"Before It Is Too Late"

The above title is borrowed from the famous letter written by ex-President Obasanjo to President Jonathan, which forms the subject of this article. On the substance of the issues raised by Obasanjo, I make the following preliminary points-Jonathan needs to do more to convince Nigerians and the international community that his government is not tolerant or even facilitative of corruption. The Alamieyesegha pardon and the determination to retain Stella Oduah in the face of damning allegations of fraud and criminal abuse of office are particularly odious examples of the regime’s reputation in this regard! Secondly the government needs a broader governing coalition to sustain national peace and stability. Anyone suggesting to the president that he can dispense with other ethnic groups and geo-political zones and govern and win re-election with support mainly from two out of six geo-political zones is deceiving him. Thirdly I strongly support the regime’s planned national conference and I urge Jonathan not to be distracted from the task of convening it. There are two classes of Nigerians-those who like Nigeria the way it is and think once they replace Jonathan, all is fine; and those who recognize that Nigeria as it currently operates is not sustainable and needs fundamental restructuring. We know what side Obasanjo, Babangida and other oligarchs belong to! It is not a credit to Obasanjo that he occupied the presidency for eight years and left Nigeria structurally unchanged, with the consequences we see today! Finally it is true that there is an African window of opportunity which Nigeria should seize and I note that some factors militating against that are created by Jonathan’s opponents (Boko Haram, post-2011 electoral violence, Fulani herdsmen in central Nigeria, social conditions in Northern Nigeria, non-passage of PIB etc) while Jonathan bears responsibility for others (oil sector mismanagement and corruption). Beyond these comments, I do not concede to Obasanjo the moral credibility to make most, if not all of the “allegations” he has presented against Jonathan! One I do not think Obasanjo’s interest contrary to his posturing is the national interest. My careful reading tells me this is in reality intra-elite power struggles in which disgruntled members of a clique who have arrogated to themselves control over Nigeria, finding themselves marginalized seek to reclaim their power and privileges. I am not impressed that Obasanjo apparently feels that Babangida, Abdulsalam and himself have sufficient moral authority with the Nigerian people to manipulate us in whatever direction they seek. Secondly, considering the specific offences Obasanjo alleges Jonathan has committed, it is difficult to find even one which Obasanjo himself was not guilty of, in a more grievous manner while in office! When Obasanjo sees a semblance between Jonathan and Abacha, he exaggerates-the emerging similarity may actually be Jonathan and Obasanjo! Obasanjo arranged with opposition senators to defeat his party’s choice for senate presidency, Chuba Okadigbo and Evan Enwerem was elected based on AD/APP votes. That process I am very reliably informed also involved a few “Ghana-must-go” bags! PDP members in Borno State complained persistently that Obasanjo had a secret understanding with Senator Ali Modu Sherrif which led to him undermining PDP in that state. Of course we all know the fate of Senator Ifeanyi Araurume, PDP’s candidate in Imo State who was dis-owned based on orders from Obasanjo’s presidency in favour of Ikedi Ohakim of PPA. With respect to Buruji Kashamu, it suffices to ask what the difference is between him and Chris Uba who became a member of PDP Board of Trustees in Obasanjo’s time and who notoriously executed a siege on the government of Anambra State without any consequences. When Obasanjo talks about dividing the country along North-South or Muslim-Christian lines, the principal culprits are his allies who made provocative statements about making Nigeria “ungovernable” and who have already threatened bloodshed were Jonathan to contest in 2015. Yes Asari Dokubo and Edwin Clark make unhelpful statements, but so do Junaid Muhammed, Lawal Kaita, Muhammadu Buhari, Yahaya Kwande, Nasir El-Rufai and others. We may also note that the families of Bola Ige, Harry Marshall and A.K Dikibo may wonder whether Obasanjo has moral standing to complain about killings which he fears may happen when those that actually happened under his watch remain unresolved. Even concerning security, Boko Haram and Niger-Delta militancy were both created during Obasanjo’s regime with two governors close to him (Odili and Modu Sherrif) implicated in their origins! Regarding corruption, Obasanjo cannot cast the first stone either. And it is somewhat of a shock to me that Obasanjo who got a second term, in spite of a similar alleged agreement to the contrary, and then sought an unconstitutional third term, can consider himself entitled to ask Jonathan to take “a more credible and more honourable path”. Having dispensed with Obasanjo’s sanctimonious hypocrisy, it remains for all Nigerians to ask President Jonathan for a full, detailed and comprehensive response to the allegations and particularly the following-is it true that his government has 1,000 people on “political watch list”? Is his government surreptitiously training snipers and armed personnel? What are the facts regarding the allegation of missing $7billion from NNPC by CBN? Has Jonathan offered “assistance” for any murderer generally or Major Hamza El-Mustapha in particular to evade justice? If so, why? Why are the Olokola and Brass LNG projects stalled? Is Jonathan frustrating the Port Harcourt water project funding by the ADB? What is Jonathan’s relationship with Buruji Kashamu? While we await Jonathan’s response, it remains to warn Nigerians not to allow any oligarchic clique to steal our democracy. Similar statements by Obasanjo in the past had terminal implications for former regimes, including the 1979-1983 second republic and Obasanjo in this statement explicitly threatens “Egypt must teach some lesson”. But Nigerians are rational and in spite of our pains, we know that Nigeria’s current troubles are largely the legacy of past misrule!!! Our democracy is far from perfect, but we should NOT go back to Egypt!

Nelson Mandela: 1918-2013

I can’t recall when I first heard the name “Mandela”. My parents were both teachers whose specialization was English Language and Literature. There were always books and newspapers around and I read all I laid my hands on. My earliest specific recollections of reading newspapers were around 1970 and some names stuck from those editions of Daily Times, Spear, Drum and Nigerian Tribune-Golda Meir; Yasser Arafat; Yakubu Gowon; Benjamin Adekunle; Richard Nixon; Julius Nyerere; Kenneth Kaunda etc, and at some point, Nelson Mandela. I must have been at Igbobi College in the mid-1970s however before I began to fully grasp the scale of the atrocity going on in Southern Africa and I soon realized that political freedom and equality was not a universal condition. Yes I had read about African countries securing independence from British and French colonialism, but awareness of the evil concept of apartheid was initially beyond comprehension of my young mind. First I got hints from literature books particularly Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country”, but it was the foreign policy dynamism of the regime of Generals Murtala Muhammed and Olusegun Obasanjo especially in relation to the independence of Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and the end of apartheid in South Africa that raised my consciousness about how wrong and abominable what was going on was. And then we learnt about massacres in Soweto (the Sharpeville Massacre in particular), about the death of Steve Biko; the extent of the segregationist policies of the Afrikaner regime in South Africa; the matchbox houses; the jailing of Nelson Mandela; and the persecution of his wife Winnie Mandela and I must say that for a while, the political representation of evil, wickedness and the devil in my growing spirit were the South African white apartheid regime, their National Party and its then leader, P. W Botha. The music and performances of Miriam Makeba and “Ipi Tombi” also helped communicate the conditions under which blacks lived under apartheid. I began to wonder at a point whether white people (not just those in South Africa) had a conscience, especially as important US and UK leaders-Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in particular, protected and condoned the evil system and against the background of slavery and colonialism. The sheer affront and wickedness of coming into another man’s land, taking over his land and wealth and then banishing him to the arid parts of the land while treating him as sub-human fundamentally questioned my faith in white civilization and humanity. In the event, the racist regime chose to redeem itself and with the help, encouragement and coaxing of Nelson Mandela, and after decades of incredible black suffering, pain and blood, Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990, the ANC unbanned, and majority rule was achieved in South Africa in 1994. It remains to be seen whether the White South African change of heart was the result of genuine repentance or merely a strategic change as the unsustainability of minority rule became glaring and the global political environment became unconducive to apartheid. Whatever the motives of the Afrikaner regime, Mandela came out of prison without anger or bitterness; preaching love, forgiveness and reconciliation; showing incredible generosity of spirit, graciousness and optimism about humanity; and working across racial barriers to build a rainbow nation of multiple races. A grateful world, shocked at his nobility of character and goodness of heart submitted to his moral leadership and his example. When after a single term in office in 1999, Mandela chose to step down (disdaining the African stereotype of nationalist leaders who having secured political freedom for their nations, concluded that occupying its presidency for life was the least of their just rewards), his reputation as a “saint” and exceptional, transformational, once-in-an-era leader was cemented. When I saw the breaking news on CNN of Mandela’s death on Thursday December 5, 2013, I knew that without doubt, the greatest African and most influential black person that ever lived had just departed. There will be two challenges to Mandela’s legacy however-continuing black poverty and deprivation and widening inequality will lead some to wonder whether apartheid simply shed the liability of political control, while strengthening economic domination; and many blacks will wonder whether his successors in the ANC have lived up to his standards and vision. Mandela recognized that true transformational leadership did not consist of the privileges of power and wealth it could secure, or the sanctions and force it could exercise, but the influence it wielded and example it offered. Mandela’s life is evidence to me, that when we seek a higher quality of leadership in Nigeria, we are neither naïve nor academic. Several years ago, I wondered in a conversation with a professor of ethics, why every Nigerian politician touts the names of the likes of Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr and Chief Obafemi Awolowo when they make absolutely no effort to emulate these great people? Don’t they say imitation is the best form of flattery? If you truly admire these people, why don’t you make some effort, even a little, to be like them? Mandela’s names defined his life-born “Rolihlahla” (literal “pulling the branch of a tree” but colloquially meaning “troublemaker”), he was also “Khulu” (great, grand, paramount), “Madiba” (his Xhosa clan chieftaincy name), and “Tata” (father). He was born on July 18, 1918 into a Thembu royal family in Mzevo, near Qunu in the hinterlands of Umtata, capital city of Transkei in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa and joined the African National Congress (ANC) in 1943. He formed the ANC Youth League along with Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu in 1944 and its military wing “Umkhonto we Sizwe” (Spear of the Nation) in December 16, 1961. Mandela also made his mark in the law profession, founding South Africa’s first black law practice, “Mandela and Thambo” in 1952. He married Nomzano Zaniewe Winifred “Winnie” Mandela in 1958 having divorced his first wife, Evelyn a few years earlier. He was to later marry Graca Machel, widow of Mozambique’s Samora Machel after his divorce from Winnie. When he was jailed in the notorious Rivonia Trial in 1964 ushering in his 27 years in Robben Island and other locations as prisoner 466/64, Mandela uttered the now immortal words, “During my lifetime, I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live and achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 along with Frederick W De Klerk. Mandela’s life confirms to us that living for principles and the common good is neither foolish nor futile. On the contrary, that is the only legacy that endures. Opportunistic, self-serving and tactical politics can bring much temporary advantage, but it is only sacrificial, principle-centred leadership that transforms society and edifies people.

