THE LINGERING FUEL CRISIS

NIGERIA is back in the throes of fuel crisis which, for decades, has been a periodic and poignant evidence of a nation in distress. The impression initially given to the Nigerian public was that the oil workers’ strike was the cause of the problem when fuel shortage started in Abuja. The end of the strike did not, however, bring a lasting respite to residents of the capital city. The problem has since spread to other parts of the country and valuable man hours are being lost on fuel queues which have become a common feature at filling stations in different parts of the federation. Different reasons are being adduced for the persistence of the scarcity which, as usual, has been having a harmful effect on the social and economic life of the people. A spokesman of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) has attributed the problem to the closure of a vandalised pipeline at Arepo in Ogun State. There have also been altercations between the government and fuel importers on the usually contentious issue of subsidy payment.
AS experience has shown, the slightest interruption of fuel supply creates a disproportionate disruption in the various facets of economic activities. Profiteering has become the order of the day as petrol is no longer being sold at the approved pump price of N97 per litre at the distribution outlets. Repair work on the vandalised pipeline was reported to have been stopped when three NNPC engineers were killed by suspected vandals on the site. The usually lethargic response of the government to issues that are critical to the interest of the public has, no doubt, contributed to the prolongation of the fuel crisis.
IT is not a pleasant surprise that the payment of subsidy still remains problematic between fuel importers and the relevant agencies of government. The subsidy probe carried out by an ad hoc committee of the House of Representatives uncovered various avenues being exploited to defraud the government in the process of fuel importation.
THE committee exposed the gulf between the quantity of fuel being imported and the quantity on which subsidy was being claimed and paid. The general expectation is that the revelations made by the ad hoc committee and the lessons therefrom will be utilised to draw up fool-proof guidelines which will check fraudulent tendencies on the part of importers by relevant agencies of government. The marketers are reported to be asking for N200 billion which they claimed to have spent to subsidise imported fuel. They have threatened to stop bringing fuel into the country if the refund was not made. The government, on its part, has been contesting their claim. This is a controversy that should not have arisen if the agencies of government entrusted with the authorisation and verification of fuel importation have been discharging their duties thoroughly and conscientiously.
WE do not expect the people in authority, for whom everything is free, to feel at ease seeing the people they promised to serve going through agonising experiences at filling stations where they are being exploited by both the dealers and their attendants. Based on previous experiences, it is being conjectured, that the lingering fuel crisis is being used by the government to gauge the likely response of the public in case of another hike in fuel price. The seeming helplessness of the government lends credence to such a conjecture. The resilience and docility of the people should not be misconstrued as acceptance of avoidable hardship and endless suffering.
IT is common knowledge that Nigeria remains a country where virtually nothing works because successive governments have failed to manage the lifeblood of its economy — oil — responsibly. President Goodluck Jonathan does not need to be told that the realisation of his transformation agenda depends largely, if not solely, on a turnaround in the management of the single product on which the economy of the country depends. It is unfortunate that Nigeria has continued to maintain the dubious distinction of being the only major oil oil-producing country that lacks the refining capacity to meet its domestic requirements of finished products.
IT beats the imagination that the management of importation of refined petroleum products has remained an intractable problem and it is unjust that the ordinary people are being made to bear the brunt of the ineptitude in high places. It should be obvious to the government that the longer the fuel crisis lasts, the more will be the dislocation of the social and economic life of a substantial percentage of the country's population. In a country in which electricity supply is most unreliable, the government should see it as a bounden duty to ensure availability of fuel on daily basis and at affordable price. It should be obvious to the government that fuel shortage — any time it happens — puts a question mark on its competence because it is a problem that Nigeria should not have.
THE failure of the government to put an immediate end to the needless fuel crisis will further diminish its credibility in the eyes of right thinking members of the society. The government should wake up to its responsibility by taking all necessary steps that will ensure uninterrupted supply of fuel without further delay.

