US Government Dismisses Nigeria’s War Against Corruption As Hot Air.

US Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria

By SaharaReporters, New York

The United States has again dismissed Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts as mere talk, describing the Goodluck Jonathan era as one in which the government is not implementing the law, and officials engage in corrupt practices with impunity.
“Massive, widespread, and pervasive corruption affected all levels of government and the security forces,” it said of Nigeria in its 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The department submits reports on all countries receiving assistance and all United Nations Member States to the U.S. Congress in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974.
“There was a widespread perception that judges were easily bribed and that litigants could not rely on the courts to render impartial judgments,” said the report in its segment on Nigeria. “Citizens encountered long delays and alleged requests from judicial officials for bribes to expedite cases or obtain favorable rulings.”
It described the efforts of the Economic and Financial Commission (EFCC) as “largely ineffectual,” and stated that President Jonathan in November 2011 removed the EFCC Chair, Farida Waziri, after credible allegations appeared that she was engaged in corrupt practices.
“Public officials, including the president, vice president, governors, deputy governors, cabinet ministers, and legislators (at both federal and state levels), must comply with financial disclosure laws, including the requirement to declare their assets before assuming and after leaving office,” noted the report.  “Violators risked prosecution, but cases rarely came to conclusion.”
Notable here would be President Jonathan, who has refused to declare his assets, igniting speculation as to the depth and spread of his wealth, and how that may be responsible for his fear of confronting corruption, including prosecuting Mrs. Waziri after firing her for “credible allegations” of corrupt practices.
On other subjects, the performance of the government was also indicted.  For instance, on “Respect for the Integrity of the Person,” the report stated that the government or its agents committed numerous arbitrary or unlawful killings.  This would corroborate the argument of many Nigerians about the inability of the security forces to solve crime, and that the government is responsible for them.
“During the year the Joint Task Force (JTF)...conducted raids on militant groups and criminal suspects in the Niger Delta and Borno State, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries to both alleged criminals and civilians,” said the report.  “According to credible eyewitness accounts, the JTF committed illegal killings during attempts to apprehend members of the extremist group Boko Haram (“Western education is anathema,” in Hausa) in Borno State and surrounding areas.”
Similarly, the report said that security service personnel, including police, military, and State Security Service (SSS) officers, regularly tortured, beat, and abused demonstrators, criminal suspects, detainees, and convicted prisoners. “Police mistreated civilians to extort money. The law prohibits the introduction into trials of evidence and confessions obtained through torture; however, police often used torture to extract confessions.”
The loudest and most damaging comment in the report is to be found in three words: “at/by year’s end,” in the sense of futility and the Nigerian government’s penchant for long, drawn-out, inconclusive activity, such as prosecution or investigation, during 2011.
Examples:
    The Code of Conduct Tribunal commenced the trial of former governor of Lagos State Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu...There was no decision in the case by year’s end;

In October the EFCC arrested four former governors...Ogun governor Otunba Gbenga Daniel, former Oyo governor Chief Adebayo Alao-Akala, former Nasarawa governor Alhaji Aliyu Akwe Doma, and former Gombe governor Muhammed Danjuma Goje. Their trials began in December and continued at year’s end.
  
In May 2010 authorities arraigned former PDP national chairman Vincent Ogbulafor on 17 criminal counts of corruption and money laundering in the amount of 2.3 billion naira ($14 million). Ogbulafor filed a petition to dismiss the charges. There were no new developments in the case by year’s end.
In August 2010 Attorney General Mohammed Adoke announced that the government could not authenticate the Pius Okigbo Panel report on former military president and General Ibrahim Babangida, which charged that Babangida mismanaged 12.4 billion naira ($76 million) during his administration. The civil society group Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) accused the attorney general of a cover-up. A federal high court was scheduled to announce a ruling on July 28, but did not do so by year’s end.
Civil society groups introduced a number of cases at the national and state level to test the FOIA during the year. For example, in September the SERAP brought a case against the Oyo State government after being denied access to information on state funding for primary education. The case continued at year’s end.
On September 12, members of the police unit Operation Famou Tangbei (OFT) raided the home of Freddie Philip Ockiya in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. Members of the OFT arrested Ockiya and took him to the local police station. His family searched for him until September 21, when his body was discovered at the morgue. The family filed a suit against members of the police and government in a federal high court. The inspector general of police disbanded the OFT in late September, but authorities did not arrest any members of the OFT in connection with Ockiya’s death by year’s end.
In April 2010 the Maiduguri High Court found that in 2009 police detained and subsequently killed Baba Fagu, the father-in-law of then Boko Haram leader Muhammad Yusuf, following violent clashes between police and militant members of Boko Haram in four northern states in 2009. The court ordered the federal and state governments to pay 100 million naira ($617,000) as compensation to Fagu’s family. The Borno State government challenged the Maiduguri High Court’s decision and appealed the judgment. At year’s end the case remained in the Court of Appeals in Jos, Plateau State.
In 2009 soldiers arrested Muhammad Yusuf. Credible media reports claimed that police executed Yusuf, whose bruised body subsequently was seen at state police headquarters with multiple bullet wounds. While police initially admitted killing Yusuf in custody, they subsequently claimed he died while trying to escape.
Buji Fai, a former state government official suspected of funding Boko Haram, also reportedly died in custody along with Fagu. Later that year, then president Yar’Adua pledged to conduct a full investigation of the Boko Haram uprising, including the circumstances surrounding Yusuf’s death, but authorities had not publicly released the results of the investigation by year’s end. On July 19, five police officers were arraigned in the federal high court in Abuja for the murder of Yusuf. The court granted bail to four of the officers, while one remained in custody. The case continued at year’s end.
A panel established by Plateau State to investigate the killings of approximately 700 civilians by security forces in the Jos North local government area in 2008 attributed the violence to provocation by religious leaders as well as violence by political parties and local government officials. The panel’s full report, released in April 2010, linked persons wearing uniforms to impersonate police with many of the killings; the report did not find definitive evidence of police or military involvement in extrajudicial killings. By year’s end authorities had neither charged nor punished anyone for the killings. In February 2010 President Jonathan called for a second investigative committee following an outbreak of violence earlier in the year. In September 2010 this body, known as the “Lar Committee,” submitted its recommendations... However, the committee’s recommendations had yet to be implemented, and neither the federal nor the Plateau State government set up truth and reconciliation committees by year’s end.
Police use of excessive force, including live ammunition, to disperse demonstrators resulted in numerous killings during the year. For example, on February 11, Ekiti police reportedly shot and killed five persons protesting the announcement of the relocation of a federal university to Oye-Ekiti that the state governor previously had promised would be located in the Ado-Ekiti community. Authorities had neither charged nor punished anyone for the killings by year’s end.
On August 14, police in Anambra State reportedly shot five persons at a roadblock after they would not pay a bribe of 20 naira ($0.13). One of the passengers reportedly died at the scene, while the other four were rushed to a hospital, where they were pronounced dead. Eyewitnesses stated that the driver claimed to already have paid 20 naira but could not produce a receipt that the policeman demanded. When the driver attempted to leave, the police opened fire. A police representative confirmed that one person was killed and three were rushed to the hospital. There were no developments in the case by year’s end.
For example, on October 16, police reportedly shot and killed Victor Emmanuel in Bayesla State after he criticized the police for extorting money from passing motorists on the road from his church. On October 28, police officials announced that the accused officers received an “orderly room trial” that could lead to dismissal or prosecution; however, the case remained pending at year’s end.