Security and Federalism

I was at the 7th Town Hall Meeting of the Lagos State Security Trust Fund (LSSTF) last Thursday November 28, 2013 at the Civic Centre, Victoria-Island in Lagos. For those who may not know, LSSTF was created by Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) through a Law passed by the State Assembly, in 2007 when he was first elected. Indeed it was the first law passed under the Fashola Administration. It was envisaged as a public-private partnership arrangement to intervene in the chronic funding gap for the police and other security agencies in the state. As I have heard Fashola say on several occasions (and as those of us who live in Lagos can easily corroborate!), when he came into office in May 2007, Lagos was besieged by armed robbers and other sundry criminals. Bank robberies, home invasions and traffic attacks were a regular daily occurrence and near anarchy was virtually loosed upon the land. I can testify to all these from personal experience! In August 2007, five or more armed robbers broke into my home on the island in the dead of night and carted away laptops, projectors, phones, jewellery, cash and any portable stuff they could lay their hands on. It was, I believe, only the restraining hand of the Almighty that ensured no one came to any harm, and nothing of subsisting value was lost. Some years earlier, I had gone to visit a junior bank colleague who had just had a child in the Ikeja area, along with my wife, and armed men broke into the flat while we were there! This was around 8.00pm on a Sunday evening!!! In 2000, armed robbers blocked me down Opebi Road, Ikeja around 9.30pm, drove me (with a gun to my head all through) to Ijoko Road, Otta, before dropping me off in the middle of nowhere around 11.30pm. Of course they went off with the brand new Honda Accord I was driving as well as most of my personal belongings!!! Fashola notes that he spent his first weeks in office visiting hospitals, mortuaries and homes of residents to console victims of the then rampant robberies in the state and quickly decided the deteriorating security situation required an emergency response. LSSTF was the outcome of the work of a committee headed by former Inspector-General of Police, Musiliu Smith, which recommended the state find a means of redressing the almost criminal neglect of police funding by the federal government. At the Town Hall Meeting, one of the mechanisms institutionalized by LSSTF to ensure transparency and accountability (others include publication of an annual report; auditing of its accounts by global accounting firm, Price Waterhouse Coopers; an independent board, comprised of a majority of private sector representatives; non-receipt of any direct appropriation or subvention from the state government; etc), Fashola and the Fund’s Executive Secretary, Fola Arthur-Worrey illustrated the shocking scale of police funding deficit-in 2013, Abuja provided only 3 vehicles to the Lagos State Police Command, which includes command headquarters, OPS Attack, Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), Special Investigation Board (SIB), State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), 106 police divisions with Divisional Police Officers (DPOs), and numerous police stations and posts, as well as Marine Police, 5 Mobile Police Divisions and a Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU). All these exclude the “federal” commands based in Lagos-Airport, Ports, and Railway Commands, Federal SARS and FCID! The FGN reportedly budgeted N475million for vehicles for the entire Nigeria Police Force!!! The total police budget for the whole country was N311billion of which N293billion was for personnel costs, leaving only N8billion for overheads and N10billion for capital expenditure! Yet this same Federal Government, which abandons the police, other security agencies and many other federal agencies in the states resolutely opposes state police and devolution of power! It is very much like an irresponsible husband and father, who lavishes his money on a wasteful lifestyle while refusing to provide for his wives and children, and yet insists the wives must not work!!! It is absurdities and dysfunctions such as this that convince me of the necessity, indeed the imperative of a national conference to discuss such and similar fundamental issues! In the face of this gross federal neglect, Lagos State Government, its Local Governments and Local Council Development Areas, and citizens and organisations have through the LSSTF provided in excess of N12billion in resources and provided the police and other security agencies in the state more than 800 vehicles since 2007. LSSTF has also become a mechanism to ensure recurrent costs such as fuelling, servicing and maintenance of vehicles, equipment and other operational resources are provided in an accountable and verifiable manner. The relative peace and security which Lagos State enjoys is thus not a co-incidence, but the result of the vision of Fashola in setting up LSSTF and it illustrates the effectiveness of “local responses to rising national security challenges” (the theme of this year’s town hall meeting) and the value of federalism in a society with diverse peoples and challenges. Federalism we must re-state is the system best-suited to nations with multi-ethnic, multi-religious and other multi-component diversities allowing sub-national entities respond to differing challenges in manners best calibrated to their local conditions. It is this effectiveness of local strategies and responses that Nigeria denies itself through its current pseudo-federal or defacto unitary constitution. The virtual breakdown of law and order across Nigeria is just one additional symptom of the failure of the current approach!

Multiple Levels of Uncertainty

The policy highpoint of 2013 was substantial privatization of the unbundled PHCN entities by the federal government with only three outstanding transactions-Sapele and Afam Gencos and the Kaduna Disco. Outside the power sector, the other area of progress remains continuing reforms in agriculture. GDP growth in the third quarter at 6.8% suggests that full year output will grow within our target band of 6.5-7% for 2013. Some sectors appear to be doing quite well-retail; hotels and restaurants, and indeed the wider entertainment sector; electronic payments and e-commerce, driven by improvements in the financial sector with regard to the payments system, and continuing telecommunications sector growth over 30%. The CBN has succeeded in managing inflation, bringing it down in the last three months (8.2%, 8.0%, and 7.8%) consecutively. There has been some progress too in financial and capital markets-apparently stable deposit money banks; rising capital markets with 2013 YTD growth around 35%; efforts at financial deepening and increased trading sophistication through the creation of two new over-the-counter exchanges for unlisted PLCs (NASD) and bonds, derivatives and other money market instruments (FMDQ); and growing international interest in our bond markets with J.P Morgan, Barclays and the IMF/World Bank all taking interest in Nigerian bonds. The government has conducted sensible foreign relations and recorded significant achievements in global football-winning the African Nations Cup and FIFA Under-17 World Cup, and qualifying for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Less positively, the government continues to grossly mismanage the oil sector-the Petroleum Industry Bill remains stuck in parliament; oil theft and piracy are rampant in the Niger-Delta costing the federation billions of dollars (and challenging federal and state budgets!); and under-investment and divestment by the international oil majors continues unabated. To compound our domestic oil sector incompetence, the outlook for global oil market fundamentals does not appear robust especially into the medium and long term. In this context, the CBN pursues its emotional defense of the Naira at current levels while the markets appear to have assumed depreciation is inevitable sooner or later, and the later it is, the more likely it would be devaluation! Not surprisingly, the spread between the CBN’s official dollars and autonomous market rates is widening. Meanwhile at the cost of scarce foreign reserves, we continue to subsidize imported consumption, capital repatriation, foreign education, holidays and some limited manufacturing! University students remain at home, five months after ASUU declared a strike, which appears motivated by a desire to inflict political costs! In all this, the social context remains bleak-significant levels of corruption; massive poverty and unemployment; the collapse of public services; high levels of crime and insecurity; and a continuing “civil war” against “Boko Haram” in the North-East region which remains under emergency rule. In addition, ethnic cleavages and religious polarization are increasing and the 2015 elections appear certain to widen those divides. In 2014, we would enter into the full political season as most of the electioneering campaigns will happen early; and we may have a “national conference” to discuss fundamentals of our union. The consequence is that in 2014, we will pay more attention to politics, rather than policy and economy, and political risk may be elevated. We should however complete outstanding PHCN privatisations, carry out the NIPP version and may also sell off the four government-owned refineries. A new CBN governor should be appointed and some monetary policy directions may change, although the incumbent may yet shape the financial markets for most of next year. 2014-2015 may also test our vulnerability to oil markets around multiple indices-oil prices; revenue and budgets; exchange rates; and inflation. It is possible that attention may also shift to stimulating investments in the solid minerals sector, but FDI may fall in 2013-2015 as investors adjust to perceptions of higher political risk. If CBN goes ahead to increase CRR on public sector deposits, we may see some financial sector “blues” in terms of constrained liquidity within segments of the industry, but probably not of cataclysmic proportions. And if PIB remains unpassed in 2013/H1 2014, it may be sensible to consider an unbundled PIB which allows us pass less controversial elements in smaller pieces of legislation. In my view, the top three risks for 2014 will be political; oil sector vulnerabilities; and exchange rates with upside possibilities from privatization of additional power assets and refineries. Overall I see 2014 as a year with multiple levels of uncertainty-around politics and complex national scenarios, with a determined opposition ranged against a president who wants a second term and is strengthening his hold on the tools to accomplish that desire, within the context of an election that may accentuate regional and religious fault lines; continuing insecurity and sectarian violence; sustained global economic risks including low growth, unemployment, uncertain oil markets, and discussions of US tapering of quantitative easing from Q2 2014 (though it now seems clear Janet Yellin will not be aggressive in that regard); multiple domestic economic concerns around exchange rates, interest rates, inflation (in the context of increased political spending, though official budgets may be lower) and the impact of higher CRR and MPR on financial sector liquidity. GDP growth is likely to stay broadly around current levels or slightly lower.

