Impeachment plot a Northern agenda – Southern coalition.

By Emma Ujah, Abuja Bureau Chief
The threat by the House of Representatives to impeach President Goodluck Jonathan is part of a Northern agenda to force him out of office, a coalition of southern socio-cultural groups has alleged.
The interim  leader of the coalition, Mr. Zuokumor Tito, told journalists in Abuja, yesterday, that those behind the impeachment plot are the same people using the Boko Haram to destabilise the current administration, adding that the plot to impeach the president next month if he fails to fully  implement 2012 Budget is only an option “B” .
If it becomes successful, the coalition warned, Nigeria would be grounded, economically, leading to the breakup of the nation.
The coalition includes: the Forth Force, Niger Delta Justice & Mass Movement, South-South & South West Mandate, and Ndigbo Consultative Forum,
Tito’s words, “it is a known fact that the old Boko Haram and this new one are operating on different platforms, but the aim and objectives of the new political Boko Haram is crystal clear: fight at all costs to make Nigeria seem unsafe and ungovernable to unseat President Goodluck, the man from the region forbidden to rule Nigeria.
“It is a known fact that the Boko Haram insurgency was deliberately masterminded by these enemies of progress and national stability to create a scenario of insecurity and portray President Jonathan as incompetent to govern the country. Perhaps, feeling that the motive was not being achieved on time, they are now trying to use the House of Representatives, using budget implementation as a plank to achieve their unpatriotic agenda.
“God forbid, but let me warn that if they force Jonathan out of office through this deliberately created insecurity or any other flimsy excuse, they should know that no section of this country has a monopoly of violence. The South, particularly the Niger Delta people have the ability to create artificial insecurity, and if necessary, completely shut down the economy of the nation, because no single drop of oil from the Niger Delta region would be used to run another government. Enough is enough”.
According to the leader, members of the coalition met in Abuja, Wednesday night and earlyu hours of yesterday to review developments in the chambers of the National Assembly with a conclusion that the script playing out in the legislature is well understood by the group which is mobilizing to respond to the outcome, should the plot succeed.
He insisted that President Jonathan has enough support base to “effectively counter any move to coerce or humiliate President Jonathan out of office”, and that those masterminding the move to push the president out of office would regret it.

UNLIKELY MESSENGERS, TOUGH MESSAGE - By: Dr. Hakeem Baba Ahmed....

“Milk is always the same whether it comes from a black cow or a white one.” Tanzanian Proverb.

Last week, Presidents Obasanjo and Babangida released a joint statement. That was news in itself. The two former leaders, who between them had ruled this nation for about 18 years, have not enjoyed the best of relations in the last few years. They have tip-toed around each other, each wary of the other’s scheming to lower his profile and diminish his standing as the dominant player on the political scene. President Babangida’s ship which run aground in 1993, leaving him barely enough time to escape on a life raft was, in a rather fortuitous manner, responsible for the emergence of President Obasanjo as the PDP candidate in the 1999 elections. A largely northern-dominated PDP and a military leadership which still haboured some Babangida influence had decided that a Yoruba man should be President, to make up for the abortion of the previous Presidential elections that may have produced Chief M.K.O Abiola as winner. Obasanjo would not have made the list of 100 preferred Yoruba politicians if Yoruba mainstream political opinion was consulted, but the PDP was not in the business of consulting Yoruba mainstream political opinion. So Obasanjo was dusted up and installed as the party’s candidate, and won the elections with the strong push of the military (including Babangida) and the north. The Yoruba voted overwhelmingly against him.

Until he had firmly secured a stranglehold on the party, Obasanjo never took his eyes off Babangida. Babangida himself had been badly wounded in the manner his rule came to a sorry end, but his tactical withdrawal was to last for only a few years. Powerful people who rule nations such as Nigeria never walk away entirely from power, or sleep with both eyes closed. They fight to stay relevant and influential, as much to protect themselves against their records and legions of enemies they would have made; as for reasons of simple economic survival.
Obasanjo himself, having failed to reinvent himself through the Yar’Adua/Jonathan contraption he foisted on the nation, has been rapidly and dangerously losing ground. Jonathan’s stand-alone Presidency was being effectively barricaded against him, and the political ground in the West had shifted away from him to the ACN. Similarly, Babangida’s claim to national leadership which had been severely dented in the 1990s was further battered by the northern PDP consensus candidate misadventure. The two former giants developed feet of clay, and by the end of Jonathan’s first year in office on a solo run, both looked pretty much like finished goods. Both watched as unprecedented levels of incompetence in running the affairs of state, incredible exposés on massive corruption and a crippling insurgency with dangerous religious undertones threatened to swallow the very foundations of the nation. The weaknesses of the Nigerian state were being exposed almost daily; the survival of the nation as one entity was being questioned widely and openly and elder statesmen and respected citizens were being reduced to letter-writing and twiddling of thumbs as the nation drifted apart and burned. In the aftermath of the post-election violence, many bridges had been broken, and northern politicians in particular were being held responsible for the escalating violence.

