Thursday, 18 October 2012

Kofi Annan: Abiola’s Death Was Suspicious

2606F08.Late-MKO-Abiola.jpg - 2606F08.Late-MKO-Abiola.jpg
 MKO Abiola

Olusegun Adeniyi 
In a most-revealing new memoir titled, “Interventions (A Life in War and Peace)”, former United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has detailed the role he played in the aftermath of General Sani Abacha’s death in 1998 and his encounter with the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola a few days before the latter died.
He also revealed his delicate negotiations with the then Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, and Foreign Affairs Minister, Chief Tom Ikimi, as well as his impressions of Nigeria and key actors at the time.
Annan, who had met with Abiola at his detention house shortly before his dramatic death, said: “On our return journey, everything seemed set for Abiola’s release. But tragedy struck a week later when Abiola collapsed and died during a meeting with U.S. Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering. Despite the earnest intentions we had detected in Abubakar, the timing could only be considered suspicious.”
Annan also explained his role in the negotiations that led Nigeria to cede Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun following the October 10, 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
On the Abiola saga, Annan wrote: “Moshood Abiola had been imprisoned and in solitary confinement since 1994. Previously he had been a millionaire businessman reveling in the most extravagant of lifestyles, acquired through a long-standing and close relationship with Nigeria’s military governments.
“But in 1993, there was a short-lived attempt to introduce democracy, and Abiola entered the presidential race. When Abiola looked entirely set to win, the final and full count was never allowed by the reigning military government of President Ibrahim Babangida, even though he had set up the elections in the first place.
“Abiola backed down quietly, but the vote changed his relationship with the government. He had acquired an unprecedented swell of support from many sides of the ethnic and religious divides that criss-crossed Africa’s most populous country.
“When President Babangida was ousted from power and replaced by General Sani Abacha later that year, in the midst of Nigeria’s deepening financial crisis, the new president dissolved the institutions that had been formed to move the country toward a semblance of democracy—the parliament, the thirty state governments, and every single local council—and declared all political parties illegal.
“But in the unfolding chaos of Abacha’s rule, Abiola stepped forward in 1994 and, on the basis of the thwarted 1993 elections, announced to a huge crowd of supporters in Lagos that he was the legitimate president of Nigeria.
“He was immediately arrested and charged with treason and spent the next four years in solitary confinement. During this time, he was denied access to even radio, saw no one from his family from 1995 onward, was unable to talk to anyone else, and was shown only one newspaper article: a report on the assassination of one of his wives in 1996. The only other reading materials he had were a Bible and a Koran.
“Abacha was as illegitimate a ruler as one might have the misfortune to come across—extremely corrupt, and prone to eccentric and self-indulgent behaviour on a scale that only Nigeria’s crony-capitalist oil wealth could sustain.
“He loosely promised the return to democratic elections, including one to me personally after I became secretary-general in 1997, but persistently reneged on such pledges. Opponents and suspected opponents were arrested, and the ranks of political prisoners swelled, as did the number of victims of politically motivated murders at the hands of security forces.
“But on June 8, 1998, Abacha unexpectedly died. General Abdulsalami Abubakar was installed as his replacement the next day. I had met Abubakar previously, when he was accompanying Abacha at a summit in Lome, Togo, in January 1997. He had once served as a UN peacekeeping officer as part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, so we had a common past in peacekeeping which I used to get us talking.
“I found him reasonable in outlook and straight speaking, in contrast to the strange, quiet character of Abacha. At one point, when the president left the room, I pressed upon Abubakar the importance of releasing political prisoners. Abacha had only sighed away my repeated calls for greater freedoms and introduction of democracy, and I hoped influencing his advisers might at least increase the pressure upon the Nigerian president.