Corruption in Nigeria .

Opeyemi Agbaje

Corruption in Nigeria, as I wrote last week, has reached epidemic proportions. The greatest evidence of this are the scandalous revelations that have been emerging from the ongoing Senate Committee investigation on pensions. At some point during the Obasanjo regime, someone said Nigeria’s problem was not just corruption, but the impunity with which it was carried out. Now the matter evidently has graduated beyond impunity – in volume, scale, breadth and depth – and has now become, as Joe Okei-Odumakin said to me on “The Policy Council” last week, a cancer! I completely endorse that characterisation of the current state of corruption in Nigeria.

Everyone knows, or ought to know the features and consequences of cancer – it spreads very rapidly through the host, destroying cells, weakening the body and, in due course, killing its victim. A cure from an advanced form of cancer, such as Nigerian corruption has become, is a rarity, and in the few cases in which that happens, it requires decisive surgical and other scientific or medical intervention, and some large dose of divine grace. Where cancer is treated with levity, the patient is a living dead. God forbid that Nigeria is just enjoying its last stages of mobile morbidity! But if we don’t engineer a quick and decisive onslaught on corruption, it will destroy Nigeria – sooner than later.

The pension probe is not the only parade of unmitigated graft and brigandage on display in these times. The oil subsidy probe also shows, as we have all suspected, that the subsidy, rather than a mechanism to smoothen oil prices for the benefit of the poor, had become oil industry bureaucrats’ (together with their allies and contractors’) source of massive enrichment. Though it seems clear enough to me that the House committee’s limited knowledge of public finance, banking, international trade and shipping, and oil and gas transactions (as well perhaps as a little exuberance) meant figures may have been somewhat exaggerated, but it is still apparent that significant impropriety took place within the oil subsidy regime, particularly during the Yar’Adua and Jonathan regimes. It is a mystery to me that the lesson our people learn from these is that subsidy must stay!

The recent conviction of James Ibori (whom it has been legally established was not qualified, by reason of prior criminal convictions in the United Kingdom, to be a state governor) in London after his wife, mistress, sister and lawyer also demonstrates the absence of moral scruples in current Nigerian sociology in relation to corruption. Corruption is no longer seen as a crime in our country; otherwise Ibori wouldn’t have involved his entire household. For the Ibori clan, it was simply their entitlement from the opportunity presented by their kith occupying a high office of state. And they couldn’t be bothered to think up legitimate activities and services they could provide to Delta State which, subject to appropriate disclosures and abstentions from the process, could have entitled them like any other citizen to earn a living by offering some value to the state.

More importantly, the Ibori conviction illustrates how corruption has subverted our policing and judicial systems. While a London court confirmed without prevarication that Ibori had two previous convictions for petty theft in the UK, Nigerian courts went through a protracted process right to the Supreme Court before concluding that one “James Onanefe Ibori”, who stole building materials somewhere in or near Abuja, was different from “James Onanefe Ibori” who became governor of Delta State. And while the London Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Services succeeded in convicting Ibori of money laundering, all 170 charges against him in Nigeria were summarily dismissed by one Justice Marcel Awokuleyin. During the Yar’Adua regime, Ibori was one of the most powerful men in the country, just a heartbeat away from (and reportedly with designs of his own for) the presidency. There are others who have obtained permanent court injunctions against investigation and trial, and many whose trials have in effect become a charade.

Today, there are really no sanctions for corruption in Nigeria. Indeed, it is glorified as the perpetrators strut across the land dispensing philanthropy from the proceeds of stealing from the common purse, while their victims hail them for their generosity and large-heartedness. In this land, there is no anti-corruption fight; the only war going on often seems to be a war on anti-corruption, i.e., a deliberate and concerted effort in which the political class and their rent-seeking contractors and business colleagues systematically undermine any possibility of eliminating corruption. Part of the problem is that there is no longer any clarity about what “corruption” means, and we do not view corruption in tangible terms.

Corruption means that 100 million Nigerians live on less than a dollar/day; it means that thousands of infants die before their first birthday due to poverty and poor ante-natal care; it means that the life expectancy of the average adult Nigerian is less than 50 years; it means that millions of destinies are destroyed as lack of educational facilities ensures that individuals who have the intellectual potential to be university professors end up as primary school teachers! I am convinced that corruption has reached a stage at which, if not drastically curtailed, it will destroy Nigeria – and anger within the populace about the phenomenon seems to be reaching a tipping point!

Corruption and Nigerian hypocrisy.

