption. He has resorted to various technicalities, feigned indignation and raised charges of insubordination and generally done every thing, except fighting corruption. At some point, as long as he continues in this attitude and is not removed from office, Nigerians would conclude that he manifests the real position of his boss, the President in his coldness towards the anti-corruption fight.
Well, whatever the motivation, it is good that government has taken up the investigation of the Wilbros matter. Like I always say, it’s the precedent we set that matters, not really our motives. I believe that there is a global momentum against corruption. The international financial, judicial, and policing systems are united against the flow of dirty money; Nigerians are fed up with corruption and corrupt governments; the institutions of democracy by their very nature-the legislature, media, opposition political parties etc will by their very nature expose corruption, even if initially for self-serving reasons; and ultimately Nigerians will defeat corruption. Amen. Meanwhile more details are needed. The US indictment of Jason Edward Steph, Wilbros’ former General Manager suggests that bribes totaling $6million were paid. The figures disclosed so far do not add up to a significant proportion of that figure. Who took the balance?
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Siemens Affair
Nigeria is again in the news for the wrong reasons. Details have emerged from foreign judicial systems about the extent of the depth and reach of corruption in Nigeria. The revelations from Germany about the over eight million euros purportedly shared by Nigerian government officials, ministers and other telecommunications sector officials again demonstrates why the world regards all Nigerians as corrupt and dishonest thieves, fraudsters and scammers, and why the world finds our response, which is usually righteous indignation so laughable and perplexing.
There are several issues one finds striking about this matter. It re-confirms the complicity (and duplicity) of foreign firms in fostering corruption in Nigeria, after which they tell Transparency International that Nigeria is the most corrupt country in the world! It also probably gives us a glimpse into the part played by private sector businesses (including local companies) in destroying the Nigerian business climate through unethical practices while searching for unsustainable advantages over rival firms. What part do our banks and other financial institutions, construction companies, and other ‘contractors’ play in helping public office holders collect brokerage, inflate contract amounts and generally divert public resources into private pockets?
To the credit of foreign countries however, it appears that all the progress against corruption in Nigeria tends to come from abroad, rather than within. The Dariye affair, Alamieyesegha’s case, Ibori’s problems, the Halliburton matter, the revelations in respect of Wilbros and now Siemens have all come from outside rather than within Nigeria. It is good that sometimes the EFCC has played a key role either in instigating some investigations and/or cooperating with foreign agencies, but it does seem that the EFCC seems to make breakthroughs only after it externalizes the cases. A sensible hypothesis may be that the tentacles of corruption are so deep and extensive within Nigeria that investigations are unlikely to progress to a breakthrough in the absence of an external dimension. Of course there are exceptions to this hypothesis, (such as the Tafa Balogun case), but they do appear to be that-exceptions rather than the rule.
It is also striking that all the payments to Nigerian government officials revealed in the Siemens Case happened during the Obasanjo government, when the government claimed to be fighting a war against corruption. During those years, whenever Transparency International and other global corruption watchdogs released their reports in which they routinely moved Nigeria from maybe second most corrupt nation in the world to perhaps third, Nigerian officials typically responded with righteous indignation. It does now seem clear that all our posturing about anti-corruption was just precisely that-posturing! In the figures reportedly taken from the international media which have now been published in the local newspapers, Nigeria accounted for over eight million euros out of the twelve million that Siemens paid as illegal bribes in three countries-with Russia coming a very distant second.
I wonder what we will find if we could persuade Siemens and the German judicial system to assist us by looking ten to twenty years earlier than 1999. What do you think we would find? Alternatively, could we ask the Germans to assist us take a peep into the accounts of that other notable German company that operates in Nigeria-Julius Berger! What do you think we would find? We already have an idea of what went on in the name of a notorious Aluminium Smelter at Ikot Abasi which on the books of the Nigerian state cost $2.3billion, but in which an equivalent smelter was built in Mozambique for less than half of that cost. It turns out that most of the money was transferred offshore on behalf of the Abachas, their accomplices and other officers of state. Or perhaps we could encourage the British and Dutch governments to open a forensic examination into the Nigerian activities, including the accounts and contracts of that well-known oil company that once accounted for fifty percent of Nigeria’s oil production? I do remember listening a few years ago to an angry Nigerian telling about the goings-on at Siemens which I then dismissed as beer-parlour talk. Now we know better.
I notice also some incongruities relating to the published figures. The amount paid Nigerian officials from my tabulation (see Businessday of Monday, November 19 at page A2) amounts to E8, 195,000 (eight million, one hundred and ninety thousand euros). From this amount the beneficiaries of E2, 435,000 are specified, while the beneficiaries of the larger sub-total of E5,850,000 are nebulously described as “political office holders”, “telecomm and ministry officials” and in some publications, “various decision makers”. Who are these anonymous decision makers or office holders? Do they enjoy immunity from being named even in a German Court, or is there some self-censorship in the foreign courts or media? Some resourceful journalists should be interested in finding out more about the identity of these special categories of people, who collected big chunks of E1million, E2.250million, E500,000, E750,000 and like figures.
I can understand why the EFCC prefers to assist foreign law enforcement agencies with information about the foreign ‘transactions’ of Nigerian office holders. The chances that the matter would be objectively handled without technical, political or ethnic imputations and impediments in the way of justice are far less outside than within. It is more difficult to compromise the relevant international institutions-the political authorities, prosecutors, press, witnesses or potential witnesses, financial institutions etc. The evidence trail abroad is also clearer-transactions would not have been done in cash, properties will be registered, property taxes and charges will be paid, and bank records cannot be altered, mutilated or destroyed. All of these point the way to what we have to do to succeed in the fight against corruption.
Of course, we are just seeing the beginning of the Siemens Affair. The issue will not go away. We will get more details about all the participants-from within and outside Nigeria and at the end of the day, people will pay the price, before the law courts and/or in the court of public opinion. The government and EFCC have already indicated that they are investigating the issue. That is good. We await their findings in this case, and others such as the Wilbros and Halliburton cases. Meanwhile, will the new set of public office holders all over the federation learn the right lessons from this matter? Will they use the resources entrusted to them to build roads and public infrastructure or will they simply look for new countries with less rigorous financial and judicial systems?
Nigeria is again in the news for the wrong reasons. Details have emerged from foreign judicial systems about the extent of the depth and reach of corruption in Nigeria. The revelations from Germany about the over eight million euros purportedly shared by Nigerian government officials, ministers and other telecommunications sector officials again demonstrates why the world regards all Nigerians as corrupt and dishonest thieves, fraudsters and scammers, and why the world finds our response, which is usually righteous indignation so laughable and perplexing.
There are several issues one finds striking about this matter. It re-confirms the complicity (and duplicity) of foreign firms in fostering corruption in Nigeria, after which they tell Transparency International that Nigeria is the most corrupt country in the world! It also probably gives us a glimpse into the part played by private sector businesses (including local companies) in destroying the Nigerian business climate through unethical practices while searching for unsustainable advantages over rival firms. What part do our banks and other financial institutions, construction companies, and other ‘contractors’ play in helping public office holders collect brokerage, inflate contract amounts and generally divert public resources into private pockets?
To the credit of foreign countries however, it appears that all the progress against corruption in Nigeria tends to come from abroad, rather than within. The Dariye affair, Alamieyesegha’s case, Ibori’s problems, the Halliburton matter, the revelations in respect of Wilbros and now Siemens have all come from outside rather than within Nigeria. It is good that sometimes the EFCC has played a key role either in instigating some investigations and/or cooperating with foreign agencies, but it does seem that the EFCC seems to make breakthroughs only after it externalizes the cases. A sensible hypothesis may be that the tentacles of corruption are so deep and extensive within Nigeria that investigations are unlikely to progress to a breakthrough in the absence of an external dimension. Of course there are exceptions to this hypothesis, (such as the Tafa Balogun case), but they do appear to be that-exceptions rather than the rule.
It is also striking that all the payments to Nigerian government officials revealed in the Siemens Case happened during the Obasanjo government, when the government claimed to be fighting a war against corruption. During those years, whenever Transparency International and other global corruption watchdogs released their reports in which they routinely moved Nigeria from maybe second most corrupt nation in the world to perhaps third, Nigerian officials typically responded with righteous indignation. It does now seem clear that all our posturing about anti-corruption was just precisely that-posturing! In the figures reportedly taken from the international media which have now been published in the local newspapers, Nigeria accounted for over eight million euros out of the twelve million that Siemens paid as illegal bribes in three countries-with Russia coming a very distant second.
I wonder what we will find if we could persuade Siemens and the German judicial system to assist us by looking ten to twenty years earlier than 1999. What do you think we would find? Alternatively, could we ask the Germans to assist us take a peep into the accounts of that other notable German company that operates in Nigeria-Julius Berger! What do you think we would find? We already have an idea of what went on in the name of a notorious Aluminium Smelter at Ikot Abasi which on the books of the Nigerian state cost $2.3billion, but in which an equivalent smelter was built in Mozambique for less than half of that cost. It turns out that most of the money was transferred offshore on behalf of the Abachas, their accomplices and other officers of state. Or perhaps we could encourage the British and Dutch governments to open a forensic examination into the Nigerian activities, including the accounts and contracts of that well-known oil company that once accounted for fifty percent of Nigeria’s oil production? I do remember listening a few years ago to an angry Nigerian telling about the goings-on at Siemens which I then dismissed as beer-parlour talk. Now we know better.
I notice also some incongruities relating to the published figures. The amount paid Nigerian officials from my tabulation (see Businessday of Monday, November 19 at page A2) amounts to E8, 195,000 (eight million, one hundred and ninety thousand euros). From this amount the beneficiaries of E2, 435,000 are specified, while the beneficiaries of the larger sub-total of E5,850,000 are nebulously described as “political office holders”, “telecomm and ministry officials” and in some publications, “various decision makers”. Who are these anonymous decision makers or office holders? Do they enjoy immunity from being named even in a German Court, or is there some self-censorship in the foreign courts or media? Some resourceful journalists should be interested in finding out more about the identity of these special categories of people, who collected big chunks of E1million, E2.250million, E500,000, E750,000 and like figures.
I can understand why the EFCC prefers to assist foreign law enforcement agencies with information about the foreign ‘transactions’ of Nigerian office holders. The chances that the matter would be objectively handled without technical, political or ethnic imputations and impediments in the way of justice are far less outside than within. It is more difficult to compromise the relevant international institutions-the political authorities, prosecutors, press, witnesses or potential witnesses, financial institutions etc. The evidence trail abroad is also clearer-transactions would not have been done in cash, properties will be registered, property taxes and charges will be paid, and bank records cannot be altered, mutilated or destroyed. All of these point the way to what we have to do to succeed in the fight against corruption.
Of course, we are just seeing the beginning of the Siemens Affair. The issue will not go away. We will get more details about all the participants-from within and outside Nigeria and at the end of the day, people will pay the price, before the law courts and/or in the court of public opinion. The government and EFCC have already indicated that they are investigating the issue. That is good. We await their findings in this case, and others such as the Wilbros and Halliburton cases. Meanwhile, will the new set of public office holders all over the federation learn the right lessons from this matter? Will they use the resources entrusted to them to build roads and public infrastructure or will they simply look for new countries with less rigorous financial and judicial systems?
The Continuing Transition
I had some difficulty selecting a title for this week’s article. The article dwells on multiple matters and I needed to find a common thread through all (or at least most) of that mixed bag. I toyed with several options but in the end settled on ‘The Continuing Transition’ as I became convinced that many of the thoughts I contend with may be symptoms of the yet uncompleted transition Nigeria is going through.
The 2008 Budget
The President presented his first full year budget to the National Assembly last week. He proclaimed it a “Budget for the Ordinary Nigerian”. The budget assumes a $53.83 oil price (up from $40 in 2007) on crude oil production of 2.45 million barrels per day; and targets GDP growth rate of 11%, exchange rate of N117 to $ and inflation rate of 8.5%. Federal government spending net of debt service and statutory transfers is N1.89trillion and the budget accommodates a deficit of N0.56trillion or 2.5% of GDP. The spending priorities are Security/Niger-Delta (N444.6bn or 20%)-what is the exact split between core military/defense spending and developmental expenditure on the Niger-Delta?; education-N210bn or 13%; Energy (N139.78bn)-again what is the split between power versus oil and gas?; and agriculture and water resources (N121.1bn or 7%).
Beyond the figures however, a clear philosophical and policy framework underlying economic planning is not yet available. We have NEEDS, NEEDS 2, 7-Point Agenda and Vision 2020 all flying around the air, but there is yet no clarity and focus in the direction of governance. That lack of clarity manifests in some confusion, such as one Minister wanting government to build a petrochemical plant; the emergence of a new state-owned telecommunications company named NIGCOMSAT; and an emphasis so far on reversing the previous government’s actions such that no privatization or concessioning completed by the last regime can be presumed immune. It is not yet clear whether for instance the reversal of the privatization of the refineries was done because they flouted due process and transparency (in which case I would support the reversal and expect a fresh process of privatization to have commenced) or because the government does not believe in privatization whether of the refineries or anything for that matter. We would hope someone will produce a clear, coherent and sustainable economic policy framework before year end?