As former Heads of State and members of Council of State, it is quite probable that they had availed President Jonathan of their counsel, insights and experiences. If they did, Nigerians saw no evidence of it in the unchanging tactics and strategies which the Jonathan administration adopted towards the JASLIWAJ (a.k.a. Boko Haram) insurgency; or in efforts to reduce the scale of corruption, incompetence and impunity in the administration. In fairness to him, President Obasanjo had made a dangerous trip to Maiduguri and reportedly met with leaders of the insurgency. The trip not only ended tragically for some of those involved in its facilitation, but it became obvious that whatever he came away with, Obasanjo’s experience did not feed the administration’s thinking and responses to the insurgency. General Babangida too had been part of many meetings and consultations over the JASLIWAJ insurgency mostly by northern elders or such fora but the fact that northern Muslim leaders had long been accused of raising the insurgency as a violent strategy to destabilize Jonathan and regain power must have been a constant factor in his mind and involvement. Old man C.K Clark has renewed the innuendoes that leaders like Babangida and Buhari have some handle on the insurgency. If they do get involved successfully in bringing it to an end, they are accused of being it masterminds. If they do not they are accused of sustaining it.

Presidents Obasanjo and Babagida, whose capacity to influence events in the nation has virtually expired, were the people who released a passionate joint statement appealing to Nigerians of all religions to turn the tide against insecurity, violence and hatred. They advise religious leaders to utilize the Ramadan period to inculcate among Nigerians the spirit of mutual respect, humility and forgiveness. They warned of events that are threatening the very foundations and survival of the nation, a product of a century of labour of all Nigerians. These events are pitching Nigerians against each other, and subjecting millions more to untold hardship on a daily basis. They say the loss of innocent lives being experienced daily is unbearable, and that the nation is gripped by a regime of fear and uncertainty. Worse, they draw attention to a pervasive cynicism, even among millions of true Nigerian patriots, which questions the platform upon which the unity of this country rests. They warn that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable, and advise that efforts by various governments in the country to confront the escalating security challenges across the country should be scaled up to be more involving and inclusive.
The former leaders said a lot more, but nothing that has not been said over and over again by them or many others in a different context or fora. Reading the lengthy lamentation of the two elderly Nigerians one could see an effort to meet an obligation as leaders to offer counsel when it is needed. But you could also see the hand of President Jonathan in the initiative, which they acknowledge. Indeed, they say they will convene a session of all former Heads of State to find lasting solutions to the insecurity in the nation. The very careful language, which included avoiding a mention of JASLIWAJ (a.k.a Boko Haram) insurgency or dialogue between it and government belies the chronicle of desperate crisis which faces the nation, and which is clearly overwhelming the capacity of President Jonathan’s administration to handle.

Rather sadly, the nation will merely take note of another impassioned plea for peace and security, this time by President Jonathan using former heads of state as messengers. Even as the joint statement was being released, the insurgents were battling soldiers and police in Maiduguri, Potiskum, Sokoto, Kano and shooting policemen outside the Vice President’s family house in Zaria. Far from serving as a restraint against fresh attacks, the month of Ramadan appears to have served as an impetus for renewed and intensified violence across the entire north. Ominously, suicide bombers attacked police facilities in Sokoto, just a few weeks after a suicide bomber attempted to take the life of the Shehu of Borno.

Is there still the chance that this threat to the security and survival of the nation can be effectively and permanently curtailed? The vast majority of Nigerians will hope so, because the alternative is simply unimaginable. The JASLIWAJ insurgency is unlikely to subdue the Nigerian State and its citizens around its philosophy and vision. But the present administration will be hard put to defeat it comprehensively in the near future because it is itself presently rooted on very weak foundations. Its entire game plan and tactics need to be overhauled. It is worrying that critical turning points may have been missed by the government in the manner it related or reacted to the insurgency. The insurgency may either have fragmented into many centers of activity which makes negotiations and dialogue difficult, or it has developed the sophistication to devolve substantial responsibility to members or units to operate independently. Or the insurgency itself has been infiltrated by rogue and opportunistic elements who operate using its methods to weaken the state further. It is still more worrying that the insurgency, or factions of it, have graduated to the use of more sophisticated weaponry, going by recent reports of seizure of such weapons.

Citizens and communities resent being hostages of the insurgency, and are bitter at the treatment they receive from security agencies. Most members of the Muslim clergy are compromised by partisan politics, which makes them liabilities as mediators. Northern Muslim politicians who were once accused of floating the insurgency as a political front are reluctant to get involved for fear of being accused of putting out fires they lit, or coming unstuck because they have no influence over the insurgency. Beyond boots and bullets, the administration has no real leverage in the communities which both habour and pay a terrible price for the insurgency. This is a major weakness, and is perhaps the issue Obasanjo and Babangida have in mind when they advise on the adoption of “involving and inclusive” approach.

But the battle for the heart and soul of the nation as well as its future as a secure and united country must involve telling President Jonathan some hard truth. If these former leaders will be of any value in mediating the many problems which confront this nation, they must also take back a message to the President. They should tell him that serial incompetence and unprecedented levels of corruption in his administration are depriving him of the capacity to lead the nation out of this difficult stage. Nigerians do not see evidence that President Jonathan can arrest the drift towards disunity; or rein-in corruption, or improve the quality of governance and quality of lives; or confront the JASLIWAJ insurgency, and tackle multiple ethno-religious conflicts, kidnappings, violent crimes e.t.c. They see an administration which is indifferent or insensitive, and which appears completely isolated from the citizenry. This is precisely why many Nigerians who love this country cannot see it surmounting its current problems, and why they are coming to terms with the possibility that bits and pieces of it will be better off on their own.

