Money Laundering: Danjuma Wants Sen Uzamere Prosecuted Wed, 17/08/2011  | TONY AMOKEODO Senator Daisy Danjuma has urged the attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), to prosecute an Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) member of the Nigerian Senate, Senator Ehigie Uzamere, for his alleged involvement in impersonation, bribery, corruption and money laundering. In a petition dated July 26, 2011 and addressed to the AGF, Senator Danjuma further alleged that Senator Uzamere had been referring to himself as an ‘architect’ when he had no qualification to that effect. According to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that Senator Uzamere is not a registered member of the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria, he has continued to make use of the title of ‘Arc’. The petition, which was made available to LEADERSHIP yesterday, was also copied to the Senate president, Senator David Mark, the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mrs Farida Waziri and the registrar, Architects Registration Council of Nigeria. Senator Danjuma further drew the attention of the AGF to the fact that the regulatory body of architects had disowned Senator Uzamere in a letter dated May 25, 2011 and confirmed that, “We did not have the name of Mr. Ehige Uzamere in our register of architects entitled to practice in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He is therefore not entitled to use the appellation ‘Arc’ as provided by the Architects (Registration etc) Act Cap A19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.” She further urged the AGF to note that the ACN senator had flouted the provision of section 14 of the Architects (Registration etc) Act and should be prosecuted accordingly. On the issue of bribery, corruption and money laundering, the petitioner urged the AGF to take judicial notice of the fact that Senator Uzamere and his firms were mentioned in the course of prosecution of certain persons for money laundering offences against the laws of England. The petition reads in part, ‘In the course of those proceedings, it became apparent that Senator Uzamere and the said companies had been engaged in the distribution of bribes and related offences. While other persons who were implicated in the charge have since been convicted and had their assets seized by both the Nigerian and English courts, Senator Uzamere, on the contrary, in spite of being a central character in the bribery and corruption of public officials, instead of having his assets confiscated and he himself imprisoned, has been allegedly promoted into the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. ‘The Engilsh courts must look down on us that in spite of their own findings, that he not only continues to walk our streets a free man, but is branded a senator of the Federal Republic .‘ Senator Danjuma also attached the letter from the architects’ regulatory body and a copy of the judgement of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division and Royal Court of Justice Strand London, dated December 3, 2007 as an annexure, to justify her claim. Asking the AGF to take necessary action on her petition, Senator Danjuma said, “My purpose in this letter, therefore, is to appeal to you to set in motion processes to prosecute Senator Uzamere for offences which he himself has admitted in several statements to various law enforcement agents and which have been the subjects of adverse comments by foreign courts. It is my conviction and my hope that in the spirit of the rule of law, which is now taking root in the country, you will take a stand which will be a pointer to others like Senator Uzamere that crimes will no longer go unpunished in the country.”