“But now Abubakar was president, and he, as he later revealed to me, was scared. The country was entirely isolated internationally after repeatedly refusing to change its political course or release political prisoners, and could count on little outside help; it was in a terrible financial position with a crippling high debt; Abacha had antagonised the country’s power bases, which had brought growing unrest and violence onto the streets; the military (dominated by the Hausa ethnic group) was used to its privileged position in society and was not going to give this up easily; and while Abubakar recognised the necessity of democracy to ensure the country’s political sustainability, a mismanaged and sudden introduction of elections could bring even more instability.
“Abacha had disingenuously set the date of October 1, 1998, for a transition to democracy, which, everyone agreed, he fully intended to miss. But Abubakar, with his more genuine agenda, was now beholden to this deadline. One way or another, he needed a carefully managed way out of this very difficult situation.
“Part of the problem for Abubakar was how to deal with the imprisoned Abiola. If released, he could still upend the political balance in the country if he demanded the presidency as he had before. Such a move would be backed by his mainstay of supporters in the South-west of the country, but almost certainly rejected by the military…A few weeks after Abubakar came to power—on June 22, 1998, at 3.30 pm—I had one of these sessions with Nigeria’s foreign minister, Tom Ikimi.
“He conveyed Abubakar’s message: The president hoped I could help him exploit the current opportunity provided by Abacha’s death, Ikimi said, to assist his plan to move Nigeria out of its current predicament. He wanted to return Nigerian to a position of reasonable standing in the region and internationally, to end the country’s misrule, and to usher in democracy. But he also wanted to extend the timetable for elections to ease the process of change—and he wanted my public support for this.
“Ikimi’s style was unrecognisable in comparison to the one he had displayed while serving Abacha. Previously, he had lectured me and others, at length, on how the internal affairs of Nigeria were solely the government’s business. That bold front was now giving way to realism: a recognition of the truly interdependent world of which Nigeria was a part.
“My first thought concerned Abiola. He could not be a casualty of this transition, or it would not be a transition at all. He had but won the first real attempt at democratic elections, retained significant support, and his imprisonment had caused him to become a symbol for those demanding political change in the country. Continuing to imprison him would mean the antithesis of any progress toward genuine democracy and the rule of law.
“‘I’m willing to publicly give my approval for the president’s plan,’ I said, as Ikimi’s eyes visibly lit up. ‘But only if Abiola is released.’ Ikimi looked taken aback. But he replied that if I came to Abuja personally to voice my support of Abubakar’s election proposals, then Abiola could be released. I accepted the invitation to visit.
“I would play whatever small role I could to aid the end of a military dictatorship; particularly in Nigeria, which had suffered enough from military rule, after an exhausting series of coups that had ridden roughshod over the country since 1960.
“Due to my flight schedule, we flew on June 29 to Abuja from Vienna on a plane provided by the Nigerian government. They were keen for us to come, as it was a brand-new and lavishly furnished aircraft, designed for the president’s use. On arrival, I met with President Abubakar to discuss the situation. He emphasised everything Ikimi had said in New York, and I pushed him to move on his promises, to open up the political system and to bring in civil society, to build the momentum in his favour in order to keep the country on course.
“He replied positively but said the October 1 date for a transition to democracy was too soon for credible elections. I counseled him that if he postponed the date, he would have to publicly provide a new and detailed timetable and communicate clearly to everyone why this delay was necessary. I also reminded him that Abiola needed to be released if he was to obtain international goodwill—and mine.
“On this Abubakar wavered slightly. He pledged his willingness to release Abiola immediately, but under the condition that he made no attempt to reclaim the presidency. I could see the general’s concerns: if Abiola came out and demanded to be instated as president, it could cause a deep and violent split that, given the fragile conditions, could take the country to goodness knows where. Abiola’s release was necessary, but it also needed to be a calm process.
“I asked if I could see Abiola, to discuss this problem, and Abubakar said it would be arranged. It was later that night that Lamin heard the knock on his door, and we found ourselves speeding along Abuja’s dark roads to Abiola’s current holding place. We pulled up at a location near the presidential palace, and sullen guards walked us inside the guest house-like building into a simple, bare room with white walls, where I found him sitting quietly.
