Johnnie Carson, the US and Boko Haram

Johnnie Carson is the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. His recent speech at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC on April 9, 2012 was titled “Nigeria, One Year After Elections” but may have been more appropriately titled “Appeasing Boko Haram (and its Sponsors!): A Marshall Plan for Northern Nigeria”! After initial platitudes, Carson explained his theory-“Nigerians are hungry for progress and improvement in their lives, but Northern Nigerians feel this need most acutely. Life in Nigeria for many is tough, but across the North, life is grim” the State Department official declared citing vague statistics purporting that while life for Southern Nigerians is merely tough, life is brutish and grim in Northern Nigeria! Actually Mr Carson, life is grim all over Nigeria! According to Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics, relative poverty was 69% in 2010 (112.5million people); absolute poverty was 60.9% (99.2million people) and $ per day poverty was 61.2%. The Bureau projected 2011 poverty prevalence as 71.5%, 61.9% and 62.8% for relative, absolute and $/day poverty respectively. A few facts expose the distorted propaganda Ambassador Carson has swallowed-Niger State, up North has lowest poverty prevalence nationally with 43.6% relative and 33.9% $/day poverty; Borno (Boko Haram’s home) has 61.1% relative poverty, significantly lower than Ogun (69%) and Anambra (68%). Benue has higher poverty (74.1%) than Kano (72.3%). Poverty is more prevalent in South-East’s Ebonyi (80.4%) than Northern Gombe (79.8%), Jigawa (79%); Kaduna (73%); Kano (72.3%); Nasarawa (71.7%); Taraba (76.3%); Yobe(79.6%) and Zamfara (80.2%)! Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial, industrial and financial capital has relative poverty of 59.2%!!! Edo in the South has higher poverty (72.5%) than Kano, Nasarawa, Borno and Niger in the North; and poverty in “oil rich” Bayelsa, Rivers and Delta states are 57.9%, 58.6% and 70.1% respectively! When Carson declares “poverty in Northern Nigeria is increasing” he makes no point! Actually poverty is increasing EVERYWHERE in Nigeria!!! Again NBS says relative poverty rose from 27.2% nationwide in 1980 to 69% by 2010! While higher poverty levels prevail in parts of the North, Nigerian poverty is incapable of North-South compartmentalisation! The 67% of South Easterners who are poor are not different from the 76.3% North Easterners or 77.7% North Westerners in the same condition! Almost 60% of South Westerners (59.1%), 67.5% in the North Central; and 63.8% in South-South are poor! Poverty is acute, dear Assistant Secretary everywhere in Nigeria! Relying on this distorted overview of Nigerian poverty (sold by a well-motivated cast including John Campbell, Jean Herscovits, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and his Financial Times friends, especially William Wallis), Carson could only go wrong! Before his predictably defective conclusion however, he asserts that the 2011 elections were fair and transparent, but then subtly implies that since most Northerners voted for the opposition, some thing must be done to appease them (John Campbell recommends, and Wallis/Xan Rice of Financial Times hint government should appoint “strong Northerners” whatever that means, into government!)-shouldn’t Mr Cameron also co-opt strong Labourites into his coalition (and invite London looters and rioters for dialogue)? Actually Obama tried and it incensed rather than appease angry Republicans! The fact however is that Northerners are ruling Party Chairman, Vice-President, Senate President, House Speaker, Head of Civil Service, Ministers of Defence, Federal Capital Territory, Interior, Water Resources, Education, Transport, Chiefs of Navy and Air Force, Central Bank Governor, Chief Justice, Court of Appeal President, Inspector-General of Police etc!!! No other region of Nigeria can boast a richer haul!!! Mr Carson asserts that “religion is not driving extremist violence in Jos or Northern Nigeria”. It is not necessary to explain how he arrived at this conclusion! Boko Haram victims and Northern Christians bombed to death in their Churches (and several pastors decapitated by Boko Haram!) may find it difficult agreeing with him, but then dead people are of no strategic significance to the US! There is a confounding portion of Mr Carson’s speech-he acknowledges the hypothesis that Boko Haram is “being funded by a handful of resentful politicians nursing their wounds from the last election” but turns to preaching and exhortation-“This would be deeply unfortunate if true”, he says, “but I have not seen any evidence” to support the theory. Ignoring the fact that he offered no evidence in support of his other suppositions, one would then expect him to proffer alternative theories regarding