Jonathan and the Conference

In the two-part serial, “The National Conference”, I made the case for those who believe Nigeria’s federalism is structurally defective; that this deficiency has negative, possibly fatal social, economic and political consequences; and that a fundamental constitutional restructuring is required to remedy Nigeria’s dysfunction, to embrace the Jonathan administration’s national dialogue initiative. In particular, I urged our compatriots in Western Nigeria who for more than two decades have persistently called for a national conference to seize, or at least actively test this window of opportunity provided for such restructuring. As one compatriot noted a few days ago in an e-mail endorsing our point of view, whether this opening is due to “sleight of hand or hand of God” it is expedient to grab the chance to improve our federal system in line with our long run strategic interests, rather than focus on narrow, tactical considerations, transient advantages, self-interest and partisan politics. This willingness to embrace the possibility of a national conference is not because we are naïve about what may be President Jonathan’s motives in embracing the idea of a conference. There are at least two plausible hypotheses about why Jonathan turned around to support and indeed activate the conference. One is as a tactic to raise his bargaining power in the struggle against his geo-regional adversaries, principally from Northern Nigeria and their Southern allies, towards 2015. As another senior compatriot argues, Jonathan’s objectives may not go beyond “muddying the waters a bit to expose the internal contradictions in the opposition party, strike fear into the internal opposition in his own party, so that the status quo can be maintained by a hung conference”. In this thinking, Jonathan may not really want or care about a conference and this may just be a ploy, in essence Jonathan’s “third term” (in his case second term!) conference to secure personal political advantages. And it is of course a hypothesis that cannot be ruled out! But there is another plausible counter-hypothesis-Jonathan is Ijaw from the Niger-Delta. The first recorded attempt to “restructure” Nigeria was by Isaac Adaka-Boro, an Ijaw activist and hero. The Ijaws have fundamental complaints against the structure of the Nigerian state that have manifested in persistent calls for “resource control”, true federalism, environmental remediation etc, thus the Ijaws and Niger-Delta/“South-South” have significant stakes in any effort to discuss the fundamentals of Nigeria’s union and particularly its fiscal federalism, and the Ijaw National Congress, the powerful assemblage of Ijaw interests is clearly in support of the conference. Beyond geo-ethnic interests, Jonathan’s personal experience may have focused his mind on the reality of political inequality in Nigeria-those who selected him as running-mate to Umaru Yar’adua probably did so seeing him as a weak and pliable “minority”; his path to the presidency was strewn with insults and danger especially during the Yar’adua “vacuum” when he was severely underrated with his party chairman announcing that the presidency was zoned to the North; a “Northern Political Leaders Forum” emerged to pursue a Northern consensus against him; and since he became substantive president, he has faced relentless efforts to undermine his office and person-“Boko Haram”, NGF, “new” PDP ad infinitum! Jonathan must be aware that whatever happens, he will leave office in 2015 or 2019, and unless Nigeria is restructured, the Ijaws and other Niger-Deltans will return to their pre-2010 status quo as de facto “spectators”, while dominant ethnic groups spend the oil wealth derived from their homeland! Whichever is truth, the point is that true believers in the concept of a national conference must decide how to respond to this opportunity in a way that maximizes the possibility that such a conference will hold, and under terms favourable to the achievement of our objectives. I am convinced the optimal response is to seize the initiative and endow it with momentum transcending the objectives of the regime, whatever they are! We must organize to ensure a lock-in into the conference and challenge those in the Presidential Advisory Committee on the National Dialogue, some of whose antecedents suggest commitment to the idea-Senator Femi Okurounmu, Solomon Asemota (SAN), Anya O Anya, George Obiozor, Tony Uranta and Akilu Indabawa amongst others, to define the conference in terms consistent with the popular will. Fortunately the preponderance of submissions to the Committee are clear that an acceptable conference is one based on equality of representation by geo-political zones; fair representation of ethnic nationalities and sub-groups within each geo-political area; and whose result is submitted for ratification by a referendum of Nigeria’s peoples in whom sovereignty resides. Now we must be vigilant and ensure we protect this opportunity. We must ensure the conference is not a negotiating item as Jonathan and his adversaries seek accommodation with each other. We must form alliances across geo-political zones, nationalities and groups to foster consensus and ensure realization of shared objectives. And we must educate and mobilise our people to understand the case for a national conference and the historical imperative of not wasting what may be a unique and probably last opportunity to save federalism and effect fundamental positive change in Nigeria. In the final analysis, Jonathan has a decision to make-will he be a man of history, who exactly one hundred years after the amalgamation re-defined Nigeria and did what strong men could not do, or is he a historical footnote, who came, saw and left things as they were?

The National Conference (2)

Last week I expressed support for the planned conference to discuss Nigeria’s fundamentals because Nigeria’s most important challenges are structural and in its current form, the country is politically, economically and socially unsustainable; Nigeria’s problems will not be solved by any elections (they may in fact restore avowed unitarists to power and worsen the prospects of federalism) but by a restructuring of the federation in line with the desires of its geo-political zones and ethnic nationalities; the National Assembly has neither the credibility nor institutional integrity to perform this task being itself a product of the gerrymandering of Nigeria as proven by the type of irrelevant palliatives and unitarist proposals it has offered since 1999 as constitutional amendments. I am in support of a conference, irrespective of its designation, based on equal representation of the geo-political zones, representative of Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities and in which the outcome is submitted to a referendum of Nigeria’s peoples in whom sovereignty resides. I believe that irrespective of the President’s motives (which in any event may not be conclusively improper) we should seize the opportunity to effect positive change in Nigeria’s constitutional arrangements. I am encouraged by published comments attributed to Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State who said in a THISDAY interview, “if you know my background, you will know where I stand on national conference. In my previous life, I was a convener of the Citizens Forum for Constitutional Reform…and I spent the better part of my time from 1999 till I came into politics, working on the constitution. I was an unofficial adviser to the late Chief Bola Ige on the Constitution Review Committee that they set up at one time and we produced a model constitution. I was in PRONACO. I had written extensively about this. I am a federalist. For me, what President Jonathan has done, coming from an earlier position that was utterly negative, is not something Kayode Fayemi can personally be negative about. I cannot! I was actually in the Yoruba Assembly. You only need to google my interviews and other things I have said so it would be opportunistic on my part to say national conference is not appropriate…I’m not going to talk about a motive -whoever set up anything has a motive and there is no perfect time for anything. Whatever anyone does in life, there cannot be 100 per cent perfect time. That is the time you must do it. So people are saying why now, why not another time? It is not for me the essential argument. Again, whether it is called national dialogue or national conference is not really relevant, what makes a conference relevant is the input of the large population of people and that can only be arrived at by a referendum. That is the only vehicle of sovereignty.” I am relieved by Fayemi’s comments which are on ‘all fours’ with my column of last week. I note also that my views are in tandem with representations to the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue (PACND) by all groups from Western Nigeria-Afenifere, Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), Yoruba Assembly, Yoruba Unity Forum, Coalition of O’Odua Self Determination Groups (COSEG), O’Odua Nationalist Coalition (ONAC), Eko Foundation, Atayese and Okun Peoples Forum all of whom seek Yoruba autonomy within a federal Nigeria and a conference of geo-political zones and ethnic nationalities, whose output is put to a referendum. Indeed the memorandum jointly submitted by ARG, Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), COSEG, ONAC, Eko Foundation and Atayese, and presented by ARG Chairman Olawale Oshun, demands a conference of ethnic nationalities “that seeks to restructure Nigeria in a way that grants Yoruba people, and other ethnic nationalities seeking it, unfettered autonomy to develop it’s region and its own space within the framework of Nigeria’s multi-ethnic federation”. Incidentally Governor Kayode Fayemi (along with Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State) is a leading member of ARG. The memoranda presented by Afenifere (with Chief Reuben Fasoranti as leader and Yinka Odumakin as spokesman), Yoruba Unity Forum (YUF) led by Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi and Yoruba Assembly are in pari materia with ARG’s position. The Yoruba Assembly led by General Alani Akinrinade notes that it is “a welcome development that President Goodluck Jonathan has finally decided, two years after the election that brought him to power in 2011, to organise a national conference” and seeks a conference which allows “Nigerian nationalities to confer and design Nigeria as a federation wherein each of Nigeria’s federating nationalities shall be protected from domination by any other Nigerian nationalities and wherein each Nigerian nationality shall be able to develop its economy at its own pace within the framework of a united Nigerian Federation” The Yoruba Assembly further notes that the “the Yoruba nationalities in Nigeria have for decades persistently called for a rational restructuring of the Nigerian federation, as well as for a sovereign national conference” to address the national question, and points out that “although the sovereign status of the proposed conference is not clear in the swearing-in speech given by President Jonathan, the decision to establish a forum for a national conference is appropriate and a welcome development“ and urges that the conference “should not be subject to the stresses of partisan political party confrontations”.