“After exchanging greetings, I explained that I was in discussions with the president and the junta concerning current developments in Nigeria, and I was pressing them for his release. He seemed remarkably ambivalent. I asked if he wanted to claim the presidency once he was out, which I told him I was confident would happen very soon.
“He said he was not sure, commenting that the junta would be afraid if he did. He seemed to be hedging his bets, not wanting to be drawn into a firm answer. Suddenly, he switched his interest and asked, ‘But who are you?’
“‘I’m Kofi Annan,’ I replied. ‘I’m the secretary-general of the United Nations.’
“‘What happened to the other one? The Egyptian?’ He said, surprised. I had mistakenly assumed that Abiola had been told who was coming to see him and why. All he had been told was that an ‘important person’ would visit. It was amazing the isolation in which this man had been kept—the regime was so used to keeping him in the dark, they maintained his ignorance of anything going on outside even now.
“Once he realised who I was, he became more enthusiastic. He also became more explicit regarding his plans. He said he had no intention of claiming the presidency. All he wanted was go to Mecca to pray and give thanks. But he emphasised that he would make no commitment in writing. If he did so, he felt this would destroy his reputation. But he said he was willing to give the same assurance to President Abubakar.
“I conveyed this assurance to Abubakar the next day, but he was still hesitant. I explained that a free Abiola, who had no interest in upsetting the situation, would be a calming influence on his supporters, not an agitating one. I then told him that I would be announcing in my departing speech to the press that the president had promised me he would release Abiola and the other prisoners very soon. Whether this speech reinforced his credibility or undermined it would now depend upon him.
“In the ensuing press conference, given shortly before our flight out of the country, I did as promised. But I also revealed that Abiola had, indeed, told me that he had no intention of claiming any right to the presidency, further removing any justification Abubakar held for not releasing him and also smoothing the path ahead with Abiola’s more hardline supporters. I was also trying to ease the concerns of those Nigerians who feared Abiola’s return.
“On our return journey, everything seemed set for Abiola’s release. But tragedy struck a week later when Abiola collapsed and died during a meeting with U.S. Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering. Despite the earnest intentions we had detected in Abubakar, the timing could only be considered suspicious.
“However, an international team of pathologists established that it was the result of heart condition, and there was no foul play—other than the fact, I thought that Abiola had been denied adequate medical care throughout his incarceration. Either way, he was yet another casualty of the systematic violations of a whole range of human rights that are inevitable under personalised and oppressive regimes.
“On leaving the country after the final press conference, we found the Nigerians had lent us a very different airplane than the one in which we arrived. It was old, run-down, and did not look entirely safe. On seeing it, Kieran Prendergast, my insightful and witty under-secretary-general for political affairs, turned to me, laughing through his beard: ‘Well, you’ve done what they needed you for. Who cares about you now?’ Indeed, within fifteen minutes of taking off, the flaps jammed in a mechanical failure, and the pilot told us that we had to return and change aircraft…”
On Bakassi, Annan wrote: “This was a long-standing cause of hostility between these two countries (Nigeria and Cameroun), and a ruling on the status of the territory by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), expected in 2002, could inflame communities on both sides, including inhabitants of Bakassi, thus threatening significant violence of some form as well as interstate hostility.
“I had seen too many times how complicated such conflicts could become once they began, and long before the ICJ ruling was given, I took steps to ensure a set of diplomatic structures and avenues for dialogue between the parties so that this contentious issue could be managed peacefully. And over the years of diplomacy and the breakthroughs in Nigerian-Camerounian dialogue that we brokered, we succeeded in maintaining peace and stability – an important success in alternative forms of intervention...”
In the book, Annan also recounted his uneasy relationship with former United States President George Bush, his British counterpart, Prime Minister Tony Blair, especially during the Iraq war, which he labeled illegal and not in conformity with the United Nations Charter.
ThisDay