By Pini Jason
MANY times I have hinted at what I call the ambivalence of Nigerians about corruption. Indeed, what I mean is that we are all hypocritical about our concern over corruption.
Otherwise how is it that very often those who are ostensibly in pursuit of transparency or those fighting corruption are invariably caught in the very act of corruption? What I see most times are people who are incensed that someone else is doing the stealing, and not them.
Given half a chance, they out-steal the people they were criticising yesterday. Oh; the smart phrase nowadays is “the hunter becomes the hunted”! In other words, the thief and the “catcher” easily trade places!
The common axiom is that while you are pointing a finger at someone, three other fingers are pointed directly at you while one, the thumb points upwards in obvious non-commitment! Another way to put it is to call attention to the man in the mirror.
He may, in fact, be the very thief you are looking for. In one of my articles in the eighties I propounded a theory that the decibel of the noise of a Nigerian is directly proportional to his distance from an opportunity to steal. The nearer he gets to the opportunity, the less his noise.
When he finally arrives at the opportunity, he is dead silent! Until a man has been “politically exposed” (apologies to Mrs. Farida Waziri, ex-EFCC boss) and comes out clean, I can never take him serious.
Assets declaration and the law
That brings me to the noise from the opposition since Sunday 24 June 2012 when President Jonathan insisted during the Presidential Media Chat, that there was nothing in the law that compelled him to declare his assets publicly.
First, how could we Nigerians have forgotten so soon that this matter was always hotly debated in various constitutional conferences and we were given cultural reasons why we would not allow it, including the ridiculous excuse that relations would prey on you if they know what you have? It was our choice that public declaration of assets was not necessary. And we have not changed the law.
Although during the media chat, the President kept saying that it was “a matter of principle”, I believe that he meant it was a matter of choice. Many people had run away with the wrong notion that the President refused to declare his assets. I believe that, as President, he had declared his assets as required by law. Declaration of assets is compulsorily done by a public officer latest within three weeks of taking office and after leaving office. In some cases even before you take the oath of the office. If a public officer wants to make his declaration public, that is his choice. Not making it public does not detract or conceal anything because the declarations are VERIFIED!
Making a declaration public should no longer be an issue to be politicised today given the Freedom of Information Act. Under the Act, anyone interested in assets declared by a public officer can apply to have them. It serves no useful purpose, even as mere symbolism, in our anti-corruption war except to satiate the pallet of a society with a huge pornographic appetite for salacious stories.
In my view a better  way to fight corruption is through tightening the loopholes within the system, tighter and more open budgeting system, strict enforcement of laws, effective tax system that retrieves what is stolen and jails the culprit for tax evasion if we can’t nail him  on graft and our society being more courageous in shunning unexplained sudden wealth, on the one hand. We can all see that the present catch am, catch am method of anti-corruption crusade is not working and can never work, no matter how many people symbolically declare their assets publicly.
Hypocritical opposition
On the other hand, I think the opposition that is railing at Jonathan is annoyingly hypocritical. The leaders of the opposition have held public offices. Some just left office.
I think a better way to pressure Jonathan to publicly declare his assets should have been for the opposition leaders to cast the first stone by declaring their own assets publicly. Some of the hypocritical opposition leaders are linked with assets they could never have acquired even if they were to earn a million Naira a month all their days in public office!
And why do Nigerians still think that it is only the President, Governors and Ministers that can be corrupt? Until recently, who would have believed that a director in the civil service could keep N2 billion cash in his house? Some of those civil servants with torn T-shirts and worn shoes have estates all over Abuja and mansions in their villages!
The so-called private sector may even be more corrupt than the public sector. After all, apart from direct filching of public funds, many instances of bribing are masterminded by the private sector. If we are going to be serious about the war against corruption in Nigeria we must first of all appreciate how pervasive it is and stop playing politics with its eradication.
NYSC and Boko Haram
AFTER the 2011 post presidential election violence, the Director General of  the NYSC promised that youth corps members would no longer be posted to states where they would be exposed to danger.
The killing of corpers has continued with the terrorism in some Northern states. Many parents are now worried that their wards are being posted to violence-prone states in the North where these corpers cannot go to church, market or even to their place of primary assignment without being killed, and at a time some state governments have sent buses to evacuate their students from those states! The NYSC should not expose graduates to avoidable harm!

How to save Nigeria from corruption.