Nigerian Tribune Editorial

Why Nigerian leaders refuse to leave office -Jonathan •As Blair, Rice counsel him

 by Leon Usigbe
PRESIDENT Goodluck Jonathan, on Wednesday, advanced the reason many Nigerian political leaders fight to sit tight in office, saying that it was because of their fear of the unknown.
He, however, said the electoral reforms embar-ked upon by his admini-stration would continue to ensure that the choice of the people emerged at elections.
President Jonathan disclosed this at a breakfast meeting on the Nigerian economy, organi-sed by the African Business Roundtable in New York, United States.
Addressing the audience, which had former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair; former United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice; inter-national investors and captains of industry from Nigeria, President Jona-than said Nigeria had numerous problems, add-ing that his government had decided to prioritise its options, in order to deal with the challenges systematically.
“We are totally committed in solving our problems. We started with the electoral process and we have demonstrated our commitment in sanitising that system, because when the people put you there, you will be committed to serving them
“I was ready to lose the election if Nigerians did not want me. If I was ready to be disgraced out of office to sanitise the system, that is to tell you I am ready to sanitise the system to bring about investments in our country,” he said.
He assured the investors that he would ensure the investment environment was sanitised to attract investors and create jobs for the teeming youth in the country.
President Jonathan promised to carry the Nigerian people along in the governance process, though he conceded that it was not possible to involve all in the administration of the country at the same time.
Blair, speaking on the occasion, urged Nigerians not to always accept the stance of the opposition on issues, as they were not speaking for the majority of the citizens but a few vested interests.
While urging for support for President Jonathan, the former British leader lauded his effort to reform the political and economic sectors of the country, which, he observed, was a difficult but necessary thing to do.
Citing the case of the deregulation of the down-stream sector of the petroleum industry and other critical areas, he told the president that this was a moment of opportunity and, therefore, he must have the courage to proceed with the planned economic reforms.
Blair said with what was going on in Nigeria, the country was on its way up, noting that once Nigeria was on its way up, it meant Africa was on its way up.
In her contribution, Ms Rice observed that for the first time, news emanating from Africa had turned from the negative issues such as AIDS, famine and wars to positive news about opportunities existing in the continent.
She congratulated Jonathan for his efforts at repositioning the country and advised on critical areas of responsibility which must be fulfilled in order to realise the potentials of the country.
Nigerian Tribune

Electoral Reforms (2) To be or Not to be?

Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai

Our first instalment on electoral reforms ran through the history of elections in Nigeria, the definition of free and fair elections and the inherent flaws in the process. It was in the light of these flaws that the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua initiated the reform of the electoral system with the inauguration of the Justice Uwais Electoral Reform Committee in August 2007. In spite of the committee's thoughtful and far-reaching recommendations, only few have been implemented. Little wonder then that as at 2011, the Nigerian ‘democracy’ was rated as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index.

This worrisome situation needs to be addressed immediately if we are to preserve our nascent democracy.
The innumerable benefits of electoral reforms and a sustained democracy cannot be overemphasised. Having the right structures in place would strengthen the rule of law, provide a platform for credible and deserving candidates to be elected, create peace and stability in the polity and ensure that government is accountable to its citizens. With the current situation in the country, a major benefit of having credible elections would be the opportunity to break the stranglehold of PDP on the country since the return to civilian governance in 1999; given the party has grown more and more venal since 2007!
The elections conducted in 2011 were one of the most fraudulent and resulted in widespread violence, loss of lives and mayhem across the country.

The electoral malpractices were so flagrant to the extent that in the South-east and South-south zones, observers were chased away and 'election results' reflected almost twice the average number of voters’ turnout in the rest of the country. Worse still, the ruling party's candidate in the presidential elections was credited with over 90 per cent of the total votes in several of those states. INEC also experienced major logistical challenges due to the tight timelines of the 2011 elections. For instance, in many places, voting did not start at allotted times due to late delivery of election materials. So many such logistic and technical issues were witnessed around the country.


The electoral fraud that took place in 2011 was mostly achieved by altering the polling unit results when they got to collation centres and then thumb-printing 'spare' ballots made available to the favoured party - to justify the alterations in preparation for the election tribunal. Massive amounts of money were then deployed on INEC officials, lawyers and judges to apply technicalities and mind-games to uphold the electoral fraud at the tribunal and appellate courts.
This democratic experiment is being pushed into a cul-de-sac that may lead to its premature demise as a result of the uncaring attitude of INEC, the corruption of the security agencies and the impunity of the ruling party.