Before Our Own Riots Start… 14 Aug 2011 Simon Kolawole Live!: Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com Let’s be honest: we did not foresee the London riots. We did not foresee the arson and the looting. Many of us grew up thinking London was heaven, the best place on earth. Our parents and grandparents never ceased praying for us that one day, we would visit “Ilu Oba” (The Land of the Queen). Go to the UK High Commission and see crowds of young Nigerians desperately applying for visas. A frustrated cousin of mine called me last month seeking my approval and support to travel to London. He has graduated, done his youth service and has been applying for jobs for the past two years. There is no job in sight. He is downcast, completely tired of living off the goodwill of friends and family. “I want to travel to London. I don’t mind washing toilets to help out my widowed mother and my younger ones,” he said. If only he knew that “London” is not what it used to be and even toilet-washing jobs are now very hard to come by! The London riots—which spread to other cities in England in a matter of hours—took many by surprise. The immediate cause, it seems, was the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham by the police. Duggan, who was riding in a minicab, died from a single gunshot wound to his chest. He was said to have been on the watch list of the Met Police. His family members and friends organised a peaceful protest to register their displeasure and seek justice. It initially went well. But then some young persons seized the opportunity to unleash mayhem, burning and looting at will. The gory spectacle shocked millions around the world. Why did the people—most of them youths—resort to looting and arson? The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the carnage as the handiwork of criminals. He said angrily: “And to the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.” In his opinion—and in the opinion of many British politicians and commentators—what happened on the streets last week should be considered as criminality, pure and simple. Some guys just gathered and started looting. And they will pay dearly for it. Cameron even spoke about poor parenting, poor discipline in schools, general lack of morals and an erosion of ethics and values. Not a mention of economic hardship. If you hold a contrary opinion—say you suggest there is more to the mob action than a mere mind for criminality—you are likely to be accused of justifying the looting. It’s a delicate line. Labour MP Harriet Harman said government cuts were to blame for the riots; she was virtually slaughtered for this. Maybe she was being partisan, her party having been rooted out of power by the coalition of the Conservative Party and Lib Dems. It is easy to think Harman was just trying to play opposition politics. However, I align with her, partially. While I would not hold government cuts solely responsible for the carnage, I would say the warning signal had been there for a while but the politicians and economy managers refused to acknowledge it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, is your typical neo-liberal economist: cut social expenditure to the barest minimum; go for the jugular of subsidies; ignore public reaction as much as possible and continue to insist there is no alternative to your policies. With the global economic crises hurting consumption globally in 2008, the Labour government under PM Gordon Brown reduced VAT from 17.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent for 13 months to stimulate consumer spending. The coalition has since increased VAT to 20 per cent as it tried to plug the holes in public finance. But this had a negative impact on purchasing power. Yet, nobody seemed to pay attention to that. The coalition government went on an expenditure-cutting spree. The youths were the worst hit. Their weekly benefits were reduced, thousands of jobs cut, civil service recruitment frozen and university tuition fees tripled (from next year, the fees could move from a range of £2,500-£3,000 to anywhere near £9,000). Student debts are mounting. University students have been demonstrating since the fee rise was announced, with some of them getting violent. Prince Charles and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla were once physically attacked, while a young student was imprisoned for throwing a fire-extinguisher at a building during the protests. These were signals of what was to come, but it was easily missed. Nobody seemed to pay attention. Meanwhile, Britons watched as MPs piled expenses on expenses; taxpayers were made to pay for a lawmaker’s obsession with pornography. The expenses scandal was all over the newspapers. The bankers too, who ran their banks aground and were bailed out with public funds, did not give up their taste for insane rewards: many of them were still collecting fat bonuses, presumably for their recklessness, at taxpayers’ expense! Public anger was brewing but nobody paid attention. Resentment was rising. The politicians and economy managers went about their normal business, assuming perhaps that there was nothing to worry about. For me, the Duggan murder was the tipping point. The initial demonstration, hough peaceful, offered an opportunity for pent-up anger to be let loose. The ensuing riots, we all know, had nothing to do with Duggan. There is no link whatsoever between the fatal shooting and the looting spree. But too many issues had piled up; too much resentment against government had been bottled up; too much anger had been residing in the recesses of the minds of the youths. Nobody paid attention to the warning signals that had been flashing. Suddenly, an unrelated event happened; suddenly, the youths had an excuse to go on the streets; suddenly, the criminally minded seized the opportunity to unleash terror on an otherwise peaceful, orderly society. I do not justify the crime, by any means, but something bred the anger. Something fed the crime. We should not ignore that as Cameron