Illegal deductions from Councils’ monthly allocations: Oshiomhole cripples Edo LG councils


*Councils now redundant, comatose
*Arrears of salaries accumulate
*NULGE politicized, helpless
By Ken Edokpayi, Prince Sollo Az’ke & Julius Ajayi
The Navigator Newspaper

The Edo State governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, has been accused of allegedly crippling the financial standings of the eighteen local government councils across the state with his continuous tampering with monthly financial allocations made to the third tier governments from the Federation Account.
Sources close to local government authorities in several local councils across the state, who spoke with The Navigator in hush tunes, last week, revealed that since the illegal constitution of the local government caretaker committees in 2010, the governor had been making deductions from council resources, leaving them with so much that could enable them pay salaries. But, according to one of the sources, “the reality of the situation is that a majority of the councils cannot even pay staff salaries, allowances and office running imprests from what is eventually given to them by the state government.”
The visible implications of this unexplained deductions by the state government from council allocations, according to another source, who pleaded anonymity “is that workers are owed backlog of salaries.  In some councils, like Oredo, Egor and Ikpoba-Okha, workers are owed two, three months salary arrears.  It really had never been this bad.”  The source maintained that people were only more worried about payment of workers’ salaries because it concerned their welfare and that of their families and dependents.
“However,” he noted, “the reason for the constitution, adoption and operation of the third tier government at the local government level in Nigeria, was to bring government and effective governance closer to the people in the grassroots.  That means to make health services closer to the people; to make water, electricity and other social amenities available for use for the rural dwellers; to provide adequate security; to contribute its quota to youth development and women empowerment; to make educational needs available to the people; to make other socio-economic services available at the local government level; to touch the lives of the people and create positive impacts of government policies in the lives of the people.  These are some of the endearing objectives of local government councils and the beautiful dreams dreamt by the proponents of the local government system of governance.  
“But, today, with all these illegal deductions, even to pay salaries and allowances to workers, is not regularly possible.  This time around, the simple task of evacuating refuse from markets and other public places is no longer possible because funds are in short supply. This attitude is truly running councils aground.  This is a gross violation and bastardization of the local government system; and most especially, the rural dwellers are continuously deprived and raped of their entrenched rights and privileges supposedly incorporated into local government administration.  
“Yet, almost everyone has folded his hands, watching helplessly as the state government makes mince-meat of our collective destiny.  For me, the greatest culprits are those in the House of Assembly.  I don’t want to believe we have a State House of Assembly, comprising supposed representatives of the people.  Either out of fear or outright, institutional cowardice, they have allowed the governor to continue to run rings around us all and trample on our own rights, including most pitiably, their own rights as a legislative body.  This is ridiculous.”
In Edo Central senatorial district, The Navigator visited Esan West, Esan North East, Esan South-East, Esan Central and Igueben local government councils and discovered that the stories were almost the same about unpaid salaries arrears, leave bonus and other allowances.  In Esan West local government council, where sources confirmed workers were owed three months salary arrears, the Vice-Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees, NULGE, Mrs. L. Akhimien maintained that they had had to call off the planned workers’ strike to protest the non-payment of their salaries after the Council’s Head of Service assured them that steps had been taken to pay the workers by September ending.
While agreeing that some undisclosed amount of money was regularly deducted at source from the council’s allocation, she, however, refused to disclose how much was deducted or from what source it was deducted.  The NULGE vice-chairman, however, warned that failure of the council’s management to pay the workers’ salaries as promised by September ending, would be met with workers’ protest and strike.
In Ubiaja, the administrative headquarters of Esan South East, some of the workers confirmed to The Navigator that their salaries had been paid, even as they lamented the non-payment of their Leave Bonuses, which they maintained had been “piling up.”  The workers comments took a new turn when some of them in separate chats with The Navigator noted that they had not been paid, remarking that “those who claim to have been paid are die-hard members of the ACN or Oshiomhole’s apologists.”
At the Igueben local government council, some of the workers were seen under a regularly frequented Tree in the compound, which they call “The Parliament,” discussing the hardship brought upon them by the non-payment of their full salaries, although some “party faithful” agreed that they had been paid.  There neither were NULGE officials nor the Transition Committee members in their offices at the time The Navigator visited.
The Esan North East secretariat Uromi was almost deserted at the time The Navigator visited, with only a handful of workers within the premises.  The Transition Committee chairman was not in the office, just like the executive members of the Local government council’s NULGE were out of the premises.  However, workers who volunteered information to The Navigator, maintained that they had not been paid their salaries “for months,” insisting that the political dust raised as a result of the July 14, 2012 gubernatorial election, had refused to settle as far as the council’s activities were concerned.
The Navigator’s investigations revealed that both the workers, in their individual capacities and the NULGE, as a union, had been polarized by political intrigues, which has resulted in an unsettled atmosphere in the various councils.  The way the issue stands, the workers might not be able to collectively fight neither the illegal deductions, nor take too far, the raging issue of the growing arrears of unpaid salaries.