The critical nexus that is often overlooked by the electoral fraudsters is that without public office holders being legitimately elected by the people and therefore genuinely accountable to them, our potentials and hope for a country where things function minimally will never materialise for even those in power. What can we do to stem these? The answers are largely in implementing the Uwais Committee report.
The first step would be to build truly democratic institutions. It is essential for the various arms of government to judiciously carry out their respective functions and serve as checks and balances on one another.

The judiciary in particular needs to be truly unbiased in the performance of its duties. If it is, election petition tribunals will not drag beyond 180 days after elections. Given the foregoing, elections to the position of governors and president should be conducted at least six months before the expiration of their tenures and petitions concluded with the rightful candidate been sworn in at the right time as Uwais recommended.


In the determination of election petitions, the constitution needs to be amended to shift the burden of proof in electoral disputes from the petitioners to INEC. It would be recalled that in the last presidential elections, the burden of proof on the appellant gave room for the PDP and INEC to manoeuvre their way out of the CPC appeal in the Presidential Election Tribunal. All efforts to gain access to electoral materials and the database as required by Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2010 were thwarted by INEC thereby violating the law. While the CPC worked tirelessly to acquire proof of rigging and fraud from the INEC database, the NJC-PDP-INEC cabal connived to unconstitutionally remove the President of the Court of Appeal– Justice Ayo Salami. Even after getting away with the electoral heist, Salami remains on unlawful suspension.
The executive arm must be separated completely from INEC in order to guarantee the latter’s autonomy.

Most importantly, the president should not have powers to single-handedly appoint or remove the INEC Chairman. The process recommended by Uwais for appointment of INEC Chairman starts with the National Judicial Council (NJC) advertising to the public and spelling out the required qualifications. After receiving the applications, three persons are short-listed and the nominations sent to the Council of State to select one person to be forwarded to the Senate for confirmation. Removal of the chairman or commissioners of INEC should be on the recommendation of the NJC and approval by two-thirds of the Senate which shall include at least 10 members of minority parties.


The legislature, on its part must ensure that it works diligently and speedily to amend the Electoral Act and the constitution as early as possible in 2013 to ensure free and fair 2015 elections. The National Assembly should endeavour to pass an Uwais Electoral Reform Bill that would restructure the electoral process for the benefit of our people.
An effort at electoral reforms would be futile if the electorate is not genuinely independent. How can this independence be achieved? By empowering the people with education, sources of livelihood and basic necessities so they can exercise their free will which cannot be easily thwarted by greedy politicians.

Once people are empowered, they will vote based on informed assessment of candidates' capability and experience as opposed to religious or ethnic sentiments. They will realise that true brotherhood does not lie in sharing the same state of origin but in people who will work to secure their lives and those of their children.
The logistical problems within INEC need to be solved and there is no better time than now to begin planning. Issues like election materials arriving late from Japan as was the case in the last elections are unacceptable. Attempting to register the expected 80 million-plus voters in three weeks will not happen. Using open source software and untested AFIS engines for "biometric" data capture won't cut it. 

Open voting booths to enable voters show ballots for payment before voting is unlawful. Virtual polling units to facilitate rigging must be abolished. All preparations need to be made and materials must be delivered to all polling units without delay. The restriction of movement of citizens a day before elections which has enabled security agencies and the ruling party to move freely and plan the rigging is not only unlawful and unconstitutional but also unjust.

In summary, the game should be up for those who plan to rig, or facilitate rigging.
Some schools of thought believe that electronic voting may be the solution to problems such as ballot box snatching and massive thumb printing by individuals to justify false vote records. In fact, the Uwais Report recommended that the Electoral Act be amended to lift prohibition on the use of electoral machines. As much as this seems like an implausible idea, a voting machine costing about $30 each has worked in India so similar rudimentary electronic systems could be employed to supplant the paper ballot system.