The National Conference

I should say upfront that I support efforts by the Jonathan Administration to organize a conference amongst Nigerians to discuss fundamental issues afflicting the country. I have been convinced for many years that Nigeria’s most important challenges are structural-the country has been designed (actually deliberately mis-designed since 1966) such that the country’s structure ensures that it will not work. In an attempt by Nigeria’s unitarists to ensure the perpetuity of their stranglehold over the destiny of its diverse peoples and nationalities, they have created a dysfunctional, sub-optimal, pseudo-unitary constitution and nation that is neither federal nor rational and that ensures that Nigeria as we know it is politically, economically and socially unsustainable. We now have a country that discourages productivity by its federating units, since the vast resources taken from the federating units accrue to a wasteful supra-entity, a “national” entity that belongs to no one, and is accountable for nothing and to no one! The country is politically hobbled, unable to find any agreement beyond a lowest common denominator on any worthwhile matter as ethnic, religious and regional cleavages dominate national discourse. If a minister blatantly steals money, her tribal affiliates defend her; if a leading Representative is caught on video collecting bribes and stuffing the cash in his cap, his powerful regional patrons ensure he suffers no consequences, yet we are all required to utter the empty words, “national unity” and “Federal Republic of Nigeria” even as we know deep in our hearts that they are meaningless in our current context! There is neither shared vision nor common project! The 2011 elections were fought almost entirely on regional lines, and the approaching 2015 version promises to be contested completely on the basis of region, religion and ethnicity. We are living dangerously and it is wise in my view to have a dialogue on the fundamentals of our union. I am convinced that Nigeria’s problems will not be solved by mere elections! Our national drift predates and will endure beyond Jonathan so long as we retain the failed constitutional structure. The paralysis and dysfunction will persist or in fact worsen as avowed unitarists take over the presidency! Most names I have heard mentioned for instance are complicit in the destruction of Nigeria’s federalism and have evidently learnt nothing and regret nothing! Indeed current House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal believes that rather than restore Nigeria’s federal structure, the solution is to completely destroy it, in favour of full unitarism by elevating local governments to a third-tier of government; abolishing state electoral commissions; denying state police; and retaining the distorted and inefficient exclusive legislative list! Rabiu Musa Kwankaso’s public comments are so shockingly irredentist and parochial that one shudders what type of leadership he would provide in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. He recently suggested representation at the national conference on the basis of 774 local governments! The attitudes and inclinations of other leading unitarists are well known! I am also totally convinced that the National Assembly does not have either the credibility or institutional integrity required to embark on the restructuring of Nigeria, which is what is required. The Assembly is itself one of the biggest evidence of the gerrymandering of Nigeria by soldiers who created states and local governments in pursuance of narrow strategic objectives-regional, ethnic, religious, even personal! The distribution of federal legislative constituencies, particularly in the House of Representatives confirms why the institution is disabled from any tangible and credible constitutional change, beyond irrelevant palliatives. If you need any confirmation of the federal parliament’s disability, please look to the (lack of) substance and quality of amendments they have proposed to our Constitution since 1999!!! My support for the National Conference is of course not unqualified! I support a conference in which representation is on the basis of equality of the six geo-political zones; in which representation within the zones is representative of the ethnic nationalities domiciled therein; and in which the decision thereof will be submitted to a referendum of Nigeria’s peoples and the outcome unalterable by any authority since sovereignty ultimately resides with the people. If a conference carries these attributes, I do not care what it is called or how it is described! I am not naïve about whether President Jonathan may or may not have any “motives” in convening this conference, but I would seize any chance to improve Nigeria’s structure nevertheless until proven otherwise. In any event most change in Nigeria has come because of someone’s tactical considerations-the amalgamation itself due to British budgetary concerns; independence due to changing post-second World War British realities; the creation of Lagos, Rivers and other states in 1967 due to Gowon’s need to under-cut Ojukwu’s Biafran secession; the Obasanjo Presidency due to Northern tactical outreach to pacify the Yorubas after “June 12” etc. There is nothing wrong with seizing a president’s tactical opening to effect fundamental positive change! Substantively however, there is basis to think that President Jonathan’s Ijaw nationality has good reasons to favour a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria as persons like Ankio Briggs and Professor Kimse Okoko may have argued. What I imply is that President Jonathan’s support for a national conference may not be entirely tactical. Whatever Jonathan’s objectives, we should seize this opportunity such that it acquires a momentum of its own! Let the dialogue begin!!!

Dana Crash...Beyond the Tears (REPEAT)

*Note* This article was published just after the Dana Airlines Crash in June 2012. I re-publish it in exactly the same words in the wake of the Associated Airlines Crash and the multiple scandals plaguing the sector, in the hope that we won’t have to again publish these same words next year! On December 10, 2010, I moderated a roundtable discussion on the aviation sector organised by Loyola Jesuit College Abuja parents based in Lagos in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the Sosoliso air tragedy in Port Harcourt five years earlier. The programme held at the Lagos City Hall, and was attended by Dr Harold Demuren, Director-General of the National Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and members of his team, representatives of Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), aviation lawyers, officials of the Accident Investigation Bureau, victims parents and relatives, insurance sector representatives and other industry stakeholders. That session acknowledged the relative improvements in aviation safety and infrastructure as at that date; the passage of the Civil Aviation Act 2006; and the reduction in the average age of aircrafts operating in Nigeria, all of which culminated in US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Category 1 certification. However several ongoing challenges were also identified-persistent deficit in infrastructure-fire safety equipment and water hydrants, runway and runway lightings, ambulances, terminal buildings etc; issues with customer service standards and consumer protection; victims compensation, rehabilitation and counselling; and strengthening capacity in accidents investigation. Most importantly, the roundtable participants called attention to “a major emerging problem”-“the economic dimension of airline operations”-problems with profitability and operational viability of the sector which we warned “if not addressed lead to operational and safety issues”. As I reflected on the Dana Air disaster and the death and destruction occasioned thereby, my mind went back to that roundtable, and I wondered if perhaps focusing on those recommendations could have contributed towards preventing the June 3, 2012 Dana Air tragedy. My perception is that between December10 2010 when that roundtable held, and the Dana crash, standards and safety appear to have depreciated somewhat in the sector, and that may have been attributable to political interference in technical sector decisions and the economic dimension highlighted. In that interval for instance, a Minister has directed or condoned the arbitrary and forceful expulsion of a service provider (MAEVIS) from the airports contrary to all official and legal restraints. It is easy to imagine such a minister over-riding technical advice from industry regulators, in favour of whatever she deemed expedient. It is also on public record that a state governor, Godswill Akpabio of Akwa-Ibom, had based on passenger feedback, warned Dana Air management about endangering lives with allegedly defective aircraft. It is difficult to believe that no such complaints were received by the Minister and aviation authorities! My personal experience is somewhat instructive. I have since the EAS air crash of May 2002 maintained a very strict discipline about which airlines I fly on. I had been on that doomed EAS aircraft less than two weeks before it crashed and it was patently evident to everyone on that plane that it wasn’t airworthy. I sat with Tunde Ajijedidun on that Lagos-Abuja flight and we spent the whole flight time pensive and prayerful as it huffed and puffed, lunged, plunged and rose dramatically all through the flight!!! Until recently my shortlist was Air Nigeria, Arik and Aero Contractors. But by some strange co-incidence I flew Dana on two Abuja return trips for the first time ever in last month and for whatever reasons, I vowed not to repeat that venture. I can’t put a finger on why since the service was good, but perhaps I concluded that despite the service, I wasn’t comfortable with the aircraft, which appeared old and laboured. Now we have lost 153 or so dear souls and visited grief and sorrow upon families due to what appears to have been a preventable crash. As I pondered over the fate of the families who have lost dear ones, I have kept wondering why we continue to agree to live this way? Why is the black man, the African, the Nigerian willing to endure pain and suffering just because of our predilection to greed, selfishness, and mediocrity? Why are we so short-sighted and self-destructive in our determination to never do the right things, but continuously seek personal privilege over collective development? Why do we believe that we can defy the laws of nature-that you can only reap what we sow and corruption can only produce backwardness and retrogression? When will we learn that evil can only produce evil? How do we console the victims and their families? That it was the will of God? That it was unavoidable? How do we explain this to Mrs Rebecca Aikhomu, and all the others who lost family, relatives, colleagues and friends? I commend the government and public reaction to this unfortunate tragedy, but beyond current emotions, will we learn anything from this occurrence? Will we actually change our behaviour? Will we start enforcing regulations based on the public interest rather than private interests? Will management and staff of public agencies, not just in the aviation sector start understanding that the whole of society including sometimes themselves and their relations will always bear the consequences of our negative actions? Will we start enforcing rules and standards without fear or favour and based on standards and global best practices? Our tears, outrage and condolences will not transform Nigeria. Only our actions will.

Adventures in the Spirit

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision…” I once received a public scolding from an “intellectual” for making allusions to God, faith and spirituality in this column. In that fellow’s thinking, such “anti-intellectualism” was infradig given my stature as an analyst and commentator. I ignored the guy of course!!! “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” This column is named “Economy, Polity, Society” for good reason-man is the object and subject of society, and even though he is concerned with economics and politics, as well as social forces confronting society, he is in his essence, also a spiritual being. It is difficult for non-spiritual persons (notice I didn’t say non-religious!) to understand how vivid and tangible God’s communications with His children can be-clearer and infinitely more precise than any earthly medium or alternative altar could be, informing those who rely on Him of the thoughts and plans of men, and of matters seen and unseen! I am a fan of Malcolm Gladwell and I have been reading his newest offering “David and Goliath” in which he examines in multiple contexts how apparently weaker entities defeat their “stronger” and “bigger” rivals and how initial “disadvantages” can turn out to be beneficial. Gladwell of course finds many “intellectual” reasons why David prevailed in that epic encounter with the Philistine giant, but for me it was a much more simple matter-“Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel…”. As with David, so Esther and Mordecai; Daniel; and the three Hebrew children! Of course the fate that befell Goliath was shared by Haman and the powerful people-princes, governors, captains and counselors, who conspired to throw Daniel into the lion’s den. As well as Pharaoh and his armies! Secular writers on power and politics often caution potential revolutionaries to beware not only of the kings they seek to overthrow, but often also the potential beneficiaries of their mission. I see a hint of this phenomenon in the case of Moses-“And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked that way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known. Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses.” May God save us from evil and spiteful brethren! Yet in spite of its obvious dangers, it is the duty, indeed the destiny of persons of integrity to speak truth to power and to seek to change society for better! That is what Jesus Christ, the prophets before him; and the saints and martyrs afterwards did!!! Even a little teenage girl, who probably never read the Bible, Malala, spoke against the Pakistani Taliban! However do not expect everyone to be like Christ, Elijah or Stephen! The Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Council and “religious” people never confront power-political, economic or religious!!! From the time of Christ, their “ministry” as outlined in Chapter 23 of the Book of Mathew has not changed! The real altars at which these categories worship are those of Caesar and Mammon! Many have become disillusioned and concluded that God has no role in saving Nigeria; that our easy resort to faith has become part of the problem, rather than solution; and our people instead of acting to confront societal ills, indulge in escapism of asking God to intervene. I agree. Yet I remain convinced that Nigeria’s problems are at least partly spiritual. Can you build a successful nation upon the blood of innocent people? Can a nation whose leaders indulge in unspeakable evil prosper? Can any good come out of evil covenants and spiritual bondage? Can a system founded on diabolical practices endure? Will God not look at many and say “These are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city”? Yet I believe Nigeria will become that which it could and should be, even though this may not happen in its current form. I deeply believe Nigeria will have to re-examine its structure and purpose. I speak both of our constitutional and federal structure and our spiritual essence. For those who continue to stand against Nigeria’s potential for their selfish interest, I have a retort-“This city shall not be your caldron, neither shall ye be the flesh in the midst thereof: but I will judge you in the border…”