Presidents Obasanjo and Babangida’s job of asking Nigerians to stand back from the abyss will be difficult to accomplish unless they recognize the very heart of the problem. This is the existence of a political leadership which shows no capacity to govern with vision, competence and honesty. There are genuine reasons why Nigerians should worry about the JASLIWAJ insurgency as a national, rather than a northern problem. There are grounds for worry in the manner governments impoverish, rather than improve the economic well-being of citizens. There is something wrong in the manner the economy is good to you, or you are pauperized, based only on where you live. A nation with these features has no future. But it can be fixed, and it should start from the present. A bad leadership cannot build a good nation. This is what Obasanjo and Babangida should tell President Jonathan.

MOSOP Declares Independence In Ogoni Land

MOSOP PRESIDENT, GOODLUCK DIIGBO
SAN FRANCISCO, August 03, (THEWILL) – In a move that will evoke scary memories of the Nigerian Civil War of 6th July 1967 to 15th January 1970, the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), led by its president/spokesman, Goodluck Diigbo, has declared political autonomy in Ogoni Land, claiming to be “acting with legitimacy to reclaim all of our rights, without exception.”

The announcement has been greeted with wild Jubilations in the region.

“By this declaration of political autonomy, we, the Ogoni people, are determined to enforce the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without fear or retreat,” Diigbo said in a live broadcast on newly established radio station, Voice of Ogoni, saying that self-government within Nigeria will secure for the Ogoni people, their indigenous rights, enable them to meet their needs and interests and finally end internal colonialism.
His words, “Self-government became urgent, recognising the need to arrive at a consensus to collectively review the disputed UNEP Ogoniland Oil Assessment report, because any dialogue must be with the genuinely elected representatives of the people expected to enforce indigenous rights without dictation.

“The reason for the urgency of self-government for Ogoni is the concern that in the absence of a responsive government that the indigenous people of Ogoni will continue to suffer from historic injustices.

“In order to make indigenous rights practicable in Ogoni, we have, through a very transparent electoral college process, beginning with community by community elections, set up 272 village councils, while the village councils in turn elected representatives for 33 district councils and the district representatives went on to elect representatives to serve, at the centre, as custodians of customs and traditions, otherwise called lawmakers.

“The law makers in turn elected the executive arm of the Ogoni Central Indigenous Authority (OCIA) with checks and balances inbuilt to ensure corruption-free, effective, efficient and answerable system of grassroots self-government instead of the old, corrupt and mismanaged local government system endured by the Ogoni for decades.

“In taking these measures, we are quite aware of the discomfort to about 56 local politicians that control local government politics in Ogoni, however, we care more about the 1.2 million people that have for too long been excluded.

He announced that a Transitional Committee was already set up to facilitate dialogue to ensure peaceful transition, within 30 days, while consultation with the national government and international community begins without delay.
Diigbo emphasized the need for Ogonis to remain law-abiding and act nonviolently, saying, “we are acting with legitimacy to reclaim all of our rights, without exception, and for the sake of peace and security. Let no one test the collective will of the Ogoni people, because we will not surrender our indigenous rights anymore.”

The rest of his statement reads:

“In 1990, we the people of Ogoni presented the Ogoni Bill of Rights to the Government and people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in which the Ogoni nonviolently demanded among other indigenous rights.

“• Political autonomy to participate in the affairs of the Republic as a distinct and separate indigenous unit (by whatever name called), provided that this autonomy guarantees political control of Ogoni affairs by Ogoni people; The right to control and use a fair proportion of Ogoni economic resources for Ogoni development; adequate representations, as of right, in all Nigerian national institutions, and the right to protect the Ogoni environment and ecology from further degradation as recognized under international law to which Nigeria is obligated.

“Nigeria, a multi-ethnic nation state, a legacy of the British colonial administration, granted political independence October 1, 1960, after the British violated Ogoni independence in 1901, did not respond to the Ogoni, inhabiting their ancestral land in southern Nigeria.

“When in the struggle for indigenous political autonomy; especially, in matters concerning confiscation of sacred ancestral lands for oil production without prior informed consent, there comes a moment to assert powers derived from the consent of the people and Nature’s blessings in order to protect, preserve and pass on inherited sacred ancestral heritage to succeeding indigenous generations. On behalf of the entire Ogoni people, I am highly honored to present these issues surrounding the proposed Ogoni Declaration of Political Autonomy.

“30. That despite the fact that the “Nigerian Constitution” and other laws and policies provide for a local government system, in reality, the local government constitutional provisions meant to extend the principle of Federalism to its logical conclusion, by bringing the government to the grassroots level, do not apply in Ogoniland as a result of corruption and public deception by local and state political actors and the lack of enforcement of the shaky “Nigerian constitution” by the federal government;

“31. That, this is because quite often local governments are frequently dissolved in Ogoniland without any explanation rendered to the Ogoni people;

32. That, essential appointments into local government service are often suspended for several years without information to the Ogoni people about the reason for such suspension, when the local authorities still operate budgetary provisions for needed manpower;

“33. That the elected representatives who have supported this proposed declaration of political autonomy for the Ogoni people as they have bitterly complained that the present system of local government in Nigeria does not allow them the freedom to govern according to the wishes of the people;

“34. That individual local government chairman has to remit monthly allowances in substantial amounts to those politicians at the state and national levels that put them into office;

“35. That since local government operators are often imposed on the people, they, the local operators are required to compensate for the way they are often put into office through massive and violent rigging of elections;

“36. That in the circumstance, the local operators, expected to respond to yearnings of their grassroots constituencies have become perpetually vulnerable to threats of illegal removal from office without reference to the electorate;

“37. That, we the Ogoni people take very serious, the complaint by the Ogoni local officials that have confessed that they still hold office because they are able to settle their political godfathers, meaning political stalwarts that planted them as conduit pipe for siphoning funds meant to help in the development of Ogoni villages and wellbeing of Ogonis;

“38. That the application indigenous rights will end this manner of abuse of power and mismanagement of public resources as the representatives of the people have been duly elected by the people in Ogoni, and controlled by the people and to end the system whereby politicians handpicked by political operators at the national and state levels, remain in office without accountability to the people as long as they satisfy those who put them into office.