The President and the Judiciary
Just as we were beginning to understand and applaud the President’s posture of non-interference in the affairs of the National Assembly during the ‘Etteh Affair’, the President contradicted his own posture by publicly interfering with the affairs of the Judiciary. He warned the judges against “playing to the gallery” and pandering to public sentiments. Specifically he criticized harsh bail conditions imposed by several courts in recent times. In my view, the President’s comments were inappropriate. The President’s party, the PDP has several cases before various election tribunals all over the country. Two of the party’s ‘selected’ governors-Andy Uba in Anambra and Celestine Omehia in Rivers have been removed by the Supreme Court; two others (Governors Idris and Dakingari in Kogi and Kebbi respectively-the latter being in addition the President’s son-in-law) have had their elections nullified by election tribunals and are battling before appeal courts to stay in office; The President himself is defending his election before the Presidential Election Tribunal; and the major victims of the ‘harsh’ bail conditions have been the President’s former gubernatorial colleagues. Is it proper in this context for the President to be seen to publicly seek to influence, admonish, cajole or some may even say threaten their Lordships?
Obasanjo’s Shadow
It seems everything going on both in the PDP and the government is currently defined in relation to former President Obasanjo-whether you are for or against him. The whole tenor of the forthcoming PDP Convention is based on pro or anti-Obasanjo dynamics; there was a strong anti-Obasanjo element running through the Etteh Affair; and some in government operate in reversal-mode the frame of mind of which increasingly appears to be reversing all that Obasanjo did. I suspect that the reluctance to adopt (or even just amend and re-name) NEEDS 2 to reflect the priorities in the 7-Point Agenda may have something to do with an unwillingness to carry on an Obasanjo legacy. Which, in relation to many of his actions in economics (rather than politics), may be a mistake.
Commonwealth Games 2014
The Commonwealth Games in 2014 will be staged in Glasgow, Scotland and not Nigeria. Thank God! I have not heard shouts of pain and anguish from any Nigerians (except perhaps the bureaucrats who would have had a lot of contracts to award) since the hosting rights of the 2014 Commonwealth Games went to Glasgow, Scotland. I think we have bigger priorities-power, Niger-Delta, transportation (rail, road and water), rural development, crime and security, education, health, internet connectivity and access, and many more-and I suspect so does the bid committee. I imagine they are telling us to invest on all these and then come back after ten years! No twenty.
Meanwhile can anyone imagine how many jobs will be created if the Abia State Government converted Enyimba FC into a limited liability company, contributed the Enyimba Stadium as its own equity in the business, persuaded all millionaires from Abia to take up N1million equity or more in the company, (and all Aba residents and traders and Enyimba supporters to take up N1,000-N100,000), and then allowed the company to be run as a business enterprise with a professional management team? Can you imagine if the same thing were to happen to Stores, Rangers, 3SC Shooting Stars, Bendel Insurance, Kano Pillars, Sharks, Mighty Jets, Lobi Stars etc? Can you project the increase in gate-takings, merchandise revenue, advertising and co-branding income, facility rentals and broadcast revenue? Unfortunately our sports administrators are too busy fighting over crumbs to see the big picture.
Let’s end the Transition
In May when the new regime was sworn in, my projections to some clients for whom I carried out some scenario planning included a six-month period in which President Yar’adua is still trying to settle into power and wrest full power from the ancien regime. That has come to pass, except that the ‘transition’ period now threatens to be longer. Unfortunately until the intra-regime transition is over, no real policy direction may emerge, square pegs will remain in round holes, foreign and domestic investors may hesitate and adopt a ‘watch-and-see’ attitude and a period of policy drift may unfold. We don’t want that, do we?
I had some difficulty selecting a title for this week’s article. The article dwells on multiple matters and I needed to find a common thread through all (or at least most) of that mixed bag. I toyed with several options but in the end settled on ‘The Continuing Transition’ as I became convinced that many of the thoughts I contend with may be symptoms of the yet uncompleted transition Nigeria is going through.
The 2008 Budget
The President presented his first full year budget to the National Assembly last week. He proclaimed it a “Budget for the Ordinary Nigerian”. The budget assumes a $53.83 oil price (up from $40 in 2007) on crude oil production of 2.45 million barrels per day; and targets GDP growth rate of 11%, exchange rate of N117 to $ and inflation rate of 8.5%. Federal government spending net of debt service and statutory transfers is N1.89trillion and the budget accommodates a deficit of N0.56trillion or 2.5% of GDP. The spending priorities are Security/Niger-Delta (N444.6bn or 20%)-what is the exact split between core military/defense spending and developmental expenditure on the Niger-Delta?; education-N210bn or 13%; Energy (N139.78bn)-again what is the split between power versus oil and gas?; and agriculture and water resources (N121.1bn or 7%).
Beyond the figures however, a clear philosophical and policy framework underlying economic planning is not yet available. We have NEEDS, NEEDS 2, 7-Point Agenda and Vision 2020 all flying around the air, but there is yet no clarity and focus in the direction of governance. That lack of clarity manifests in some confusion, such as one Minister wanting government to build a petrochemical plant; the emergence of a new state-owned telecommunications company named NIGCOMSAT; and an emphasis so far on reversing the previous government’s actions such that no privatization or concessioning completed by the last regime can be presumed immune. It is not yet clear whether for instance the reversal of the privatization of the refineries was done because they flouted due process and transparency (in which case I would support the reversal and expect a fresh process of privatization to have commenced) or because the government does not believe in privatization whether of the refineries or anything for that matter. We would hope someone will produce a clear, coherent and sustainable economic policy framework before year end?
The President and the Judiciary
Just as we were beginning to understand and applaud the President’s posture of non-interference in the affairs of the National Assembly during the ‘Etteh Affair’, the President contradicted his own posture by publicly interfering with the affairs of the Judiciary. He warned the judges against “playing to the gallery” and pandering to public sentiments. Specifically he criticized harsh bail conditions imposed by several courts in recent times. In my view, the President’s comments were inappropriate. The President’s party, the PDP has several cases before various election tribunals all over the country. Two of the party’s ‘selected’ governors-Andy Uba in Anambra and Celestine Omehia in Rivers have been removed by the Supreme Court; two others (Governors Idris and Dakingari in Kogi and Kebbi respectively-the latter being in addition the President’s son-in-law) have had their elections nullified by election tribunals and are battling before appeal courts to stay in office; The President himself is defending his election before the Presidential Election Tribunal; and the major victims of the ‘harsh’ bail conditions have been the President’s former gubernatorial colleagues. Is it proper in this context for the President to be seen to publicly seek to influence, admonish, cajole or some may even say threaten their Lordships?
Obasanjo’s Shadow
It seems everything going on both in the PDP and the government is currently defined in relation to former President Obasanjo-whether you are for or against him. The whole tenor of the forthcoming PDP Convention is based on pro or anti-Obasanjo dynamics; there was a strong anti-Obasanjo element running through the Etteh Affair; and some in government operate in reversal-mode the frame of mind of which increasingly appears to be reversing all that Obasanjo did. I suspect that the reluctance to adopt (or even just amend and re-name) NEEDS 2 to reflect the priorities in the 7-Point Agenda may have something to do with an unwillingness to carry on an Obasanjo legacy. Which, in relation to many of his actions in economics (rather than politics), may be a mistake.
Commonwealth Games 2014
The Commonwealth Games in 2014 will be staged in Glasgow, Scotland and not Nigeria. Thank God! I have not heard shouts of pain and anguish from any Nigerians (except perhaps the bureaucrats who would have had a lot of contracts to award) since the hosting rights of the 2014 Commonwealth Games went to Glasgow, Scotland. I think we have bigger priorities-power, Niger-Delta, transportation (rail, road and water), rural development, crime and security, education, health, internet connectivity and access, and many more-and I suspect so does the bid committee. I imagine they are telling us to invest on all these and then come back after ten years! No twenty.
Meanwhile can anyone imagine how many jobs will be created if the Abia State Government converted Enyimba FC into a limited liability company, contributed the Enyimba Stadium as its own equity in the business, persuaded all millionaires from Abia to take up N1million equity or more in the company, (and all Aba residents and traders and Enyimba supporters to take up N1,000-N100,000), and then allowed the company to be run as a business enterprise with a professional management team? Can you imagine if the same thing were to happen to Stores, Rangers, 3SC Shooting Stars, Bendel Insurance, Kano Pillars, Sharks, Mighty Jets, Lobi Stars etc? Can you project the increase in gate-takings, merchandise revenue, advertising and co-branding income, facility rentals and broadcast revenue? Unfortunately our sports administrators are too busy fighting over crumbs to see the big picture.
Let’s end the Transition
In May when the new regime was sworn in, my projections to some clients for whom I carried out some scenario planning included a six-month period in which President Yar’adua is still trying to settle into power and wrest full power from the ancien regime. That has come to pass, except that the ‘transition’ period now threatens to be longer. Unfortunately until the intra-regime transition is over, no real policy direction may emerge, square pegs will remain in round holes, foreign and domestic investors may hesitate and adopt a ‘watch-and-see’ attitude and a period of policy drift may unfold. We don’t want that, do we?
What is the Supreme Court saying?
Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.
The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.
Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.
It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.
If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.
The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!
Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.
So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?
I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!
Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.
The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.
Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.
It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.
If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.
The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!
Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.
So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?
I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!
Friday, November 9, 2007
Lessons from the Etteh Affair
Nigeria can finally heave a sigh of relief. The sequence of events that may have started in the Federal House of Representatives as a quarrel between estranged politicians; became a shocking public expenditure scandal; degenerated rapidly into legislative shame-fighting, fisticuffs, riotous and rowdy scenes of confusion and bewilderment, endless adjournments, shouts of “ole ole” (thief thief), opposing groups alternatively either waving miniature national flags or white handkerchiefs; then the death of a member Aminu Safana from the President’s home state of Katsina virtually in the chambers of the House, before its denouement-the resignation under threat of impeachment of ex-Speaker Patricia Olubunmi Etteh and her former deputy, Babangida Nguroje and the election of Hon Dimeji Bankole and Bayero Nafada in their place. At a point some discerning people detected a spiritual battle over Nigeria with spiritual fumigation, “Holy Ghost fire” and spiritual cleansing called into the equation!
The crisis was marked by studied intransigence on the part of the accused Madam, the usual “obey the last order”/garrison approach to politics from an increasingly clueless Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership, a firm posture of non-interference from President Yar’adua and passionate engagement with “Ettehgate” by the Nigerian press and civil society. At the end of it all, I believe our democracy and institution-building is the better off for the unfortunate events of the last three months. What lessons can be learnt from this experience? Does the victory of the will of the Nigerian people in this matter amount to a tactical victory or can this event provide the momentum for a strategic change in the nature of Nigerian democracy? My short answer will be-it depends! It depends on what lessons we internalize and institutionalize from this experience.
First it is clear that the fall of the ex-Speaker happened not just because a group within the House wanted her out. Of course in politics, groups are always entitled to canvass their interests and positions and persuade the rest of society along their preferred platform. In this case the “Integrity Group” prevailed because it convinced Nigerians that an infraction of public accountability and morality (and perhaps law) had occurred. The vast majority of Nigerians upon becoming seised of the facts and the findings of the Idoko Panel which investigated the matter, were convinced that indeed the Speaker had erred and virtually unanimously-Labour, the Media, and civil society all clamoured for her exit. The only entity that unambiguously supported Etteh’s continued stay in office (apart from Adedibu and Dr Frederick Fasheun’s OPC) was the PDP, further affirming its alienation from public opinion and confirming that the soldiers who have seized control of the party are unlikely to ever learn how democracy is practiced.
Nigerians must now seize the momentum. We must closely scrutinize the activities of all elected office holders, not just in the House, but in the Senate, the Presidency, Ministers and Federal Agencies and Corporations, the State Governors, Legislators and Commissioners, and Local Government Councils all over the country. It may indeed be that in the minds of certain stakeholders, the fight was over other interests different from the desire to enthrone probity and public accountability. That is quite possible. But that does not matter. We must now insist that the standards that have been laid down in the Etteh Affair must apply across the board-now and the future. The first step in this direction will be to insist that the bureaucrats in the National Assembly who facilitated, initially defended and perhaps lubricated the wheels of the acts complained of against Patricia Etteh are brought to book. It cannot just end by removing Etteh from office. Disciplinary proceedings must also be pursued against all public servants who may be found liable in this matter. If crimes are deemed to have been committed, the appropriate agencies may also be invited to review the facts accordingly.
Unlike many Nigerians who insisted while the crisis lasted that the President should step in to “remove” Etteh from office, I believe that in this case President Yar’adua did well to leave the House to sort out its problem. We should remember that we complained about ex-President’s Obasanjo’s persistent attempts to impose a leadership on the National Assembly during his two terms in office. The process of building credible and resilient national institutions will not be achieved through short cuts. It is better that the President allowed the House, the Media, and civil society to decide whether the Speaker stays or leaves. Moreover I do not believe the President was that disinterested in the issue. It was probably prudent for the President to exert his influence on the situation through informal rather than through explicit means in the spirit of separation of powers and independence of the legislature.
Many Nigerians initially believed the whole conflict was over “juicy” committees particularly the Appropriation, Niger-Delta, Oil and Gas, Environment and other committees that leaders of the Integrity Group were accustomed to heading in the last eight years. Of course many will be watching to see whether the new leadership in the House will validate this hypothesis. And then there are certain interests who suspect a geo-political agenda, behind Etteh’s problems. Well that remains to be seen. An anti-Obasanjo agenda may of course be discernible, but that is not the same as an anti-Yoruba one. In any event, I know that Yorubas are well able to protect and defend their group interests if such an agenda became emergent. What is clear is that Etteh alienated herself from her initial backers who formed the core of the Integrity Group, but their ability to displace her from office was facilitated because she committed serious errors of judgment if not breaches of due process and perhaps procurement laws.