BY DAPO AKINREFON
REVELATIONS from  probe panels set up by the National Assembly, show that corruption remains a cancerous affliction in the polity. Since the advent of the Fourth Republic, graft has continued to extend its tentacles to virtually every sphere of the nation’s life.
Nigerians would agree with the fact that it is not that the country has been free of corruption since independence, but the dimension it has taken in the recent time is to say the least alarmingly unprecedented.
Worried by the effect of corruption, the Save Nigeria Group, SNG, organised a state of the nation lecture entitled: “Why we no longer blush: Corruption as grand commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”, in Lagos, penultimate Monday.
Roll call
The banquet hall of the Sheraton hall, venue of the lecture, was crowded by eminent Nigerians, who profferred ways out of the graft mire.
Those present include daughter of late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Mrs. Tokunbo Awolowo; President of the Campaign for Democracy, Dr. Joe Okei Odumakin, Spokesperson of the SNG, Mr Yinka Odumakin; and chairman of the Ikeja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr Onyekachi Ubani.
Others include Mr Jimi Agbaje, Professor Ropo Sekoni, Assistant Inspector-General of Police Mr Tunji Alapini(rtd); Mr Henry Boyo, Dr Amos Akingba and Mr Francis Ojo .
The trio of Professors Niyi Osundare and Itse Sagay (SAN) and SNG Convener, Pastor Tunde Bakare submitted that combating corruption remains an inclusive war Nigerians must rise to fight  urgently.
Time for radical reformation — Bakare
Bakare, while explaining the need to eradicate the monster that has eaten deep into the fabric of the polity said “ sordid revelations of the past six months have laid the arguments to rest as to the forces that are bent on freeing our people from the stranglehold of corruption and those who want to keep them in perpetual subjugation.”
In his opening remarks,  Bakare stated the need for radical reformation if Nigeria must move forward. “The shenanigans of the fight back by corruption in Nigeria today has the potential to dampen the morale of the people if we don’t continue to give meaning to the meaningless situation we are in, he said.”
While urging Nigerians to take a cue from the transformation and its effects in Georgia, he said “without doubt, time has come for Nigeria to embrace the spirit and the letter of such radical reformation to avoid the needless, prevalent and sickening bloodshed that now characterize our nation.”
Nigeria needs an incorruptible ruler —Sagay
Sagay, who chaired the event, warned of dire consequences if the present crop of leaders fail to tackle the high rate of corruption pervading the country.
“Nigeria is in a situation where we have to find a policeman to police the police,” the constitutional lawyer stressed, adding that the the country needs an incorruptible person to redeem the nation from its present state just.
He called on Nigerians to sustain the struggle, saying: “we are going to sustain the struggle and ensure that we see it to the end. The only type of person or persons, who will change Nigeria are those who are incorruptible. If the civilians don’t tackle corruption, then, the leadership must come from somewhere else. And if it must come from another source, we will not be happy about it. They have always said that the elites are the problems of Nigeria, but I thank God that we have so many elites who can change Nigeria.”
Corruption may kill Nigeria —Osundare
Relatedly, Osundare argued that if Nigeria failed to kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria.
Lamenting the rate at which corruption is thriving in the country, the renowned  poet enjoined Nigerians to take their destiny in their hands.
Osundare, who lectures at the University of New Orleans, chronicled both past and present graft cases involving some public office holders, and expressed worry that most Nigerians no longer query how corrupt persons come about their money.
He said, “Why is it that Nigerians no longer blush? How did we come to lose our sense of shame after losing our sense of propriety and proportion? How did we come to develop a skin that is so thick that no arrows of degradation, no needles of dehumanisation are ever sharp and violent enough to penetrate our body and rouse our senses? How did our nerves slide into their present state of stupor? How did we plunge into this state of dysconsciousness?”
He continued: “Corruption is  the fastest growing industry in Nigeria. The malaise is massive, the dysfunctionalities are daunting. But we must never allow this situation, grim as it is, to plunge us into cynicism and despair. Yes, indeed, Nigeria is worth fighting for. And this fight will have to be carried out by the people of this country. The soldiers have shown by their many years of misrule that our national salvation is not in their hands. The present gaggle of civilian rulers is proving to be no different.”
Decying the alarming rate at which corruption has taken over all sectors of the economy, the  prolific poet said “corruption has taken over the fabric of the Nigeria Corruption has taken over the commanding heights of Nigerian society. It is, without doubt, the Grand commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. We must make sure that we kill corruption before it has the chance of killing Nigeria.”
Structural corruption
In addition, he proffered that “this may sound rather far-fetched to some people, but one of the ways of tackling graft in this country is to address the structural corruption in the very composition of Nigeria itself.
A succession of visionless, close-minded rulers has made the country both loveless and unlovable. To many Nigerians, Nigeria is ‘their country’, some distant no-man’s-land where you go to scoop your own fortune and take your loot back to your own clan. They may call it stealing in Abuja, but as far as the home crowd is concerned, you have only brought back your/their share of the national cake.”
Nigeria has deviated — Awolowo
Corroborating other speakers, Mrs. Awolowo said what the nation was currently experiencing was a complete difference from the Nigeria led by the circle of her late father,  Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
Also lending his voice on ways to tackle graft, a former police chief, Mr Tunji Alapini said “someone asked where do we start from. I think we should start from now. We must hold our lawmakers accountable.”
The currently administration has repeatedly restated its commitment to tacklig graft. It is to be seen how far it would go in the crusade.

Corruption in Nigeria.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political corruption
Concepts
Bribery · Cronyism · Kleptocracy Economics of corruption · Electoral fraud Nepotism · Slush fund · Political scandal
Corruption by country
Afghanistan · Albania · Angola Armenia · Bahrain · Canada Chile · China · Colombia  · Democratic Republic of the Congo  · Cuba · Ghana · India Indonesia · Iran · Ireland Kenya · Kyrgyzstan · Nigeria Pakistan · Papua New Guinea Paraguay · Philippines · Russia South Africa · Ukraine · United States Venezuela · Zimbabwe
This box: view talk edit

Political corruption is not a recent phenomenon that pervades the Nigerian state. Since the creation of modern public administration in the country, there have been cases of official misuse of resources for personal enrichment.^[1] Nigeria is ranked 143 out of 182 countries in Transparency International's 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index.^[2]

Contents 1 Corruption in Nigeria 2 Causes 3 History and Cases 3.1 Pre-Independence and the First Republic 3.2 Gowon Administration 3.3 Shagari Administration 3.4 Buhari Administration 3.5 Babangida Administration 3.6 Abacha Administration 4 Public institutions perceived as corrupt 5 See also 6 External links 7 References

Corruption in Nigeria

The rise of public administration and the discovery of petroleum and natural gas are two major events seen to have led to a litany of ignoble corrupt practices in the country. Over the years, the country has seen its wealth withered with little to show in living conditions of the average human being. A Nigerian political leader, Obafemi Awolowo raised a salient issue when he said, since independence, our governments have been a matter of few holding the cow for the strongest and most cunning to milk, Under those circumstances everybody runs over everybody to make good at the expense of others.^[3]
The pervasive corruption has been blamed on colonialism. According to this view, the nation's colonial history may have restricted any early influence in an ethical revolution. Throughout the colonial period, most Nigerians were stuck in ignorance and poverty. The trappings of flash cars, houses and success of the colonists may influence the poor to see the colonist as symbols of success and to emulate the colonists in different political ways.^[4]
Involvement in the agenda of colonial rule may also inhibit idealism in the early stage of the nascent nation's development. A view commonly held during the colonial days was that the colonists property (cars,houses,farms etc.) is not "our" property. Thus vandalism and looting of public property was not seen as a crime against society. This view is what has degenerated into the more recent disregard for public property and lack of public trust and concern for public goods as a collective national property.^[5]

Causes

Main article: Petroleum in Nigeria

Some writers have posited about the different potential causes of flagrant and pecunious graft that exists in the country: many blame greed and ostentatious lifestyle as a potential root cause of corruption. To some, societies in love with ostentatious lifestyle may delve into corrupt practices to feed the lifestyle and also embrace a style of public sleaze and lack of decorum. The customs and attitudes of the society may also be a contributing factor. Gift giving as expressions of loyalty or tributes to traditional rulers may be fabrics of the society.^[6]
Also, a political environment that excludes favors towards elites or wealthy citizens may also be influenced by corruption. Wealthy elites may resort to sleaze in order to gain power and protect their interest. However, the bottom line surmised from the views of most Nigerians is that corruption is a problem that has to be rooted out. In Nigeria another major cause of corruption is ethnicity called tribalism in Nigeria. Friends and kinsmen seeking favor from officials may impose difficult strains on the ethical disposition of the official. Many kinsmen may see a government official as holding necessary avenues for their personal survival or gain.^[7]
A culmination of use of official resources for private gain may lead to further pressures on incoming officials from other kinsmen. However, the fact is, the importation of modern rules on inter-ethnic political relationships is a recent colonial and western initiative that may take time to become the norm, deep allegiance to other ethnic groups for administrative decisions early on was sometimes viewed suspiciously, and an early institutionalization of a unitary system in the country, may also have led to a further familiar groupings induced corruption. Nevertheless, a modern practical approach to leadership and relationships has gradually taken a prominent role in the political process. The necessity for practical inter-depedence and cooperation is at the forefront of yearnings for good governance in the country.^[8]

History and Cases

Pre-Independence and the First Republic

Corruption, though prevalent, was kept at manageable levels during the First Republic.^{[9] [10]} However, the cases of corruption during the period were sometimes clouded by political infighting.