is trying to do. Yes, the gangs are criminal. But that is not all there is to this brigandage. I have heard many Nigerians say this kind of riots cannot happen here. Our people are docile, they say. Even in the face of blatant looting of national treasury and economic hardship, Nigerians are going about their normal business as if they are enjoying the spectacle. Fela sang: “My people dey fear too much!” Beautiful Nubia added: “My people too dey suffer in silence. They will never talk until it’s too late for them.” I differ slightly. There were spontaneous riots all over the country in 1989—called SAP Riots. The immediate cause was the Ebony Rumours—the incredible allegations made against the then military president, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, falsely claimed to have been published in the American magazine. But there had been pent-up frustration in the land: the rumours simply triggered an explosion. Since Nigerians have rioted once, they can riot again. In the last 12 years, we have been inundated with reports of mindless corruption in public office. Billions of dollars stolen; emergency billionaires, who are nothing but money launderers and thieves, are walking on our heads. The roads remain in poor condition. Power supply is as horrible as it could be. Public schools are an eyesore. Jobs are so hard to come by. Out there, we have a lot of frustrated youths. I mix with them. I talk to them. I see their pains. Anytime they read stories about the jumbo allowances of the lawmakers, they are very bitter. When they hear of the billions of naira spent on power sector and yet we live in the Dark Age, they let out curses. I don’t know if they will take to the streets one day, burning and looting, but I know that the ingredients for a London-style upheaval are available. We should not ignore the flashing signals. In a way, the riots have already started, but a different kind of riots caused by unemployment and idleness. The senseless kidnappings are a form of riot. There seems to be a belief that kidnapping the wife or children or mother of a public officer and the rich is a way of getting some benefit from the system. Boko Haram, militancy and motor park touting are forms of rioting. Nigerian politicians need to know that there is a lot of anger and frustration on the streets. Nigerians may look docile. But, let’s be honest: we never knew frustrated London youths would one day resort to looting over a matter that was basically none of their business. That is how resentment works. And Four Other Things... Fuel from Niger Good news for Nigeriens—soon, they could be exporting petroleum products to Nigeria. It could be as early as December this year, according to the Nigerien President Mahamadou Issoufou. His target is Northern Nigeria, which he said would be getting supplies from the Zinder Refinery in Niger. We also learnt during the week that Chad has achieved sufficiency in local refining, meaning fuel importation has come to an end in that country. Where does this leave Nigeria? Many years ago, I did ask that since those who got refinery licences were not willing to build because of our regulated market, what should we do? Fold our arms and watch? I did suggest that government should build new refineries to achieve sufficiency in production, lease out the management and then sell off the companies later. The policy makers laughed at me. Six, seven years later, we’re still waiting for a new refinery to be built while we continue to burn billions of dollars on fuel importation. That’s Nigeria. Lessons from UK Riots A 20-year-old British soldier, Liam Bretherton, 20, is on trial after walking into a shop with a £2000 guitar moments after it was looted in Manchester during last week’s upheaval. The owner of the shop became suspicious when Bretherton offered the guitar for sale. He checked the serial number on the instrument, locked the soldier in the shop and called the police. He was eventually arrested and charged to court, where he was ready to plead guilty to “handling a stolen good”, claiming he bought it for £20 from a looter. He insisted he was not the one who looted the shop; he only bought a stolen item. The point I want to make here is: if it was Nigeria, the soldier would probably have resisted arrest, while his colleagues would have attacked the police station for daring to apprehend him. By the way, what has happened to those who killed the DPO and DCO at Badagry? Another case of “unknown soldier”? …And the Jokes Nigerians are quite witty, and the social media is offering them a good platform to display their skills. In the heat of the UK riots, many jokes were flying around on facebook, twitter and blackberry.  One said: “FG plans to evacuate Nigerian citizens from London.  Citizens reply: Mr President,​ thank you for your concern... we prefer the riot!" Another said President Goodluck Jonathan had called PM David Cameron and offered two detachments of MOPOL to help quell the uprising and stop the looting. For football followers, what about this? “Riots get to Old Trafford. Wenger caught on CCTV looting trophies!!!!” Adios, Fabregas One of the most prolonged transfer sagas in football history—Cesc Fabregas moving from Arsenal to Barcelona—will hopefully end this week. To football followers, it is one of the most bewildering moves ever. Fabregas, who was not homesick when he moved from Spain to England at the age of 16, is now homesick at 24! He is not guaranteed first-team football at Barcelona, with star performers like Xavi Hernandez, Lionel Messi and Andres Iniesta well-established in the first eleven, and Alcantara Thiago on the rise. Incredibly, Fabregas is reportedly taking a huge £5 million pay cut to make this move. Why? Given that Arsenal has not won a league title in seven years, Fabregas' motivation is very clear: he wants to win trophies—even if it means sitting on the bench like Aleksander Hleb, another gifted one who left Arsenal for Barcelona and won five trophies the following year, virtually without kicking a ball!