At the very least, technologies exist to encrypt results from each polling unit and send them to an electronic collation platform via the 3G networks all over the country. This would eliminate paper-based collation centres and their susceptibility to manipulation. 
The key pointers for electoral reforms are clear and visible. What is less visible is the fact that government has no interest and certainly no intention to reform the chaotic and unregulated bazaars we call elections. In the mad course of ‘elections’, party internal democracy is ignored, hundreds of billions of naira of public funds are used as slush funds, 'fuel subsidy' licences and import duty waivers granted to ruling party apparatchiks, some domestic observers are compromised while foreign observers are hoodwinked.

INEC is being told that its so-called autonomy is a joke, as the police and security agencies become ruling party's agents and not surprisingly, the elections are rigged in favour of the highest bidders. Even the so-called state "independent" electoral commissions are beyond redemption and should be abolished. Their functions can be handled by a reformed INEC.
The end result - violent visits to the homes and businesses of the suspected riggers, arson, destruction and deaths that have happened in 1965, 1983, 1993 and 2011 - and these must stop. 
If we are unhappy with the state of Nigeria today, if we desire to solve our security, unemployment and infrastructural challenges and put an end to the massive graft and ineptitude we see in our nation; if we want to build a country we can be proud of, the process must begin with genuine reforms of our electoral processes.

What is at stake is too important to be left to the whims of a do-little government where even the most basic decision leads to Hamlet’s debacle: To be, or not to be?

This Day

I’m Ready To Go If Nigerians Don’t Want Me - Jonathan

GEORGE AGBA

President Goodluck Jonathan declared yesterday that he was ready to leave if Nigerians had demonstrated that they no longer wanted him as their president through the ballot box.
“I was ready to lose the election if Nigerians did not want me. If I was ready to be disgraced out of office to sanitise the system, that is to tell you I am ready to sanitise the system to bring about investments in our country,” Jonathan stated.
Speaking at a breakfast meeting on the Nigerian economy organised by the African Business Roundtable in New York, USA, Jonathan also noted that the reason why many Nigerian political leaders fight to sit tight in office was because of the fear of the unknown.
He, however, assured that he has vowed that the electoral reforms embarked upon by his administration would continue to ensure that the choice of the people emerge at every election, adding that he was fully committed to solving the nation’s electoral problems.
The Nigerian president added: “We are totally committed to solving our problem. We started with the electoral process and we have demonstrated our commitment in sanitising that system because when the people put you there you will be committed to serving the people.”
He assured investors that he would do everything to sanitise the investment environment to attract the much-needed investment and create jobs for the teeming youth who, he observed, make up the majority of the nation’s population.
Noting that this critical segment of the society could not be ignored as they were the ones that needed housing and jobs, Jonathan expressed hope that Nigeria could join the elite group of the world economies between eight and 10 years as it has been proved in other countries that it does not take eternity to solve the development problems of a country.
On Nigerians in Diaspora who want the opportunity to contribute their quota to the development of the country, he promised to carry the Nigerian people along in the governance process even though he conceded that it was not possible to involve all in the administration of the country at the same time. “We have a lot of eggheads in Nigeria. Unfortunately, not all will be ministers but we appoint them into teams where we have challenges to help address them. We meet monthly. Soon our economy will be what you will be proud of,” he said.
Present at the meeting were former British prime minister Tony Blair, former United States secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, international investors and captains of industry from Nigeria.
Jonathan told them that Nigeria has numerous problems but his government has decided to prioritise its options in order to systematically deal with the challenges.
Also speaking, Tony Blair urged Nigerians not to always accept the stance of the opposition on issues as they were not speaking for the majority of the citizens but a few vested interests.
Drumming support for President Jonathan, the former British prime minister lauded his effort to reform the political and economic sectors of the country, which he said was a difficult but necessary thing to do.
“One of the things I learned since leaving office is  that it is not easy to get the advice and take the decisions. Each set of the reforms are hard and tough. I know how difficult it is to make changes. When you are doing the changes, it is very, very tough and difficult for government. On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary,” he said.
Blair said with what was going on in Nigeria, the country was on its way up, noting that once Nigeria was on its way up, it meant that Africa was on its way up.
He said, “My plea is to stick with it, support the president and the ministers in making these changes. My plea to Nigerians is: Don’t be deterred by the voices that say they are representing the majority of the public but often are actually representing the minority or vested interests.
“Among all these difficulties and challenges, there is hope of optimism and opportunities for Nigeria. We all know that in politics as in life, the difficult thing is not in the saying but in the doing. It was all about the courage to make the changes that are necessary.
Leadership