It has become clear that the PDP cannot play its role of a democratic, people-based ruling party and vehicle for the institutionalization of democratic norms and practices as long as it remains led by its present military-oriented leadership cabal. Quite seriously it was unbelievable that throughout the crisis, the PDP remained totally alienated from the reality of public anger over Ettehgate. It is more absurd that even after Etteh’s forced resignation, the party is said to have asked Etteh to nominate her successor as if the office of Speaker had been personally zoned to her-the same way the party has zoned states, ministries and public corporations to party chieftains and generally behaved as if politics is a process of allocation rather than negotiation, persuasion and consensus. The Integrity Group must count itself lucky to have had such politically inept, insensitive and indeed incompetent opponents to contend with.
We congratulate the House for ignoring such directives and voting for a Speaker of their choice, and sincerely hope that Hon Bankole will live up to the expectations of Nigerians. On a final note, if one combines the posture of the Supreme Court in the Amaechi/Omehia case, with the resolution of the Etteh Affair, and President Yar’adua’s impassioned, frank and powerful speech at the Governor’s Forum, can one detect a breath of fresh air blowing over Nigeria?
Nigeria can finally heave a sigh of relief. The sequence of events that may have started in the Federal House of Representatives as a quarrel between estranged politicians; became a shocking public expenditure scandal; degenerated rapidly into legislative shame-fighting, fisticuffs, riotous and rowdy scenes of confusion and bewilderment, endless adjournments, shouts of “ole ole” (thief thief), opposing groups alternatively either waving miniature national flags or white handkerchiefs; then the death of a member Aminu Safana from the President’s home state of Katsina virtually in the chambers of the House, before its denouement-the resignation under threat of impeachment of ex-Speaker Patricia Olubunmi Etteh and her former deputy, Babangida Nguroje and the election of Hon Dimeji Bankole and Bayero Nafada in their place. At a point some discerning people detected a spiritual battle over Nigeria with spiritual fumigation, “Holy Ghost fire” and spiritual cleansing called into the equation!
The crisis was marked by studied intransigence on the part of the accused Madam, the usual “obey the last order”/garrison approach to politics from an increasingly clueless Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership, a firm posture of non-interference from President Yar’adua and passionate engagement with “Ettehgate” by the Nigerian press and civil society. At the end of it all, I believe our democracy and institution-building is the better off for the unfortunate events of the last three months. What lessons can be learnt from this experience? Does the victory of the will of the Nigerian people in this matter amount to a tactical victory or can this event provide the momentum for a strategic change in the nature of Nigerian democracy? My short answer will be-it depends! It depends on what lessons we internalize and institutionalize from this experience.
First it is clear that the fall of the ex-Speaker happened not just because a group within the House wanted her out. Of course in politics, groups are always entitled to canvass their interests and positions and persuade the rest of society along their preferred platform. In this case the “Integrity Group” prevailed because it convinced Nigerians that an infraction of public accountability and morality (and perhaps law) had occurred. The vast majority of Nigerians upon becoming seised of the facts and the findings of the Idoko Panel which investigated the matter, were convinced that indeed the Speaker had erred and virtually unanimously-Labour, the Media, and civil society all clamoured for her exit. The only entity that unambiguously supported Etteh’s continued stay in office (apart from Adedibu and Dr Frederick Fasheun’s OPC) was the PDP, further affirming its alienation from public opinion and confirming that the soldiers who have seized control of the party are unlikely to ever learn how democracy is practiced.
Nigerians must now seize the momentum. We must closely scrutinize the activities of all elected office holders, not just in the House, but in the Senate, the Presidency, Ministers and Federal Agencies and Corporations, the State Governors, Legislators and Commissioners, and Local Government Councils all over the country. It may indeed be that in the minds of certain stakeholders, the fight was over other interests different from the desire to enthrone probity and public accountability. That is quite possible. But that does not matter. We must now insist that the standards that have been laid down in the Etteh Affair must apply across the board-now and the future. The first step in this direction will be to insist that the bureaucrats in the National Assembly who facilitated, initially defended and perhaps lubricated the wheels of the acts complained of against Patricia Etteh are brought to book. It cannot just end by removing Etteh from office. Disciplinary proceedings must also be pursued against all public servants who may be found liable in this matter. If crimes are deemed to have been committed, the appropriate agencies may also be invited to review the facts accordingly.
Unlike many Nigerians who insisted while the crisis lasted that the President should step in to “remove” Etteh from office, I believe that in this case President Yar’adua did well to leave the House to sort out its problem. We should remember that we complained about ex-President’s Obasanjo’s persistent attempts to impose a leadership on the National Assembly during his two terms in office. The process of building credible and resilient national institutions will not be achieved through short cuts. It is better that the President allowed the House, the Media, and civil society to decide whether the Speaker stays or leaves. Moreover I do not believe the President was that disinterested in the issue. It was probably prudent for the President to exert his influence on the situation through informal rather than through explicit means in the spirit of separation of powers and independence of the legislature.
Many Nigerians initially believed the whole conflict was over “juicy” committees particularly the Appropriation, Niger-Delta, Oil and Gas, Environment and other committees that leaders of the Integrity Group were accustomed to heading in the last eight years. Of course many will be watching to see whether the new leadership in the House will validate this hypothesis. And then there are certain interests who suspect a geo-political agenda, behind Etteh’s problems. Well that remains to be seen. An anti-Obasanjo agenda may of course be discernible, but that is not the same as an anti-Yoruba one. In any event, I know that Yorubas are well able to protect and defend their group interests if such an agenda became emergent. What is clear is that Etteh alienated herself from her initial backers who formed the core of the Integrity Group, but their ability to displace her from office was facilitated because she committed serious errors of judgment if not breaches of due process and perhaps procurement laws.
It has become clear that the PDP cannot play its role of a democratic, people-based ruling party and vehicle for the institutionalization of democratic norms and practices as long as it remains led by its present military-oriented leadership cabal. Quite seriously it was unbelievable that throughout the crisis, the PDP remained totally alienated from the reality of public anger over Ettehgate. It is more absurd that even after Etteh’s forced resignation, the party is said to have asked Etteh to nominate her successor as if the office of Speaker had been personally zoned to her-the same way the party has zoned states, ministries and public corporations to party chieftains and generally behaved as if politics is a process of allocation rather than negotiation, persuasion and consensus. The Integrity Group must count itself lucky to have had such politically inept, insensitive and indeed incompetent opponents to contend with.
We congratulate the House for ignoring such directives and voting for a Speaker of their choice, and sincerely hope that Hon Bankole will live up to the expectations of Nigerians. On a final note, if one combines the posture of the Supreme Court in the Amaechi/Omehia case, with the resolution of the Etteh Affair, and President Yar’adua’s impassioned, frank and powerful speech at the Governor’s Forum, can one detect a breath of fresh air blowing over Nigeria?
Friday, November 2, 2007
What is the Supreme Court saying?
Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.
The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.
Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.
It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.
If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.
The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!
Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.
So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?
I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!
Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.
The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.
Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.
It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.
If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.
The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!
Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.
So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?
I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Adamawa Amusement Park
Lagos is too dry my brother. The governor is too serious. He’s not providing any entertainment, unlike many of his colleagues. He is not even sleeping. Where did Asiwaju find this one Oh? Too, too serious! Since he came in, no fun, no amusement, does he not know that all work and no play, will make Lagosians dull people? Anyway he plays football sha. Well even if he tried to create fun, Lagos people no go laugh. Traffic is too bad! Whether VI, Lekki, Ikorodu Road, Ikorodu Town, Festac, Apapa-na go slow (and armed robbery) full am. No wonder the guy man no dey laugh! Afamako work! Let’s leave him to do the work jare! So we can laugh later. But the First Lady looks quite nice…and so does her smile.
I don’t know what’s going on in Abeokuta these days. Too many “ogbologbo” dey there. Baba Iyabo dey there. Ibikunle Amosun, Segun Osoba, Dipo Dina, Titi Ajanaku all dey there. And Gbenga Daniel still dey there oh. I think a “cold war” is what is going on! But plenty women dey there oh, to cool temper-Deputy-Governor, Speaker, Commissioner(s), Special Adviser, even Ambassador na women oh. OGD, na waoh! Gender sensitivity! Any way like god father, like god son! Give Yeye my deepest regrets. One is company, ten is a large crowd! Anyway the Governor is too busy to notice them-busy building the cargo airport! Ride on OGD.
Ibadan the land of Adedibu and Amala. And Akala! That is the fellow occupying the office Chief Awolowo and Chief Bola Ige once occupied. Eemo wo’lu! Anyway he was a distinguished policeman! And he is a Christian. I was reading the other day that being a policeman and being a Christian are incompatible. You are either one or the other. Well na bad belle people talk am. The police is your best friend, and counselor even. Well the only thing going in Ibadan is strike…, and fighting. Not two-fighting, one fighting everybody! As in Baba Adedibu fighting Ladoja, Adeojo, Olubadan, Chief Kuye, Iyalode, one Mr Oladoja, (in fact) all Ibadan people (except Tokyo and the Gang), AC, ANPP. Even NAFDAC says Adedibu is fighting them oh. I have included a prayer point for Ibadan people in my daily prayers-God please enter into the minds of Tribunal people!
In Ekiti, the drama is over. The AC people in the House have collected their jeeps! Ija ti pari! That means the fight is over, for the uneducated. Ride on Governor Olusegun Oni. Wise man. Now that the Honourables have jeeps, and the Obas have gone to London, will you send all Ekiti indigenes to the Holy Land? That is dividend of democracy! Over to Akure. Evil people say the only question is when, not if. I don’t know what they were talking about, but I sha know they mention Tribunal. But Eddy Olafeso is showing them oh. You know he sabi student union well well. That’s how he showed Soji Omole when we were in Ife. That time they did the election twice, in Ife oh, not Akure oh! Me I won’t talk about Osun oh. Oyinlola versus Aregbesola. Soja jam area boy! Akara mama throway!
They say I am a tribalist, talking about only funny Yoruba Governors. Okay what of Baba Theodore Orji in Abia? Real Baba. What is his official age? Bad belle. The Constitution did not talk about maximum age, only minimum. When he came in evil people say they saw him in white pants swearing for the other Orji. Yes the young Orji-yes Slok Orji. Didn’t you go to school? How can you not know Slok? Yes the accused. Actually both are accused. Baba Orji own better sha-from prison to state house, not from state house to prison! Keep quiet, don’t you want automatic promotion for all? Ride on Father!
Ikedi Ohakim is the reigning fine boy sha oh. He is greening Imo State. And grinning from Owerri to America. He certainly is not a “silent underachiever” like Achike. The first Lady sef na fine Lady. But there is no fun in Enugu oh. Chime do Chimaroke as Chimaroke do Nwobodo. The thing dey pain oh! Now Chimaroke will show Chime that Ebeano is different from other failed godfathers. There should be honour in the House of Ebeano, shouldn’t there? Well they say there is no first lady in Enugu, in line with Ebeano tradition, so policy continuity dey that one! And there is a new home movie-“War in Ebonyi: Anyim versus Egwu: Part 2”. Contact 77 Ebimpejo Lane or Senator Ahmadu Ali for the winner.
What is happening in “South-South”? Me I no know. All I know is that all the former godfathers have lawyers who are very busy. They have injunctions to file, aero planes to register, British Metropolitan Police to fight, AG to consult, press statements to write, Nuhu Ribadu….Oh God. Do not mention that name in the South-South. That name is persona non grata in the Niger-Delta. He is an enemy of “Resource Control”. Why should small Fulani boy from Adamawa be telling Ijaw, Urhobo, Ibibio and Rivers people how to control their money? Danburumba shege! Shege Nuhu Ribadu. Bla Bla Bla. (Note* A medical condition Nuhu Neurosis has just been discovered. Two Nigerian medical doctors-P Odili and E Uduaghan have been awarded the British Met DSP Prize in honour of their pioneering work in this regard. The AG has agreed to issue a patent. Symptoms include paranoia and extreme discomfort once the word “Nuhu” is mentioned).
Talking about Adamawa people, there is another medical discovery from Adamawa. If you want to avoid hypertension, stress, high blood pressure or other headache-inducing conditions, then visit the Adamawa Amusement Park. It’s a very large territory presided over by the Nigerian Navy, with help from the Owu Army and INEC. There is always enough laughter. A well-respected medical doctor, Ambassador, Senator, Vice Chancellor and Professor played a key role in the development of this park. Even the PDP has peculiar rules for this place. When they were conducting primaries all over the country, they didn’t bother in Adamawa. Same thing when they are choosing Ministers. There is usually no election in the Park. Just cancel all the opponents, and declare a walk-over, technical knock-out. And then demote the Deputy-Governor to Chief of Staff. Drama!
But there are rules. Do not come alone. Do not come with one girlfriend or wife. Come with several. You will allocate the twenty-four hours of the day into four six-hour slots and catch your fun turn-by-turn! Fine boy; no cheating. Don’t mind trouble makers. They want you to make a mistake so that there will be domestic crisis. So they can file impeachment motion or declare state of emergency. Foolish people. They don’t know marriage is politics! As we were going to press, I learnt the governor has appointed 700 Special Assistants! Excellent, that’s poverty eradication-1 Governor; 3 Senators; 4 Ladies; 21 Local Governments; 700 Assistants; one opposition “Honourable” said “taking away 700 jobless people from the street brings positive changes…it reduces youth restiveness, crimes and other social vices, so I want the governor to make more appointments”. Ride on Sailor! Soon every body in Adamawa will have a job. http://opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com.
Lagos is too dry my brother. The governor is too serious. He’s not providing any entertainment, unlike many of his colleagues. He is not even sleeping. Where did Asiwaju find this one Oh? Too, too serious! Since he came in, no fun, no amusement, does he not know that all work and no play, will make Lagosians dull people? Anyway he plays football sha. Well even if he tried to create fun, Lagos people no go laugh. Traffic is too bad! Whether VI, Lekki, Ikorodu Road, Ikorodu Town, Festac, Apapa-na go slow (and armed robbery) full am. No wonder the guy man no dey laugh! Afamako work! Let’s leave him to do the work jare! So we can laugh later. But the First Lady looks quite nice…and so does her smile.