Tinubu’s Lecture Stokes Crisis Between ACN And CPC. Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu’s comments during a lecture at the Chatham House, London, recently, where he endorsed the election of President Goodluck Jonathan seems to be earning him more foes than friends especially from the CPC, which has accused the ACN chieftain of being a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) agent. STANLEY NKWOCHA reports the rift.    While delivering a lecture at the Chattam House in London recently, Action Congress of Nigeria chieftain, Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu, told the world that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Goodluck Jonathan, won the last presidential election in Nigeria. This declaration came after the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, presidential candidate, Gen Muhammadu Buhari and some of his supporters were at the same venue earlier to give the part account of what happened during the said elections. Buhari had submitted that the elections were rigged by the ruling party.   In his mild submission, Tinubu said though results allocated to the PDP’s flag bearer to a large extent were doubtful in some areas, he was convinced that Jonathan won the election.   “I believe Jonathan won the election but that the returns attributed to him in some parts of the country obviously appeared exaggerated.” Tinubu, attributed Jonathan’s victory to the “unique circumstances of Jonathan’s rise to power” which made the public to see him “as a distinctive figure.”   Since making the submissions, the banters being thrown at the ACN chieftain has known no bound. Tinubu, who at a point contemplated becoming a running mate to Buhari, and who said that the candidate of his own party, Ribadu, was a Sarkozy, a Cameron and an Obama rolled into one, is in the middle of thick jabs.   Tinubu, had blamed the ‘weak’ campaign of the opposition for their defeat, saying that they naively thought that the public’s disenchantment with the PDP “was enough to get rid of them at the polls. He took a swipe at “a group of people dissatisfied with the outcome of the general elections,” who through their “political machinations” are worsening the security situation in the country, referring particularly to the Boko Haram menace. He then pledged his “‘full sympathy and support’ for the president in finding solution to the disturbing phenomenon.”   Commenting on the incident recently, Uchenna Osigwe, apparently a staunch supporter of Buhari, wondered what could have led Tinubu into making such assertions. He alluded that Tinubu’s outburst might not be unconnected with his frustrations at the collapse of the CPC/ACN merger.   Said Osigwe: “Anybody who had followed Tinubu’s words and actions during the so-called alliance talks with Buhari’s CPC would not be very surprised at what Tinubu told the world in London. While Buhari consistently held out hope for a possible alliance, or at the very least, a working plan with the ACN, Tinubu had from the very beginning—once his request to be Buhari’s running mate was rejected by the latter on the grounds that it would be a Muslim- Muslim ticket, which, given the situation in the country, would be doomed. “In Tinubu’s words in the same report, ‘the opposition parties danced with each other but did not embrace’. Buhari, on the other hand, called for what he described as a ‘political maturity’ from both parties, who are in a way ideological soul mates, in order to dislodge the PDP. So, while Buhari was holding out hope for a workable alliance, Tinubu had gone to town to rule out any such alliance,” Osigwe fumed.   Tracing the history of the failed merger bid, Osigwe said it was regrettable that after the ACN had failed to live up to its side of the bargain, it was now blaming and churning out its frustrations on the CPC and its presidential candidate. He inferred that the party was never serious at working out a merger in the first place. Osigwe continued: “Campaigning in Kano on the 22nd of March 2011for his presidential candidate, namely Nuhu Ribadu, whom he compared to Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy of USA, UK and France respectively, Tinubu declared that the CPC was parading ‘expired leadership.’ Juxtaposed to what he said in his Chatham House ‘lecture,’ to the effect that the insecurity in the country was caused by the political machinations of a group who were not happy with the outcome of the general elections, you have a good idea of who Tinubu was referring to. There was undoubtedly a question of good faith in the alliance talks.   “Initially, when Buhari refused to run under ACN, again for good reasons, they agreed that the CPC would provide the presidential candidate while the ACN would provide the running mate. CPC was the first to ratify their presidential candidate and instead of ACN respecting their agreement, they went ahead and produced a presidential candidate. From that point on, the alliance was as good as dead. Again, Tinubu coming out to insist on being the running mate to Buhari, according to CPC sources, makes it clear that the party wasn’t serious about a workable alliance in the first place.”   As if the defence above wasn’t enough, the writer posited that Tinubu was used to frustrate the merger, adding that the PDP had made it a point of duty to always send agents after Buhari each time he decided to contest the presidential election.   “One of the revelations that came out in the run up to the April 2011 presidential elections in Nigeria was the allegation the former governor of Sokoto state, Attahiru Bafarawa levelled against Tinubu, accusing the latter of being a PDP agent whose brief was to frustrate any alliance with Buhari’s CPC. But Tinubu was the first to make the allegation that there were PDP agents planted to frustrate the alliance, whereupon Bafarawa told him he might have to look in the mirror to recognize one such agent! Was Tinubu’s insistence on being Buhari’s running mate part of the plan to frustrate the alliance talks?” “There’s a pattern here: each time Buhari comes out to contest, the PDP sends their agents after him, possibly making one of those agents his running mate. They failed in 2003 because his running mate, Chuba Okadigbo, stood firmly with him, but that cost him his life. That game was again attempted in 2011.   “Since they couldn’t plant someone close enough, his running mate, Pastor Tunde Bakare, was smart enough to understand that those same agents were trying to trick him into signing a post-dated letter of resignation. In other words, they wanted to blackmail him in advance and, through that, weaken Buhari once again. Currently there is a serious effort to divide the ranks of the CPC by creating ‘factions’ in the party,” Osigwe harped.   While attempts to get the National Publicity Secretary of the ACN, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, to comment on the issue failed, an ACN chieftain who preferred anonymity, dismissed Osigwe’s submission, describing it as a “macabre dance meant to impress the courts”.   The chieftain said that the party owed no one apologies as to the best of its knowledge, the submissions of Tinubu was done without bias and clearly was devoid of hatred for any particular party or individual. He said it was about time the CPC tolerated the views of other political parties and took itself from the ‘cocoon of political hallucination’.   For the ACN and CPC – the leading opposition parties in the country, it is back to the trenches of political rivalry that is clearly self induced and created. Is this the beginning of an opposition clocked against itself? While the PDP seems to be smiling all the way, for the opposition, it may be a long walk down the brink. Perhaps the quest for power retrieval is a million miles away.