Nigerian Political Party System (2)

I have traced the foundations, evolution and (lack of) ideology of Nigeria’s major political parties and concluded that we are yet to evolve a political party system in its normal characterization in which there are clearly defined parties with contrasting visions, ideologies and policy platforms and with stable membership and programmes. Instead the parties have fluid and fluctuating members (the ACN’s presidential candidates in the last two elections came from the PDP and one has since returned there; several ACN legislators and commissioners have been members of other political parties; one ACN governor has been a PDP senator, and governorship candidate for ANPP and CPC(!); another ACN governor previously contested on ANPP platform; PDP has previously handed the party governorship ticket to an ANPP deputy governor; the current PDP chairman has previously been expelled from the party (!); two former PDP chairmen were previously members, officials and candidates of other parties; many politicians across all parties have been known to cross to another party solely to contest an election and cross right back thereafter; APGA recently disqualified probably its best governorship aspirant in one state allegedly because of opposition to his candidacy from a PDP president (!); the two governors elected on the Progressive Parties Alliance (PPA) platform duly returned to the PDP leaving the party the empty shell it was; all the initial national chairmen and many governors elected on APP/ANPP platform decamped to the PDP; Labour regularly offers its platform seemingly to the highest bidder…), and there is very little discussion around policy and ideology. Yet since the ultimate objective of any political party is to win elections, form government in the society in which it is organized, and govern that society based on its beliefs and philosophies, it is often a political party’s actions in government that reveals or confirms what it actually stands for. We must thus examine the question, “how have these parties performed whenever they have had the opportunity of forming a government, either at national or sub-national level since 1999?” I will exclude local governments from this analysis for reasons of their de facto control by the state governments and because unlike Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, Femi Gbajabiamila and their colleagues in the House of Representatives who appear intent on foisting a unitary constitution on Nigeria, I do not regard local governments as a separate and independent tier of government, and I believe in a federal constitution in which the regions or states are the federating units! Since PDP has exclusively formed the federal government since 1999, it bears the burden and benefit of accounting for all the successes and failures at that tier but fortunately we are able to review the performance of AD/AC/ACN, APP/ANPP, APGA, Labour, PPA and CPC which have formed various state governments across the country. The PDP has to accept responsibility for the country’s parlous state-corruption, acute insecurity and crime, increasing poverty and unemployment and the erosion of societal values. Obasanjo successfully carried out some economic reforms-telecommunications liberalization, banking consolidation, pension reforms and crucially, the Paris Club debt write-offs. He also enacted reform legislations for power and mining sectors which unfortunately he didn’t implement. Obasanjo also re-integrated Nigeria into the international community and took steps in his first term to prevent the recurrence of military intervention in politics. Beyond these, Obasanjo’s eight years failed to curb corruption; worsened the practice of democracy and conduct of elections and left infrastructure and power almost worse than he met it. Obasanjo’s successor, Yar’adua had no economic policy beyond stalling reforms and PDP’s internal troubles have made the country unstable under Jonathan. Jonathan has been plagued by indecisiveness and seeming tolerance of corruption, but he has resumed economic reforms and power privatization. Overall the PDP’s national performance has been very much less than glorious! At state level, PDP has been even worse! Its first set of governors included Diepreye Alamieyesegha, James Ibori, Peter Odili, Joshua Dariye, Achike Udenwa, Orji Kalu, Chinwoke Mbadinuju and Lucky Igbinedion!!! The AD/AC/ACN has fared significantly better in the states. Its governors have tended to be more level-headed and the welfarist heritage of governance in the South West has somewhat endured. While Bola Tinubu laid policy foundations in Lagos, Babatunde Fashola has been the party’s best advertisement and probably provided the impetus for other states in the region to return to ACN. APP/ANPP’s legacy can be seen starkly in polio and VVF, the problem of 10 million Almajiri children, the nation’s highest rates of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy, and the problem of Boko Haram-all these phenomenon you will notice are most concentrated in states substantially (mis)governed by the party-Borno, Yobe, Kano, Sokoto and Zamfara. There is nothing in ANPP’s governance record to recommend it to anyone! The CPC, until recently a part of ANPP by-and-large shares the ANPP’s dismal record and if winning Nasarawa was an opportunity to demonstrate what it could achieve at the federal level, it has thrown away that chance with both hands!!! The Labour Party has been lucky that many of those who contested elections on its platform (Fayose, Andy Uba, Patrick Ubah?) have lost and that only Olusegun Mimiko who has governed Ondo with competence and some vision has been successful.

Nigerian Political Party System

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Nigeria’s ruling party since 1999 is a centrist, non-ideological “rally” united by money and power rather than any shared vision, ideology or ideas. It is the political party that best approximates the character of the Nigerian state and bears its limitations and dysfunction-corrupt, sub-optimal, incompetent (except in matters of easy money, unmerited power and diabolical strategies!) and mediocre, and it presents a façade of unity while its most powerful components covertly pursue hegemony while simultaneously retaining a balance that keeps stakeholders within the fold rather than outside. The party’s centre of gravity, like the country is in its Northern half, so when nominal power resides outside, there is tension and instability. However it is also the most “national” (actually “unitary”) of our political platforms and has been most favoured by the Northern and Southern minorities who fear domination by their larger ethnic neighbours. The PDP to its credit has managed to minimize the role of religion in its politics and governance. The party was founded by relatively noble politicians and elder statesmen-Solomon Lar, Sunday Awoniyi, Alex Ekwueme, Adamu Ciroma, Bola Ige, Abubakar Rimi, Sule Lamido, Onyeabo Obi, Ayo Adebanjo, David Jemibewon, Olu Falae, etc but these elements were displaced by the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) elements (Abubakar Atiku, Tony Anenih, Lawal Kaita and Co) who were less-principled and willing to do the departing military’s bidding as the Generals (Abdulsalam Abubakar, Aliyu Gusau and IBB) sought to impose Obasanjo as its presidential candidate. The successful military infiltration and take-over through PDM proved fatal to PDP’s character and essence and foisted a political system devoid of high ideas on the nation! The combination of PDM’s mercenary politics and Obasanjo’s ( supported by a large cast of soldiers and policemen including Babangida, T. Y Danjuma, Ahmadu Ali, Tony Anenih, Aliyu Gusau, Abdullahi Abubakar, David Mark, Bode George) military authoritarianism has become the dominant strain in PDP’s DNA!!! The new All Progressives Congress (APC) is a merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) with additional elements from All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and Democratic Peoples Party (DPP). ACN evolved from the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and Action Congress (AC) in terms of membership and political character, even though AD technically remains a different, marginal political party. AD was a protest formation of the Yoruba Afenifere political establishment who saw themselves potentially marginalized within the omnibus PDP as old NPN elements in the group began to coalesce into a dominant faction. Bola Ige who harboured a presidential aspiration pulled Afenifere out of PDP, first into All Peoples Party (APP now ANPP) and then formed AD. The evolution through AD, AC and ACN reflected the internal power struggle within the movement as first the two “Bolas”-Bola Ige and Bola Tinubu, and later Tinubu as “Asiwaju” snatched power from the elders. I have always viewed ANPP as a Northern “insurance” against the PDP. It did seem that having adopted PDP as its preferred “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) for power transfer in the run up to 1999, the military and security overseers of the transition and the more atavistic elements up North felt an imperative to create a Northern fallback in case Obasanjo (the appointed caretaker CEO of the SPV) and PDP went astray! The APP duly became the party of the North winning nine northern states in 1999, and of Sharia as Sani Yerima in Zamfara and other ANPP governors led introduction of the Islamic legal system across the North, a process correctly described as “political Sharia” by Obasanjo. It was a strategy to use religion as a bulwark against the rampaging PDP as the 2003 elections approached. The ANPP reinforced its ethnic, regional and religious authenticity as Muhammed Buhari, ex-military leader and leading Sharia advocate regarded as religious and pious, became its leader and presidential candidate. It was inevitable however that Buhari and the ANPP Governors would fall out after his failed 2003 and 2007 campaigns, given their differing temperaments and dispositions. The fundamental character of CPC derived from its founder, Buhari who had projected himself as focused on Fulani, Northern and Islamic interests, but was more aligned with the mosques and streets, rather than palaces and financiers! Buhari and CPC were bound to be less flexible, more self-righteous and dogmatic and less politically pragmatic than their buccaneering cousins in the ANPP, traits that cost the party several states and legislative seats and Buhari his presidential aspirations once again in 2011. The inclusion in APC of factions of APGA and DPP around ex-Governor Chris Ngige and Senator Annie Okonkwo from the South-East and late Senator Pius Ewherido from Delta provide additional geographical leverage into the group. It is not certain what the merger of all these disparate elements into the APC would produce-the party could re-create a social democratic grouping with progressive credentials or less cheerfully a form of sectarian-populist fascism could emerge. Beyond analytical composition, the APC is likely to be more formidable electorally than its forbears and has a window of opportunity to position itself as qualitatively different from the PDP by focusing on policy and integrity, and putting its best foot forward. It is not evident that APC will do this, as it concentrates on attracting defectors from the PDP and risks pushing unviable options to the electorate. Labour Party and APGA govern Ondo and Anambra respectively and both are de facto allied with PDP. In other states, Labour provides a platform for itinerant politicians, including those whose record cannot be reconciled with labour interests, while APGA is essentially a “Biafran” grouping based on late Ojukwu’s goodwill. DPP and Accord are relevant only in Delta and Oyo respectively. I have spoken earlier of PDM as a faction within PDP led by Atiku and Anenih. The PDM recently registered by INEC is Atiku’s “briefcase” party waiting to be populated by defectors from PDP. PDM’s strength has never been grassroots politics, but rather out-manouvering other factions within a larger body (the old SDP and current PDP). The PDM’s other strengths have been finance and propaganda!!! The group eventually over-did itself and was smashed by Obasanjo as Atiku schemed to consign Obasanjo to a single term in office, illustrating its main weakness-believing its own propaganda! It is yet unclear if targeted PDP defectors will not opt eventually to stay in PDP or other parties and whether aspirations of potential defectors may not clash with Atiku’s. Nigeria is yet to attain a political party system, properly so called. Our political parties are based on personal aspirations and expediency, base considerations and primordial allegiances. Though ACN’s governance record supersedes others, no party has focused substantially on policy platforms and virtually all have weak organizational structures designed to maintain control by party leaders and governors. The glue holding them together is the lure of office, power and money and it is not evident that this is about to change!