• Azikiwe was the first major political figure investigated for questionable practices. In 1944, a firm belonging to Azikiwe and family bought a Bank in Lagos. The bank was procured to strengthen local control of the financial industry. Albeit, a report about transactions carried out by the bank showed though Azikiwe had resigned as chairman of the bank, the current chairman was an agent of his. The report wrote that most of the paid-up capital of the African Continental Bank were from the Eastern Regional Financial Corporation.
• In western Nigeria, politician Adegoke Adelabu was investigated following charges of political corruption leveled against him by the opposition. The report led to demand for his resignation as district council head. In 1962, Chief Obafemi Awolowo was indicted and the Coker commission of enquiry was set-up which found that a substantial amount of money was missapropriated from the coffers of the Western regional government.
• In the Northern region, against the backdrop of corruption allegations leveled against some native authority officials in Bornu. The Northern Government enacted the Customary Presents order to forestall any further breach of regulations. Later on, it was the British administration that was accused of corrupt practices in the results of elections which enthroned a Fulani political leadership in Kano, reports later linking the British authorities to electoral irregularities were discovered.^[11]

Gowon Administration

Corruption for the most part of Gowon's administration was kept away from public view until 1975. However, some informed officials voiced concerns, Gowon critics labeled his governors as misguided individuals acting like lords overseeing their personal fiefdom. He was viewed as timid, in terms of being decisive against corrupt elements in his government.

• In 1975, a corruption scandal surrounding the importation of cement engulfed his administration. Many officials of the defense ministry and the central bank of Nigeria where involved in the scandal. Officials were later accused of falsifying ships manifest and inflating the amount of cement to be purchased.^[12]
• During the administration, two major individuals from the middle belt of the country were accused of corruption. The Nigeria government controlled newspapers: the Daily Times and the New Nigerian gave great publicity to denunciations of the administration of Gomwalk, and Federal Commissioner Joseph Tarka by the two critics. A situation which may signal a cause for exigent action on corruption.^[13]
• In 1975, the administration of Murtala Mohammed later went on and made reformist changes. After a coup putsch brought him into power, the government sacked a large number of government officials and civil servants, many of whom had been criticized for the misuse of power they wielded under the largely uneducated military of Gowon.^[14]

Shagari Administration

Corruption was deemed pervasive during the administration of Shagari.

• A few federal buildings mysteriously went on fire after investigators started probe on the finances of the officials working in the buildings.^[15]
• Late 1985, investigations into the collapse of the defunct Johnson Mathey Bank of London shed some light on some of the abuses carried on during the second republic. The bank acted as a conduit to transfer hard currency for some party members in Nigeria. A few leading officials and politicians had amassed large amounts of money. They sought to transfer the money out of the country with the help of Asian importers by issuing import licenses.^[16]
• In 1981, a Rice shortage, led to accusations of corruption against the NPN government. The shortages and subsequent allegations were precipitated, by protectionism. After his election the Nigerian government decided to protect the local rice farmer from imported commodities. A licensing system was created to limit the amount of rice import. However, accusations of favoritism and government supported speculation was leveled against many officials.^[17]

Buhari Administration

• In 1985, a cross section of political gladiators were convicted of different corrupt practices under the government of General Buhari. However, the administration itself was involved in a few instances of lapsed ethical judgment. It is on record that the General himself was on his way to removing a Nigerian colonel from the army before his exit from power, though the removal may signal a hard-line on corruption, it is a far cry from the 10-22 years of imprisonment, politicians under Shagari were sentenced to.

Babangida Administration

The regime of general Babangida is seen as the body that legalized corruption. His administration refused to give account of the gulf war windfall, which is estimated to be $12.4 billion. He annulled an democratic election in the history of Nigeria on June 12 1993 and lives in a very exquisite mansion in his home state (Niger-state) in the Northern part of the country.

Abacha Administration

The death of the general Sani Abacha revealed the global nature of graft. French investigations of bribes paid to government officials to ease the award of a gas plant construction in Nigeria revealed the global level of official graft in the country. The investigations led to the freezing of accounts containing about $100 million United States dollars.^[18]

• In 2000, two years after his death, a Swiss banking commission report indicted Swiss banks for failing to follow compliance process in allowing family and friends of Abacha access to accounts and depositing amounts totaling $600 million US dollars into the accounts. The same year, a total of more than $1 billion US dollars were found in various accounts throughout Europe.^[19]

Public institutions perceived as corrupt

The following list contains the institutions perceived as the most corrupt. It is culled from the Nigeria Survey and Corruption Survey Study, Final Report (June 2003) Institute for Development Research, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (IDR, ABU Zaria)^[20]

Nigeria (as of 2003)

Rating	Institution
1	Nigerian Police
2	Political Parties
3	National and State Assemblies
4	Local and Municipal Governments
5	Federal and State Executive Councils
6	Traffic police and FRSC
7	PHCN

Nigeria: We Are Tackling the Scourge of Corruption, Terrorism - Jonathan.

By Kingsley Omonobi.

Abuja — President Goodluck Jonathan said yesterday that his administration was bent on tackling the menace of corruption in the country, noting that the scourge is retarding the nation's developmental efforts.