“39. That the local government employees, some in service for over 30 years cannot even afford a good meal with their families, but have seen politicians that come into the local councils buying houses in Port Harcourt and Abuja, even in overseas countries within six months in office.

“40. That we believe that the Ogoni people are equal to all other Nigerians that now lord it over the Ogoni by means of indirect internal colonial rule through the corrupt local government system, which violates indigenous rights of the Ogoni people.

Concluding Declaration:
“Now, therefore, acting on the General Assembly mandate on the questions relating to the Political Autonomy of Ogoni in southern Nigeria, and in the spirit of the General Assembly motion DPA/001/2012, and its resolutions DPA/002/2012 and DPA/003/2012 adopted and approved on July 31, 2012; in accordance with the wishes of the Ogoni people contained in the Ogoni Bill of Rights of 26 August, 1990 as revised on the 26th of August 1991; expressing the collective will of the good people of Ogoni in the referendum of 2010 and the second referendum of 2011, obeying the command by the Ogoni people and their elected representatives from 33 district councils, comprising over 272 village councils, living in the six kingdoms of Ogoni, namely: Babbe, Eleme, Gokana, Kenkhana, Nyokhana and Tai and two administrative units: Ban Goi and the Bori National Territory; conducting this solemn affair in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 13, 2007, guided by the purposes and principles of international law in accordance with the United Nations Charter, I, Dr. Goodluck Diigbo, hereby make this historic statement, to announce the proclamation of this General Assembly Declaration of Political Autonomy for the Self-determination or Self-government of the Ogoni people within Nigeria, today, the 2nd Day of August, 2012. So declared, and so be it; for the advancement of liberty in freedom and the preservation of the ancestral heritage of the Ogoni people.”

Obasanjo, IBB and national insecurity.

By: 

MICHAEL JEGEDE

Erstwhile President Olusegun Obasanjo and General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida (IBB), recently, dropped their rivalry caps and came together to express grief over the general insecurity in Nigeria, maintaining in a joint statement duly signed by them that the slaughter of innocent Nigerians was simply unbearable , agonising and heartbreaking.

For them, “unfolding events in our dear motherland, Nigeria, over the last few years are threatening to unravel the nearly a century old labour of our founding fathers and subsequent generations in building a strong, united, peaceful nation that can accommodate and cater for the needs and aspirations of our diverse communities. Internecine crises are raging across the land unabated with damaging consequences on the social, political and economic life of the nation. 

And in the process untold hardships are being visited on all citizens in one form or another on a daily basis. The loss of innocent lives being experienced by the day across the nation is simply unbearable. Currently, the nation is gripped by a regime of fear and uncertainty that virtually all citizens have difficulties going about their normal day to day activities without great anxiety and trepidation. This cannot be allowed to continue!”


Continuing, they said: “A deeply worrying trend that is emerging from this terrible situation is that a pervasive cynicism is beginning to set in, so much so that millions of true Nigerian patriots are starting to question the platform upon which the unity of this country rests. This is simply untenable. The people of this country must not allow whatever sense of frustration, fear and despair we are experiencing now to supersede our hopes for a collective destiny which lies in our continued existence as a Nation. For us, and we believe for millions of other Nigerians, the continued unity of this nation is not only priceless but non-negotiable. 


While we are very much aware of the efforts various governments in the country are making to confront the escalating security challenges across the country, we believe that it is time that these efforts are scaled up to be more involving and inclusive.”


Stressing that our diversity should be a course for celebration and not a cause for lamentation, the duo added: “As the Holy Month of Ramadan commences, Nigerians wherever they are and whatever religion they profess are accorded a great opportunity to turn the tide against insecurity, violence and hatred. Religious leaders, in particular, have an even greater challenge to use the immense virtues of this Holy period to inculcate among the millions of citizens the spirit of mutual respect, humility and forgiveness. 

Ample opportunities are therefore at hand to bring all armed belligerents to table for meaningful dialogue with the authorities for our future and that of our children and grandchildren.” In their conclusion, declaring their readiness to do whatever that is possible to promote the quest for peace, unity and harmony in the country, Obasanjo and IBB, noted that no significant advancement can take place in an ambience of hostility and venom.

Sadly, as if to say to hell with the former Presidents, virtually twenty-four hours after their jointly signed message of peace, tolerance and dialogue, gunmen attacked Vice President Nemadi Sambo’s abode in Kaduna, on the same day multiple bombs rocked Sokoto, the capital of the Caliphate, for the very first time, with attacks on the office of Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of Police and two police stations. 


A total of five people were reported to have died in the attacks, while some sustained different degrees of injuries. While the attacks were going on in Kaduna and Sokoto, another group of gunmen ambushed Joint Task Force (JTF) team in Damaturu, the Yobe State capital, killing one of its officers.  


While some believe that the joint statement coming from the duet of Obasanjo and Babangida was a welcome good development, many have argued that they do not have a say on the matter, as they are seen as the major cause of the entire problem bedevilling the country today.