I don’t know what’s going on in Abeokuta these days. Too many “ogbologbo” dey there. Baba Iyabo dey there. Ibikunle Amosun, Segun Osoba, Dipo Dina, Titi Ajanaku all dey there. And Gbenga Daniel still dey there oh. I think a “cold war” is what is going on! But plenty women dey there oh, to cool temper-Deputy-Governor, Speaker, Commissioner(s), Special Adviser, even Ambassador na women oh. OGD, na waoh! Gender sensitivity! Any way like god father, like god son! Give Yeye my deepest regrets. One is company, ten is a large crowd! Anyway the Governor is too busy to notice them-busy building the cargo airport! Ride on OGD.
Ibadan the land of Adedibu and Amala. And Akala! That is the fellow occupying the office Chief Awolowo and Chief Bola Ige once occupied. Eemo wo’lu! Anyway he was a distinguished policeman! And he is a Christian. I was reading the other day that being a policeman and being a Christian are incompatible. You are either one or the other. Well na bad belle people talk am. The police is your best friend, and counselor even. Well the only thing going in Ibadan is strike…, and fighting. Not two-fighting, one fighting everybody! As in Baba Adedibu fighting Ladoja, Adeojo, Olubadan, Chief Kuye, Iyalode, one Mr Oladoja, (in fact) all Ibadan people (except Tokyo and the Gang), AC, ANPP. Even NAFDAC says Adedibu is fighting them oh. I have included a prayer point for Ibadan people in my daily prayers-God please enter into the minds of Tribunal people!
In Ekiti, the drama is over. The AC people in the House have collected their jeeps! Ija ti pari! That means the fight is over, for the uneducated. Ride on Governor Olusegun Oni. Wise man. Now that the Honourables have jeeps, and the Obas have gone to London, will you send all Ekiti indigenes to the Holy Land? That is dividend of democracy! Over to Akure. Evil people say the only question is when, not if. I don’t know what they were talking about, but I sha know they mention Tribunal. But Eddy Olafeso is showing them oh. You know he sabi student union well well. That’s how he showed Soji Omole when we were in Ife. That time they did the election twice, in Ife oh, not Akure oh! Me I won’t talk about Osun oh. Oyinlola versus Aregbesola. Soja jam area boy! Akara mama throway!
They say I am a tribalist, talking about only funny Yoruba Governors. Okay what of Baba Theodore Orji in Abia? Real Baba. What is his official age? Bad belle. The Constitution did not talk about maximum age, only minimum. When he came in evil people say they saw him in white pants swearing for the other Orji. Yes the young Orji-yes Slok Orji. Didn’t you go to school? How can you not know Slok? Yes the accused. Actually both are accused. Baba Orji own better sha-from prison to state house, not from state house to prison! Keep quiet, don’t you want automatic promotion for all? Ride on Father!
Ikedi Ohakim is the reigning fine boy sha oh. He is greening Imo State. And grinning from Owerri to America. He certainly is not a “silent underachiever” like Achike. The first Lady sef na fine Lady. But there is no fun in Enugu oh. Chime do Chimaroke as Chimaroke do Nwobodo. The thing dey pain oh! Now Chimaroke will show Chime that Ebeano is different from other failed godfathers. There should be honour in the House of Ebeano, shouldn’t there? Well they say there is no first lady in Enugu, in line with Ebeano tradition, so policy continuity dey that one! And there is a new home movie-“War in Ebonyi: Anyim versus Egwu: Part 2”. Contact 77 Ebimpejo Lane or Senator Ahmadu Ali for the winner.
What is happening in “South-South”? Me I no know. All I know is that all the former godfathers have lawyers who are very busy. They have injunctions to file, aero planes to register, British Metropolitan Police to fight, AG to consult, press statements to write, Nuhu Ribadu….Oh God. Do not mention that name in the South-South. That name is persona non grata in the Niger-Delta. He is an enemy of “Resource Control”. Why should small Fulani boy from Adamawa be telling Ijaw, Urhobo, Ibibio and Rivers people how to control their money? Danburumba shege! Shege Nuhu Ribadu. Bla Bla Bla. (Note* A medical condition Nuhu Neurosis has just been discovered. Two Nigerian medical doctors-P Odili and E Uduaghan have been awarded the British Met DSP Prize in honour of their pioneering work in this regard. The AG has agreed to issue a patent. Symptoms include paranoia and extreme discomfort once the word “Nuhu” is mentioned).
Talking about Adamawa people, there is another medical discovery from Adamawa. If you want to avoid hypertension, stress, high blood pressure or other headache-inducing conditions, then visit the Adamawa Amusement Park. It’s a very large territory presided over by the Nigerian Navy, with help from the Owu Army and INEC. There is always enough laughter. A well-respected medical doctor, Ambassador, Senator, Vice Chancellor and Professor played a key role in the development of this park. Even the PDP has peculiar rules for this place. When they were conducting primaries all over the country, they didn’t bother in Adamawa. Same thing when they are choosing Ministers. There is usually no election in the Park. Just cancel all the opponents, and declare a walk-over, technical knock-out. And then demote the Deputy-Governor to Chief of Staff. Drama!
But there are rules. Do not come alone. Do not come with one girlfriend or wife. Come with several. You will allocate the twenty-four hours of the day into four six-hour slots and catch your fun turn-by-turn! Fine boy; no cheating. Don’t mind trouble makers. They want you to make a mistake so that there will be domestic crisis. So they can file impeachment motion or declare state of emergency. Foolish people. They don’t know marriage is politics! As we were going to press, I learnt the governor has appointed 700 Special Assistants! Excellent, that’s poverty eradication-1 Governor; 3 Senators; 4 Ladies; 21 Local Governments; 700 Assistants; one opposition “Honourable” said “taking away 700 jobless people from the street brings positive changes…it reduces youth restiveness, crimes and other social vices, so I want the governor to make more appointments”. Ride on Sailor! Soon every body in Adamawa will have a job. http://opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com.
Corruption wins the War!!
Part 2
Last week this column lamented that it is safe to assert that Nigeria appears to be losing the anti-corruption war. Indeed I argued that the only war I could see is a serious offensive against the EFCC and the concept of anti-corruption itself. And the portents appeared to be that the institutions of a corrupt establishment were overwhelming the anti-corruption forces. The more regrettable development is that the concept of the rule of law has now become the banner under which corrupt persons hide to evade justice and in furtherance of this “rule of law”, former political office holders have begun to secure injunctions to prevent their arrest, investigation and trial. The issue is fundamental enough to the future of the Nigerian state to warrant further examination.
Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proclaims as a “Fundamental Objective and Directive Principle of State Policy” that “The State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” That is an integral part of the rule of law in Nigeria! The same constitution demands in Section 1(1) that “its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and mandates the President as the custodian of the executive powers of the state to execute and maintain the provisions of the Constitution and all laws made by the National Assembly (which we note includes the EFCC and ICPC Acts, and the Criminal and Penal Codes-all of which prohibit and punish corrupt practices). Again we re-state that the anti-corruption fight is part of the rule of law in Nigeria!!
The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be “above the fray” as regards the anti-corruption war. He is constitutionally bound in line with the real rule of law and the Constitution to be actively engaged in a fight to abolish corrupt practices in line with section 15(5) referred to above. He is not a neutral party who passively watches to see how the “rule of law” will decide the matter. The fundamental human rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution guarantee in Section 36 to every Nigerian the right to fair hearing “within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. The reasonable expectation of the “rule of law” in Nigeria is that every citizen will be interested in securing an EARLY trial before a legally established court that is independent and impartial. The rule of law does not envisage that any citizen will seek to delay or prevent his day in court. There is no fundamental human right against investigation, arrest or trial in Nigerian law!
Far from the pessimism I may have communicated last week however I believe the system may be under-estimating the resolve, and the anger of the Nigerian people against corruption. I believe, as the media has demonstrated in the last one week that when it comes to the crunch, Nigerians will rise up against corrupt practices and eventually we will prevail. The international community, as the British are also demonstrating, may not roll-over easily and give up on Nigerian corruption. Nigeria is a country of 140 million people, with a potentially explosive ethnic and religious internal configuration. The world has a stake in ensuring that Nigeria does not become a failed state, and the biggest threat to the future of the Nigerian state is corruption. It is because of corruption that poverty, decay and disillusion is ravaging the land.
One topic that is relevant to the corruption discussion is the personal disinclination of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua towards corruption. Of course it is good that our President is a simple, honest and even austere individual who demonstrated in eight years as Katsina State Governor his personal abhorrence of corruption and abuse of office. That is precisely why many Nigerians, not least your columnist hope that his regime will be the decisive turning point in the destiny of this nation. That hope remains, even though we are concerned about the existing policy vacuum, and potential policy anarchy-in which each Minister or departmental head formulates their own policy along the way. However I expect the President’s economic team (the core of which I regard as competent and committed) to fill the policy vacuum with a clear and coherent economic and policy framework within the next few months.
But it is possible to have a divergence between the personal inclinations of a leader and the inclinations and actions of political regimes, and Nigerian history conclusively establishes that point. I have never heard anyone accuse Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto of corruption. Rather history records that these leaders, who were the dominant personalities of the first republic were quite poor, if not penurious at the time of their death in the January 1966 coup. Yet history records that the seeds of corruption in Nigerian governance were sown in that era, and certain of the Ministers of that regime were undoubtedly working to expand their personal financial empires rather that ministering to the needs of the Nigerian people.
General Yakubu Gowon contrary to the initial propaganda about hotels in France and whatever has turned out to be a humble man of quite modest means. And Alhaji Shehu Shagari who presided over the notorious second republic is actually a very modest, austere and religious man with no evidence of any stupendous wealth around him. So the point is, it is perfectly possible for a president’s personal behaviour and inclinations not to permeate into the character of a regime. Political regimes are more socially and institutionally complex and a leader who wishes to stamp his personal preferences on a regime he leads must actively shape the character of that regime.
A final point I will like to highlight is the need to change the tenor of the conversation about corruption. It is about a return to the right societal value systems, and that is inextricably bound up with the language around corruption. Let us no longer refer to people as corrupt, but as “thieves”; let us no longer talk about corruption but “stealing”, “theft”, even “robbery” or “brigandage”; lets not say people have “made” money in government, lets say they have “looted” the people’s heritage; if you know any banker or company executive who has stolen depositors’ or investors’ funds, lets call him a “petty thief” which is what he really is, rather than someone who has “finished the job”; if we know of apparently religious people who deceive and hold their congregation in bondage and practice various forms of manipulation and witchcraft lets stop calling them “pastor”-we can signal that we are not deceived by calling them “Mister” or “Doctor” or “Chief” or “Director” or whatever else, but not “pastor”. Let’s call corruption its true name!
Part 2
Last week this column lamented that it is safe to assert that Nigeria appears to be losing the anti-corruption war. Indeed I argued that the only war I could see is a serious offensive against the EFCC and the concept of anti-corruption itself. And the portents appeared to be that the institutions of a corrupt establishment were overwhelming the anti-corruption forces. The more regrettable development is that the concept of the rule of law has now become the banner under which corrupt persons hide to evade justice and in furtherance of this “rule of law”, former political office holders have begun to secure injunctions to prevent their arrest, investigation and trial. The issue is fundamental enough to the future of the Nigerian state to warrant further examination.
Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proclaims as a “Fundamental Objective and Directive Principle of State Policy” that “The State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” That is an integral part of the rule of law in Nigeria! The same constitution demands in Section 1(1) that “its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and mandates the President as the custodian of the executive powers of the state to execute and maintain the provisions of the Constitution and all laws made by the National Assembly (which we note includes the EFCC and ICPC Acts, and the Criminal and Penal Codes-all of which prohibit and punish corrupt practices). Again we re-state that the anti-corruption fight is part of the rule of law in Nigeria!!
The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be “above the fray” as regards the anti-corruption war. He is constitutionally bound in line with the real rule of law and the Constitution to be actively engaged in a fight to abolish corrupt practices in line with section 15(5) referred to above. He is not a neutral party who passively watches to see how the “rule of law” will decide the matter. The fundamental human rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution guarantee in Section 36 to every Nigerian the right to fair hearing “within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. The reasonable expectation of the “rule of law” in Nigeria is that every citizen will be interested in securing an EARLY trial before a legally established court that is independent and impartial. The rule of law does not envisage that any citizen will seek to delay or prevent his day in court. There is no fundamental human right against investigation, arrest or trial in Nigerian law!
Far from the pessimism I may have communicated last week however I believe the system may be under-estimating the resolve, and the anger of the Nigerian people against corruption. I believe, as the media has demonstrated in the last one week that when it comes to the crunch, Nigerians will rise up against corrupt practices and eventually we will prevail. The international community, as the British are also demonstrating, may not roll-over easily and give up on Nigerian corruption. Nigeria is a country of 140 million people, with a potentially explosive ethnic and religious internal configuration. The world has a stake in ensuring that Nigeria does not become a failed state, and the biggest threat to the future of the Nigerian state is corruption. It is because of corruption that poverty, decay and disillusion is ravaging the land.
One topic that is relevant to the corruption discussion is the personal disinclination of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua towards corruption. Of course it is good that our President is a simple, honest and even austere individual who demonstrated in eight years as Katsina State Governor his personal abhorrence of corruption and abuse of office. That is precisely why many Nigerians, not least your columnist hope that his regime will be the decisive turning point in the destiny of this nation. That hope remains, even though we are concerned about the existing policy vacuum, and potential policy anarchy-in which each Minister or departmental head formulates their own policy along the way. However I expect the President’s economic team (the core of which I regard as competent and committed) to fill the policy vacuum with a clear and coherent economic and policy framework within the next few months.