Boko Haram funding since evidently it cannot be the Northern poor providing sophisticated arms and ammunition, IEDs, AK47s, training, logistics, and operational intelligence for Boko Haram! Who does Carson suggest is funding Boko Haram or isn’t that question worth pursuing? Based on faulty diagnosis, Carson’s prescriptions are inevitably incomplete-the Nigerian government should establish a new social contract with Northern citizens (there’s an excellent social contract with the South?); government should de-emphasize the use of the military (to give Boko Haram room to re-group as its sponsors and apologists want?); government should create a Ministry of Northern Affairs (not original-Sanusi Lamido already told the Financial Times about a Marshall plan!; and complaints about special funding status for Lagos, and massive erosion and infrastructural collapse in the South-East and South-West, minus Lagos are irrelevant?); and a comprehensive economic strategy, (presumably for the North too!) to address social and economic context of Boko Haram!!! The fact that Southern poverty manifests in economic dimensions-armed robbery, kidnapping, “area boys”, gang violence, drug and human trafficking, fraud, white collar crimes and 419, prostitution, and desperate emigration amongst others, rather than religious extremism and fundamentalist terror was rather remote for Mr Carson and his advisers to grasp! The millions of Southern poor can go to hell, resort to revolution or form their own terror groups to get attention!

False Definitions

Easter is the season to celebrate the travail, crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the core and essence of the Christian faith-it is Jesus Christ’s resurrection that validates our faith in his second coming and the hereafter. It is not a time for anger, lamentation and vexation, so I decided it was better to laugh over our many problems as a nation! Stakeholders: The dictionary has two meanings for this word-“a person or company that is involved in a particular organisation, project, system etc especially because they have invested money in it” and “a person who holds all the bets placed on a game or race and who pays the money to the winner”. In Nigeria, the word has a slightly twisted meaning! Yes our “stakeholders” have “invested” money in the “game”, “race” or “project” and yes again, there is some sort of high stakes gambling going on, but here the word means something closer to “recognised co-conspirators” Consensus: Is supposed to mean “an opinion that all members of a group agree with”, but in Nigeria it usually means the exact opposite-an opinion that is imposed on members of a group by one or more powerful members! Principal: A word which usually implies a principal (a person you are representing, especially in business or law) and agent relationship exists. In our usage, it implies some form of sycophantic or crony relationship, usually rewarded with a share of “distributive” resources. “Carrying us along”: When civil or public servants, private sector employees or members of a group request their leaders, clients or “consultants” to “carry them along”, don’t imagine that they are interested principally in the finer points of policy formulation or progression of project execution. The phrase is a reminder that you should ensure the funds get to everyone in the manner agreed or expected to be shared! “To Move the Country Forward”: The implicit meaning here is-lets forget about the principles and ideals; and discard concerns about truth, justice and equity…and just move on since the current situation favours us (“us” doesn’t necessarily mean all Nigerians, but the speaker and the group he or she represents) Lobbying: Synonymous with “bribing” Reform: The meaning of this word is variable, depending on who is speaking! It may mean “reform” as defined in the dictionary (to improve a system or organisation) if used by a genuine reformer; It could also mean pretending to be improving a system or organisation when your real objective is to displace current beneficiaries of official rent, in favour of yourself or your cronies and associates. Foreign Investors: Also depends on who is speaking! When the speaker is the false reformer (see above), it means someone fronting for the speaker. Family Affair: Similar to “moving the country forward”, but usually refers not to country, but party! “One Man-One Vote”: To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened before in Nigeria! The closest we may have come to this strange phenomenon may have been on June 12, 1993, but otherwise we have also had one or more votes for children, cows, thumbs and fingers, fish, deceased persons, expatriates, chieftains, etc! In any event, at the collation centre (or somewhere between the “one-or-so-man vote” and collation centre), voting begins to be in