When a legislature becomes irrelevant


The Pendulum (Column)
By O’Ray Osawe
The Navigator Newspaper

Governance, everywhere, is instituted, in the first place, to ensure that proper administration of the people of the country, state or community is achieved.  This, to a large extent, is true, especially of governance in Europe, the United States of America and other advanced countries of the world.  But in the African continent, and in some other parts of the Third World, governance is more or less mainly at the whims and caprices of despots, who see power as their private property, to be used for their own interest alone.
Those who fine-tune the art of governance insist that there must be the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers amongst the different arms of government for equity and balance to be achieved.  While the Rule of Law brings all and sundry, the high and the low, under the moderating influence of the laws of the land, the Separation of Powers gives fillip to the existence of a shared control of state powers, so that no arm of government is unnecessarily granted such absolute powers as to hold others to ransom.  The existence of a strict and unambiguous separation of powers creates and facilitates an endearing atmosphere of checks and balances that invigorates the health of governance for the general well-being of the people.
The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers are so sacrosanct in the art of governance that governments, the world over, whether autocratic, monarchical, military or democratic, often create the impression, genuinely or otherwise, that they value such arrangements by creating bodies in the semblance of power-sharing, to win the support of the people.  In Nigeria, for instance, the military regimes that have ruled had the semblance of governments that respected the rule of law and the separation of powers.  But they all ended up not upholding any of such valued qualities of effective, people-oriented government.
In a democratic setting, like what obtains now in Nigeria, power is shared between the three arms of government, namely: the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary.  While it is often said that the legislative arm formulates laws, the judiciary interprets such laws while the executive applies those laws to the effective governance of the larger society.  To ensure that those who make laws are representatives of the people in the larger society, democratic arrangement approves the election of quality persons into the National Assembly at the federal level, State Houses of Assembly at the state level, and the local legislative arms at the local government level.  
There is no doubt that the quality of legislation plays a major role in the successful governance of the people.  This is because the executive is supposed to be regularly called to attention and to question, if it begins to act in ways contrary to the laid down laws of the land, or against the dictates of the legislature or the judiciary.  
In a democratic setting, the executive should not be left to make reckless or selfish decisions.  All the hue and cry now coming from the mass of our people with particular regard to the actions or inactions of the executive should have been championed by those in the legislative arm who are truly the representatives of the people.
But, that they have all along remained silent is a threat to democratic norm.  Some have accused the legislature of being bought over by the executive, that that is why they have literarily transformed themselves into the rubber stamps of the executive.  If this is what obtains at the federal level, then what we see at the state and local government levels is a slavish attachment of the legislative houses to the apron string of the executive.  
In some states, the Honourable members of the State Houses of Assembly, not only go cap in hand to solicit for funds from the governors, some see the governors as the determinants of their political aspirations and future, and so the attitude becomes that of a puppet who catches cold each time the master sneezes.  It has become that bad.
The legislature is supposed to be the bulwark, the mouthpiece, and the chief campaigner for the masses, outside of the Press, which is the Fourth Estate of the Realm.  But over the years, at least since 1979, we have continuously witnessed a crying negligence or an arrant show of incompetence on the part of our elected representatives in the legislature, which is supposed to churn out people-friendly laws that would straighten the standard of living of the people and create a salutary impact on their well-being.
Critics have argued that it is not as if the legislative arms at all levels do not know that they are constitutionally assigned to be checks on the excesses of the executive, but that they impress it on the executive arms that they needed to be lobbied, settled or bribed for them to turn blind eyes and deaf eyes to the frivolities and the recklessness of the executive.  This, they say, has been the bane of the legislature; like the biblical Esau, who had to sell his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, for a mesh of porridge.
Because of this obvious ineptitude of the legislature, there now exists a void in the governance of the people; a situation that has created the impression that when we talk about government, we only can have the executive in mind.  Sadly, the legislature has almost become non-existent because it has almost, without knowing it, fused, on its own accord, into the executive arm as an appendage.  Do we, therefore, need any explanation as to why the people now feel they have been alienated from government?
In fact, a situation in which the legislature enjoys a pleasant romance with the executive is anathema to effective democracy.  The void created by the non-performance of the legislature has become too wide and too deep for the people themselves to traverse before reaching the executive with a catalogue of their complaints and needs.
Do we, therefore, need any telling as to why a majority of Nigerians has seemingly decided to take their destinies in their own hands?  Do we need any telling why the Niger-Delta youths have become so restive about their plight, when they have representatives in the state and national Assemblies, who should have pleaded their case?
It is high time the legislature looked inwards with a view to sanitizing itself and repositioning itself to take up the enormous responsibilities bestowed on it by the constitution to, so to speak, police the executive into implementing policy programmes and projects that would transform the lives of the people for the better.
If the legislature fails in this regard, then it would become imperative for the people to chase their inept representatives out of the Assembly, or a fresh constitutional conference should be held to fashion out another system of governance that would create a better and more acceptable picture of the appropriateness and sanctity of the separation of powers.  Only then would we have a true Assembly of the people’s representatives, which would talk and do things that would ease the burden of existence for the people.