But it is possible to have a divergence between the personal inclinations of a leader and the inclinations and actions of political regimes, and Nigerian history conclusively establishes that point. I have never heard anyone accuse Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto of corruption. Rather history records that these leaders, who were the dominant personalities of the first republic were quite poor, if not penurious at the time of their death in the January 1966 coup. Yet history records that the seeds of corruption in Nigerian governance were sown in that era, and certain of the Ministers of that regime were undoubtedly working to expand their personal financial empires rather that ministering to the needs of the Nigerian people.
General Yakubu Gowon contrary to the initial propaganda about hotels in France and whatever has turned out to be a humble man of quite modest means. And Alhaji Shehu Shagari who presided over the notorious second republic is actually a very modest, austere and religious man with no evidence of any stupendous wealth around him. So the point is, it is perfectly possible for a president’s personal behaviour and inclinations not to permeate into the character of a regime. Political regimes are more socially and institutionally complex and a leader who wishes to stamp his personal preferences on a regime he leads must actively shape the character of that regime.
A final point I will like to highlight is the need to change the tenor of the conversation about corruption. It is about a return to the right societal value systems, and that is inextricably bound up with the language around corruption. Let us no longer refer to people as corrupt, but as “thieves”; let us no longer talk about corruption but “stealing”, “theft”, even “robbery” or “brigandage”; lets not say people have “made” money in government, lets say they have “looted” the people’s heritage; if you know any banker or company executive who has stolen depositors’ or investors’ funds, lets call him a “petty thief” which is what he really is, rather than someone who has “finished the job”; if we know of apparently religious people who deceive and hold their congregation in bondage and practice various forms of manipulation and witchcraft lets stop calling them “pastor”-we can signal that we are not deceived by calling them “Mister” or “Doctor” or “Chief” or “Director” or whatever else, but not “pastor”. Let’s call corruption its true name!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Corruption wins the War!
Last week in “National Definitions”, I indicated that the concept of rule of law does not exist in an ideological vacuum. I said it is used to protect or preserve a certain viewpoint about how society should be ordered. I specifically included the possibility (in so many words) that “rule of law” could actually be an instrument of preserving corruptly acquired assets in the hand of the corrupt. In a previous week, I indicated that this column will wait till December 2007 before it forms an opinion on the direction of the Yar’adua presidency. Well now the column will now modify that position…at least in relation to the anti-corruption “war” and the so-called zero tolerance position against corruption claimed by this regime.
The modification the column now makes is to the effect that we propose to wait until December 2007 before we come to a position on the Yaradua Presidency, only if such a position is not apparent before then. The implication of this modification is that if the government’s policy direction in respect of any particular matter (judged by its actions and not its words) is clear and unambiguous before December, we will express our opinion and point it out to our readers before then. So what’s the point of all this? Well this column believes that at least in respect of the anti-corruption issue, this government’s inclinations are now very clear, on the basis of which we make the tentative propositions contained in the next paragraph.
This government will NOT fight corruption. This government WILL actively protect certain persons, particularly the ex-governors who may have corruption cases to answer for their activities in office up till May 2007. The Attorney-General of the Federation can be presumed to be acting either on the explicit or implicit instructions of his boss-the President-in his actions in respect of the EFCC and the anti-corruption issue in general. Sooner rather than later, the current head of the EFCC will either be fired, or will get the message and tone down his rhetoric in line with the apparent inclination of the government of which he is a part. The international community will also get the point (as the British Government may already have gotten) and recognize that the Nigerian Government has little, if any commitment to the anti-corruption war. We may also imply from the evidence that perhaps contrary to any denials, there may have been an amnesty deal on corruption as part of the bargaining for the 2007 elections.
The evidence for the propositions advanced above are accumulating by the day. The first substantive action taken by the federal Attorney-General was to attempt to withdraw the power of prosecution possessed by the EFCC and the ICPC. The memo to this effect was approved by the President indicating that but for the fact that it later emerged that this action was contrary to the express judgment of the Supreme Court in Osahon vs The State, the President was in support of a withdrawal of the EFCC’s power of prosecution. The attempt to withdraw the EFCC’s power of prosecution was evidence enough of this government’s disposition to the anti-corruption “war”, but then additional evidence has since been offered.
The Attorney-General then sought to take over the EFCC’s prosecution of ex-Governor Orji Uzor Kalu for corruption. It is important to note that Orji Kalu’s political party-the Progressive Parties Alliance (PPA)-is a coalition partner of the president’s PDP (having agreed to take part in Yar’adua’s Unity Government) and has just had a member nominated as a Minister in the government. It is also clear that the sole purpose of the Attorney-General’s attempted take-over of that case was in order to discontinue the prosecution allegedly on the grounds that it was in contravention of a court order. This action was taken without a dialogue with the EFCC on the matter, without an advice to the EFCC and without exploring what legal actions could be taken to over turn the purported court order. There is also information (which has not been denied by the Presidency) that upon securing bail from the Court, Orji Kalu visited the President in Abuja before the Attorney-General took the actions mentioned above. The Presidency has not disclosed the nature of the discussions with Kalu during the visit.
Now we know that a London Court’s dismissal of the asset forfeiture (or restraining) case involving ex-governor James Ibori (famously referred to by his friends and gubernatorial colleagues as the “Oil Sheik”) was assisted by or based upon a letter written by the same federal Attorney-General informing the Court that Ibori had no case to answer in Nigeria. There have also been suggestions that President Yar’adua met some ex-Governors perhaps including Ibori himself in New York during his maiden trip to the United Nations. Earlier ex-Governor DSP Alamieyesegha got a very lenient plea bargain (which I supported at the time until the pattern now emerging) which ensured that he was immediately set free, after which he rode heroically into Yenagoa. There are news reports that ex-Governor Joshua Dariye feels so confident of the absence of repercussions that he has basically written a confessional letter to the President!
One observes also that one issue on which the political class is united is on corruption. I have noticed with amusement that the only time the very articulate Action Congress spokesman, Alhaji Lai Muhammad has agreed with the PDP since he took up his job has been with respect to the EFCC. I notice also that certain well-reputed lawyers (who do not disclose to the public that they happen to be retained as lawyers by highly-placed persons accused of corruption or their friends) have also become the main critiques-in-chief of the EFCC, thus advertently or inadvertently helping to ensure the victory of corruption over Nigeria. The facts above entitle any objective and unromantic observer to at the very least remove any presumptions in favour of a momentum against corruption. The only war I have observed going on is a war against the EFCC, or perhaps a war against anti-corruption. For now corruption appears to have won the war!
Last week in “National Definitions”, I indicated that the concept of rule of law does not exist in an ideological vacuum. I said it is used to protect or preserve a certain viewpoint about how society should be ordered. I specifically included the possibility (in so many words) that “rule of law” could actually be an instrument of preserving corruptly acquired assets in the hand of the corrupt. In a previous week, I indicated that this column will wait till December 2007 before it forms an opinion on the direction of the Yar’adua presidency. Well now the column will now modify that position…at least in relation to the anti-corruption “war” and the so-called zero tolerance position against corruption claimed by this regime.
The modification the column now makes is to the effect that we propose to wait until December 2007 before we come to a position on the Yaradua Presidency, only if such a position is not apparent before then. The implication of this modification is that if the government’s policy direction in respect of any particular matter (judged by its actions and not its words) is clear and unambiguous before December, we will express our opinion and point it out to our readers before then. So what’s the point of all this? Well this column believes that at least in respect of the anti-corruption issue, this government’s inclinations are now very clear, on the basis of which we make the tentative propositions contained in the next paragraph.
This government will NOT fight corruption. This government WILL actively protect certain persons, particularly the ex-governors who may have corruption cases to answer for their activities in office up till May 2007. The Attorney-General of the Federation can be presumed to be acting either on the explicit or implicit instructions of his boss-the President-in his actions in respect of the EFCC and the anti-corruption issue in general. Sooner rather than later, the current head of the EFCC will either be fired, or will get the message and tone down his rhetoric in line with the apparent inclination of the government of which he is a part. The international community will also get the point (as the British Government may already have gotten) and recognize that the Nigerian Government has little, if any commitment to the anti-corruption war. We may also imply from the evidence that perhaps contrary to any denials, there may have been an amnesty deal on corruption as part of the bargaining for the 2007 elections.
The evidence for the propositions advanced above are accumulating by the day. The first substantive action taken by the federal Attorney-General was to attempt to withdraw the power of prosecution possessed by the EFCC and the ICPC. The memo to this effect was approved by the President indicating that but for the fact that it later emerged that this action was contrary to the express judgment of the Supreme Court in Osahon vs The State, the President was in support of a withdrawal of the EFCC’s power of prosecution. The attempt to withdraw the EFCC’s power of prosecution was evidence enough of this government’s disposition to the anti-corruption “war”, but then additional evidence has since been offered.
The Attorney-General then sought to take over the EFCC’s prosecution of ex-Governor Orji Uzor Kalu for corruption. It is important to note that Orji Kalu’s political party-the Progressive Parties Alliance (PPA)-is a coalition partner of the president’s PDP (having agreed to take part in Yar’adua’s Unity Government) and has just had a member nominated as a Minister in the government. It is also clear that the sole purpose of the Attorney-General’s attempted take-over of that case was in order to discontinue the prosecution allegedly on the grounds that it was in contravention of a court order. This action was taken without a dialogue with the EFCC on the matter, without an advice to the EFCC and without exploring what legal actions could be taken to over turn the purported court order. There is also information (which has not been denied by the Presidency) that upon securing bail from the Court, Orji Kalu visited the President in Abuja before the Attorney-General took the actions mentioned above. The Presidency has not disclosed the nature of the discussions with Kalu during the visit.
Now we know that a London Court’s dismissal of the asset forfeiture (or restraining) case involving ex-governor James Ibori (famously referred to by his friends and gubernatorial colleagues as the “Oil Sheik”) was assisted by or based upon a letter written by the same federal Attorney-General informing the Court that Ibori had no case to answer in Nigeria. There have also been suggestions that President Yar’adua met some ex-Governors perhaps including Ibori himself in New York during his maiden trip to the United Nations. Earlier ex-Governor DSP Alamieyesegha got a very lenient plea bargain (which I supported at the time until the pattern now emerging) which ensured that he was immediately set free, after which he rode heroically into Yenagoa. There are news reports that ex-Governor Joshua Dariye feels so confident of the absence of repercussions that he has basically written a confessional letter to the President!
One observes also that one issue on which the political class is united is on corruption. I have noticed with amusement that the only time the very articulate Action Congress spokesman, Alhaji Lai Muhammad has agreed with the PDP since he took up his job has been with respect to the EFCC. I notice also that certain well-reputed lawyers (who do not disclose to the public that they happen to be retained as lawyers by highly-placed persons accused of corruption or their friends) have also become the main critiques-in-chief of the EFCC, thus advertently or inadvertently helping to ensure the victory of corruption over Nigeria. The facts above entitle any objective and unromantic observer to at the very least remove any presumptions in favour of a momentum against corruption. The only war I have observed going on is a war against the EFCC, or perhaps a war against anti-corruption. For now corruption appears to have won the war!
National Definitions
Followers of this column should be familiar with our strange dictionary and the definitions contained therein. In the spirit of our forty-seventh independence celebrations, it was appropriate to consult the dictionary for clarity on some of our national words and concepts.
Independence:-The process by which we exchanged white colonial administrators for indigenous ones. The local colonial masters were first elected, then self-appointed through force of arms, and now they are selected on our behalf by whoever is the current colonialist, his Police “Force”, his internal security agencies and an administrator who he appoints and designates as independent electoral umpire.
Independence Day:- Following from the definition above, the day in 1960 when white colonial officers vacated their offices and residences in various GRAs across the country and those offices and residences were occupied by their Nigerian equivalents. On that day also poor school children and hapless workers who had previously being compelled to march in salute to the erstwhile colonial power are similarly made to march in salute to the new masters.
GRA:- means Government Reservation Area. These areas were initially created to separate British colonial officers from the natives. The British officers had good reasons to be fearful for their safety since they were an imperial occupying power. Leaders freely elected by the people normally should have no such fears.
Agriculture:- this used to be the economic mainstay of the Nigerian nation. A combination of factors-exploitation of hardworking farmers whose legitimate incomes were expropriated by regional governments after “independence”; the discovery of oil which distorted the structure and incentive systems in the economy; an over-valued exchange rate regime which penalized producers (of which farmers were a predominant category) and rewarded importers, consumers, government workers and city-dwellers); the failure to make the necessary transition from raw agricultural production to processing etc-has since changed that.
Military Coup:- An event usually planned and executed by a few soldiers, who substitute their will for that of the entire population. When the coup succeeds, the officers become the government! In the peculiarly Nigerian variant, the actual planners usually never get into office-Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna plan and Ironsi becomes Head of State; Murtala Muhammad and Danjuma plan and Gowon become Head of State; Babangida/Yaradua/Joe Garba etal plan and Muhammad/Obasanjo/Danjuma come into power; Dimka’s coup fails and Obasanjo becomes Head of State; Babangida plans and Buhari/Idiagbon take power. The only exceptions are Babangida and Abacha who take and (attempt) to keep the power!
Counter-Coup:- (Do me I do you, God no go vex!) When a military coup happens, we count the dead bodies. If the body count is disproportionately weighted against one side, that side stages a counter-coup to balance the equation. The concept is best illustrated by the events of July 29, 1966 which eventually led to civil war. Morale-in Nigeria, when you plan a coup (whether military or civilian), make sure the victims are uniformly spread in line with federal character!