Towards this end, he noted that government is strengthening the Police and other anti-corruption agencies to enable them rekindle the war against menace in all its ramifications.
Speaking through Vice President Mohammed Namadi Sambo at the graduation ceremony of Course 20 participants of the National Defence College in Abuja, Jonathan also harped on the security challenges facing the nation, saying, "The world in which we live today is faced with diverse threats to its collective peace. As you are aware, insecurity remains a front burner national issue due to the activities of a misguided few.
"A combination of conventional and unconventional threats, ranging from transnational terrorism to weapons proliferation, organized crime, regional conflict, environmental degradation etc, is making our world increasingly insecure.
"Let me assure you that government is more than ever determined to address the novel acts of terrorism that confront our nation. I am glad to note that the military is reinforcing its collaboration with the Police and other security agencies to checkmate these unpatriotic activities within our national borders.
"As a responsive government dedicated to meeting the expectations of our people, we are reforming our bureaucracy and strengthening our institutions to ensure greater efficiency, and competence" he noted.
"We are also determined to build a sound educational base for all strata of the polity, particularly the Armed Forces. We are also strengthening our collaboration with our foreign partners and our Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Money laundering laws".
Continuing, he said, "This situation requires us to evolve strategies to effectively eliminate these threats. I am confident that the National Defence College has prepared you, Course 20 Officers, adequately for these and other strategic challenges.
"Your expertise and research findings will undoubtedly contribute to our efforts to build a safe world, where nations can aspire to their best potentials within acceptable international laws.
" Nigeria remains committed to global peace. We will continue to collaborate with other countries in order to attain a more secure world that guarantees peace and development. The ultimate goal of this administration is to bequeath to the next generation, a more peaceful and united country, where all citizens, without fear or hindrance, can tap the vast opportunities of the 21st Century".
"Since assuming office, we have made improving the quality of life of our people the bedrock of our policies and actions. As a major step towards realizing this, we have established a firm foundation for good governance through transparency and accountability".
"We have restored great confidence in our electoral process such that the conduct of credible and peaceful elections is fast becoming a norm in our country".
Earlier, Commandant of the National Defence College, Rear Admiral Thomas Lokoson disclosed that 130 participants drawn from the Nigerian Army, Navy, Airforce, Police, SSS, NIA, NSCDC, Foreign African Countries, started and completed the 46 weeks strategic management course noting that the college has entered into partnership with the AU, ECOWAS, Royal Defence Academy UK, the British Advisory team and German government among others.
"Early in the year, the office of the National Security Adviser tasked this college to research on the subject of national security policy. This is sequel to the realization that there is no single document capturing the national security perspectives of our country'.
"I am glad to report, that we have articulated a comprehensive, all embracing and contemporary draft national security document for Nigeria" he said adding, "This has been forwarded to other stakeholders for their comments and necessary imputes for final collation before presentation to the National Security Adviser".

MIDWEST STATE AND THE FUTURE OF NIGERIAN FEDERALISM.

An Essay in honour of

MIDWEST HISTORY MONTH 1999

by

O. Igho Natufe, Ph.D

INTRODUCTION

This essay is in honour of the MIDWEST HISTORY MONTH 1999. Before dealing with the subject matter, I would like to thank Dr. Nowa Omoigui for his foresight in initiating this event. In my reply to him on July 30, 1999, when he invited Midwesterners to participate in this historical milestone, I thanked him "for reminding us of our being". Too many of us have either forgotten or do not care about our history. To Midwesterners, and to Nigerians in general, the creation of the Midwest State on August 9, 1963, will for ever remain a key factor in determining the future of federalism in Nigeria. As a student and teacher of comparative federalism, I have always supported the federalist movement in Nigeria. In one of my weekly columns in the Observer Group of Newspapers, the Sunday Observer, (Benin City, August 7, 1988, p. 12), entitled "On Nigerian Federalism" I wrote: "While Bendelites are celebrating the Silver Jubilee of the creation of their state this month, 567 Nigerians are continuing their assigned debate in Abuja to rewrite the Nigerian Constitution." In that same piece I argued as follows:

"As Nigerians, we assume we are operating a federal state when in fact we are not. ....Nigerian federalism ensures that the central government dictates to the governments of the federating units, thus negating a key aspect of federalism ...It may not be necessary for each state to have its own constitution, provided the agreed division of powers underlining the independence of each state is written in the Federal Constitution. It is obvious that Nigerians do not want unitarism, but where they elect to adopt federalism then they should be prepared to pay the price of federalism. The Constituent Assembly members should give Nigerians a Federal Constitution that is truly Fedral in all aspects. "

Eleven years later, we are still addressing the same concerns I articulated on the Silver Jubilee of the Midwest State. The purpose of this anniversary piece is to underline the significance of the creation of Midwest State in Nigeria’s federal polity. We will also invite other concerned Nigerians to (re)examine the federal structure of Nigeria in such a way that recognizes the independence of the federating units.

THE CREATION OF MIDWEST STATE

After more than two decades of selfless struggles by the representatives of the peoples of the region, the Midwest State was created on August 9, 1963. The creation of the Midwest State is significant for the following reasons:

1. It was the first state to be created in Nigeria.
2. It remains the only Nigerian state to be created by constitutional means, and not by a military fiat.
3. Its creation facilitated a stronger voice for the articulation of minority rights in Nigerian Politics.

But the journey to August 9, 1963 was not an easy one. We. Midwesterners, must remain eternally grateful to those who fought for the creation of the state. Prominent among those was the Oba of Benin, Akenzua II, without whose personal intervention and guidance the state may not have been created in 1963. The others whose names must be recognized were Dennis Osadebay, Jereton Marierie, and James Otobo. It is instructive to note that Otobo was the only prominent member of the Action Group (AG) from the region who fought publicly for the creation of the Midwest State. As we celebrate the 33^rd anniversary of the Midwest State, I am sad to declare that we have not done anything to immortalize the lives of those four freedom fighters.

In constitutional debates, many may argue that Midwest State was a product of the series of commissions of inquiries that called for the creation of states for Nigerian minority groups. It would be a gross oversimplification to do so, because the inquiries by themselves did not create the Midwest State. While the results of those inquiries were powerful arguments in favour of the proponents of state creation, the contour of pre-1963 Nigerian politics denied state creation for any minority groups. Let me explain.