Two Generals Fooling Around.

Simon Kolawole Live!: Email: simon.kolawole@thisdaylive.com

Don’t be fooled: there is more to the mudslinging between Generals Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida than a mere disagreement over their supposed achievements in office. I will try to explore that today. To recap, Babangida had, on the eve of his 70th birthday, once again glamorised his achievements in office between 1985 and 1993 in spite of the “modest” oil revenue, while his successors, he said, enjoyed higher oil revenue and did not do better. In fact, he made reference to the billions of dollars spent on power by President Obasanjo between 1999 and 2007 without any results. “During my years as president, I managed poverty to achieve commendable results but these days, people manage affluence to achieve poverty,” he said.

Obasanjo replied the following day, wondering if Babangida had decided to be a fool at 70 because of the statements credited to him. Then he quoted some Bible passages which, on the one hand, said you should not answer a fool according to his folly “lest thou also be like unto him”; and, on the other hand, said you should answer a fool according to his folly, “lest he be wise in his own conceit”. Obasanjo said he was torn between the two. Then he went down memory lane about his achievements as military head of state as well as civilian president.

Normally, Babangida would have waited for the next day to respond. But it was too “hot” to ignore. He swiftly issued a statement, signed by his spokesperson, pouring as much acid as he could on Obasanjo. “Calling [me] ‘a fool at 70’, especially by a man reportedly and allegedly accused by his own son of incest, is at best a compliment. Nigerians surely know who is truly a fool or the greatest fool of this century,” he said, and went on to highlight that murders and air crashes were common in Obasanjo’s days in power. In fact, he accused Obasanjo of plundering the nation’s resources.

However, it was quite refreshing listening to the two men use gutter language against each other, something you would normally expect from some smelly, shabbily dressed, rotten-toothed guys at Oshodi bus stop. It shows the calibre of generals and presidents that we have managed to produce in this country. I must confess, however, that I am a bit surprised Babangida chose to play the role of the antagonist in this instance. The original attack came on the eve of his birthday unprovoked. This is very rare.

In the past, it was Obasanjo who usually took on Babangida and—maybe because of the rules of military fraternity—Babangida hardly replied openly. In the days of SAP (which Babangida eulogises till this day), Obasanjo often played the populist, taking Babangida to shreds as Nigerians went through economic hardship. The naira was losing value by the day, factories were closing down, subsidies were getting leaner and meaner and there was discontent in the land. Typical of Obasanjo, he rode the waves and opened fire on Babangida, who—obviously out of respect—never replied him.

In 1993, Obasanjo granted an explosive interview to TELL magazine, describing Babangida’s government as a fraud. “As a result of what somebody called financial and fiscal rascality, we now have an administration deficit. Deficit budgeting, deficit financing, deficit trading but more importantly, we have an administration that is deficit in credibility. That is very, very important. It’s deficit in honesty, deficit in honour, deficit in truth. The only thing it has in surplus is saying something and doing something else,” Obasanjo famously said. That edition sold out; I remember only reading the photocopies. Babangida did not respond openly. Indeed, when the then military president annulled June 12 later on, Obasanjo was said to have been a brain behind the setting up of an Interim National Government headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan. In fact, to give the ING some legitimacy, Obasanjo reportedly said in South Africa that the acclaimed winner of June 12, Bashorun MKO Abiola, “is not the messiah”.