hundreds, thousands or when necessary, hundreds of thousands! “Free and Fair”: The definition of “free and fair”, like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!!! See “One Man-One Vote” above! Screening: This may refer to screening by the Senate, party or security agencies, but the requirements, implications and consequences are similar-if you are naïve about the process, your plans to partake in eating the good of the land may be cut short! It does not matter if you’re probably the best nominee on offer (ask Bode Agusto) or an incumbent governor (ala Timipre Silva). This process may in fact be the de facto election! National Unity: No one knows what this phrase actually means! It may be a complete fiction or wishful thinking, but it is a cliché you’re well-advised to learn if you must work in Abuja! Peaceful Co-Existence: This one is most definitely a fiction-“wetie” in the West; riots in Tivland; a bloody military coup; a bloodier revenge coup; pogroms and crimes against humanity; then a very bloody civil war; regular ethnic, religious and communal violence; post-election killings; fundamentalist terrorism and sectarian violence…certainly neither peaceful, nor co-existential! But don’t ever say so! If you think “peaceful bla blab la” is too much of a lie, then say “mutual co-existence”!!! Merit: This word is not in our dictionary! What does it mean? Capacity Building: An easy way to get money out of the national treasury, without having to account for it-since “capacity” is neither visible nor tangible, no auditor can establish whether you executed the contract or not! Welfare: Similar to “carrying everyone along”!!! Perhaps the Nigeria of these definitions died on Good Friday and a new and better one was born last Sunday? I hope you had a good Easter. I also hope you spent some time reflecting on how you could contribute towards making Nigeria a better nation.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the World Bank

The Policy Council I move one small step ahead in my self-imposed duty of policy advocacy and public commentary with the premiering this week of “The Policy Council” on three national television stations. I have for virtually all my adult life since National Youth Service engaged in a determined effort to influence public opinion, hopefully positively. I started as a “letter writer” around 1986 writing the editors of various national news magazines until I settled on Nduka Obaigbena’s “THISWEEK”. Actually as a primary school student, I had written one letter to an NTA Ibadan children’s programme. I won the prize, but I never got to collect it-after one journey to Ibadan (from Lagos), my mother and I concluded the prize, whatever it was, was not likely to be worth a second, or perhaps third try! Employment in the banking sector eventually forced me to suspend my public interventions until frustration with national drift under Abacha induced me to send another letter to the editor in 1998-by then I had formed acquaintances in The Guardian, and that one got published on the op-ed pages. There were numerous other op-ed articles, at first still in The Guardian…later Businessday before I eventually accepted the challenge of writing a column in 2006, and that column “Economy, Polity, Society” continues till date. Then TV…. I had done a few official appearances on TV usually representing institutions and not myself. Professor Pat Utomi and “Patitos Gang” was my first regular television forum from sometime around 2004, after I had left the banking sector. And then I became a regular “policy analyst” on Silverbird TV, Channels and CNBC Africa with occasional discussions with BBC, Associated Press, Radio France International and Financial Times. I do not know exactly when the desire to take policy to television stirred up in me-watching Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN must have played some part. I of course noticed that Fareed had successfully made the transition from print media (Newsweek) columnist to TV talk show host, and our interests in policy, economy, development, governance and global affairs were not dis-similar. I also recall one older “friend” wonder (and them swallow the thought) if I wouldn’t have done fine asking the questions, rather than answering them! I spent many months thinking through the possibility of doing a policy-focused TV show in Nigeria, but the final push undoubtedly came towards the end of 2011 from a friend and brother (God bless him) who, completely independently of my ponderings, concluded that I should be doing exactly that which I was meditating over, somewhat of a miraculous intervention! And thus came…“The Policy Council…with Opeyemi Agbaje”!!! The objective is to provide a platform for informed debate and analysis around policy, economy, development and governance in Nigeria, Africa, the African Diaspora and the world, in order that policy can work for our people. The platform will be objective and non-partisan; and guests and discussants will be invited for the insight they can offer on policy. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the World Bank The matter of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (NOI) going to the World Bank is for me a complicated matter! I am often in sync with those who query whether she doesn’t have more to do at home, than at the bank. Isn’t transforming Nigeria a bigger imperative, even for the world, than reforming the World Bank? I am not surprised for instance at the unanimity of support for her nomination at home-there are many opponents of reform, who simply see the prospect of her going to the World Bank as good riddance-a major tactical victory in their efforts to prevent a change in Nigeria’s dysfunctional political-economy! But then I also see benefits to developing and emerging nations, including ours, from having her at the bank-an African, a woman, a two-time finance minister of Africa’s most troublesome economy-all exposures and experiences that place NOI in a unique position to make the World Bank more relevant to the needs of the developing world. The fact that she is also a World Bank insider makes her appointment a compelling choice! There is no doubt that she is the best candidate on offer, as attested to by The Economist and Financial Times, and her candidacy is buoyed by an uncommon unanimity of ECOWAS, AU and major emerging nations across the world. However if her appointment will mean quelling plans for a BRICS global development bank sponsored by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South-Africa, I am not sure that I would be pleased by such outcome. I would think a BRICS alternative to the World Bank would be a great thing, irrespective of what America, Europe and Japan do with their votes at the Bank. One of the lessons of economics and free enterprise is that competition is good for the customer and market place! All told, the decision will not be made based on our sentiments! The US/Europe/Japan bloc will decide based on their reading of their own geo-political and strategic interests and in the shorter-term, how any decision affects Obama’s domestic political equation in the run-up to the US elections. All things considered, I’ll be happy whatever the outcome is-we either have NOI helping to reform Nigeria, or we release her to help change the World Bank ultimately for our benefit as well. In the latter eventuality, the choice of her successor will be a critical decision for President Jonathan!

SEC Versus NASS: The Kettle and the Pot

Everyone now knows the story-the House of Representatives Committee on Capital Markets decides to conduct a public hearing on the capital market, as should be its purview. It fixes a date and arranges other logistics for the hearing, and then writes a letter inviting the Director-General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the government-established regulatory agency for the capital market, again as it should be expected (or indeed required) to. The problem arises when it attaches the budget for the hearing to its letter to the SEC DG, implicitly or explicitly soliciting a donation in support of the hearing. This is the principal agency which the committee by virtue of its mandate exercises legislative “oversight” over! We can go on and on about the capital market committee, but it seems this is a regular, indeed routine practice between the legislative houses and agencies and ministries (and perhaps even private sector entities?) affected by matters which are before the legislature and its committees! This practice makes absolute nonsense of the independent judgment parliament is required to exercise on behalf of the electorate whenever conducting investigations or considering some legislation. Essentially the consequence of such a practice, even if individual legislators did not benefit in any way from the “assistance” offered by these entities is to bias the legislature and erode its independence and impartiality. It is worse if members of the investigating panel actually receive benefits in cash, or kind (such as airline tickets-probably first class or business, to the Dominican Republic!) from parties with an interest in the outcome of investigations or legislation. Other questions also arise-do ministries, departments and agencies include monetary support for the National Assembly in their annual budgets? If not, how do they procure the funds they utilise for such purposes? Should tax payer or public funds be utilised in this manner? Where public funds are used by an executive or regulatory agency in this manner, is the public required to know? Has there been transparency around such payments, which by all accounts appear to