For the Records: The June 12 election annulment speech of General Ibrahim Babangida, June 26, 1993

inShare

Fellow Nigerians,
I address you today with a deep sense of world history and particularly of the history of our great country. In the aftermath of the recently annulled Presidential Election, I feel, as I believe you yourself feel, a profound sense of disappointment at the outcome of our last efforts at laying the foundation of a viable democratic system of government in Nigeria .
I therefore wish, on behalf of myself and members of the National Defence and Security Council and indeed of my entire administration, to feel with my fellow countrymen and women for the cancellation of the election. It was a rather disappointing experience in the course of carrying through the last election of the transition to civil rule programme.
Nigeria has come a long way since this administration assumed power and leadership about eight years ago. In the attempt to grapple with the critical and monumental problems and challenges of National existence and social progress, this administration inaugurated and pursued sound and justifiable policies and programmes of reform.
These policies and programmes have touched virtually all aspects of our national life – the economy, political process, social structures, external relations, bureaucracy and even the family system. I believe strongly that in understanding, conception,
formulation and articulation, these policies and programmes are not only sound but also comparatively unassailable. I believe too that history, with the passage of time, would certainly score the administration high in its governance of our country.
Let me also express my deep conviction that the core strategy and structures of our reform policies and programmes, as enunciated in 1986/87 would, for a very long time, remain relevant and durable in the course of changing our country positively. I believe that at the exit of the Administration from power, we would leave behind for
prosperity, a country with an economy, the structures of which have been turned around for good. The average Nigerian person has come to reconcile himself with the fact that his or her social progress remain essentially in his or her hands in collaboration with other fellow Nigerians and not merely relying on what government alone could provide for him or her. The days are gone for good, when men and women trooped to government establishments for employment and for benevolence.
This administration has built the foundation that would take Nigerians away from their previous colonially-induced motivations and the encumbrances of colonialism. We have laid the foundation for self-reliant economic development and social justice. We have established a new basis in our country in which economic liberalization would continue to flourish alongside democratic forces and deregulated power structure. In all these, the average Nigerian person has more than ever before this administration imbibed and assimilated the values of hard work, resilience and self-confidence.
It is true that in the course of implementing our reform policies and programmes and especially because of the visionary zeal with which we approached the assignment and responded to incidental pressures of governance, we engendered a number of social forces in the country.
This is so because we sought to challenge and transform extant social forces which had in the past impeded growth and development of our country. We also sought to deal with the new forces to which our programmes of action gave rise. Thus in dealing with the dynamics of both the old and new social forces, we ran into certain difficulties.
In particular, during the course of handling the interlocking relationships between the old and new political forces and institutions, some problems had arisen leading us into a number of difficulties and thereby necessitating our having to tamper with the
rules and regulations laid down in the political programme. As a result, the administration unwittingly attracted enormous public suspicions of its intentions and objectives. Accordingly, we have experienced certain shortfalls and conflicting responses to the pulls and pushes of governance in the course of policy implementation.
I believe that areas of difficulties with the transition programme, especially from the last quarter of 1992 to the recent cancelled presidential election, derived primarily from the shortfalls in implementing the programmes of actions which, though objectively taken, may have caused a deviation from the original framework and
structure of the programme.
Fellow Nigerians, it is true that by the cancelled presidential election, we all found the nation at a peculiar bar of history which was neither bargained for, nor was it envisaged in the reform programmes of transition as enunciated in 1986/87. In the
circumstance, the administration had no option than to respond appropriately to the unfortunate experience of terminating the presidential election. Our actions are in full conformity with the original objectives of the transition to civil programme. It was also
in conformity with the avowed commitment of the administration to advance the cause of national unity, stability, and democracy. In annulling the presidential election, this administration was keenly aware of its promise in November 1992 that it would disengage and institute a return to democracy on August 27, 1993. We are
determined to keep the promise.
Since this transition, and indeed any transition, must have an end, I believe that our transition programme should and must come to an end, honestly and honourably.
History will bear witness that as an administration we have always striven, in all our policy decisions, to build the foundation of lasting democracy. Lasting democracy is not a temporary show of excitement and manipulation by an over-articulate section of the elite and its captive audience; lasting democracy is a permanent diet to nurture the soul of the whole nation and the political process.