For instance, even though he agreed that the concerns raised by the former Nigerian leaders were genuine, Yinka Odumakin, an active member of Save Nigeria Group (SNG) argued that they have a gigantic portion of guilt in all of the issues that brought us to the problems Nigeria is currently facing as a nation.


In Odumakin’s words, “Babangida had his time as military head of state during which corruption was the order of the day. Perhaps if the resources of the nation had been judiciously utilised by IBB to build infrastructure, we may not be where we are today. Also, Obasanjo for eight years had the opportunity and capacity to develop Nigeria, but he was busy acquiring what we did not need. Jonathan that wants to liquidate Nigeria today is Obasanjo’s baby. He (Obasanjo) brought him (Jonathan) up so they are part of the problems to be solved and not the solution.”


Much as IBB is believed to have in his days as Military President institutionalised corruption, whose tentacles appeared to have been spread by Obasanjo, I think whatever suggestion and advice they have to offer in the current spate of insecurity in the land must not be wished away at all by Nigerians.



 At this point in time, whatever we need to do collectively as a people to stop this continued bloodbath and massacre of our fellow countrymen and women has to be done. We just cannot continue like this, seeing innocent Nigerians being sent to their early graves almost on a daily basis. In all of these crises, where Nigerians now move around with apprehension, it is equally important that we seek the face of God Almighty. 


Like Senator Nurudeen Abatemi-Usman representing Kogi Central Senatorial District in the Red Chamber rightly pointed out in his Ramadan Message to Nigerians, “As we commence this year’s Ramadan, I am using this medium to call on my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, and indeed, the entire people of Nigeria to remain steadfast and unwavering in prayers for our beloved country. 



We have had too many disasters in recent time with numerous innocent Nigerians losing their lives for no fault of theirs. As we make efforts on our own to checkmate the menace, we, most importantly, need to seek the face of God. We need divine intervention in all of these crises.”


It is my hope and belief that the step taking by the duo of Obasanjo and IBB coupled with the government’s efforts and that of all other Nigerians will yield fruitful results for the sake of the blood of our beloved brothers and sisters who have lost their lives so far. I am optimistic that God will touch the hearts of those behind this heinous and dastardly act of senseless killings that have become the order of the day in our dear country Nigeria.

Budget War: Beyond the Percentages.

The Verdict according to Olusegun Adeniyi. Email,olusegun.adeniyi@thisdaylive.com.

Although hardly ever ready on schedule, it was no less alarming when, as of late March, the 2008 Appropriation Bill had yet to be signed into law. The reason for the delay this time arose from a disagreement between the president and the National Assembly over the powers of the legislature in relation to the budgeting process. There was therefore understandable anxiety within the polity, especially as it emerged that President Yar’Adua was somewhat reluctant to sign the budget over what he saw as the extreme meddlesomeness of the lawmakers.

The main contention was that a review of the 2008 Appropriation Act as passed by the National Assembly revealed that the legislators had virtually rewritten the budget not only by jacking up their own figures but also by introducing several clauses in contravention of the principle of separation of powers. In summary, the legislators unilaterally initiated projects for which they provided money without any input from the executive, which ordinarily should design, cost, execute and supervise such projects. To the president, the legislators’ actions made a mockery of the entire budgetary process and were clearly antithetical to the principle of transparency and accountability.

…the meeting over, the president asked the AGF to outline the issues for which he would seek judicial interpretation at the Supreme Court, which seemed to be the logical step since all the dialogue sessions held with the Assembly leadership had failed to yield any positive result. To that end, the Justice Ministry came up with the following issues for determination by the Supreme Court: Whether the National Assembly, in the exercise of its constitutional power to approve the yearly budget estimates submitted to it by the executive, can

• unilaterally increase the revenue benchmark beyond what was provided in the budget estimates presented to it by the president;

• unilaterally write into the budget heads of expenditure and appropriate money on those heads of expenditure that were not provided for by the budget estimates submitted by the president;

• unilaterally insert into the budget projects not included by the executive and proceed to appropriate money beyond the estimates submitted by the president;

• under the presidential system of government, whittle down the powers of the executive president by compelling officers of the executive branch to report directly to them on matters such as provided under the appropriation bill.

Before the suit could, however, be filed at the Supreme Court, there was a further appeal to dialogue, after the finance minister’s counsel that the president should seek another session with the Assembly leadership. Dr Samsudeen Usman, who had frequent interactions with the lawmakers, knew they would perceive the court option as a declaration of war and would fight back…

The foregoing long text, taken from my book, “Power, Politics & Death: A front row account of Nigeria Under the late President Yar’Adua”, underscores the current challenge with members of the House of Representatives and the Senate now at daggers-drawn with the executive over the implementation of the 2012 Appropriation law. In what has become a game of percentages, the House claims 34 percent has been implemented, the Senate gave its own figure as 21.6 percent while the Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, insists that there has been 56 percent  implementation. Yet the real subtext in the drama is the fact that this fight is not about the welfare of Nigerians but rather about vested interests on which neither of the parties involved can claim the moral high-ground.