Jonathan and the PDP

President Goodluck Jonathan assumed Nigeria’s presidency without winning any election on his own account or merit. He was selected by Diepriye Alamieyesegha as his running mate for Bayelsa governorship in 1999; became substantive governor after his boss was impeached on ex-President Obasanjo’s orders; was selected as running mate to late Umaru Yar’adua in 2007 for the presidency, also by Obasanjo; and became President upon Yar’adua’s death in 2010. These do not mean Jonathan’s political skills had never been tested. He must have conducted himself such as to earn nomination as Deputy Governor and Presidential running mate. There must be a reason for his not going down with Alamieyesegha during the money laundering and impeachment saga. The major test of his political maturity on the national stage was his calm navigation of the multiple minefields in his way during the dangerous days of the Yar’adua vacuum, when things could easily have gone awry, for him and nation! On the other hand, it could all have been “time and chance”!!! Jonathan went on to two remarkable victories of a substantive nature-winning PDP presidential primaries in spite of strong regional opposition crystallized in the so-called “Northern Political Leaders Forum” under Alhaji Adamu Ciroma, which selected a consensus Northern opponent to Jonathan (Alhaji Abubakar Atiku) among three other leading aspirants (General Ibrahim Babangida, General Aliyu Gusau and Dr Bukola Saraki). Jonathan then built an unprecedented South-East, South-South, North-Central and South-West alliance and scored sufficient incursion into the unfriendly North-East and North-West to score the required 25 per cent votes in many states therein. No other Nigerian leader had been brought into power with a similar voting pattern-the Igbos voting the same platform with the Southern minorities; the Yorubas and Igbos voting for the same presidential candidate; the Northern middle-belt being excised from mainstream Hausa-Fulani voting direction; and a sufficient split within Northern states to win a few, while several others gave him 25% or more of their votes. It illustrates the naivety of Jonathan’s political strategy, and the limitations and lack of strategic foresight of his kitchen cabinet, that this coalition was virtually dismantled by Jonathan’s team themselves as they sought to monopolise the spoils of office! The South-West was excluded from the victory, probably even before Jonathan was sworn in, while the Middle Belt has consistently wondered what benefits they have attained by voting for the president. For a long time in fact, Jonathan sought, in vain it now seems, to appease precisely those segments of the electorate whose votes he had failed to secure or more accurately the political elite therefrom. Since then Jonathan has recorded a string of political losses-the defeat of his candidate for House of Representatives Speaker by a coalition of internal and external opponents foisting a hostile lower chamber on his administration; he endured a “Boko Haram” insurgency which embarrassed him locally and internationally while he appeared weak and indecisive as he pondered how to respond until the belated emergency declaration; he somehow managed to alienate both Obasanjo, who by-and-large made him Governor and President, and Bola Tinubu (who he actually put in the dock, right after the presidential victory) whose complicity eased his victory in the presidential election through a massive South-West voter endorsement. The consequence is that Jonathan’s 2015 aspiration has limited though not irreparable roots in the South-West. Soon the broad quadrangular coalition that elected Jonathan had been shrunk into a narrow South-South/South-East alliance pre-occupied with spoils of office forgetting that another election was imminent, sooner than later! Indeed I have heard non-Ijaw, South-South elements dispute their presence in the ruling coalition, rather describing it as an Ijaw/Igbo coalition!!! The presidency has since suffered additional embarrassment from the loss of the NGF elections by its preferred candidate to his regional nemesis, Rotimi Amaechi, and the humiliating walk-out of the so-called “new” PDP at the mini-convention on August 31, 2013. The new PDP phenomenon illustrates certain trends and realities of our polity-the domination of politics by regional, ethnic and religious considerations, and increasing desperation by some Northern groups to retrieve political power; the subsistence of hegemonic desires by contending factions of the Nigerian power elite, in this case North and South-South/South-East; the faulty design of our political party system, especially the PDP, which are merely vehicles for attaining wealth and power rather than political parties in the classical sense; the perception of Jonathan as naïve and inexperienced and the exploitation of his “simplicity” by others who believe they are more deserving of the presidency, oftentimes simply by virtue of their higher capacity for intrigue and mischief(!); and the failure of the PDP as Nigeria’s ruling party since 1999, to elevate the quality of our democracy and governance. The new PDP walk-out however masks another reality favourable to Jonathan-that mini-convention marked the effective take-over of the party by Jonathan! Yet the president’s failing has not been mostly one of policy-which may in fact be on the right path in some respects illustrated by power privatization, agricultural reform, improvements in transport and aviation infrastructure, fiscal consolidation and monetary stability, the Sovereign Wealth Fund, foreign policy successes in Mali, Guinea Bissau, China and elsewhere even though significant failings remain in the oil sector, and with corruption, poverty and unemployment. Jonathan’s undoing has been politics and strategy! He has been wrong-footed in every major political battle since he became president, and one must now wonder at the quality and commitment of his strategic advisers. Today most of the “principalities and powers” of Nigerian politics-Obasanjo, IBB, Buhari, Abubakar Atiku, Bola Tinubu, Aliyu Gusau and many influential governors appear ranged against him while his corner is dominated by Edwin Clark, Ahmed Gulak, Mike Oghiadomhe, Asari Dokubo and others who cannot offer broad assistance! To be fair, Northern opposition to Jonathan has often appeared unreasonable and implacable, and it may be noted that even Obasanjo was faced with a similar phenomenon. As the opposition to Jonathan is finally unveiled, he will face his greatest test in the run-up to 2015. Can he construct or re-construct a winning coalition? Can he re-unite the PDP or at least retain sufficient arsenal therein to prevail? Can he attract many of the “territorial powers” back into his camp or alternatively secure a pact with the voters above the heads of the “chieftains”? Will federal power and resources prove decisive? Will he avoid an unedifying exit from power, in 2015 or if his enemies have their way, even earlier? Will the country itself be embroiled in the aftermath and could we suffer a national meltdown or conflagration?

A New Power Sector

I have been writing on power sector reform since this column commenced. I was researching and teaching on the subject even earlier than that! It’s been clear to me for decades that optimizing Nigeria’s economic potential was not going to happen until the country did something about our shocking deficit in electricity generation and distribution and I have long understood that the government monopoly, National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) which became Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) was never going to be the vehicle for redressing that embarrassing power shortfall. Like its other inefficient and failed peers (NITEL, Nigeria Airways, Nigerian National Supply Company (NNSC), Nigerian National Shipping Company (NNSL), Ajaokuta Steel etc., the company’s incentives were in no way aligned towards innovation, efficiency, service delivery or sustainability. Like the country itself, these organizations were debilitated by corruption, ethnicity, and nepotism and were structurally unable to accomplish any meaningful outcomes. It was clear that our “deliverance” in power would not come from incremental improvement in NEPA, but through structural change. I was therefore excited when I heard of a new power sector policy at the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) which aimed to create a structurally different power sector in which NEPA would be unbundled into its generation, distribution and transmission components; a new regulatory infrastructure would be created; the issues of pricing would be addressed; and the generation and distribution entities would be privatized, while the transmission monopoly would be concessioned to private sector managers. I celebrated this new approach, which was formulated as far back as 2001 thinking that our salvation from self-inflicted darkness was at hand, but then I was naïve about Nigeria! This 2001 policy which was encapsulated into draft legislation, the Electric Power Sector Reform Bill of 2001and sent to the National Assembly same year was held up in parliament till 2005 when it was apparently reluctantly passed. It was amazing that a nation could treat a law to redress probably its most important socio-economic malaise in this manner, but then haven’t we always underrated the corrupt bureaucrats and regional politicians who have combined to undermine our prospects as a nation? You would think again that when the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (EPSRA) was eventually passed in 2005 that we finally were free! Instead President Obasanjo whose administration championed the reform, by this time had other priorities-a constitutional amendment to facilitate a third term for the two-time, second term president was now the regime’s top policy objective and the transformation of the power sector did not receive the required attention. More curiously the government’s power policy actually then moved in the opposite direction to that suggested in the new law with the government investing in a rash of power projects under the so-called National Integrated Power Projects (NIPP)!!! Such was the confusion that it was only after the failure of “third-term” that Obasanjo returned to the EPSRA and the matter was not concluded until Umaru Yar’adua took over as President. Yar’adua, with wrong-headed advice from Rilwanu Lukman discountenanced EPSRA and reverted to a failed policy prescription based on government control of the power sector, achieving nothing until his unfortunate demise. To his credit, President Jonathan recognized the imperative of radical action on power and enunciated a power sector road map in April 2010 based on EPSRA. That road map appears finally to have reached a point of no return on August 21, 2013 with substantive conclusion of the privatization of most of the unbundled PHCN entities. In specific terms, the government has successfully concessioned the transmission company to Manitoba Hydro of Canada against many odds; it has essentially concluded the sale of 9 distribution companies with outstanding payment issues with one (Enugu), while Kaduna Disco privatization is ongoing; 5 generating firms’ sale have also been completed, with some payment outstanding in respect of only one (Sapele) while Afam transaction is also pending. The government has received over $2.7billion in sales proceeds so far, with additional payments still expected. The process of selling off 80% of government stake in the NIPPs has already been started by BPE and the Niger Delta Power Holding Co Plc with positive market sentiments. By and large, Jonathan and his aides have accomplished the transformation of our power sector from one controlled by government into a private sector dominated industry. There are heroes in this affair! Mr Atedo Peterside, accomplished banker and Chair of the National Council on Privatisation’s (NCP) Technical Committee stands out. Professor Barth Nnaji who served variously as Special Adviser and later Minister of Power also does. No one would remember the contributions of the quiet but effective Ms Bolanle Onagoruwa who was unfortunately removed as BPE Director-General while the process was ongoing. But it is not yet uhuru! The BPE appears to be mismanaging the fallout of Interstate Electricity’s default in payment for Enugu and eroding the credibility of an otherwise sound exercise; regulation, consumer protection and competition issues must now take the front burner; the NIPP privatisation must be successfully completed; the transmission “limiting factor” must be carefully managed, with transmission decentralization and captive generation considered whenever possible; we must now stimulate huge private sector investment in new generation capacity across the country; and the management of the highly technical electricity market must be insulated from political and other interference.