In less than 100 days, the ING collapsed, as it was meant to be, and Gen. Sani Abacha took over government. He knew Obasanjo quite well and one of the first decisions he had to take was whether or not to have Obasanjo freely roaming the streets and granting interviews against his government. Abacha, as ruthless as he was, locked Obasanjo up on the charges of being involved in a coup plot. Other key figures locked up—Maj. Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and Abiola—never came out alive. Obasanjo survived. Babangida was one of the power brokers who installed Obasanjo as president in 1999—no matter attempts by Obasanjo to deny this now. In fact, while the retired generals led by Babangida and TY Danjuma provided the funds for Obasanjo’s presidential campaign, the Atiku Abubakar wing of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) provided the political foot soldiers.

Ironically, again, Obasanjo, in an attempt to rubbish suggestions that he was being backed by Babangida, kept attacking him in the public to distance himself from the Minna-born general. And, yet again, Babangida did not utter a word publicly. I was told then that he was grumbling in Minna that Obasanjo was abusing him too much, but that was it. Today, I now wonder: what went so wrong between them that Babangida finally decided to launch his own attacks against Obasanjo at peace time? All we know is that even though their relationship might have deteriorated over the years, Babangida had always managed to keep his cool in public.

Indulge me to hazard a guess this morning and piece a theory together. When Obasanjo’s candidacy was being promoted in 1999, the belief was that he would do only one term. A second term was not part of the script. Invariably, Babangida and Atiku were eyeing the position in 2003. Unfortunately, Obasanjo decided to go for a second term. Babangida, again partly out of respect and partly out of fear of failure, decided to forgo his ambition and wait for another day—this time 2007. As 2007 approached, Obasanjo began to nurse his third term ambition. He had stretched his luck too far. The combination of Babangida, Atiku and Danjuma successfully “penetrated” the National Assembly and the plot failed (though I totally agree that public opinion and TV also played a key role).

What happened next? The EFCC immediately arrested Mohammed, Babangida’s son, in what many discerning observers saw as an attempt to get back at those who opposed the third term project. He was released without charge. Atiku was presented with the PTDF scandal to battle with by the EFCC, which also summarily terminated Gen. Mohamed Marwa’s presidential ambition on the accusation of making his account available to Abacha for money-laundering. For those who never knew, Danjuma was Marwa’s “godfather” and major backer in his presidential bid. Obasanjo made sure he paid his opponents back in their own coin. He walked out of Aso Rock satisfied that they had all seen red.

But then the Obasanjo-installed president, Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, died. The eight-year slot thought to have been reserved for the North was coming back to the South through Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. And, boy, Obasanjo did everything possible to frustrate the quest by Babangida (and Atiku) to unseat Jonathan. It was a cold, freezing war between the generals. My conclusion, therefore, is that with nothing more to lose or gain at 70, Babangida simply let go of his bottled-up resentment for Obasanjo. He had been too loyal to Obasanjo for ages and hardly got anything in return. For Obasanjo, calling somebody a fool for criticising his government is typical. He was just being himself. He believes he is God’s greatest gift to mankind.

Now as to the argument—who was better between Obasanjo and IBB as president—I would like to answer this way: if both men were as good as they are now trying to make us believe, we would not be hopelessly battling with poor power supply, battered roads, sick healthcare system, collapsed refineries and bankrupt public morality today. I would therefore advise both of them to stop fooling around.

And Four Other Things...

Aikhomu's Football Legacy

I was never a fan of Admiral Augustus Aikhomu—I'm not going to be pouring emergency encomium on him because he died. However, I admired the Admiral for one thing: he was the main secret behind the success of Clemens Westerhof as the coach of the Super Eagles. The Dutchman was recruited in 1989 by the late Chief SB Williams, former chairman of National Sports Commission (NSC). He could have been fired hastily the Nigerian way but for the political protection he enjoyed from Aikhomu, who was Nigeria's No. 2 citizen. Westerhof got everything he wanted, including keeping away preying sports ministers. The then NSC chairman, Chief Alex Akinyele, threatened to fire him for failing to win the African Cup of Nations in 1992. It was Akinyele that was fired instead. What happened next? Nigeria went on to qualify for the World Cup for the first time ever and then won the African Cup of Nations in 1994. That was the last time the Super Eagles tasted success in international football. Adieu, Aikhomu.

Suspending Salami

The Ayo Salami/Aloysius Katsina-Alu face-off is just a symptom of the deep-seated animosity, mutual suspicion and ego games in the judiciary. The outcome of the probe of Salami’s allegations against Katsina-Alu over the “arrest” of the 2007 Sokoto governorship election petition is a bit of an anti-climax: the Nigeria Judicial Council (NCJ) has suspended Salami, who is president of the court of appeal, and recommended his retirement for failing to apologise to Katsina-Alu, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, over the allegation which it described as false. Lawyers are still arguing if NJC can suspend him. But my take on the whole issue is different. Salami has been constituting panels that installed ACN government in many states—so the PDP would want to see him go. Predictably, ACN would be mad. One man’s loss is another’s gain. It’s all politics, fellow Nigerians.

Apapa Dead-end

Anytime I wake up in the morning, I hardly want to go to the office. Not that I am tired of this job but because trailers and tankers have made my office in Apapa, Lagos State, a no-go area. We used to engage them in a battle of wits. After working all day and you want to go home at night, you can’t because they always block the road. It has now become impossible to gain access to our office as they start block the road from early morning. We hoisted a flag of surrender since there was nobody to protect us. We started parking on the other side of the road (and this does not cause traffic in any way). You know what? LASTMA, which ordinarily should be clearing the road of the traffic caused by tankers so we can park in our own compound, now tows our cars for parking by the way side. What a nice way of punishing the victims.