Democracy:- A concept that Nigeria finds uniquely difficult to adapt to. It used to be imagined that this difficulty was common to all black and African people, but now strangely countries like Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, South-Africa, Botswana, and Tanzania seem to be quite comfortable with the practice. Even Sierra-Leone recently demonstrated that there is nothing inherently un-African about democracy.
Elections:- A corollary of the word above. For you to have a democracy, you must have elections, of a free and fair variety. A recent PhD thesis which attempts to explain the Nigerian difficulty with elections and all related concepts (democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law, separation of powers, press freedom, independent judiciary) asserts that in Ibadan and apparently the whole of Nigeria, the people are more attuned to rule by a garrison chief. As you know, nobody votes in military garrisons! The rule in garrisons, (which is incompatible with the notion of elections) is “obey the last order!” The proponent of this thesis has recently being appointed an ambassador. He has agreed to be posted to Myanmar (Burma), a garrison-country ruled by military men to further develop his thesis.
Rule of Law:- A concept which as mentioned above, is related to the concept of democracy. In the absence of rule of law, there is a tendency to anarchy and rule of might. The concept however does not operate in an ideological vacuum. On its own, it does not mean much. To illustrate, suppose based on this column’s extensive connections with Senator David Mark, Mrs Patricia Etteh and His Excellency Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’adua, a law is made making it compulsory for all newspaper readers to pay N628 (not million Oh!) into this columnist’s current account every day, will you readers feel compelled to comply with this “rule of law”? The rule of law is used to protect and preserve a certain view point about how society should be ordered. It may be used to preserve stolen assets in the hands of thieves or to reform society and institute a moral order.
Under-17:- It does not refer to age. It refers to your level of professional accomplishment. If an under-17 contest is organized, you are free to take part even if your age is closer to 25, so long as you are still a home-based player, and have access to shaving powder. The same philosophy applies in the civil service, except that in that context, you do not need shaving powder. All you need is to still be able to walk, and to have access to a commissioner for oaths.
BRF-May mean Babatunde Raji Fashola or Brighter Rewarding Future, or both. The first appears to be working quite hard to create the second.
Servant-Leader:- A promising concept that if true, implies that Nigeria may do well in the next few years. The idea connotes service, accountability, honesty, and commitment. It implies leadership based on values rather than power. But it does not automatically connote policy, vision and direction. That may come from the seven-point agenda after it is turned into an actionable construct. The taste of this pudding shall be in the eating.
Followers of this column should be familiar with our strange dictionary and the definitions contained therein. In the spirit of our forty-seventh independence celebrations, it was appropriate to consult the dictionary for clarity on some of our national words and concepts.
Independence:-The process by which we exchanged white colonial administrators for indigenous ones. The local colonial masters were first elected, then self-appointed through force of arms, and now they are selected on our behalf by whoever is the current colonialist, his Police “Force”, his internal security agencies and an administrator who he appoints and designates as independent electoral umpire.
Independence Day:- Following from the definition above, the day in 1960 when white colonial officers vacated their offices and residences in various GRAs across the country and those offices and residences were occupied by their Nigerian equivalents. On that day also poor school children and hapless workers who had previously being compelled to march in salute to the erstwhile colonial power are similarly made to march in salute to the new masters.
GRA:- means Government Reservation Area. These areas were initially created to separate British colonial officers from the natives. The British officers had good reasons to be fearful for their safety since they were an imperial occupying power. Leaders freely elected by the people normally should have no such fears.
Agriculture:- this used to be the economic mainstay of the Nigerian nation. A combination of factors-exploitation of hardworking farmers whose legitimate incomes were expropriated by regional governments after “independence”; the discovery of oil which distorted the structure and incentive systems in the economy; an over-valued exchange rate regime which penalized producers (of which farmers were a predominant category) and rewarded importers, consumers, government workers and city-dwellers); the failure to make the necessary transition from raw agricultural production to processing etc-has since changed that.
Military Coup:- An event usually planned and executed by a few soldiers, who substitute their will for that of the entire population. When the coup succeeds, the officers become the government! In the peculiarly Nigerian variant, the actual planners usually never get into office-Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna plan and Ironsi becomes Head of State; Murtala Muhammad and Danjuma plan and Gowon become Head of State; Babangida/Yaradua/Joe Garba etal plan and Muhammad/Obasanjo/Danjuma come into power; Dimka’s coup fails and Obasanjo becomes Head of State; Babangida plans and Buhari/Idiagbon take power. The only exceptions are Babangida and Abacha who take and (attempt) to keep the power!
Counter-Coup:- (Do me I do you, God no go vex!) When a military coup happens, we count the dead bodies. If the body count is disproportionately weighted against one side, that side stages a counter-coup to balance the equation. The concept is best illustrated by the events of July 29, 1966 which eventually led to civil war. Morale-in Nigeria, when you plan a coup (whether military or civilian), make sure the victims are uniformly spread in line with federal character!
Democracy:- A concept that Nigeria finds uniquely difficult to adapt to. It used to be imagined that this difficulty was common to all black and African people, but now strangely countries like Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, South-Africa, Botswana, and Tanzania seem to be quite comfortable with the practice. Even Sierra-Leone recently demonstrated that there is nothing inherently un-African about democracy.
Elections:- A corollary of the word above. For you to have a democracy, you must have elections, of a free and fair variety. A recent PhD thesis which attempts to explain the Nigerian difficulty with elections and all related concepts (democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law, separation of powers, press freedom, independent judiciary) asserts that in Ibadan and apparently the whole of Nigeria, the people are more attuned to rule by a garrison chief. As you know, nobody votes in military garrisons! The rule in garrisons, (which is incompatible with the notion of elections) is “obey the last order!” The proponent of this thesis has recently being appointed an ambassador. He has agreed to be posted to Myanmar (Burma), a garrison-country ruled by military men to further develop his thesis.
Rule of Law:- A concept which as mentioned above, is related to the concept of democracy. In the absence of rule of law, there is a tendency to anarchy and rule of might. The concept however does not operate in an ideological vacuum. On its own, it does not mean much. To illustrate, suppose based on this column’s extensive connections with Senator David Mark, Mrs Patricia Etteh and His Excellency Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’adua, a law is made making it compulsory for all newspaper readers to pay N628 (not million Oh!) into this columnist’s current account every day, will you readers feel compelled to comply with this “rule of law”? The rule of law is used to protect and preserve a certain view point about how society should be ordered. It may be used to preserve stolen assets in the hands of thieves or to reform society and institute a moral order.
Under-17:- It does not refer to age. It refers to your level of professional accomplishment. If an under-17 contest is organized, you are free to take part even if your age is closer to 25, so long as you are still a home-based player, and have access to shaving powder. The same philosophy applies in the civil service, except that in that context, you do not need shaving powder. All you need is to still be able to walk, and to have access to a commissioner for oaths.
BRF-May mean Babatunde Raji Fashola or Brighter Rewarding Future, or both. The first appears to be working quite hard to create the second.
Servant-Leader:- A promising concept that if true, implies that Nigeria may do well in the next few years. The idea connotes service, accountability, honesty, and commitment. It implies leadership based on values rather than power. But it does not automatically connote policy, vision and direction. That may come from the seven-point agenda after it is turned into an actionable construct. The taste of this pudding shall be in the eating.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Chelsea after Jose Mourinho
I count myself as a Chelsea fan, even though I can’t accurately explain why. I also have some vagueness in my mind as to when precisely my allegiance to Chelsea commenced. Like most Nigerians of my generation (take that loosely to mean people currently aged somewhere between ages forty and fifty!), I started life knowing teams like Stationery Stores of Lagos, Mighty Jets of Jos, WNDC (later IICC) of Ibadan, Bendel Insurance of Benin and Enugu Rangers of Jos. The first club I regarded with affinity was of course Stores, but the one I first actively supported (curiously given the ethnic coloration of teams’ support bases) was actually Rangers.
In the famous Rangers and IICC Challenge Cup battles of 1977 (which almost degenerated into a threat to national unity prompting General Shehu Musa Yar’adua as Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters to personally intervene), my team was Rangers. Initially I could not understand why virtually everyone around supported IICC when I thought it was apparent Rangers was a more purposeful team. I remember that thundering shot by Ogidi Ibeabuchi that won the game 1-0 for Rangers and the delight I felt then to the chagrin of neighbours watching the game in our house. They called me “Omo Ibo”-that was probably my first realization that Nigeria was a very complex society. I later developed other allegiances as Nigerian football evolved-Super Stores, Leventis United, Abiola Babes and New Nigerian Bank of Benin.
That was the situation until globalization, satellite broadcasting and big business caught up with football in Europe. The English league with which we had always being familiar was the flagship in this regard and the familiarity with English football which had for most Nigerians been at best a residual activity, now became an obsession for many. I would not class myself amongst those in that obsessive group, but gradually in the absence of a Nigerian outlet for our interest in football, I joined the English Premier League fans club. There was something purely white and British about Manchester United so I could not develop sufficient passion for the team even as I loved some individual players-Eric Cantona, Andy Cole, Ruud van Nistelroy, Paul Scholes etc. Arsenal was more accommodating of black and African players and whenever there was a Man U-Arsenal clash, I gravitated towards Arsenal. But I never became a core Arsenal devotee in spite of my predilection for supporting teams with Nigerian players, and Kanu was in Arsenal.
I began to be interested in Chelsea when Ruud Gullit who was one of my all time greatest players (some others being Johan Cryuf, Zico, Frank Rijkaard) became involved as Coach. I also liked Celestine Babayaro but not until a constellation of factors-Roman Abramovich with the resources, Jose Mourinho with the strategy and tactics, and then a stream of African players-Didier Drogba, Michael Essien and John Mikel Obi-transformed Chelsea into a world-class club did I adopt the team. The fact that Chelsea never became the club of the establishment (like Man U) or that of the “holloi polloi” (like Arsenal) helped!
Few will dispute that Roman Abramovich’s money was important in transforming Chelsea from the back waters of English football to unequivocally one of the top three clubs in England and one of the world’s top sporting brands. Abramovich is reputed to have spent millions of pounds in the last four years in his efforts to radically change Chelsea’s fortunes. But it was not until he hired Mourinho from Porto that the world noticed Chelsea. Jose Mourinho came to the job with remarkable credentials. Porto was no where even in the Portuguese league when he took over, but he won the Portuguese league in his first year on the job, repeated the league victory the next year and then won the UEFA Cup same year. To crown it Porto then won the Europoean Champions League unambiguously establishing Jose Mourinho’s credentials as one of the best coaches in the world. His exploits in Porto could not be ascribed to resources, team pedigree or players’ quality. There was clearly something about Mourinho that tended to result in victory. It was thus not surprising that Roman Abramovich hungry for success in Chelsea fired Claudio Ranieri and hired Jose Mourinho.
Mourinho has not performed badly at Chelsea-he won the premier league back to back, won the FA Cup and Carling Cup and got to the semi-final of the Champions League, but unlike many I do not think the record is sparkling either. Given the level of resources committed by Abramovich, I thought we should have won the last Champions’ League, especially as the premier league title which Man-U eventually won was no longer realistic. The more substantial complaint about Chelsea however was the absence of rhythmic football-“fantasy football” as Abramovich demanded. As a Chelsea fan, one could not help but admire the sweet football of teams like Arsenal, Barcelona (my other favourite team), Lyon and Villareal. On the other hand, I understood Mourinho. His objective was not to entertain, but to win, and that he frequently did!
Mourinho’s real undoing however was neither his inability to win the Champions League nor the functional approach to the game. It was his insistence that he alone and no other-not even the gentleman bankrolling the club would be the star at Chelsea. In relation to the players, I understood and agreed with Mourinho’s basic approach. He did not want “galacticos”-people who were already superstars with huge egos before joining Chelsea. He wanted very good players-such as Drogba, Mikel Obi, Essien, Salomon Kalou who still had a point to prove, and who would subsume their egos and profile to Mourinho’s. It was consistent with Mourinho’s other style-he courted controversy, engaged in mind-games, was outspoken-but the basic intent was to for him to take on the pressure personally while leaving his players free to fight for victory on the pitch. While the “sole star” approach would work with the players, it was bound to get Jose in trouble with Abramovich, and it just did.
Andriy Shevshenko and Michael Ballack were clearly galacticos. They had nothing more to prove in football and therefore did not fit Mourinho’s employee profile. To make matters worse, “Sheva” was Ukrainian (meaning Slavic affinity and closeness to Abramovich) and appeared to have been forced on Mourinho. Mourinho then tried to sabotage Sheva’s Chelsea career and in the end gave Abramovich an “either me or Shevshenko” dilemma. Now Mourinho has been fired, will our Chelsea unravel? Chelsea fans sincerely hope not, but that remains a distinct possibility. Our fears are in no way assuaged by the appointment of Avram Grant as replacement-perhaps he would be an interim choice. Key players-Drogba, Lampard, Ricardo Carvalho etc could leave. And after a while perhaps fans could also leave. Meanwhile as billions of dollars chase world soccer, in Nigeria the NFA and NFL squabble, delaying the commencement of the local league while the whole country deceives it self that it has conquered the world by winning an under-17 tournament!
I count myself as a Chelsea fan, even though I can’t accurately explain why. I also have some vagueness in my mind as to when precisely my allegiance to Chelsea commenced. Like most Nigerians of my generation (take that loosely to mean people currently aged somewhere between ages forty and fifty!), I started life knowing teams like Stationery Stores of Lagos, Mighty Jets of Jos, WNDC (later IICC) of Ibadan, Bendel Insurance of Benin and Enugu Rangers of Jos. The first club I regarded with affinity was of course Stores, but the one I first actively supported (curiously given the ethnic coloration of teams’ support bases) was actually Rangers.