Therefore, it is logical, as we have always insisted upon, that lasting democracy must be equated with political stability.
Informed by our sad experience of history, we require nothing short of a foundation for lasting democracy. As an administration, we cannot afford to leave Nigerian into a Third Republic with epileptic convulsions in its democratic health. Nigeria must therefore confront her own reality; she must solve her problems notwithstanding
other existing models of democracy in other parts of the world.
In my address to the nation in October 1992, when the first presidential primaries were cancelled, I had cause to remind our country men and women that there is nowhere iin the world in which the practice of democracy is the same, even if the principles are similar and even for countries sharing the same intellectual
tradition and cultural foundation. The history of our country is not the history of any other country in the world which is either practicing advanced democracy or struggling to lay the foundation for democracy. Yet, in spite of the uniqueness and peculiarities of Nigeria, there are certain prerequisites which constitute an
irreducible minimum for democracy. Such essential factors include:
A. Free and fair elections;
B. Uncoerced expression of voters preference in election;
C. Respect for electorate as unfettered final arbiter on elections;
D. Decorum and fairness on the part of the electoral umpires;
E. Absolute respect for the rule of law.
Fellow Nigerians, you would recall that it was precisely because the presidential primaries of last year did not meet the basic requirements of free and fair election that the Armed Forces Ruling Council, the, had good reason to cancel those primaries. The recently annulled presidential election was similarly afflicted by
these problems.
Even before the presidential elections, and indeed at the party conventions, we had full knowledge of the bad signals pertaining to the enormous breach of the rules and regulations of democracy elections. But because we were determined to keep faith with the deadline of 27th August 1993 for the return of civil rule, we overlooked the reported breaches. Unfortunately, these breaches continued into the presidential election of June 12, 1993, on an even greater proportion.
There were allegations of irregularities and other acts of bad conduct leveled against the presidential candidates but NEC went ahead and cleared them. There were proofs as well as documented evidence of widespread use of money during the party primaries as well as the presidential election. These were the same bad conduct
for which the party presidential primaries of 1992 were cancelled.
Evidence available to government put the total amount of money spent by the presidential candidates as over two billion , one hundred million naira (N2.1 billion). The use of money was again the major source of undermining the electoral process.
Both these allegations and evidence were known to the National Defence and Security Council before the holding of the June 12, 1993 election, the National Defence and Security Council overlooked these areas of problems in its determination to fulfill the promise to hand over to an elected president on due date.
Apart from the tremendous negative use of money during the party primaries and presidential elections, there were moral issues which were also overlooked by the Defence and National Security Council. There were cases of documented and confirmed conflict of interest between the government and both presidential aspirants which would compromise their positions and responsibilities were they to become
president. We believe that politics and government are not ends in themselves. Rather, service and effective amelioration of the condition of our people must remain the true purpose of politics.
It is true that the presidential election was generally seen to be free, fair and peaceful. However, there was in fact a huge array of election malpractices virtually in all the states of the federation before the actual voting began. There were authenticated reports of the election malpractices against party agents, officials of the National Electoral Commission and also some members of the electorate.
If all of these were clear violations of the electoral law there were proofs of manipulations through offer and acceptance of money and other forms of inducement against officials of the National Electoral Commission and members of the electorate. There were also evidence of conflict in the process of authentication and clearance of credentials of the presidential candidates. Indeed, up to the last few hours to the election, we continued in our earnest steadfastness with our transition deadline, to overlook vital facts.
For example, following the council’s deliberation which followed the court injunction suspending the election, majority of members of the National Defence and Security Council supported postponement of the election by one week. This was to allow NEC enough time to reach all the voters, especially in the rural areas, about the postponement. But persuaded by NEC that it was capable of relaying the information to the entire electorate within the few hours left before the election, the council, unfortunately, dropped the idea of shifting the voting day. Now, we know better. The conduct of the election, the behaviour of the candidates and post-election responses continued to elicit signals which the nation can only ignore at its peril.
It is against the foregoing background that the administration became highly concerned when these political conflicts and breaches were carried to the court.
It must be acknowledged that the performance of the judiciary on this occasion was less than satisfactory. The judiciary has been the bastion of the hopes and liberties of our citizens.
Therefore, when it became clear that the courts had become intimidated and subjected to the manipulation of the political process, and vested interests then the entire political system was in clear dangers.