Power, Propaganda and Reconciliation

I was inclined, for personal reasons, not to comment on the “crises” in Rivers State. I however concluded recently that because nothing I have read so far encompasses my take on the matter, there is an over-riding public interest in placing my perspective on record. I may have touched tangentially on the issue in two recent articles-“The NGF Crisis” and “Egypt or Nigeria”-but I have until now refrained from presenting a comprehensive narrative. In “The NGF Crisis”, I noted that Governor Amaechi won the governors’ election by 19 votes to 16. However it was predictable that the elections would be very close and the Forum would be factionalised in its aftermath. I placed the affair as a proxy battle between Northern and opposition power groups opposed to Jonathan and the presidency, and argued that both Amaechi (who was fighting against local sentiments), and Jonathan, apart from NGF’s policy and technical work which was bound to suffer, were strategic losers in the affair. My conclusion was that the best interest of both sides was probably best served by reconciliation. In “Egypt or Nigeria”, I cautioned against attempts to project a coup or revolution in Nigeria based on developments in Rivers State. The elements at play in the Rivers palaver are in my view quite base-incumbency versus ambition; a power struggle by displaced regional powers to reclaim hegemony from a yet un-stabilised new power, deploying an ally in the new power’s home base to exact maximum damage; the fury of an offended and insulted federal power unleashed on a provincial power who is desperate for survival; and a battle in which the contenders deploy asymmetric weapons-national power versus media propaganda! I did not think there were any fundamental principles in dispute or any overarching values in contention. Instead it was a contest driven essentially by power and politics! I think the roots of the issue stretch far longer than most analysts have suggested! When late President Yar’adua was in power, he had a group of friendly governors led by former Kwara Governor, now Senator Buki Saraki, that included Yar’adua in-law Isa Yuguda of Bauchi, Amaechi and now displaced ex-Governor Timipre Silva of the then Vice-President Jonathan’s Bayelsa State. We remember that during the Yar’adua power vacuum, when the sick President lay ill in Saudi Arabia, these Governors under the Saraki-led NGF were perceived to be disinclined to a Jonathan take-over, and then PDP Party Chairman, Ogbulafor who was allied to the group, lost his position once Jonathan took power. This crisis of confidence also denied Silva a second term in Bayelsa State. It may also be that Amaechi preferred his re-election to happen along with the rest of the 2011 general elections rather than after Jonathan had won the presidency and consolidated power by encouraging a lawsuit which cut short his tenure. While a temporary truce was reached in 2011 because most of the Governors did not wish to endanger their second term prospects, once the 2011 elections were over, a subtle battle resumed, this time with 2015 as the object. Amaechi had now inherited the NGF leadership while some former allies, including Gabriel Suswan of Benue, Ibrahim Shema of Katsina and Yuguda had defected to Jonathan’s camp! I believe the truce was broken through a series of developments-Amaechi’s support for Silva during the Bayelsa PDP primaries; the presidency’s perception that Amaechi was using the NGF against it; the conflicts between Amaechi and Dame Patience Jonathan over Okrika waterfront and sundry matters; and elements of Rivers State domestic politics along the Ikwerre-Ijaw/Kalabari fault lines. There probably was an escalation with deployment of federal power over appointments, contracts, infrastructure, oil wells and security against Amaechi and ipso facto Rivers State and Amaechi’s opposition to the State of Emergency declaration in the North-East was probably the final straw! All these were brought to a head with the NGF elections and the humiliation of the presidency whose party candidate was defeated by Amaechi’s North-West coalition. At this stage, no one has yet committed any constitutional infraction as up to this point, matters were yet in the realm of politics and deployment of power and administrative discretion. Even the embarrassment over the disputed NGF elections could still be tolerated since the NGF was not a constitutional creation but a voluntary association of Governors. The fracas on the floor of the Rivers State House of Assembly was however a different matter! It was a constitutional sacrilege for five legislators to attempt to impeach a speaker against the will of twenty-seven others. The fight in the legislature was a shame and the widely published thuggery by Chidi Lloyd was a disgrace and a crime. A massive propaganda war was then unleashed probably at significant cost to the treasury of the state and focus on its governance. Having said all, I return to my initial conclusion-that the optimal strategy for both Jonathan and Amaechi would appear in my opinion to be dialogue and reconciliation. That does not mean they must agree on political direction-Amaechi could choose to leave the PDP or could otherwise declare an intent to challenge Jonathan for the party ticket either as candidate or running-mate, but both parties have to put the state, nation and constitution above their ambitions. Amaechi would also have to somehow persuade Rivers State and the South-South region to his chosen path.

10 Lessons from Manny Pacquiao

I am sitting in a long, transatlantic flight and trying to convince myself it is not feasible in my current frame of mind to attempt writing this column after I arrive the destination. I expect that by the time we land, I’m likely to be tired, exhausted and seeking just food and sleep-trying to put some 1000 or so words on paper is likely to be the least of my priorities! I probably had reconciled myself to this pessimistic narrative when I took up the Time Magazine I was reading and read the very last page-“10 Questions” which in the edition of August 19, 2013 featured Manny Pacquiao the Filipino world champion boxer who has achieved fame, wealth and power through his exploits in the boxing ring. Emmanuel “Manny” Dapidran Pacquiao is a professional boxer from the Philippines who has won multiple world titles across weight divisions and was elected into his country’s House of Representatives in 2010. I was not expecting the interview with Pacquiao to reveal any profundity or intellectual context-he was a boxer after all who had grown up in his country’s slums but the very first answer to a question about how he managed to juggle fighting with being a congressman surprised me-“it’s just time management” he said sharply. Well that discussion of a management concept by the boxer/politician proved to be the first of many. By the time I finished reading the interview, I had found something fresh and reinvigorating to write about and I knew that in spite of my travels, I was going to be writing that column as soon as I settled into my hotel room! In total I extracted 10 “lessons” Pacquiao was teaching in that interview-5 which he stated explicitly like the time management example above, and another 5 which he alluded to implicitly. I propose to share my perspective on those lessons with readers. “It’s Just Time Management”: Manny Pacquiao as I have mentioned is a world champion boxer across weight categories and divisions. But he has also done some acting; music and he is a successful politician and congressman. In addition, he is a military reservist with the rank of Lt. Colonel. How does he combine all these, and excel at all of them? It’s “just” time management he says and provides an example-he considers the importance of matters on the legislative agenda vis-à-vis his boxing regimen in deciding how to apportion his time. I can relate to Manny of course-I write a newspaper column and produce and present a television show, both of them weekly and essentially hobbies. Yet my source of income is my consultancy business which I manage full time. For a long time, I also taught “full time” in a business school and I frequently honour media requests for interviews. And I sit on boards which require significant input in terms of time and quality. It’s about Passion: Pacquiao was asked why continue fighting despite all the successes, money and political power he had acquired? And his answer was right out of my “personal strategy book”-“that’s my passion” he responded! I frequently tell audiences who express interest in entrepreneurship that in my opinion the starting point is finding one’s passion and developing a business model out of it. If you don’t enjoy it such that you would do it for free, you probably won’t make a success of it as a business! “I always think positive”: The interviewer asked Pacquiao whether he would quit boxing if he lost his next fight with Brandon Rios and again his retort was sharp-“I’m not thinking negative-I always think positive”. He was completely unwilling to countenance the possibility of losing! There was no “plan B” to winning like the army that burnt the bridge behind them and therefore had no alternative to fighting to prevail. Leadership is about the People: The fourth direct Pacquiao lesson was in relation to his role as a politician and legislator. He was asked what mattered to him as a politician and Pacquiao’s response was “we passed a lot of bills that benefit the people of my constituency”. I wonder how many Nigerian Parliamentarians and for that matter, CEOs can truthfully say it’s all about the people! The Ultimate Strategist: I have written before about the role of the ultimate strategist, God Almighty in the affairs of men. I do believe that in the end, it’s not by power, might, intellect or strategy, but ultimately the grace of God. Apparently so does Manny Pacquiao. He says “I still believe in Jesus Christ, I still believe in God the Father” and wishes to be remembered as “serving honestly and with the fear of God”. And then there were the 5 implicit lessons. One, the importance of phasing or sequencing your priorities-he would fight for as long as he can, but once he announces retirement, that would be it. Two, competition and adversity is good for you! Pacquiao agrees he picked a tough opponent, Rios for his imminent fight and he really wishes to fight Floyd Mayweather, probably his ultimate test. Three, Pacquiao says in relation to his next fight both that it would be tough because Rios is not an “easy opponent” but also that “it’s going to be fun” stressing the importance of enjoying your work. Four, China, Asia and the New World is important going forward-that’s why the Rios fight will be in China. Finally, Focus! Asked whether he had ambitions for higher office, Manny Pacquiao says he is presently focused on being a successful boxer and congressman.