be a regular phenomenon? Aren’t there appropriations in National Assembly budgets for its committee sittings and public hearings? But then let’s go back to the story! SEC decides to “support” the committee hearing and duly approves a sum of N30million to be disbursed to the committee! At this point, both SEC and the House Capital Market Committee are indictable for corruption!!! As we know, both the person who solicits a corrupt inducement and the one who pays or offers to pay are potentially guilty of a crime! Again questions arise-did SEC have provisions in its budget for paying for legislative investigations? Can such a hearing be covered by the omnibus phrase “capital market development”? In what way does the “reformist” leadership of SEC think this action was different from the behaviour of its predecessors which it claims to be reforming? Anyway for some reason, the consensus-ad-idem between SEC DG Arunma Oteh and the House Committee Chair, Herman Hembe breaks down and the committee chair decides to go for Oteh’s jugular! And fortunately he has some fairly strong ammunition in his hand!!! Apparently Ms Oteh has been living in Nigeria’s most expensive hotel, Transcorp Hilton for over nine months running up a bill to the tax payer in excess of N30million! Mrs Oteh’s defence is to blame her subordinates for misleading her and not providing alternative accommodation as promised! Quite frankly, these statements somewhat validate Mr Hembe’s allegations of incompetence even if in his case, they may have been motivated by malice! The day the DG reported at SEC, she became CEO at the agency and became accountable for all the public funds entrusted to it. It became her responsibility to familiarise herself with rules and regulations guiding SEC and public service and to ensure that public funds were not spent in an irresponsible manner. Of course she must be aware of the maxim, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”! Indeed it does not require knowledge of any specific laws or regulations for a responsible public officer to know that spending N30million in a hotel cannot be a prudent manner of expending the resources of a financial market regulator! Could she have done that at the African Development Bank where she came from? Could an official of the US SEC spend the agency’s funds in that manner? How different was her behaviour from that of those she dismissed at the Nigerian Stock Exchange? Ms Oteh had also apparently engaged the services of two personnel from a publicly-quoted bank who worked in her office even though she claimed their work did not form part of the agency’s regulatory core? Again why did she feel comfortable risking accusations of potential conflict of interest and bias given that the bank was involved in significant transactions before SEC at the time? Well the SEC DG then fought back with a public attack on SEC employees whom she evidently suspected of leaking information to the committee and revelations that the committee chair had requested a bribe of N44million, and obtained funding for a trip to Dominican Republic which was never made. If you ask me, this sounds like the pot and the kettle-both look very black to me!!!

SNC or Scattered Monologues?

I have usually been cautious about the call for a “sovereign” national conference. I am a student of constitutional law, and I understand the complexity of trying to vest “sovereignty” in a “conference”, especially while there is an elected president, a dual chamber national assembly comprised of senators and members of a house of representatives; thirty-six state governors (many of whose elections have been tested in the courts and affirmed by the judiciary, up to the nation’s Supreme Court); and houses of assembly. If we were to convene a “sovereign national conference” (SNC), what would happen to all these institutions and offices? Would they be in abeyance, or be abolished? Could those offices continue concurrently with such a conference? What would happen to the constitution itself, since it doesn’t recognise or envisage such a temporary (or permanent) transfer of sovereignty? Would our armed forces, the intelligence agencies and police report to such a sovereign conference or would they continue to report to the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, whom the existing constitution regards as having operational control of those agencies? What if the conference is unable to reach consensus (since all agreements will have to be negotiated) on issues before it? Does sovereignty revert to the elected institutions or will it be extinguished or dissolved? Or will extra-national institutions (United Nations, African Union, etc) assume authority over the country? Will the judiciary recognise such a conference? Questions about the mode of representation and other modalities of convening, operating