EDHA reverses self, shoots down Executive Bill


By Augustine E. Aghoghovwia

The Navigator Newspaper

There have been palpable indications since the last couple of weeks that honourable members of the State House of Assembly may have begun realizing that the people of the state, who voted them into positions, were not happy with their actions or inactions as far as law-making and oversight responsibilities were concerned.
Before Wednesday, the 9th of October, 2012, all manners of anti-people bills, from the absurd to the ridiculous, were passed in the House, simply because the State Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, wanted them passed.  The true origins of these replicated bills could be traced to Lagos State where socio-economic, cultural and other factors are different from what obtains in Edo State.
One of such anti-people considerations was a Bill for a law to make provisions for the consolidation of all land-based rates and charges payable to Edo State into a single charge to be called Land Use Charge, to make provision for the levying and collection of the charge and for purposes connected therewith.
Considering the details of the Bill vis-à-vis our already over-burdened Edo people, it was clearly unfriendly and exploitative.  Among others, the Bill envisaged that upon passage by the House, government agents would enter, inspect and assess property of individuals, request for documents, take photographs and make copies of such documents as they consider necessary for the inspection, after which the owner of the property in the state would be liable to pay a Land Use Charge in respect of the property.
The major consideration of the Governor’s Bill was to go beyond civil servants and other taxable federal government’s property to extort money from property owned by Edo people.
As usual, the Majority Leader in the House, who has all along been the Governor’s mouthpiece in presenting mostly indefensible anti-people bills, Hon. Philip Shaibu, was at his game again trying, this time unsuccessfully, to explain the merits, if any, of the Bill.  Of course, three things were against him: his intellectual limitation, his deficiency in logic and unpersuasive debating skills.  Perhaps, Shaibu’s greatest albatross, on that day, was probably his colleagues’ determined resolve to stop the observed arrogance of the Majority Leader while delivering even uncoordinated messages from the Executive arm.
Apart from the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Uyi Igbe and, perhaps, Hon. Johnson Oghuma, who hails from the same Edo North senatorial district as the Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole and Hon. Shaibu, every other person at plenary that day, when the Bill was being considered, saw the demerits and irrelevance of the Bill and shot it down accordingly.
The Speaker, Rt. Hon. Igbe, tried desperately to make the honourable members change their minds on the consideration of the Governor’s Bill, more likely because he wanted to please the executive in an effort to continue to save his job as presiding officer of the House, but failed as the others did not bulge.  And so, the Bill collapsed and died!
From this development, can it be said that the Edo State House of Assembly has eventually woken up from its slumber to assert its authority, civic and democratic responsibility?  Time will tell.
Critics of the House have recently been piqued by the almost subservient relationship the legislative body has had with the executive arm, when the lawmakers fret before the governor.  However, some very critical sources in the House were of the view that the lawmakers “are rebelling because the executive arm did not accompany the recently passed supplementary bill with enough largesse for the ACN members in the House.”
However, there are positive signals pointing to the fact that the State Assembly is changing.  Only recently, the Honourable Speaker, Rt. Hon. Igbe, reversed the decision made earlier which led to his removal of the House members of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, from House Committees’ chairmanship positions.  It was one decision roundly criticized by stakeholders across the state and beyond.
The PDP legislators, Hon. Patrick Iluobe, Hon. Victor Edoror, Hon. Kingsley Ehigiamusoe, and Hon. Emmanuel Okoduwa, were all restored as chairmen Ethics and Privileges, House Services, Public Petitions, Arts and Culture Committees respectively.  
It is hoped that the State Assembly will continue to sustain this tempo and stick to the bidding of Edo people who elected them and whose overall interests they are constitutionally bound to protect.