This administration could not continue to watch the various high courts carry on their long drawn out processes and contradictory decisions while the nation slides into chaos.
It was under this circumstance that the National Defence and Security Council decided that it is in the supreme interest of law and order, political stability and peace that the presidential election be annulled. As an administration, we have had special interest and concern not only for the immediate needs of our society, but also in laying the foundation for generations to come.
To continue action on the basis of the June 12, 1993 election, and to proclaim and swear in a president who encouraged a campaign of divide and rule among our ethnic groups would have been detrimental to the survival of the Third Republic. Our need is for peace, stability and continuity of politics in the interest of all our people.
Fellow countrymen and women, although the National Electoral Commission and the Centre for Democratic Studies officially invited foreign observers for the presidential elections, the administration also considered it as important as a democratic society, that our activities and electoral conduct must be open not only to the citizenry of our country but also to the rest of the world. In spite of this commitment, the administration did not and cannot accept that foreign countries should interfere in our internal affairs and undermine our sovereignty.
The presidential election was no an exercise imposed on Nigerians by the United Nations or by the wishes of some global policemen of democracy. It was a decision embarked upon independently by the government of our country and for the interest of our country. This is because, we believe, just like other countries, that democracy and democratization are primary values which Nigerians should cultivate, sustain and consolidate so as to enhance freedom, liberties and social development of the citizenry.
The actions of these foreign countries are most unfortunate and highly regrettable. There is nowhere in the history of our country or indeed of the third world where these countries can be said to love Nigeria or Nigerians any more that the love we have for ourselves and for our country. Neither can they claim to love Nigeria any more than this administration loves our country.
Accordingly, I wish to state that this administration will take necessary action against any interest groups that seek to interfere in our internal affairs. In this vein, I wish to place on record the appreciation of this administration for the patience and understanding of Nigerians, the French, the Germans, the Russians and Irish governments in the current situation. I appeal to our fellow countrymen and women and indeed our foreign detractors that they should cultivate proper understanding and appreciation of the peculiar historic circumstances in the development of our country and the determination not only of this administration but indeed of all Nigerians to resolve the current crises.
Fellow Nigerians, the National Security and Defence Council have met several times since the June 12, 1993 election. The council has fully deliberated not only on our avowed commitment but also to bequeathing to posterity, a sound economic and political base in our country and we shall do so with honour. In our deliberations, we have also taken note of several extensive consultations with other members of this administration, with officers and men of the Armed Forces and will well-meaning Nigerian leaders of thought. We are committed to handing over power on 27th August 1993.
Accordingly, the National Defence and Security Council has decided that by the end of July 1993 the two political parties, under the supervision of a recomposed National Electoral Commission, will put in place the necessary process for the emergence of two presidential candidates.
This shall be conducted according to the rules and regulations governing the election of the president of the country. In this connection, government will in consultation with the two political parties and National Electoral Commission agree as to the best and quickest process of conducting the election.
In the light of our recent experience and, given the mood of the nation, the National Defence and Security Council has imposed additional conditions as a way of widening and deepening the base of electing the president and sanitizing the electoral process. Accordingly, the candidates for the coming election must:
(1) Not be less than 50 years old.
(2) Have not been convicted of any crime;
(3) Believe, by act of faith and practice, in the corporate existence of Nigerians;
(4) Posses records of personal, corporate and business interests which do not conflict with the national interests;
(5) Have been registered members of either of the two political parties for at least one year to this election.
All those previously banned from participating in the transition process other than those with criminal records, are hereby unbanned. They can all henceforth participate in the electoral process. This is with a view to enriching the quality of candidature for the election and at the same time tap the leadership resources of our country to the fullest. The decree to this effect will be promulgated.
Fellow Nigerians, I wish to finally acknowledge the tremendous value of your patience and understanding, especially in the face of national provocation.
I urge you to keep faith with the commitment of this administration.
I enjoin you to keep faith with the unity, peace and stability of our country for this is the only country that you and I can call our own. Nowhere in the world, no matter the prompting and inducements of foreign countries, can Nigerians ever be regarded as first class citizens. Nigeria is the only country that we have. We must therefore renew our hope in Nigeria, and faith and confidence in ourselves for continued growth, development and progress.
Thank you all, and God bless you.
YNaija