and reaching agreements at such a conference so far remain unanswered. Clearly, it is easier to call for SNC than to define exactly what the implications and other details of the proposed conference are, or will be. On the other hand, I am also not impressed by those who simply dismiss calls for SNC, insult its advocates, or simply raise queries without putting forward alternative views or recommendations towards resolving our current grave national condition, which confirms that the national question regarding Nigeria is far from settled. When “Boko Haram” and its sponsors call for Islamic Sharia all over Northern Nigeria, or indeed all over Nigeria, demands which are also not envisaged within the context of the current constitution, aren’t they in effect calling for some extra-constitutional discussion about the nature of the Nigerian federation? Why hasn’t “Boko Haram” forwarded its demands to the national assembly as proposals for constitutional amendment? Why did arguments over zoning and/or rotation ultimately result in Northern post-election violence last year? Why didn’t the Niger-Delta militants present their grievances to the national assembly for required legislation? Why did they resort to armed militancy? Why did late President Yar’Adua agree to engage with the militants and substantially accede to their demands? When Northern governors gather requesting review of revenue allocation formula in their favour in order to redress Northern poverty, aren’t they asking for some sort of negotiation? Why is South-West Nigeria perpetually calling for true federalism? Can these calls be ignored in perpetuity? Why do Igbos (and increasingly many others) celebrate Ojukwu as a hero? Isn’t that a sign that his battle to enthrone a more equitable union and reject hegemony now resonates with many more Nigerians? Why are South-South leaders looking to President Jonathan’s eventual exit from office with dread, worried that the region will simply return to being the goose that lays the golden petro-dollars, while others benefit, and they look on in despoiled anger? Why do we so regularly turn upon each other, killing and maiming fellow citizens in ethnic, religious, political or communal bloodletting? Why are nomadic herdsmen killing farmers and indigenes all over North-Central Nigeria while the whole country keeps quiet? Why is there a war going on over ownership of territory in Jos? Why do we have 60 percent poverty and 24 percent unemployment in spite of so much economic potential? Aren’t these all symptoms of something deeper and more fundamental? In spite of all these, there are those who arrogantly insist that every important issue about Nigeria has been settled. What type of spouse tells his partner and their children who complain about their family, with multiple instances of crisis and dysfunction, that every important matter concerning their home is settled? Wouldn’t it be more curious if the complainant happens to provide 85 percent of household resources while the dismissive spouse is economically dependent on the unhappy partner? Why are virtually all ethnic and regional groups in Nigeria retreating towards ethnic and regional formations and development agendas – BRACED Commission in the South-South; DAWN (Development Agenda for Western Nigeria) in the South-West; the usual Arewa/Northern formations (which recently appear to recognise the imperative of focusing on development rather than political power and religion); and the South-East governors who would most certainly follow suit. One may question whether a sovereign conference is possible, but we certainly need a national constitutional conference where leaders and representatives of all ethnic nationalities, the six geo-political regions and other stakeholders can have a sincere conversation about the structure and future of this dysfunctional unitary federation. A national dialogue is better than the scattered and intermittent monologues expressed through violence, threats and mutual intimidation currently going on. Of course if we don’t agree to talk now, we can have post-mortems later.

Security and Development in Lagos State