Oshiomhole’s non-qualification allegation: Appeal Court to hear Airhiavbere


By Ken Edokpayi
 The Navigator Newspaper

The legal representatives of Major General Charles Ehigie Airhiavbere, (Rtd.), candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the July 14, 2012 Edo gubernatorial election, have filed a strong, water-tight case at the Court of Appeal, holden at Benin, appealing against the decision of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on the 27th September, 2012 that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case of a lack of requisite educational qualifications their client filed against incumbent governor of the state, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, to have contested the July 14, 2012 gubernatorial election in the state.
In a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, Benin, dated 2nd October, 2012, with Comrade Adams Aliyu Oshiomhole, Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Resident Electoral Commissioner (Edo State) and the Returning Officer, Edo State Governorship Election as respondents, lead counsel to Major General Airhiavbere, (Rtd.) Chief Efe L. Akpofure, SAN, MCIArb, raised seventeen (17) grounds of objection against the September 27, 2012 decision of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, citing appropriate particulars of errors and praying the Court of Appeal, Benin, to grant his client (Major General Airhiavbere, (Rtd.) two reliefs: “an order of this Honourable Court setting aside the Ruling of the Tribunal, except the part stating that the ground of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) contained in paragraph 8 of the petition is competent having been in substantial compliance with Section 138 (1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the decision refusing to strike out the 4th and 5thRespondents from the petition;” secondly, “an Order of this Honourable Court remitting the petition to a Tribunal, differently constituted, for hearing and determination.”
Chief Akpofure, SAN, in the notice of appeal, maintained that the learned Chairman and member of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal severally erred in law in the consideration of a number of issues leading to the September 27, 2012 ruling, even as he cited legal principles, sources and authorities to elucidate on the observed errors.
For instance, on Ground 4 in the Notice of Appeal, Chief Akpofure, SAN, observed that “the learned Chairman and member of the Governorship Election Tribunal sitting at Benin City, erred in law when they held that the Tribunal can entertain the motion of the 1st and 3rd – 5th Respondents at this stage of the proceedings and proceeded to resolve the issue whether or not the Tribunal can assume jurisdiction to entertain the said motion at the stage of proceeding in favour of the 1st and 3rd – 5thRespondents.”  
While elucidating on the particulars of error, Chief Akpofure maintained that “the issue canvassed by the petitioner in his written address in opposition to the applications was to the effect that the 1st and 3rd – 5th Respondents, having raised and incorporated their preliminary objection on the point in their replies to the petition, were caught by the provision of paragraph 12(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as Amended) and were therefore estopped from bringing any application and or moving any application bordering on the same issue already raised by them by way of preliminary objection in their replies.”  He said “on the contrary, the 1st and 3rd – 5th Respondents contended in their written addresses that they have the right under the extant law to raise the issue by way of preliminary objection in their replies and at the same time by way of an application before the hearing of the Petition.”
The Notice of Appeal also faulted the position of the Tribunal when it held that “the effect of Section 31 (1) – (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to the pleadings in paragraph 25 of the Petition is that the Petitioner ought to have approached the High Court for the determination of what the Petitioner considered as false in the Form CF001 or any other document submitted to INEC (3rdRespondent) by the 1st Respondent in the 2007 and 2012 Election.”  
It argued that “Section 31(5) did not make it mandatory for a person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate to be false to file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”
While pointing out that Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) did not remove the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear issues raised with regards to non-qualification of a candidate, Chief Akpofure, SAN, in the Notice of Appeal, noted that “the Tribunal failed to appreciate that after an election has been held, it is only an Election Tribunal that can inquire into the qualification of the candidate vide Section 138 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended),” insisting that “whilst the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the qualification of a candidate before an election, it ceases to have jurisdiction once an election has been held.”
Read the particulars of errors on Ground 8 of Chief Akpofure’s Notice of Appeal: “Section 285 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) vests jurisdiction on the trial Tribunal to hear and determine the petition.  Section 138 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to inquire into the qualification of the 1st Respondent.  Section 182 (1) (j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) makes the presentation of a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission a ground for disqualification from contesting Governorship election.”