SEC extends deadline of of shares certificate dematerialisation

The committee inaugurated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on dematerialisation of shares in the nation’s bourse has canvassed for an extension of the exercise.
Dematerialisation is the elimination of physical certificates or documents on ownership of securities through conversion to an electronic ownership mode domiciled with the Central Securities Clearing System Ltd. (CSCS).
Investigation on Wednesday in Lagos showed that extension of the deadline earlier scheduled for January 2013 is the consensus of most of the committee members interviewed separately.
Emeka Madubuike, the Chairman of the SEC Committee on Dematerialisation told the NAN that the deadline would likely be extended to ensure effective sensitisation of investors.
Madubuike, who is also the President, Association of Stockbroking Houses of Nigeria (ASHON), said that the extension was necessary for proper implementation of the policy.
He said that the capital market community was in the process of concluding arrangement for a nationwide enlightenment campaign and needed time to get the process right.
Madubuike said that the committee planned to get the details of all share certificates through biometrics and as a means of ensuring that dematerialised certificates belonged to their rightful owners.
Ms Arunma Oteh, SEC’s Director-General, had earlier urged investors to embrace the dematerialisation programme as it would make the market more efficient and in lined with global practices.
Oteh said that full dematerialisation “makes buying and selling of shares easier and also facilitates shareholders entrance in securities lending process in the nation’s bourse.’’
“People are still surprise that the stock market that is going to 50 years is still in this format,” Oteh said.
The director-general said that the market was working on a process for issuance of share certificates for retail investors on demand.
The SEC in a public notice dated March 13, has set Jan. 1, 2013 as deadline for the dematerialisation of all share certificates.
The notice said that all share certificates dematerialised on or before Jan. 1, 2013, would be at no cost to the shareholder, but that there would be a penalty for those done after that date.
It also said that the allotment of shares of public offerings would from now be by electronic processes that would transfer shares directly to the CSCS.
 BusinessNews

“General Gowon did not cede Bakassi to Cameroun” – Akinjide insists

Former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Chief Richard Akinjide, on Wednesday, declared that former head of state, General Yakubu Gowon, did not cede the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
The former minister, who was the guest speaker at the 2 Division, Nigerian army training week with the theme: “Developing requisite capabilities by the Nigerian Army for combating contemporary security challenges,” said it was a former head of state who signed an instrument that seceded the part of the country to Cameroon.
Akinjide, who did not give the name of the former head of state, said the matter was more complicated than what the people perceived.
According to him, “Nigeria did not secede the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
“There are a lot of rumour that General Gowon cede Bakassi to Cameroon. That is not true. He did not cede the place to Cameroon at all.
“The truth is that it was a former head of state who signed an instrument that the place belongs to Cameroon, and that was presented at the International Court of Justice (ICJ),” Akinjide declared.
He explained that for eight years when the case was on, every issue was considered, including the human element, saying that many memoranda were presented before the court.
DailyPost