Security is one of those things which motivation scholars describe as “hygiene” factors – a state of security is not appreciated until insecurity is prevalent, then we seek earnestly for security, and once a state of security emerges, we are relieved and appreciate it, until the previous insecurity fades away, and then we forget. Ask Lagosians the achievements of the Fashola administration in Lagos, and they are likely to talk about tangible or visible phenomena, particularly infrastructure and social services: road construction, new school buildings, hospital services, environmental greening, clearing of Oshodi, improved refuse disposal system, BRT buses, etc. Very few people may immediately mention security of lives and property. I happen to think that is in fact the most significant achievement the Lagos government has recorded since 2007. Using my own personal experience, I recall facing four different armed robbery attacks between 2000 and 2007 – a brand new car was snatched in 2000, never to be seen again; armed robbers lurking at my gate in 2001 (apparently waiting to snatch my car) snatched my wife and a neighbour’s bags when I didn’t turn up in time; in 2003, while visiting a junior colleague who had just given birth, my entourage and I were attacked by robbers; and in 2007, my home was attacked during the night by armed marauders. Since 2007 (thanks be to God!), I have not had a similar encounter. My story may not be a scientific sample, but practically everyone I knew had tales of car snatching, home attacks, robbery during traffic snarls and worse up till 2007. Somewhat “miraculously”, much of these have ceased, even though episodes of crime have of course not been eradicated from Lagos. All over the country, crime and insecurity prevail – the Eastern states rife with armed robbery and kidnapping; while militants may have declared a (temporary) ceasefire in the Niger Delta, kidnappers and armed robbers (who may in substance be the same people as the erstwhile “militants”) continue unchecked; Edo and Delta States are overwhelmed with criminals and kidnappers. During a December 2011 visit to Warri, I realised the alarming extent of crime in the oil city and its negative impact on the local economy and night life). Many parts of the North have, as we know, been overtaken by terrorism and violence, subverting the economic potential of many Northern cities and states. In the later months of 2011, the South-West states (minus Lagos), especially Ogun, Oyo and Ondo, were taken over by armed robbers, leading in some cases to the closing down of banks and businesses, and consequent decline in commercial activity. Why has Lagos State been, by and large, exempt from the virtual breakdown of law and order and prevalence of crime and insecurity across the nation? Clearly, the state of security in Lagos is not happenstance or mere co-incidence but the consequence of a deliberate strategy encompassed in the activities of the Lagos State Security Trust Fund (LSSTF), which was set up by Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola under a law enacted by the State House of Assembly in 2007. The LSSTF is a public-private initiative created to address the issue of inadequate funding of the police and other law enforcement/security agencies by the federal government which is constitutionally charged with that responsibility. It is one of the acute incongruities of Nigeria’s current constitutional order that the federal government insists on not permitting the establishment of state police while abandoning not just the police, but most other federal agencies domiciled in the states (SSS, Customs, Prisons, Immigration, and even some federal secretariats) to the state governments for funding and operational maintenance. In effect, the state government neither eat their cake, nor have it. The LSSTF was created to bridge the huge funding gap which had condemned the police to ancient methods, untrained and ill-motivated personnel, ineffectiveness and almost total irrelevance in the fight against crime in Nigeria. Since its inception, LSSTF has mobilised over N8.4 billion as at October 2011 to support the activities of the police and other security agencies through provision of armoured personnel carriers, patrol vehicles, motorbikes, radio and communication equipment, kitting, training, incentives and personal allowances, fuelling and maintenance of vehicles, and other varied support. From available records, LSSTF mobilised N4.4billion in the seventeen months to December 2008, with Lagos State government (LASG) providing 56% while private sector entities provided the balance. In 2009, N1.12billion was raised, with LASG responsible for 74%. In 2010, N1.27billion was realised, with LASG contributing 67%. And in the ten months to October 2011, the fund generated N1.56billion, with LASG donating 82%. The enhanced equipment, mobility, competence and motivation of security agencies in Lagos State is the basis upon which the current relative peace and security in the state is founded. That peace and security is what substantially accounts for the economic and commercial progress made in the state. Businesses – local and foreign – can invest; a night economy has (at least partially) developed; firms can grow and generate new employment; the state’s tax base has expanded as a consequence; and more funds can be generated for investment in infrastructure and social services. I am told the Lagos State model is now being transferred to several other states. The sooner, the better!