The Richards’ three regional structure of 1947 rendered moribund the Lugardian north-south amalgamation that gave birth to "modern" Nigeria in 1914. The event of 1947 coincided with the formation of the three main political parties that eventually governed the respective regions. We all accept that Nigeria is a creation of British imperial rule. The hitherto independent kingdoms of present day Nigeria were colonized, "united" and christened "Nigeria" by Britain. When these disparate kingdoms regained their independence on October 1, 1960, it was not as separate independent entities which they were, but as a political community called NIGERIA. They were brought together by Britain to experiment with the art of governing a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual polity. Since 1960 Nigerians have been grappling with this experiment. Of the three major political parties that defined the landscape of contemporary Nigerian social and political history, only the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) was established as a national political party. Both the AG, a creation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, and the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), were founded to promote Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani interests respectively. That the NCNC later became to be perceived as an ‘Igbo’ party was not entirely the design of Igbo political elites, but rather the machinations of some powerful Yoruba nationalists who did not cherish the notion of an Igbo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, becoming the premier of Western Nigeria.

As the leader of the NCNC, Azikiwe was to be the first premier of Western Nigeria following the elections of 1951, with Obafemi Awolowo, a Yoruba, the leader of the AG, as the leader of the opposition in the House of Assembly. It should be recalled, with profound sadness, that prominent Yoruba traditional leaders and political elites exerted pressure on a number of Yorubas elected on the NCNC platform to "cross carpet" in the House and join the AG, in order to deny Azikiwe the premiership in favour of Awolowo. The concept of "carpet crossing" was thus introduced into Nigerian political discourse. Azikiwe had assumed the leadership of the NCNC following the death of Herbert Macaulay, a Yoruba. There would have been no basis for "carpet crossing" if Macaulay, and not Azikiwe, were elected premier of the West on the NCNC platform in 1951.

As a result of this blatant injection of ethnicism into Nigerian politics, Azikiwe was compelled to "return home" to the East where he became the premier of the government. It is safe to postulate that, were it not for this event, the post 1951 development of Nigerian politics could have been spared much of the instability and crisis the country has experienced. This was a vital turning point in the political history of contemporary Nigeria. It helped to influence most Igbos to seek political shelter in the NCNC, just as the AG became privatized by most Yorubas, and the Hausa-Fulani political elites sought comfort in the NPC.

Following the 1959 federal elections, the NPC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as the prime minister, formed a coalition government with the NCNC. Obafemi Awolowo, the leader of the AG, became the leader of the official opposition in the Federal House of Representatives. Samuel Akintola replaced Awolowo as the premier of Western Nigeria, while Michael Okpara replaced Azikiwe as the premier of Eastern Nigeria. Ahmadu Bello, the leader of the NPC, remained as premier of Northern Nigeria. As part of the NPC-NCNC coalition, Azikiwe became the governor general, and subsequently the first (ceremonial) president of Nigeria, when Nigeria became a republic on October 1, 1963.

It was against the above background that the debate for state creation took place. The movement for a Midwest State was the most topical. For the past 50 years the political development of Nigeria has been viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a power struggle for hegemony by the three dominant ethnic groups: Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. Scholars later used the appellation, "Hausa-Fulani" to depict the symbiotic relationship between the Hausa and the Fulani as a result of the strong Islamic ties that bind the two dominant ethnic groups in the northern part of Nigeria. Before August 9, 1963, when Nigeria had three constituent parts, the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo political elites exercised hegemonistic powers in the North, West, and East respectively. It is interesting to note that while none of them wanted a separate state created in their region, they supported the agitation for state creation in the opposing regions. This position was identical to the concept of preventive imperialism of 19^th century European imperialism in Africa. I refer to the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba hegemony as a tripodal conspiracy to subjugate the minorities of Nigeria. We will return to this issue later.

We identify three premises of Nigerian federalism. These are (1) the equality of the federating units; (2) the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba tripodal conspiracy; and (3) the question of minority rights. If Nigeria were a normal political entity, we would expect the first premise to be dominant in the polity. The fact that the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba tripodal conspiracy determines the form and content of Nigerian federalism is reflected in the way the political leaders of those three ethnic groups viewed the minority areas within their provinces as their respective colonial possessions, just as European colonial powers regarded their African colonies. It was a scramble for Nigeria by the Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba to maintain their power over the minority areas located in the regions that they controlled. (See Table I below) It was against this background that the battle for the creation of the Midwest State was fought and won.

TABLE I: VIEWS OF THE GOVERNING PARTIES TOWARD STATE CREATION

REGION	PARTY IN POWER	STATE CREATION IN THE REGIONS
		EAST	NORTH	WEST
East	NCNC	Oppose	Support	Support
North	NPC	Support	Oppose	Support
West	AG	Support	Support	Oppose

As shown in the above table, the demand for state creation in any particular region enjoyed the support of the opposing political parties in that region. For example, while the NCNC opposed the agitation for a COR State (Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers) in the East, they strongly supported the agitation for a Midwest State in the West and a Middle Belt state in the North. Thus, for the Midwesterners, the AG was the "enemy" party on the issue of a Midwest State. The debate over state creation in the various regional houses of assembly was dictated by the ideological prism of the ruling political parties. With Awolowo, Anthony Enahoro and other prominent members of the AG facing charges of treasonable felony, the AG opposition to the creation of the Midwest State gradually became insignificant. The AG crisis that began in May 1962, following the party’s convention in Jos, fundamentally altered the alliance construct of Nigerian political parties in the 1962-1965 period. This provided an ideal constitutional framework for the Midwest State movement. The crisis also offered the NPC -NCNC coalition government a golden opportunity to crush the AG.

Meanwhile, deserters from the AG, led by Akintola and Ayo Rosiji, established a new political party - the United Peoples’ Party (UPP) - which in mid 1964 was renamed the Nigerian National Democratic Party (UNDP). As premier of the West, Akintola emerged as the leader of the party. In the Federal House of Representatives, Rosiji led the pack of former members of the AG to "cross carpets" to swell the cell of the NPC. The disarray of the AG, and the impact of the treasonable felony trial against Awolowo, Enahoro and other leaders of the party, created ideal situations for the NPC. The NPC no longer seem to need its alliance with the NCNC, and thus became politically arrogant towards its coalition partner. Akintola, who as the premier of the AG-led government of the West had opposed the creation of a Midwest State, now began to view the creation of the state through the same ideological prism of the NPC, a party with which his UNDP was now aligned. Thus, the governing parties of the East (NCNC), the North (NPC), and the West (UNDP) now all agreed on the creation of the Midwest State. The houses of assembly of the respective regions had little difficulty passing the required resolutions in support of the proposal to create the Midwest

State. Irrespective of its growing schism with its coalition partner at the federal level, the NCNC voted with the NPC and the UNDP at the Federal House of Representatives in favour of the creation of the Midwest State. With the above scenario, the subsequent plebiscite of August 9, 1963, became a mere formality as Midwesterners overwhelmingly voted for the creation of their STATE. Midwest thus became the first STATE of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

WHY NATIONS FEDERATE

Simply put, nations decide to federate for one or a combination of the following reasons:-

1 socio-economic;

 
1. political; and

 
1. security.