I want to raise some pertinent questions and provide quick answers. The first is: Do National Assembly members distort budgets? The answer is an unqualified YES. In fact, I will go further to say they bastardise budgets. Let’s take the case of 2012 and the Health Ministry. Eradication of Polio has become a challenge for Nigeria and on this we are now almost an international embarrassment. “The risk of an explosive return of polio in Nigeria and West Africa is ever present and raises the chilling spectre of many deaths and huge financial outlay to regain control,” said a WHO official recently. Yet while the executive proposed a vote of N2 billion in the 2012 appropriation bill to fight the scourge, the National Assembly considered polio eradication in Nigeria unimportant by removing the entire sum! Another example: With flooding and the rise of water borne diseases like cholera across the nation, the executive had voted what can be considered a meagre N578 million for such epidemic diseases. What did the National Assembly do? It cut the vote to N78 million! Yet this same lawmakers would vote the entire sum of money in one year’s budget for a project that has a cycle of three, four or even five years to complete. This leaves ample room not only for corruption and waste but it defeats the idea of budgeting which is for planning purposes.

Now, the second pertinent question: Does the executive implement budget selectively and do ministers also distort budget? The answer also is an unqualified Yes. To compound the problem, the requisite capacity for budget implementation is not there. Again, let’s go to the 2012 budget and I will cite the examples of two ministries: Agriculture and Health. For agriculture this year, N48 billion was approved by the National Assembly. To date, from my investigation, N13.8 billion has been released while only 9.4 billion out of the available sum has been spent. Now this is where the game of percentages gets interesting. The agric ministry claims 68 percent implementation based on money released thus far, but looking at the total amount of work done, against total amount appropriated for the year, the budget implementation is actually an unimpressive 29 percent! In the Health Ministry, the entire capital vote for the year is N14.54 billion, out of which N5.72 billion has so far been released. The ministry claims 35 percent implementation, given the money spent and what is still left in their kitty. When this is however compared with the appropriated sum what we have is a meager 14 percent budget implementation.

We will come back to this issue next week in order to x-ray how ministers and heads of agencies (mis)use the “Envelope system” to make nonsense of the budget process. I will however conclude the present intervention with two instructive accusations, or if you like, counter-accusations. On Monday, Health Minister, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, said:  “If you go through the records, you will find that there are a lot of constituency projects that are yet to be completed because those people who were representatives of the people before are no longer there, they have left. However, the new members are insisting that new projects must be executed first.”

But on Tuesday, House Minority Leader, Hon Femi Gbajabiamila, pointed fingers in the opposite direction: “N6 billion was allocated for water projects. N1.3 Billion of the N6 billion was for the Finance Minister’s village, another N1.5 billion for the president’s place and N3 billion for the rest of the country. Yet she is not elected but you say those elected should not bring development through the budget to their areas.”

I hope readers are getting some clues about what our national budget is all about and why the landscape is strewn with abandoned projects and ruins.

•To be concluded next week.

Fashola and the Broken Windows Theory

Shortly before I left the country in June 2010, I attended a group meeting where a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governor generally acknowledged to be doing very well in his state, was in attendance. In the course of a general discussion about Nigeria, the governor said: “We have a lot of problems in this country because the most important issue is usually where the president comes from and not what he can deliver so my proposition would sound very crazy. But if I were to nominate anyone to be president of Nigeria today, I will go straight for (Babatunde) Fashola.” Apparently having noticed the surprise on the faces of many people in the room, he continued: “In terms of providing infrastructure, Fashola has not done as much as I have done in my state. For me, what stands Fashola out is the breath of his ideas. There is no time that I have engaged him in discussions about leadership, governance and how to transform this country that I didn’t take away something.”

I could easily situate what the Governor was talking about and in a way I sensed that my late boss (President Yar’Adua) also did because, despite party differences and the difficult (and most often acrimonious) relationship between Lagos state and the federal government, he nonetheless felt at home with the man he affectionately called “Governor Lagos”.

On Tuesday, I was in Lagos to join the THISDAY team led by Managing Director, Eniola Bello, for a long session with Fashola and his own team, including Environment Commissioner, Mr Tunji Bello. Because of the human dimension to the Makoko/Lagoon front demolition fiasco, we felt obliged to engage the governor on the issue. We met a man who was not only prepared but one who has mastered his turf: Fashola knows Lagos like the back of his hands and that must account for  his modest accomplishments.

While Fashola is an issue I intend to take on one day in a serious disquisition about leadership, it is interesting that he seems fascinated by the “Broken Windows Theory”, which he said underpins his attitude to governance. Based on a thesis by James Wilson and George Kelling which originally centred on crime prevention, the broken windows theory has over the years become a veritable tool for social scientists. According to the authors in the piece published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982, “at the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken.”

The moral of the proposition is that it is much more productive and far cheaper to fix a “broken window” (metaphor for any problem) before it escalates. As one commentator puts it, “we’ve seen clean, functional systems deteriorate pretty quickly once windows start breaking…neglect accelerates the rot faster than any other factor.”

Several times in the course of our engagement with him, Fashola would allude to the conventional wisdom in fixing broken windows before they eventually lead to the collapse of the house. The sad thing really is that we have too many broken windows in our country today and only few people care about fixing them. It is therefore no surprise that the entire edifice (of our nation) is crumbling, littered as it is by broke windows and managed by a leadership elite that has little temperament for attending to any broken things.

Whither Nigeria's Diplomacy?

Guest Columnist By Issa Aremu

The 19th Ordinary Session of the African Union (AU) held between July 15 and 16 at its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  The session witnessed the dramatic emergence of the South African Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma as the first female chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC). Days after, Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, had been hard put to rationalise the abysmal collapse of Nigeria’s diplomacy in the face of South Africa’s dramatic diplomatic renaissance.