Ojukwu and Nigerian Federalism (3)

With failure of the majors’ coup, and Major-General Ironsi prevailing, Nigeria entered military rule with Ironsi as Head of State. Nzeogwu expressed regrets that tribal considerations subverted the coup which in his words “failed because of incompetence and misguided considerations” of the Southern contingent. Ironsi was ill-prepared and ill-suited intellectually and administratively for national leadership, displaying serial mis-judgments culminating in the counter-coup which terminated his regime and life in July 1966. The final spark was the unification decree-Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No 34 of 1966-which sought to abolish the four regions, convert them into “groups of provinces” and unify public services under a single Public Service Commission. The decree engendered strong objection from the North-Northern civil servants staged public demonstrations and Northern Emirs reportedly sent Ironsi a secret memorandum demanding abrogation of the contentious decree or secession. In May 1966, riots and a bloodbath erupted in the North with at least 3,000 Easterners killed, and others fleeing South. How did Ojukwu, who had become Governor of the Eastern Region since January 1966, react? He pleaded with Igbos to return up North and in June 1966, barely a month after the massacre, he appointed his old friend, Emir of Kano, Chancellor of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka! These couldn’t be sensibly described as reactions of someone nursing secessionist ambitions!!! On July 29, 1966, the much-awaited (multiple sources, including General Madiebo, later Biafran Army Chief had warned Ironsi) revenge-coup took place. The initial objective of the Northern officers who led the coup (Murtala Muhammed; Yakubu Gowon; Theophilus Danjuma et al) appeared clearly to be secession (“araba”-separation in Hausa) from Nigeria until they were reportedly persuaded by the British High Commissioner that “you’ve got it all now; why settle for half” and Gowon became Head of State leading to Ojukwu’s first disagreement with the Northern military establishment. Consistent with his (naïve) nationalism and pro-establishment inclinations, as well as his desire to maintain the integrity of the last remaining national organisation-the army, Ojukwu insisted on following military hierarchy which required Brigadier Ogundipe, Ironsi’s No 2 as Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters and Western officer to take over as Head of State. Unfortunately Ogundipe had been successfully intimidated from staking a claim to the office, and accepted posting as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom! Many Eastern/Igbo officers had been killed during the July counter-coup evidently as collateral revenge for the earlier deaths in January. In September 1966, a second pogrom commenced with large scale killings everywhere across Northern Nigeria. After Gowon’s broadcast on September 29, rather than abate, the killings intensified! Pain, anger and rage was felt across the East, especially by Ojukwu who to his eternal regret had urged those who fled in May to return, many to their brutal end! I find it hard to fault Ojukwu’s subsequent resolve to insist on ensuring security and protection for the Igbos. There was a manifest need for Nigeria, if it wanted Igbos in the country, to offer regrets, firm assurances and restitution, but none was forthcoming. Even if some military officers of Igbo origin were guilty of killing Northern military and political figures, that could not excuse genocide directed against thousands of civilians, especially after revenge had already been vented against Ironsi and several Igbo officers. The first threat of force was issued by Gowon on 30/11/66 and the first shells were fired on 6/7/67 by the “federal” side. The Aburi agreement, meant to resolve the crisis, freely signed by all parties under Ghanaian leader, General Ankrah’s auspices was unilaterally rejected by Gowon, upon his return to Lagos on 26/1/67. The accord established equal, federal control over the armed forces through the Supreme Military Council (SMC); a military HQ with equal regional representation; regional military area commands; major national appointments-diplomatic, senior armed forces and police, and “super-scale” federal civil service and corporations would be made by the SMC-in effect, Ojukwu’s quest was equality of federating regions and rejection of hegemony! Unceasing calls for “true federalism”, “zoning”, “rotation”, “federal character”, “non-marginalisation” etc. show that Ojukwu’s position was prescient. He had his faults-questions about military strategy and governance in Biafra; neglecting fears of non-Igbo minorities; naively joining the NPN upon his return from exile; an anti-June 12 (and pro-Abacha) posture during the Abiola and Ken Saro-Wiwa matters etc, but his place in Nigerian history (and Igbo folklore) is assured. In 2012, forty-six years after 1966, we still talk about politically-inspired violence, such as last year’s post-election killings! The report of the Justice Onyuike Tribunal in 1966 suggests that 45,397 were killed and over 1.6million fled East. Was Ojukwu expected to acquiesce in this? Was “Biafra” not entitled to legitimate self-defence in these circumstances? It is time the truth about 1966 is established. The underlying issue in the events of 1966/1967-1970 was the nature of our federalism and the need for equity and equality amongst Nigeria’s federating units. That issue would not go away! As Professor Attahiru Jega wrote in “Foundations of Nigerian Federalism: 1960-1995” edited by Elaigwu and Akindele, “in a pluralistic society such as Nigeria, with a federal set-up in which dominant nationalities are regionally located, with skewed access to power and societal resources, where national resources are concentrated at the centre and the military have dominated politics, centrifugal forces would, invariably, tend to predominate”. When federalism was accepted by Nigeria’s leaders at the Constitutional Conference in 1953, it was recognised as “the only feasible answer to the problems of national integration".