A nation decides to federate for socio-economic reasons because it:

 
1. 
   
 
2. possesses shared values with other independent federating units;

 
1. wants an access to a larger domestic market;

 
1. desires a secured access to a sea port;

 
1. seeks access to a higher standard of living; and

 
1. would enhance its welfare policies.

Politically, a nation decides to federate in order to:

 

 

 

	strengthen existing relations with its co-federating units
	possess a stronger voice internationally.

Thirdly, a nation decides to enter into a federation in order to be able to protect itself from real or imagined threat to its national security.

The above factors, in varying degrees, could be said to influence the leaders of Nigeria’s three regions to federate after they had obtained their respective independence. We recall that the East and the West obtained their self government status (independence) in 1957, while the North obtained theirs in 1959. Each could have opted to go its own way as we witnessed in the case of the former federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which metamorphosed into the independent states of Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi. More importantly for us Midwesterners, the above factors influenced our decision to remain as a constituent unit of the Nigerian federation in 1963. None of the federating units became parts of a federal Nigeria in order to forefelt their independence. It is essential that we take this point into consideration in our discussions of Nigerian federalism.

IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERALISM

1 The central government represents the federation as a subject of international law.

 
1. Federating units cannot represent themselves as subjects of international law.

 
1. Federating units independence within own jurisdiction must not do harm to the federation

 
1. A highly centralized central government does harm to the federal polity as it could lead to a quasi federal (or unitary) system.

 
1. A decentralized federalism could destabilize the federal polity as it is capable of eroding the powers of the central government and making the federating units too powerful.

 
1. The two levels of citizenship - state, and central - could be entangled in perpetual conflict if the central government and the federating units fail to agree on vital issues of interest to the federating units.

 
1. Citizens' loyalty gravitates towards their respective federating units than to the central government in a highly decentralized federal polity.

 
1. A central government's inability to equitably relate to the federating units could give rise to centrifugal forces that could destabilize the federal polity.

 
1. It is more expensive to run a federal system than it is to run a unitary system because of the levels of governments in the former.

 
1. The system of checks-and-balances is more evident in a federal polity than in any other system of government.

The 1963 Republican constitution of Nigeria recognized the independence of the federating units. It was an example of how a federal constitution should look like. Unfortunately, we have witnessed a systematic erosion of that independence since the military intrusion in the governance of Nigeria. As I indicated in "If Nigeria Must Survive", in the Sunday Observer, (August 28, 1988, Benin City, p. 5) "A mere criticism of the military regime does not, and could not, imply that Nigerian civilian governments have performed creditably in operating federalism". The performance of the Shehu Shagari administration of the Second Republic continued the pattern established by the previous military regimes, while that of the current Olusegun Obasanjo’s civilian administration is an extension of his own military administration of the 1970s. I referred to the Hausa-Igbo-Yoruba triumvirate as a tripodal conspiracy in our brief discussion on the creation of the Midwest State above. No where is this more glaring than in the area of revenue allocation.

TABLE II: EVOLUTION OF REVENUE ALLOCATION FORMULA IN NIGERIA

YEAR	FORMULA PERCENTAGE
	DERIVATION	FEDERAL GOVERNMENT	FEDERATION ACCOUNT
1953	100	nil	nil
1954	50	20	30
1964	50	15	35
1970	45	25	30
1975	20	nil	80
1979	nil	nil	100
1982-89	1.5	nil	98.5
1999-	13	nil	87

It is interesting to note that, the decline of the amount due each state of the federation coincided with the growing significance of oil as the main stimulant of the Nigerian economy. The current revenue allocation formula, as defined in Section 162 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, discriminates against the minority ethnic groups of the oil producing areas of the country. We should also note that, this formula is not applicable to other natural resources as iron, hides & skins, cocoa, palmoil which, again coincidentally, are situated primarily in the non minority regions of Nigeria. When these products constituted the mainstay of Nigeria’s economy, the revenue allocation formula favoured the respective federating units. But the game was changed when oil became the dominant single produce sustaining the Nigerian economy. Who changed the rules of the game? The answer is simple: members of the tripodal conspiracy group! Ask we say in Nigeria, monkey de work, bamboo de chop. Not only did the change violate the principles of federalism as they were when Midwest State was created, it also demonstrates a gross misuse and abuse of the power of the majority to subjugate the minority. As I have argued elsewhere ( "The Nigerian Polity." Sunday Observer, Benin City, September 18, 1988, p. 5), the "federal revenue allocation to states should be made to correspond proportionately to the revenue generated within each state. It is only in this way that states will begin to be serious and strive to be independent and autonomous, instead of waiting for a national cake shared on a wrong formula whereby the bakers get less".

CONCLUSION

The current structure of Nigeria federalism will lead to the demise of Nigeria, except a thorough restructuring of Nigerian federalism is urgently put in place. A key consideration in a democratic polity is for the dominant political and economic class to recognize and respect its limits to power. It should be prepared to discard its own selfish agenda where this conflicts with the national interest of the nation as expressed by the population in given circumstances. It should not appropriate to itself the right to determine what should be the national interest of the nation. It is the task of the ruling class, particularly in an embryonic democratic polity like Nigeria, to always ensure that democratic principles prevail. Members of the tripodal conspiracy have failed in this regard. This is reflected in the entire body of the current (1999) constitution where the federating units are described as subordinates of the central government. The concepts of independent and coordinates, key prerequisites of federalism, have been completely discarded. Furthermore, the proposed Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) bill which President Obasanjo recently submitted to the Nigerian Senate is a graphic display of the machinations of this tripodal group. The bill outlines a strategy of how to systematically dismantle a federal state.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MIDWEST STATE