In one breath, he claimed that Nigeria was never in contest with South Africa for the Chair of the AUC.  He had said: “You will recall that President Goodluck Jonathan said it many times that this is not a contest between Nigeria and South Africa and that Nigeria is actually not campaigning for anybody. That is the truth. We did not mount any campaign for any country.” But in another breath, he accepted as much that Nigeria did “stand by ECOWAS’ endorsement of the candidature of (the failed) Dr. Jean Ping, the Gabonese Foreign Minister… and that was it. We just took a position which was principled along with our ECOWAS members and we stood by it.  But as usual, people can insinuate that once Nigeria was not in the camp of South Africa, it means that Nigeria is against South Africa. We are not against South Africa”.

Somebody once observed rather sarcastically that “Diplomats make it their business to conceal the facts”. Even at that, it could not have added up for Ambassador Ashiru, to so casually obliterate obvious facts.  Certainly only the minister and President Jonathan would disbelieve one clear fact that by endorsing ECOWAS’ candidate.  Nigeria was truly in a contest it miserably lost.

In any case, Ashiru accepted as much an active promoter of a sub-regional candidate (Gabonese Foreign Minister, Ping) that Nigeria indeed run a miserable campaign compared to the robust campaign of South Africa's Dlamini-Zuma. He reportedly remarked: “We must admit that South Africa ran a better campaign. You can imagine that South Africa was able to dispatch envoys once or twice to all 51 African states, you can imagine the outcome. If they have worked hard which we must accept, then the result was not a surprise to some of us.”

I think it is simply honourable to accept that South Africa’s victory was well deserved. Conversely, we must abandon diplomatic subterfuge and accept that Nigeria, a leading member of ECOWAS, ran a mediocre campaign.  The recent diplomatic double talk, incoherence and wholesale setback for Nigeria in AU underscores the free fall of Nigeria’s diplomacy in general from the hitherto globally acknowledged rise from independence even up to the formation of the AU in 2001.

Both history and bagful of deserved diplomatic achievements in favour of Africa and Africans spanning five decades qualify Nigeria as an unbeatable African leading nation in AU. The body emerged out of the Organisation of Africa Unity (OAU) formed by founding nations that included Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Liberia, Egypt and other nations in May 25, 1963. South Africa was then not a liberated country.

Indeed the land of Madiba was under the heels of the hated apartheid regime.  In 1961, Nigeria's late Prime Minister Tafawa Balawa courageously spearheaded the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth as part of Nigeria's selfless overall objective of ending colonialism and its apartheid surrogate suffocating the African majority in the apartheid enclave. In the 70s and 80s, Nigeria put its weight behind the liberation of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. And Namibia too. The bold recognition of the major liberation movement, People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) - the ruling party in Angola today - by Nigeria’s Murtala Muhammed regime contrasted with the despicable role of apartheid regime of South Africa which unconditionally backed the notorious National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) that waged war of attritions against MPLA.

Up to the 80s, Nigeria was a frontline state that shared great historic ideals of African liberation with Zambia, Tanzania, Lesotho, Botswana and Angola.  It is a diplomatic irony that in 2012, Angola allied with South Africa in a continental vote rather than with Nigeria. Nigeria's past diplomatic successes which conferred on it a great respect were products of good governance and leadership at home and commitment to great ideals of OAU/AU. The recent Nigeria’s authority meltdown in AU is a reflection of domestic bad governance and clear cut abandonment of pan African development agenda. On what basis was Nigeria’s support for the failed Gabonese Foreign Minister, Ping?

Are we to just throw weight behind a candidate because he ostensibly hails from our region or because he stands for greater ideals of the continent hunted by another spectre of foreign scramble? Was the so-called principled support for the failed Gabonese foreign minister not an extension of our domestic/regional tribalism which of late has degenerated into the new apartheid Franco/Anglophone divide?  Yours sincerely remains a critic of the moribund Gadhafi regime. But if the AUC under the then leadership of Ping had offered leadership, undoubtedly we did not need North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to democratise Libya. Both Nigeria and South Africa cannot afford the luxury of contestation if AU must move forward.

We can only wish Dlamini-Zuma a refreshing tenure from the recent collapse of leadership in AU. She has already started on a modest note. She was reported to have said: “South Africa is not going to come to Addis Ababa to run the AU. It is Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who is going to come to make a contribution.”  Most African leaders who are men are not known for such modesty.

It is time we reinvented Nigeria’s all inclusive diplomacy in AU in line with the previous pan African efforts of Nigeria’s founding fathers; namely Tafawa Balewa, Yakubu Gowon, Muhammed, Olusegun Obasanjo, Shehu Shagari (in that order of honesty of purpose and commitment) to African unity and development.

Aremu is the Vice-President, NLC

Oshiomole as Metaphor.

Okey Ikechukwu

Kayode Komolafe’s last intervention on the outcome of the recent governorship election in Edo State had all the ingredients of a well thought ‘review of important variables for good governance’. President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisah Metuh, who congratulated Governor Adams Oshiomole after his electoral victory, were responding in the manner expected of self-respecting public figures. Such reactions from a national party that was roundly trounced and actually scandalised by the election results suggest a leadership that is more concerned about national values, while not renouncing tendentious group interests and loyalties. To say that this is a major gain for the PDP may seem an absurd point to make, considering that it put up a perfectly miserable performance. Yet it was a resounding victory of sorts for the party.

A man may sometimes gain more by a loss that reaffirms his humanity and buys him some slack and goodwill among those who were getting accustomed to calling him a never-do-well. The PDP has not always conducted itself with any form of dignity or grace during elections and, while it shares this ‘defect of character’ with the other parties, it was easily stigmatised because it was the ruling party at the centre. But let us follow Komolafe’s piece further by looking at the main winners in that election.