In the famous Rangers and IICC Challenge Cup battles of 1977 (which almost degenerated into a threat to national unity prompting General Shehu Musa Yar’adua as Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters to personally intervene), my team was Rangers. Initially I could not understand why virtually everyone around supported IICC when I thought it was apparent Rangers was a more purposeful team. I remember that thundering shot by Ogidi Ibeabuchi that won the game 1-0 for Rangers and the delight I felt then to the chagrin of neighbours watching the game in our house. They called me “Omo Ibo”-that was probably my first realization that Nigeria was a very complex society. I later developed other allegiances as Nigerian football evolved-Super Stores, Leventis United, Abiola Babes and New Nigerian Bank of Benin.
That was the situation until globalization, satellite broadcasting and big business caught up with football in Europe. The English league with which we had always being familiar was the flagship in this regard and the familiarity with English football which had for most Nigerians been at best a residual activity, now became an obsession for many. I would not class myself amongst those in that obsessive group, but gradually in the absence of a Nigerian outlet for our interest in football, I joined the English Premier League fans club. There was something purely white and British about Manchester United so I could not develop sufficient passion for the team even as I loved some individual players-Eric Cantona, Andy Cole, Ruud van Nistelroy, Paul Scholes etc. Arsenal was more accommodating of black and African players and whenever there was a Man U-Arsenal clash, I gravitated towards Arsenal. But I never became a core Arsenal devotee in spite of my predilection for supporting teams with Nigerian players, and Kanu was in Arsenal.
I began to be interested in Chelsea when Ruud Gullit who was one of my all time greatest players (some others being Johan Cryuf, Zico, Frank Rijkaard) became involved as Coach. I also liked Celestine Babayaro but not until a constellation of factors-Roman Abramovich with the resources, Jose Mourinho with the strategy and tactics, and then a stream of African players-Didier Drogba, Michael Essien and John Mikel Obi-transformed Chelsea into a world-class club did I adopt the team. The fact that Chelsea never became the club of the establishment (like Man U) or that of the “holloi polloi” (like Arsenal) helped!
Few will dispute that Roman Abramovich’s money was important in transforming Chelsea from the back waters of English football to unequivocally one of the top three clubs in England and one of the world’s top sporting brands. Abramovich is reputed to have spent millions of pounds in the last four years in his efforts to radically change Chelsea’s fortunes. But it was not until he hired Mourinho from Porto that the world noticed Chelsea. Jose Mourinho came to the job with remarkable credentials. Porto was no where even in the Portuguese league when he took over, but he won the Portuguese league in his first year on the job, repeated the league victory the next year and then won the UEFA Cup same year. To crown it Porto then won the Europoean Champions League unambiguously establishing Jose Mourinho’s credentials as one of the best coaches in the world. His exploits in Porto could not be ascribed to resources, team pedigree or players’ quality. There was clearly something about Mourinho that tended to result in victory. It was thus not surprising that Roman Abramovich hungry for success in Chelsea fired Claudio Ranieri and hired Jose Mourinho.
Mourinho has not performed badly at Chelsea-he won the premier league back to back, won the FA Cup and Carling Cup and got to the semi-final of the Champions League, but unlike many I do not think the record is sparkling either. Given the level of resources committed by Abramovich, I thought we should have won the last Champions’ League, especially as the premier league title which Man-U eventually won was no longer realistic. The more substantial complaint about Chelsea however was the absence of rhythmic football-“fantasy football” as Abramovich demanded. As a Chelsea fan, one could not help but admire the sweet football of teams like Arsenal, Barcelona (my other favourite team), Lyon and Villareal. On the other hand, I understood Mourinho. His objective was not to entertain, but to win, and that he frequently did!
Mourinho’s real undoing however was neither his inability to win the Champions League nor the functional approach to the game. It was his insistence that he alone and no other-not even the gentleman bankrolling the club would be the star at Chelsea. In relation to the players, I understood and agreed with Mourinho’s basic approach. He did not want “galacticos”-people who were already superstars with huge egos before joining Chelsea. He wanted very good players-such as Drogba, Mikel Obi, Essien, Salomon Kalou who still had a point to prove, and who would subsume their egos and profile to Mourinho’s. It was consistent with Mourinho’s other style-he courted controversy, engaged in mind-games, was outspoken-but the basic intent was to for him to take on the pressure personally while leaving his players free to fight for victory on the pitch. While the “sole star” approach would work with the players, it was bound to get Jose in trouble with Abramovich, and it just did.
Andriy Shevshenko and Michael Ballack were clearly galacticos. They had nothing more to prove in football and therefore did not fit Mourinho’s employee profile. To make matters worse, “Sheva” was Ukrainian (meaning Slavic affinity and closeness to Abramovich) and appeared to have been forced on Mourinho. Mourinho then tried to sabotage Sheva’s Chelsea career and in the end gave Abramovich an “either me or Shevshenko” dilemma. Now Mourinho has been fired, will our Chelsea unravel? Chelsea fans sincerely hope not, but that remains a distinct possibility. Our fears are in no way assuaged by the appointment of Avram Grant as replacement-perhaps he would be an interim choice. Key players-Drogba, Lampard, Ricardo Carvalho etc could leave. And after a while perhaps fans could also leave. Meanwhile as billions of dollars chase world soccer, in Nigeria the NFA and NFL squabble, delaying the commencement of the local league while the whole country deceives it self that it has conquered the world by winning an under-17 tournament!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Profiling Nigerian Leadership
This column has made a conscious decision not to comment on the Yar’adua Presidency until December 2007, by which time the regime will have been in office for more than six months. By that time a clear direction should have emerged (and if it has not, that in itself will have clear implications) and some patterns of actions would have been discernible. I believe in the validity of a conception of strategy as the pattern that is observable from a stream of actions. Patterns are created due to consistency of actions and behaviour, presence of some set of competences and skills, and perspectives and world view with which an entity responds to the environment around him.
While we allow President Umaru Musa Yar’adua to create his own patterns of policy, implementation, people and leadership however, perhaps we can profit from reviewing Nigeria’s past leadership, in order that we can see what may be learnt from them. In pre-independence Nigeria, the locus of leadership was not national but regional. Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the West along with his colleagues in the Action Group with strong support from the intellectual and traditional elite. He was leader and Premier of the Western region, but had his sights and heart set firmly on national leadership. Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto was also a leader with his centre of gravity in Northern Nigeria. Indeed his party made no pretences about who it represented.
While Awolowo attempted to maintain an (admittedly artificial) separation between the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the Action Group, the Sarduana’s party unabashedly declared itself to be the Northern Peoples Congress. Ahmadu Bello was also Northern premier but unlike Awolowo he had absolutely no desire for national leadership, preferring to remain in the north, where he could remain proximate to his ultimate dream-Sultan of Sokoto. Dr Nnamdi Azikwe was somehow different from Awo and Sardauna. He was the foremost pre-independence national leader and had managed to forge a follower-ship that transcended his eastern region, although this may have been due more to the liberal political culture prevailing in Yoruba politics rather than any other factor.
Dr Azikiwe’s National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was strong all over Nigeria, but particularly in Western, Eastern and the Mid-West regions of Nigeria. Many of Zik’s most loyal followers-TOS Benson, JM Johnson, Adeniran Ogunsanya, Olu Akinfosile, Adegoke Adelabu were from the West and Zik won elections in Lagos, and could have become Premier of the West but for the re-awakening of Yoruba consciousness created by Awolowo and his colleagues. Zik unlike Awolowo and Sardauna was a more consensual, less forceful and more diplomatic leader. That of course often has the corollary of being sometimes less principled.
If Chief Awolowo had chosen like Ahmadu Bello to stay and lead the West (perhaps sending the very slippery SLA Akintola to Lagos) leaving easy-going fellows like Zik, Akintola and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, (Sardauna’s deputy who he delegated to go down to the federal capital in Lagos), perhaps the journey of Nigeria’s federalism would have been different. The regions would have remained the real sources of power, and we may have been spared the bitter power struggles which short-circuited Nigeria’s first republic. The first republic thus unwittingly started a trend towards having weak, leadership at the federal level. Unfortunately the subsequent development of Nigeria’s federalism engendered a massive transfer of power from the regions to these often weak leaders at the national level.
Gen Aguiyi Ironsi was purely a soldier with no views about political leadership. When the first January 1966 coup led by Ifeajuna and Nzeogwu failed, power fell on Ironsi’s laps. He did not know what to do with it and appeared to be dependent on civil servants of Eastern extraction for advice. Ironsi’s prevarication continued for six months until he was overthrown by Murtala Muhammed and Theophilus Danjuma leading a Northern response to the murder of their political and military leaders. In what was now becoming a Nigerian tradition, the real coup leader Murtala however did not take power. His colleague Yakubu Gowon, the friend of the British and another diplomat took power. Gowon of course lacked real power and shared authority with everyone-military governors, members of the Supreme Military Council, federal commissioners and senior civil servants.
Soon Gowon’s military colleagues got tired of the absence of clear direction and a group of younger military officers led by Shehu Yar’adua, Ibrahim Babangida, Joseph Garba and Fidelis Ochefu took power in July 1975 and handed over to the triumvirate of Murtala Muhammed, Olusegun Obasanjo and Theophilus Danjuma. This trio was committed and action-oriented. They had observed Gowon’s drift and visionless-ness and had thought about power and what they would do with it. So Nigeria experienced a burst of activity and perhaps for the first time since independence had decisive leadership. Unfortunately many of their solutions were poorly thought-out and it fell to one of them Obasanjo to reverse virtually all their actions in his second coming. To compound matters, Murtala was killed in the February 1976 abortive coup, and Obasanjo became Head of State “against his personal wish and desire”.
Alhaji Shagari who took over from Obasanjo was another reluctant leader, and in spite of being elected executive president under a Presidential system functioned like a leader of cabinet in a parliamentary system! The 4 year Shagari rule turned out to be an interlude of drift and soon the soldiers were back in December 2003 to take their power back. Buhari and Idiagbon were strong leaders. But what was their grand vision for Nigeria? Where were they going? Beyond talking tough about discipline and jailing politicians, it soon became apparent they had little to offer in terms of policy and leadership. Moreover they were very divisive and repressed human rights. Soon the real power behind the throne, who actually organized the coup that brought Buhari to power, but had chosen to stay as Army Chief, General Ibrahim Babangida took power for himself in August 1985.
Babangida had an excellent opportunity to transform Nigeria. He planned for power, had a strong power base, took the title of President and understood the economic issues. But he failed the twin tests of character and succession. Shonekan was an unelected interim administrator and sooner than later Abacha was bound to strike, which he did in November 1983. Abacha had neither intellectual nor moral grounding in leadership, and relied on force and brutality to sustain his rule. Abdulsalam was an interim leader, in the reluctant ruler mode, and he swiftly handed over to a leader the military could trust-Obasanjo-in 1999. In many respects, Obasanjo was the best prepared for leadership and could have done so much better; he did well with macro-economic reform, but not so well overall; and he finished somewhat diminished. What will be Yar’adua’s testament?
This column has made a conscious decision not to comment on the Yar’adua Presidency until December 2007, by which time the regime will have been in office for more than six months. By that time a clear direction should have emerged (and if it has not, that in itself will have clear implications) and some patterns of actions would have been discernible. I believe in the validity of a conception of strategy as the pattern that is observable from a stream of actions. Patterns are created due to consistency of actions and behaviour, presence of some set of competences and skills, and perspectives and world view with which an entity responds to the environment around him.
While we allow President Umaru Musa Yar’adua to create his own patterns of policy, implementation, people and leadership however, perhaps we can profit from reviewing Nigeria’s past leadership, in order that we can see what may be learnt from them. In pre-independence Nigeria, the locus of leadership was not national but regional. Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the West along with his colleagues in the Action Group with strong support from the intellectual and traditional elite. He was leader and Premier of the Western region, but had his sights and heart set firmly on national leadership. Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto was also a leader with his centre of gravity in Northern Nigeria. Indeed his party made no pretences about who it represented.
While Awolowo attempted to maintain an (admittedly artificial) separation between the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the Action Group, the Sarduana’s party unabashedly declared itself to be the Northern Peoples Congress. Ahmadu Bello was also Northern premier but unlike Awolowo he had absolutely no desire for national leadership, preferring to remain in the north, where he could remain proximate to his ultimate dream-Sultan of Sokoto. Dr Nnamdi Azikwe was somehow different from Awo and Sardauna. He was the foremost pre-independence national leader and had managed to forge a follower-ship that transcended his eastern region, although this may have been due more to the liberal political culture prevailing in Yoruba politics rather than any other factor.
Dr Azikiwe’s National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was strong all over Nigeria, but particularly in Western, Eastern and the Mid-West regions of Nigeria. Many of Zik’s most loyal followers-TOS Benson, JM Johnson, Adeniran Ogunsanya, Olu Akinfosile, Adegoke Adelabu were from the West and Zik won elections in Lagos, and could have become Premier of the West but for the re-awakening of Yoruba consciousness created by Awolowo and his colleagues. Zik unlike Awolowo and Sardauna was a more consensual, less forceful and more diplomatic leader. That of course often has the corollary of being sometimes less principled.