Oni and Mimiko

The chairman of Labour Party in Ondo State, Dr. Olaiya Oni, has resigned. Why? Is he going to defect to another party or just remain an ordinary member of LP? Nobody knows yet. However, the reasons he gave for his decision are a bit curious to me. While saying Governor Olusegun Mimiko had performed creditably well, he said he was unhappy with the choice of Oba for his hometown and Mimiko had failed to help dethrone him. He also said the governor was sending N450,000 “only” from the state treasury to him every month even though “I disposed of my assets—landed property, shares in blue-chip companies and banks—to support the struggle”. Dr. Oni also talked a lot about his bruised ego, complaining that he was not involved in the choice of running mate and transition committee. While I understand Oni’s grievances, I don’t think he should have put some of those things in writing. He didn’t protect himself enough.

Judicial feudalism in Nigeria

Nigeria has never been ruled by a true believer in the democratic credo. It is a lineage of despotism that stretches back to independence and to the colonial foundation of Nigeria. Goodluck Jonathan is the latest in a long line of Viziers selected to superintend the Nigerian post-colonial collage. No matter the garb our viceroys wear or the creed they profess, the result has always been the same: a deepening of the crisis of the state and the further emasculation of democratic norms. Unluckily for Goodluck, this situation cannot subsist for much longer. All evidence and statistics point to the fact that the beast of burden has been straining its leash for quite some time under the torture of its crushing baggage. No one is sure of which straw will break the proverbial camel’s back. But given Jonathan’s relative inexperience and the lackadaisical flippancy with which he appears to be sleepwalking his way from one avoidable crisis to the other, we may be set for a major rumble in the jungle. The way and manner Jonathan has endorsed Justice Issa Ayo Salami’s suspension from office, despite the crass illegality and judicial absurdity, leave much to be desired. It does not portray a president interested in deepening democratic norms or expanding the frontiers of the rule of law. Jonathan seems to have acted with the cynical calculations of a political survivalist rather than the ennobling discretion of a statesman interested in civilized procedures and the progress of his nation. Surely, this cannot be part of the transformative leadership Jonathan has promised Nigerians. Enemies of Nigeria pretending to be friends of Jonathan seem to have persuaded him that he should do all that is in his power to avoid Justice Salami at the Appeal Court no matter the damage to the system. The prospects of the fiery, no-nonsense judge tearing into his case with his customary severe frown are enough to put the fear of the lord into any president’s heart, particularly one that seems to enjoy the perquisites of office more than its prerogatives. Having demonized the poor Justice out of all proportions, the PDP power-mongers are mortally afraid of the monster they have created. But even monsters are entitled to reliefs. For Jonathan to have relied on the report of an improperly constituted Kangaroo panel, a panel that willfully and criminally avoided lawful writs and sat without a quorum just to arrive at preordained punishment, is a sure invitation to political anarchy. The Nigerian judiciary has had its moments of low self-esteem, but this is the lowest depths of abject self-abasement it has sunk in its history. As usual, the grand irony that may escape all the major actors in this deplorable drama is that in its resort to self-help, and in its attempt to shore up the fortunes of the state, the judiciary might have created a major crisis for the state. The subsisting crisis of the Nigerian post-colonial state inheres in the fact that despite the veneer and cosmetics of modernity, it is essentially an authoritarian feudal state which treats its citizens as subjects and one in which a feudalized selectorate replaces the electorate as a succession of strongmen rule and rape the roost. Ordinarily, there ought to be a major contradiction, indeed a violent anomaly, between judicial feudalism and a modern state. The very notion of judicial feudalism is a stark oxymoron, because the modern judiciary is not an ideological apparatus of the old feudal state. But in all its modern and ancient history the Nigerian judiciary has always acted as a loyal and dependable ally of the feudal state in its struggle and war against its own captive citizens. Rather than helping to deepen democracy and facilitate the rights of humanity in a modern society, the judiciary has proved a willing tool in deepening despotism and strengthening the hands of tyrants. Such is the anomaly and fundamental absurdity of nationhood in contemporary Nigeria. If anybody believes that this is a mere hysterical assertion, the concrete facts are sobering enough. In its colonial incarnation, the judiciary was a willing tool in the hands of imperialist interlocutors dishing out improbable punishments to Nigerian freedom fighters while helping to turn the prison yard into the default abode of Nigerian patriots bent on seeing the end of colonial subjugation. The likes of Herbert Macaulay, Mokuwgo Okoye, Raji Abdallah, Bello Ijumu and Anthony Enahoro paid a stiff price for their nationalist recalcitrance. After independence, the judiciary famously and willingly tied its hand behind its back in order to perpetuate a feudal and tyrannical status quo. There was the infamous Treasonable Felony trial, the tacit endorsement of ouster clauses by the military which put the judicial nose out of joint, the 12 2/3 chicanery and judgments that cannot be quoted as a legal precedent, the annulment of a presidential election and the murder of its putative winner with the connivance of the bench, the judicially sanctioned state-execution of Kenule Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni nine, the politically motivated endorsement of the fraudulent presidential elections of 2003 and 2007, the arrest of a pending judgment because the interest of a feudal fiefdom may be jeopardized, and now the criminally motivated ouster of a sitting president of the Appeal Court by elements within the judiciary. Yet, this is not to say that the Nigerian judiciary does not parade its glorious avatars and immortal icons; men and women of intellectual caliber and moral timber: the CID Taylors, the Agudas, the Oputas, the Aniagolus, the Eshos, the Akanbis and a host of others. For example, it was a female judge, Dolapo Akinsanya, who sacked the Shonekan interim nonsense on the grounds that it had no basis or foundation in the grundnorm. The clearest indication that the Nigerian state does not derive its strength or authority from the rational branch of the judiciary was Shonekan’s warning from Port Harcourt that the judiciary should steer clear of matters above and beyond it. If the political apprentice from UAC was looking over to Abacha for support, the goggled one was already rehearsing his take-over speech. The point to be made is that every class consists of its dominant faction and dominated fraction. The judiciary is no exception. The dominant faction of the judiciary has been in bed with the dominant state and social order from the amalgamation, thwarting the legitimate aspirations of the Nigerian people in the process and destroying the career of progressive and forward-looking judges within its own profession. As a result of growing disenchantment, significant sections of the Nigerian populace often resort to self-help after they have been victims of electoral robbery. As it is today, the Nigerian state is neither a modern or modernizing state, nor the nation it forcibly superintends a modern nation or a genuine federation. For the past twenty years, the Nigerian multitude has fought a desperate battle to revalidate their citizenship and to reclaim the stolen sovereignty of the Nigerian electorate. This is where the real war for the transformation of Nigeria is fought and anybody with any genuine transformative agenda for Nigeria ought to know where to pitch their tent. By underwriting the dubious claims of judicial despots, Jonathan has failed the elementary test of any political transformation. The tragic consequences of this failure will outweigh any immediate political relief accruing from the ouster of Justice Salami. Whatever they claim to be his failings and mortal sins, Salami’s enemies have helped to invest him with the halo of judicial martyrdom by the shabby manner of his dismissal. Whether he goes under or is dramatically rescued, Salami has already joined the judicial Hall of Fame and for a long time to come his implacable gaze of sublime contempt will haunt the gallery of electoral miscreants in this land. As for Goodluck Jonathan, the honeymoon is all but over. The gale of protests that has greeted his political deviancy may or may not crystallize into a critical mass of national tempest this time around, but it is just a question of time. An idea seems to be taking firm roots among the educated classes of this country that things cannot continue like this. It is either Nigeria transforms voluntarily or it faces an involuntary resolution of its crippling contradictions. If Jonathan cares to take a closer look at the crowd of protesters this past week, he would have discovered the same forces that had supported his ascendancy against a feudal cabal bent on subverting constitutional rule in the country now inveighing against his own capitulation to judicial feudalism. A presidency which began on a groundswell of national affection and fondness may yet end up in bitterness and bile.