The list, ambience and voice of stakeholders who consider themselves important in Edo State have expanded under Oshiomole. Without prejudice to the views and comments of those who mentioned logistical and other challenges in some areas during the elections, it must be said that the people of Edo State are enjoying an unusual air of freedom with conspicuously limited rancour.  This issue is important because the state has moved from a restricted and restrictive political culture of a narrow people base for consensus building to a progressive expansion of loyalties beyond geographical and political lines. There seems to be a broader consensus among Edo people from all political, ethnic and geographical (and water), divides to work in aid of what will help the state and its people. It is no longer sufficient to speak of political parties and expect perceptive adults to continue to insult themselves by going along with what does not make sense in the courts of natural justice equity and good conscience.

So welcome to a new Edo State that must not rest on its shaky oars, lest it become windborne. It is no longer a matter of parties, but a matter of the people coming out to speak with their votes despite their avowed and widely known party loyalties. No one took to the streets, even where some felt aggrieved. No one mobilised any private terror machines for mayhem and contrived ‘ungovernability’. Thugs had an unseasonal bad market. Five years ago, no one would have expected that this ‘industry’ would suffer such monumental setback; when it should be booming. This means that the massive machinery for the ruination of peoples’ children, called political thuggery, may be facing an irreversible downturn in Edo State. This is good. Other sectors of the economy and empty skills centres may be getting more applications.

Further still, the re-elected governor of the state, Oshiomole, took off in his acceptance speech by openly acknowledging that the verdict of the people only obliges him to bend down and do more work in his second term. This is commendable. While his victory may not be entirely surprising, its overall implications must be considered surprising, especially when looked at against the background of the politics of Edo State and Nigeria within the last 12 years before his election. A redefinition of the criteria for political relevance is emerging. The winners’ list in the last election is a big one and those who think that Oshiomole’s new victory gives him the opportunity to finally bury the political forces he dislikes in the state should think again.

The state needs rebuilding and realignment along the paths of development and reconciliation, not the atavistic distraction that comes from a contrived isolation of perceived political enemies. It is expected that the people will learn the right lessons and begin to use party platforms to throw up those they know, trust and believe can perform; rather than use party politics to midwife a subtle political terrorism in the land.

Perhaps we should also use these election results to reflect on Oshiomole himself and the fears that greeted his foray into partisan politics.

When it became public knowledge that Oshiomole, the diminutive labour leader of troublesome inclinations, would go into partisan politics, some observers openly laughed and said that the man was about to get his ‘baptism of fire’. The logic was that someone who had spent the better part of his life fighting the perceived enemies of the people would have got so used to complaining and grumbling that he must have lost all capacity for doing any constructive work. In fact they expected that Oshiomole’s experience during the election would be reminiscent of that of Gani Fawehinmi, who was thoroughly clobbered by the elections results when he ventured forth to contest for the office of president.  Those who argued that an Adams will all the more likely do well in public office, because he had used opposition to understand and develop alternatives to the bad policies he was fighting, were laughed out of court.

But see how wrong they were about Oshiomole. With all his good points, the redoubtable Gani was part of public conscience and his forte was public and publicised interventions, as well as judicial expositions. He contributed more than any other Nigerian to the development of jurisprudence, especially as it concerns revisiting the validity of certain enactments that successive, and often repressive, governments were eager to pass off as laws.

His many court cases ultimately led to the abrogation, or questioning, of many obnoxious laws; as well as a revalidation of the intent and purport of several constitutional provisions. Gani’s mistake was to venture into that area of public intervention for which he was one of the least prepared. Elections are worn with active machineries, not by acknowledging the cheers of large crowds of no particular address. Crowds will always disperse after an event, until the next speech day and a party crowd is held together by some kind of coping stone – and this was not anywhere around Gani. Part of the strength of any party machinery comes from its loyalists, who hold the ground in specific areas; by nurturing ideological loyalty (as distinct from the money loyalty in vogue).

Gani and Oshiomole had the common objective, and even similar profiles, of always taking on people-oriented fights, but Oshiomole had the advantage of working with organised groups. The deception, betrayals and internal survival politics within unions were most probably better understood by Oshiomole, so he relied on the people while making sure that the people did not fail him. Having repeatedly mobilised strikes in the past, he knew that any mass action requires you to agree on such details as timing and logistics with team leaders across the nation. Genuine labour leadership is, therefore, an administrator’s nightmare and Oshiomole has the advantage of having lived with and survived several such nightmares and being in the field in a way that Gani never was.  The surprise of the last Edo election would have been if such a man would lose the turf after having been in the saddle for four years – and especially given his performance in office.

The only other collateral observation here, perhaps, is to say that the PDP now has all it needs in order to go back to the drawing board and organise itself. It should move beyond the quarrel over positions to actively develop an ideological wing that must take over from the hit men it had relied upon for the last 12 years. Its youth wings should begin to sift their contents, so that the thriving culture of money-driven political loyalty, including jobless young men and women who own several four-wheel vehicles as glorified thugs, may change into something better.

The party must, at last, develop the capacity to speak intelligently on national issues, campaign coherently during elections and stand up to defend its victories, instead of always looking and sounding guilty simply because it never occurred to its leadership that there are people out there who need to be convinced about what it represents.
All things considered, the Edo election puts INEC and Nigeria in a position to take more realistic steps towards sustainable party politics and national development.

*Dr. Ikechukwu is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board.