The Anambra Relocations

If initial reports were to be believed, agents of the Lagos State Government headed by Governor Babatunde Fashola, a lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, had gone on the streets of Lagos, seized 67 persons of Anambra State or Igbo origin on their way to their markets, homes or other legitimate activity, bundled them unto some trucks, driven fast and furiously towards Anambra State and dumped them somewhere at the foot of the Niger Bridge in Onitsha! When I read this report, I was initially shocked, then incredulous…and then I knew there was probably more to the report than it disclosed. Was there anything in Fashola’s record to indicate a disposition to act in such manner? I didn’t think so! Fashola’s commissioner for budget and planning, Ben Akabueze is from Anambra State; the head of the state’s infrastructure regulatory commission is also from that state; Fashola recently built a housing estate and named it after former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, also from Anambra! Recently when popular actress, Ngozi Nwosu needed help to meet the cost of treatment of a kidney ailment, Fashola it was who came up with N4.5million, three quarters of the funds required. Lagos State employs many non-indigenes in its civil service, and its traffic management agency, LASTMA was headed by Young Arebamen, an indigene of Edo State. Minutes after I read the suspicious report and as I pondered these issues, I saw tweets on Twitter posted by a former local and international office holder of Igbo extraction condemning the actions attributed to Fashola. I cautioned her against jumping to conclusions and made up my mind to seek more information before making further comments. I also had personal reasons for concern on the matter, given the emotions I knew would be generated by the report-my sister-in-law, the wife of my most junior brother of same parents, hailed from Anambra State! And what did my direct enquiries from very senior officials of the Lagos State Government reveal? I was presented with oral and documentary evidence of the true state of facts-on April 9 2013, an official of the Lagos State Government (LASG) wrote to the Anambra State Government (ANSG) informing it of 14 persons who were in the state’s rehabilitation centre who “claimed to be indigenes of your state” and requested ANSG’s “urgent response to screen them to verify if they are truly from your state”. ANSG through its Lagos Liaison Office replied on April 15 acknowledging receipt of the LASG letter and requested “particulars of the 14 persons” in order to “facilitate their integration with their families if they are from Anambra”. LASG promptly wrote a second letter dated April 29 providing names, towns/villages, LGAs and state of origin of the 14 persons and stressing the need for ANSG’s officials to arrange a physical interaction with these people. We have since discovered that the governments of several other states-Anambra (!), Akwa Ibom and Rivers States as well as New York and Hawaii in the USA have implemented a similar policy. I also understand and agree that there was a political context to the behavior and hypocritical complaints of the Anambra State Government on this matter-a governor who has probably underperformed for most of his tenure, who now resorts to ethnic mobilization as the best route to ensure his party wins an imminent election! What surprised me however was why the majority of Igbo people were willing to accept this propaganda given as I mentioned earlier Fashola’s record on the subject? The emotional frenzy that accompanied the matter is also curious given a certain context-many years ago, Enugu State, the erstwhile capital of the old Eastern Region expelled government employees from other Igbo states; more recently Abia State sacked all civil servants from neighbouring states, most of whom were from Imo; as we speak, the government of Ebonyi State refuses to allow an Anambra indigene acquire control of a cement company situated in Ebonyi; and the controversy over the Mbaise people of Imo State’s vehement rejection of a Catholic Bishop from Anambra rages on!!! Clearly there were other factors that accounted for the outrage over the actions of the Lagos State Government, which were not reflected in these other more egregious instances! I was also surprised that in spite of information that the policy of the Lagos State Government on resettlement of destitute and vagrant persons with their families and communities had been implemented in respect of persons from Oyo, Ogun and Osun, and in several Northern States, the anger in several commentators refused to abate. One caller on a radio phone-in programme in fact argued that Lagos State should have put the people in prison rather than repatriate them towards their communities. And then I realized that the argument was not really about the welfare of the persons concerned! If it was about their welfare, ANSG would have gone to visit and help its indigenes, rather than play politics with their fate! If the focus was their welfare, it would be clear to all that when you rehabilitate homeless, mentally-retarded, drug-addicted, and penniless people, you don’t release them to go back on the streets; you send them to areas where they would have a family or community support system, and in their circumstances, the best places for these destitute persons was back in their villages! And then I realized that for some, the argument was really a proxy for another argument over the ownership of Lagos-that Lagos was a “no-man’s land” and that Igbos were the greatest contributors to the development of Lagos. That is a debate I’m not prepared to take part in except to caution that the other city in which such an argument is ongoing is Jos!

Obama and Human Rights (2)

We have seen thus far a troubling pattern of behavior in which top officials of the Obama administration have deliberately lied to the American people over the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya which led to the death of Ambassador Stevens; seized the phone records of 20 Associated Press journalists in order to circumvent the confidentiality of their sources; prosecuted eight (8) of its ex-employees under the Espionage Act 1917 mostly for providing information to journalists; and targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny, placing their applications on hold for upwards of two years! In a supreme irony given the experiences of blacks in the evolution of US civil rights, the three dramatis personae at the core of these incidents, President Barack Obama, Attorney-General Eric Holder and former UN Ambassador, now National Security Adviser, Susan Rice are all African-Americans! Their actions appear to have systematically undermined civil rights, media freedom, liberty and dissent. So far the US and global media have condoned these abuses, perhaps because a “liberal” President sits in the White House creating the impression that liberalism is a label rather than a set of values and principles that should underlie policy and administration. The US media for instance, appears to have helped the administration downplay the gravity of the deception over Benghazi, and the almost deliberate tardiness in investigating the terrorist attack and bringing the perpetrators to justice. The media and rights groups have similarly shrugged off the IRS scandal, the persecution of journalist James Rosen and the seizure of AP phone records. Some may suspect that US and perhaps even Western liberals have been so enthused over their “victory” on gay rights that they are prepared to overlook any infractions of civil and media freedoms by their perceived ally, Obama. Indeed the only arena in which “human rights” have advanced in the US under Obama appears to be in respect of homosexual rights. It also does seem that the media will ignore any matter that could damage the Obama administration lest their conservative “enemies” benefit! The most shocking affront on privacy and civil rights, probably in the modern era (and possibly anywhere in the world!) has been the scale and depth of state-led surveillance and intrusion into private communications revealed by Edward Snowden, the fugitive, former NSA contractor now seeking refuge in Russia. You will recall that Snowden leaked information to Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian of UK columnist on the interception of US and European telecommunications data under a US program called PRISM and several others. Apparently the US with probably UK, Australian, New Zealand and French support and participation, targeted US citizens and allies, including NATO nations, the EU and other foreign countries in a complex web of spying operations to intercept internet and telephone conversations from over one billion users worldwide! The programs indiscriminately collected bulk information (so-called “meta data”) directly from central servers and internet backbones from telecommunications companies. These programs included PRISM under which the US National Security Agency (NSA) obtained direct access to servers from internet providers potentially providing them access to e-mails of millions of citizens and foreigners; Boundless Informant, a computer program that performs data collection; X-Keyscore deployed in Australia and New Zealand; Dropmire, which targeted foreign embassies and diplomats; Fairview, which targeted mobile phones especially text messages in foreign countries (such as Nigeria?), UPSTREAM and TEMPORA, which collected data directly from fiber optic cables and internet backbones; MAINWAY, which provided call records; MAINCORE which focused on financial records; Stellar Wind, through which data was mined; Echelon, which intercepted commercial satellite trunk communications; Turbulence, which included cyber-warfare capabilities, including targeting enemies with malware; and an Insider Threat Program, which presumably failed to detect leakers like Edward Snowden!!! In short the US government constructed a whole industry and infrastructure focused on invading and compromising private communications worldwide, based presumably on the need to detect and deter global terrorism. Of course the price its citizens and the rest of the world were required to pay was that in the absence of transparency about its activities, US security could as well use information obtained for any other purposes! Through these programs, the US is believed to have collected data from over 120 million US Verizon subscribers; bugged encrypted fax machines in EU embassies; hacked Chinese mobile phone companies and universities; spied on various EU diplomatic missions and offices; and spied on millions of e-mails and calls of Brazilians. I presume e-mails and phone calls of major Nigerian state officials couldn’t have escaped this vast spying web! And how have US liberals and media responded? Their posture has been a narrow focus on the travails of “leaker” Edward Snowden rather than illuminating the more fundamental debate on the continuing erosion of privacy and civil rights in pursuit of national security and vanquishing global terror. The irony is that this same US government’s main prescription for responding to “Boko Haram” terrorism in Nigeria was appeasement, poverty alleviation and regional empowerment!!! It is a historical tragedy that the erosion of civil liberties in the US is happening while a black American democrat sits in the White House. No doubt, one day a conservative, right wing White Republican will become president and inherit the vast police state that Obama, Susan Rice and Eric Holder helped create.