NJC/Salami: Mischief everywhere

No matter how hard the presidency and aides of President Goodluck Jonathan deny the fact, they are guilty of subterfuge and partisanship in the controversy between the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on one side and the lonely and victimised Justice Ayo Salami, suspended President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), on the other side. In my last piece on this sad and irritating matter I had feared that the NJC would ignore common sense and reasonableness to achieve its predetermined and unlawful goals. I even wondered whether the president, knowing the weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and appreciating the graveness of the office he occupies, would ignore posterity and go ahead to side with the powerful and desperate clique in the NJC. If he went on to do the unthinkable, I concluded, Jonathan would have succeeded in taking a step that would define his presidency for all time and leave a permanent scar on his tenure. When I penned those words, and in spite of my suspicion that Jonathan had weak knees when it came to his party and its interests, I had held out hope that he would somehow fumble into the right choice, not enthusiastically out of conviction, for that was not in his character, but at least reluctantly out of instinct. My suspicion, it turned out, was entirely misplaced. By announcing an acting president for the Court of Appeal, in line with the recommendation of the NJC acting under the iron fist of Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, the president wittingly gave in to the argument and mischief of the judicial body. And by carefully wording the appointment notice to appear as if he sidestepped both the suspension and retirement of Salami as canvassed by the NJC, the president gave us an unwholesome view of how lightly he esteems his office and with what levity he takes momentous decisions.  Salami had gone to court fearing the rashness of the NJC would hurt his reputation, but the case was yet to be assigned or heard. If the president had waited for a week or two, knowing full well that the case was in court, would justice to the complainant and the defendant be undermined? There was no chance of that happening. But if the president had waited for a week or two until the case was assigned, would the predetermined objectives of the CJN and the covert wish of the presidency and the ruling party be injured? Absolutely. The decision to take a peremptory action on the controversial suspension of the PCA must, therefore, be understood in those contexts. Forget the subterfuge by the NJC sitting without a quorum, and the presidency acting without a sense of history. Forget also the indignation of the president’s spokesman, Dr Reuben Abati, as he rails against public reaction, a reaction he snorts is partisan. Forget also the sickening fact that a judicial officer junior to Salami sat with seven other jurists from a 24-member body to take a decision over their senior. What is most surprising is that the NJC under Katsina-Alu and his proxies cannot fathom the degree of injury it has done itself and the judiciary as a whole. Since the outgoing CJN took over, and particularly since he caused the Sokoto governorship petition judgement to be arrested, it was clear he had neither the interest of leaving a good legacy nor of being a patriot. It was sufficient for him to rise to the rank of CJN, a position thrust on him solely by his long stay in the Supreme Court and by his seniority. Had he other qualifications known to the judicious and the deep, those credentials would have recommended him to us as a judicial officer destined for greatness and whom we could not but esteem very highly. As it is, Katsina-Alu preferred to leave office on good commons than on good merit. The president’s seemingly disingenuous intervention in the Salami/NJC case is still baffling. He argued he was neither suspending nor retiring the PCA, but that he was only acting to fill a lacuna created by the suspension of Salami by the NJC. According to the presidency, Jonathan was satisfied that the Third Schedule of the 1999 constitution gave the NJC the power to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers of the rank of the PCA. Once the NJC communicated to him that it had sanctioned the PCA, the president considered that he had the obligation to ensure there was no vacuum in the Court of Appeal, even if he theoretically disagreed with the judicial body. He was not fussy about whether the NJC followed due process. The NJC used to be an awe-inspiring body around whose perfumed corridors lesser judicial officers tiptoed reverentially. Katsina-Alu has virtually demystified and destroyed that awe overnight. The CJN’s detrimental instinct is obviously both a product of his person and his insufficient appreciation of the law beyond its letter. But by far the greater censure goes to the president whose aides and hirelings are now quizzically trying to paint him as neutral in the case. He is most definitely not neutral. The buck stops at his desk; though he has tried unsuccessfully to pass it to both the NJC and Nigerians whom he said were partisan, and to the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) members whom his aides and party said were instigating the protests over the Salami case. This is unexampled rascality. The ACN is alleged to be supporting and defending Salami, an observation mischievously celebrated by the ruling party’s supporters and their bought media. But it would have been stupid and cowardly of the ACN not to defend the PCA, for the ruling party flagrantly gave everybody the impression it was persecuting Salami over the Ekiti and Osun governorship elections petitions. And is the cause not just? Or is everyone defending Salami ACN? It is in fact Jonathan and the NJC that are politicising the Salami case by sentimentally seeking to drag the ACN into the fray, while completely avoiding or misinterpreting the provisions of the constitution relevant to the case. It is important for the public to understand that by appointing an acting PCA the president simply surrendered to the wish of the NJC. There is no other way to look at his action other than to say he endorsed the suspension of Salami without saying so openly, and that except the PCA gets a reprieve from the courts, he will stay suspended for a long time in accordance with the desire of the NJC and the covert interest of the presidency and the PDP. It is also important for the public to understand that the Third Schedule of the constitution, which the NJC and the president’s supporters are vigorously celebrating and relying on, cannot be read in isolation of Section 292 of the constitution that spells out how top judicial officers can be removed. Apart from the fact that it is dishonest of the NJC to purport to suspend Salami after all investigations had been carried out, rather than to suspend him before he was investigated, it is egregious subversion of the constitution to misinterpret the constitution at the level of the NJC. As a legal luminary put it, “It is settled that in construing the provisions or section of a statute or indeed the constitution, such provisions or section should not be read in isolation of the other parts of the statute or constitution. In other words, the statute or constitution should be read as a whole in order to determine the intendment of the makers of the statute or constitution. In this context, it is safe to say that the oft-quoted provisions of Paragraph 21(b) of the Third Schedule cannot be read in total disregard to the provisions of Section 292 of the constitution.” The Third Schedule of the 1999 constitution gives the NJC power to take action on erring judicial officers. It did not spell out how. The how is contained in Section 292. Importantly, notwithstanding the agitations of blackmailers, we must not forget that the NJC said it was suspending Salami for misconduct. But it began the persecution of the PCA by first accusing him of lying on oath. When it discovered it would need court pronouncement to establish perjury against him, the offence became refusal to apologise to the CJN. When that also became sticky, the offence metamorphosed into misconduct, which they defined as resorting to media publicity. It is these shifty excuses and unprincipled actions that Jonathan lent his imprimatur. The CJN is retiring today. He is leaving after desecrating a judicial body handed over to him in good standing and in one piece. He is leaving after exposing the weak underbelly of the Supreme Court in very unflattering ways. Of course he has nothing to lose personally, for he has accreted little by way of fame and reputation in his years on the bench, and will go back to the anonymity from whence he came. But Jonathan is still in office, and will be for about four years. As he demonstrated in the Ogun State House of Assembly controversy, when he sided with lawless lawmakers to our initial dismay, he seems to have the instinct of siding with lawbreakers when it suits his political goals. Though many of us supported him during the closing years of Umaru Yar’Adua presidency and in the last presidential election, we feared he would lack principles. He has not disappointed us; he has only shown why we must look beyond him for the greatness of our country – as we looked beyond his predecessors who thought leadership was all about the provision of roads and infrastructure.

Buhari Condemns Attack On UN Building

Former Head of State and Presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change at the 2011 election, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, has condemned Friday bomb attacks at the United Nations House in Abuja in which many lives were lost and several people were wounded. In a statement signed by his spokesman, Yinka Odumakin, General Buhari described the horrendous attack as a heart-rending devastation and a great challenge to the emotion, and sent his condolences to the United Nations, the mourning people of Nigeria and the grief-stricken families. "It is my prayer that the Almighty will comfort all the bereaved and bring speedy recovery to all the wounded" he said. Gen Buhari also frowned at the lazy official response that has accompanied serial challenges to security in the country.  "There has yet to be any coordinated response by the security forces in the country,” he said.  “It is unprofessional and incompetent for our security agencies to surrender to this omnibus Boko Haram as the only clue to every security challenge." He warned that such a situation portends a serious danger to the country: "What that means is that even foreign interests can enter Nigeria today and wreak havoc and issue a statement in the name of Boko Haram and we will bury our dead and life continues," he said. The General called on those in charge of the country to seriously address all the social problems confronting Nigeria and show the focused leadership which is lacking at the moment.