If Chief Awolowo had chosen like Ahmadu Bello to stay and lead the West (perhaps sending the very slippery SLA Akintola to Lagos) leaving easy-going fellows like Zik, Akintola and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, (Sardauna’s deputy who he delegated to go down to the federal capital in Lagos), perhaps the journey of Nigeria’s federalism would have been different. The regions would have remained the real sources of power, and we may have been spared the bitter power struggles which short-circuited Nigeria’s first republic. The first republic thus unwittingly started a trend towards having weak, leadership at the federal level. Unfortunately the subsequent development of Nigeria’s federalism engendered a massive transfer of power from the regions to these often weak leaders at the national level.
Gen Aguiyi Ironsi was purely a soldier with no views about political leadership. When the first January 1966 coup led by Ifeajuna and Nzeogwu failed, power fell on Ironsi’s laps. He did not know what to do with it and appeared to be dependent on civil servants of Eastern extraction for advice. Ironsi’s prevarication continued for six months until he was overthrown by Murtala Muhammed and Theophilus Danjuma leading a Northern response to the murder of their political and military leaders. In what was now becoming a Nigerian tradition, the real coup leader Murtala however did not take power. His colleague Yakubu Gowon, the friend of the British and another diplomat took power. Gowon of course lacked real power and shared authority with everyone-military governors, members of the Supreme Military Council, federal commissioners and senior civil servants.
Soon Gowon’s military colleagues got tired of the absence of clear direction and a group of younger military officers led by Shehu Yar’adua, Ibrahim Babangida, Joseph Garba and Fidelis Ochefu took power in July 1975 and handed over to the triumvirate of Murtala Muhammed, Olusegun Obasanjo and Theophilus Danjuma. This trio was committed and action-oriented. They had observed Gowon’s drift and visionless-ness and had thought about power and what they would do with it. So Nigeria experienced a burst of activity and perhaps for the first time since independence had decisive leadership. Unfortunately many of their solutions were poorly thought-out and it fell to one of them Obasanjo to reverse virtually all their actions in his second coming. To compound matters, Murtala was killed in the February 1976 abortive coup, and Obasanjo became Head of State “against his personal wish and desire”.
Alhaji Shagari who took over from Obasanjo was another reluctant leader, and in spite of being elected executive president under a Presidential system functioned like a leader of cabinet in a parliamentary system! The 4 year Shagari rule turned out to be an interlude of drift and soon the soldiers were back in December 2003 to take their power back. Buhari and Idiagbon were strong leaders. But what was their grand vision for Nigeria? Where were they going? Beyond talking tough about discipline and jailing politicians, it soon became apparent they had little to offer in terms of policy and leadership. Moreover they were very divisive and repressed human rights. Soon the real power behind the throne, who actually organized the coup that brought Buhari to power, but had chosen to stay as Army Chief, General Ibrahim Babangida took power for himself in August 1985.
Babangida had an excellent opportunity to transform Nigeria. He planned for power, had a strong power base, took the title of President and understood the economic issues. But he failed the twin tests of character and succession. Shonekan was an unelected interim administrator and sooner than later Abacha was bound to strike, which he did in November 1983. Abacha had neither intellectual nor moral grounding in leadership, and relied on force and brutality to sustain his rule. Abdulsalam was an interim leader, in the reluctant ruler mode, and he swiftly handed over to a leader the military could trust-Obasanjo-in 1999. In many respects, Obasanjo was the best prepared for leadership and could have done so much better; he did well with macro-economic reform, but not so well overall; and he finished somewhat diminished. What will be Yar’adua’s testament?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Adventures of a Columnist
This newspaper published editorials on the crime and security situation in Lagos throughout last week. Apparently the publisher and his team decided some weeks ago to focus attention on crime and agreed to run those editorials from Monday September 3 to Friday 7th. The men of the underworld decided to play a joke on the newspaper and its readers and struck at its printers’ offices reportedly with over 30 heavily armed men in security uniform ransacking the premises, stealing laptops, desk tops, phones and other valuables. It was something of a pre-emptive, but confirmatory strike as the men struck on Thursday 30th August, days before the editorials were run. The next day, August 31, 2007, four armed men struck at your columnist’s home at 2.30am or thereabouts!
I was awakened by my wife running to lock our bedroom door and gesticulating frantically. I immediately understood the meaning her motions were meant to communicate-there are invaders in the house! From her finger-pointing and wide-eyed expression, it was apparent she had seen the invaders, and they were already on the upstairs floor in which we sleep. Your columnist does his mathematics, realizes that if the robbers are already outside my bedroom door, then that means they have access to my children. Confirmation comes as I hear my eldest daughter gently say “daddy”. I open the door, uttering the words, “I open this door in the name of Jesus” and I’m faced with three men, a gun, a crowbar, some metallic equipment, with my kids in tow, and then the adventure unfolds.
I am wearing boxers and pyjamas tops, and apparently do not resemble the master of the house, so the robbers first words are “wey your master?” I tell them I am the master, and they announce, “We are here on a mission to kill you”. Actually that statement did not shock me. From the point my wife awakened me, the only question on my mind is, “Are these robbers or assassins?” When they declare they are on a mission to kill, I silently begin to pray and ask God to receive my soul in heaven. The only other thought on my mind is that these people should not shoot me in the presence of my family. They should isolate me before shooting. But almost immediately my spirit rebukes me and I begin to ask God to take control, and to preserve my wife, children and I even as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Soon they begin to ask for money and I sense the mission is really to steal and perhaps to scare as well.
Unfortunately there is very little money in the house, and I am the one who has the least. My thirteen year-old girl displays amazing presence of mind, offering the men her N3,000 and they take it! My wife musters up to N20,000 but my wallet contains less than N2,000-not a very good haul, and not worth a night’s labours. But the men are surprisingly calm and flexible-if they can’t get money what else is available? So they turn their attention to phones, wrist watches, even my cuff links and my reading glasses! My wife is able to add some items and then the guys discover my lap top, my multi-media projector (which they pick up inside my car on their way out) and after all they salvage some value for their hard work and tenacity. They lock up my children in a toilet downstairs and disappear as quietly as they came.
After their exit, we can begin to piece together the full story. My security man is tied up in the gate house. The burglary proof was neatly cut providing access into the house for one who probably opens the door to let in the others. It is as they make to enter the upper floor that my wife wakes up to some noise, comes out and is faced with the shocking sight of robbers at the door into the family lounge. We are not worried about the monetary value of what they have taken, but the value to me of my phone (actually the addresses contained therein), my laptop and the multimedia projector goes beyond money.
After the intruders leave, we inform neighbouring security men who offer the only thing they have-sympathy, not worth very much thank you. Most neighbours are away for summer holidays, so there is little by way of adult support. There is a Police DIG’s residence down the road. I report to the officers on guard who ask me to report to the Police Station. I reassemble my family, commend my wife and children for their exemplary calm under pressure and we pray and go to sleep. In the morning, I report to the police station, give statements and the officer asks me to thank God that no life was lost. The Police is my friend!
My son makes two surprising but remarkable statements after the robbers depart. First he is angry that he can’t defend his family in the face of robbers. I assure him he did the wise thing since the men carried a gun. He then says “daddy, what will we do about poverty in this country?” The only thing I can do is to write about it. But then it is also not just about poverty. It is also about values. People see all “rich people” as having stolen their wealth, so they have no reservations stealing it from them. It is also alright to steal from fellow poor, before they steal from you! The society glorifies wealth without concern for how it is obtained, so it does not matter whether you carry arms and dispossess others of what they own or stole.
Of course it is also about the breakdown of the sense of community. We do not know who our neighbours are; we do not cooperate to protect our common interests, so robbers can isolate us and deal with us one after the other. It reflects the wider social decay and self-centredness that has overtaken our society. We are no longer Africans who live in inter-connected communities where everyone is their brothers’ keeper. But neither are we Europeans and Americans who have replaced the village sense of community with competent mayors, district attorneys and policing systems. So we live in a social vacuum, a no-man’s land resembling a state of anarchy, in which impunity of the powerful and the aggrieved reigns.
As you would imagine, one or two people have attributed your columnist’s escapades to my writings and pleaded with me to stop writing. Some have referred to particular recent articles and theorised as to “warning signals” from unhappy sources. I was a bit surprised too when I subsequently learnt that robbers had visited Businessday’s printers exactly twenty-four hours (almost to the minute) before visiting my residence. And in both cases, there appears to have been some interest in laptops and computers. But I can not presume there is a connection between both incidents. What I know is that anytime evil lurks, the entity behind it seeks not just to steal, but to destroy and to kill. And that entity does not have to physically carry a gun, there are men who will always do the devil’s bidding. When what is stolen is replaceable, when we are not destroyed, and when we are alive and well, then we know there is cause for prayer and thanksgiving.
This newspaper published editorials on the crime and security situation in Lagos throughout last week. Apparently the publisher and his team decided some weeks ago to focus attention on crime and agreed to run those editorials from Monday September 3 to Friday 7th. The men of the underworld decided to play a joke on the newspaper and its readers and struck at its printers’ offices reportedly with over 30 heavily armed men in security uniform ransacking the premises, stealing laptops, desk tops, phones and other valuables. It was something of a pre-emptive, but confirmatory strike as the men struck on Thursday 30th August, days before the editorials were run. The next day, August 31, 2007, four armed men struck at your columnist’s home at 2.30am or thereabouts!
I was awakened by my wife running to lock our bedroom door and gesticulating frantically. I immediately understood the meaning her motions were meant to communicate-there are invaders in the house! From her finger-pointing and wide-eyed expression, it was apparent she had seen the invaders, and they were already on the upstairs floor in which we sleep. Your columnist does his mathematics, realizes that if the robbers are already outside my bedroom door, then that means they have access to my children. Confirmation comes as I hear my eldest daughter gently say “daddy”. I open the door, uttering the words, “I open this door in the name of Jesus” and I’m faced with three men, a gun, a crowbar, some metallic equipment, with my kids in tow, and then the adventure unfolds.
I am wearing boxers and pyjamas tops, and apparently do not resemble the master of the house, so the robbers first words are “wey your master?” I tell them I am the master, and they announce, “We are here on a mission to kill you”. Actually that statement did not shock me. From the point my wife awakened me, the only question on my mind is, “Are these robbers or assassins?” When they declare they are on a mission to kill, I silently begin to pray and ask God to receive my soul in heaven. The only other thought on my mind is that these people should not shoot me in the presence of my family. They should isolate me before shooting. But almost immediately my spirit rebukes me and I begin to ask God to take control, and to preserve my wife, children and I even as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Soon they begin to ask for money and I sense the mission is really to steal and perhaps to scare as well.
Unfortunately there is very little money in the house, and I am the one who has the least. My thirteen year-old girl displays amazing presence of mind, offering the men her N3,000 and they take it! My wife musters up to N20,000 but my wallet contains less than N2,000-not a very good haul, and not worth a night’s labours. But the men are surprisingly calm and flexible-if they can’t get money what else is available? So they turn their attention to phones, wrist watches, even my cuff links and my reading glasses! My wife is able to add some items and then the guys discover my lap top, my multi-media projector (which they pick up inside my car on their way out) and after all they salvage some value for their hard work and tenacity. They lock up my children in a toilet downstairs and disappear as quietly as they came.
After their exit, we can begin to piece together the full story. My security man is tied up in the gate house. The burglary proof was neatly cut providing access into the house for one who probably opens the door to let in the others. It is as they make to enter the upper floor that my wife wakes up to some noise, comes out and is faced with the shocking sight of robbers at the door into the family lounge. We are not worried about the monetary value of what they have taken, but the value to me of my phone (actually the addresses contained therein), my laptop and the multimedia projector goes beyond money.
After the intruders leave, we inform neighbouring security men who offer the only thing they have-sympathy, not worth very much thank you. Most neighbours are away for summer holidays, so there is little by way of adult support. There is a Police DIG’s residence down the road. I report to the officers on guard who ask me to report to the Police Station. I reassemble my family, commend my wife and children for their exemplary calm under pressure and we pray and go to sleep. In the morning, I report to the police station, give statements and the officer asks me to thank God that no life was lost. The Police is my friend!
My son makes two surprising but remarkable statements after the robbers depart. First he is angry that he can’t defend his family in the face of robbers. I assure him he did the wise thing since the men carried a gun. He then says “daddy, what will we do about poverty in this country?” The only thing I can do is to write about it. But then it is also not just about poverty. It is also about values. People see all “rich people” as having stolen their wealth, so they have no reservations stealing it from them. It is also alright to steal from fellow poor, before they steal from you! The society glorifies wealth without concern for how it is obtained, so it does not matter whether you carry arms and dispossess others of what they own or stole.
Of course it is also about the breakdown of the sense of community. We do not know who our neighbours are; we do not cooperate to protect our common interests, so robbers can isolate us and deal with us one after the other. It reflects the wider social decay and self-centredness that has overtaken our society. We are no longer Africans who live in inter-connected communities where everyone is their brothers’ keeper. But neither are we Europeans and Americans who have replaced the village sense of community with competent mayors, district attorneys and policing systems. So we live in a social vacuum, a no-man’s land resembling a state of anarchy, in which impunity of the powerful and the aggrieved reigns.
As you would imagine, one or two people have attributed your columnist’s escapades to my writings and pleaded with me to stop writing. Some have referred to particular recent articles and theorised as to “warning signals” from unhappy sources. I was a bit surprised too when I subsequently learnt that robbers had visited Businessday’s printers exactly twenty-four hours (almost to the minute) before visiting my residence. And in both cases, there appears to have been some interest in laptops and computers. But I can not presume there is a connection between both incidents. What I know is that anytime evil lurks, the entity behind it seeks not just to steal, but to destroy and to kill. And that entity does not have to physically carry a gun, there are men who will always do the devil’s bidding. When what is stolen is replaceable, when we are not destroyed, and when we are alive and well, then we know there is cause for prayer and thanksgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)