The Counsels to Major General Airhiavbere, (Rtd.) also faulted the Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal for striking out paragraph 25 of the Petition, insisting that the Petition ought to have been read together with paragraph 24 by the Tribunal before arriving at any conclusion on paragraph 25 and added that “the law does not allow averments in paragraphs in pleadings to be read in isolation.”  Major General Airhiavbere’s Petition had pleaded in paragraph 24 that the 1st Respondent, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, did not meet the minimum educational qualification that is required to contest for the office of the governor of Edo State.  While noting that the minimum qualification is stated clearly in Section 177 (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Notice of Appeal argued that “there is no law or rule of practice that prohibits reliance on facts associated, related or tied to Form CF001 submitted by a candidate to INEC (3rd Respondent) … A community reading of paragraphs 12 (iv), 24 and 25 of the Petition puts it beyond doubt that the academic qualification of the 1st Respondent was being questioned in the Petition.”
No date has, however, been fixed by the Court of Appeal, Benin, to start hearing the appeal as filed by the legal representatives of Major General Charles Airhiavbere, (Rtd.).
    It would be recalled that not many people took Airhiavbere’s allegations against Oshiomhole seriously until the ACN’s lawyers first responded to the case at the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal, pursuing a rather controversial ‘legal angle’ that there was no emphasis on educational qualification in the amended version of the Electoral Act, and, therefore, praying the Tribunal to strike out the case.  This position got a greater majority of the people worried, as they had expected the governor to promptly respond with the unobtrusive presentation of his educational qualifications, and figuratively “.put the Devil to shame.”
Meanwhile, the first respondent and Edo State Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, in a chat with newsmen in Benin City, shortly before the Tribunal ruling of September 27, 2012, had shrugged off Airhiavbere’s petition on his qualifications as “funny”, insisting that academic records at Ruskin College, Oxford, United Kingdom, would vindicate him at the tribunal.
Oshiomhole had in that interview launched a tirade at Airhiavbere, insisting that it was ironic that the PDP’s candidate, whose military and political careers were shrouded in falsehood, was the first to query his educational qualifications.    
  However, the kernel of Airhiavbere’s response to the ACN’s reply to his petition in the suit EPT/ED/G/01/2012, before the contested Tribunal ruling of September 27, 2012 was that Oshiomhole “was not educated up to School Certificate level or its equivalent, contrary to section 177 (d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and infraction of section 182 (1) (j) of the same constitution as amended.”
The PDP’s candidate’s legal team, led by Chief Efe I. Akpofure (SAN), maintained in the petition that “there was no Iyamoh Primary School, Iyamoh in 1957.  The 1st respondent was barred from enrolling into and entering Primary One in 1957, having not attained the minimum age of six years, by the provision of Western Region of Nigeria Gazette no. 17 vol. 5 dated 5th April, 1956.”  The particulars continues, “The 1st respondent dropped out of the Secondary Modern School in the second year and did not complete the mandatory three years course at Blessed Martin Secondary Modern School, Jattu-Uzairue, which he claimed to have attended between 1963 and 1965.”
Said a public affairs’ commentator, Elder Solomon Edosomwan, of the on-going legal saga, “In fact, my brother, it is very difficult to believe what I am reading and hearing about this matter.  If we say PDP, or Airhiavbere, since the party has said it has withdrawn its interest, accuses Oshiomhole of not having the requisite educational qualification, amongst other things he has joined together in his legal contest of the conduct of the last gubernatorial election, I expected Oshiomhole and his legal team to simply laugh it off, stroll to the Tribunal and present the governor’s certificates.  Pronto!  But this rigmarole, going to argue that no educational requirements were mentioned in the Electoral Act, as amended, or pleading that the case be struck off, is a give-away tip that Oshiomhole has no certificate!”
As the issue continues to rage, even as the Court of Appeal, Benin prepares to begin hearing Airhiavbere’s appeal to the Tribunal ruling, some respondents to The Navigator’s questions maintained that the issue of educational qualification should not debar Edo people from continuing to enjoy the dividends of democracy which the Oshiomhole administration has brought to infrastructural development in the state.
Said a respondent, Matthew Okuoghae, “Even if Oshiomhole has no certificate, let them leave him alone for us.  We have seen Professors, Doctorate degree holders and those who said they were highly educated in elective public positions as governors, senators and the likes, what were they able to do for the people?  A man has come, doing good for the greater number of people, and they are saying he has no qualification.  What qualifies a man more than his good heart, his good naturedness to do what is right?  Let the PDP go and rest.  They have no credibility anymore in this state.”
However, “in the eyes of the law, by which civilized and modern states and nations are governed,” according to Osaro Osarenkhoe, Esq., “Airhiavbere has a good case. One of the requisite qualifications, according to section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, is that you must be educated up to secondary school level or its equivalent, before you contest for the office of the governor.  And secondary school level in Nigeria is either you have WAEC, SSCE, GCE or NECO.  These are the equivalents to the one the constitution states.  If you do not have any of these, then, you can’t contest.  That is what it means.
“However, it is very clear.  A man that has the intellect of a professor cannot be a professor if he does not possess a doctorate degree or P.hd and satisfy the requisite publications that would make him qualified for that academic rank.  Or if a boy of 18years is more intelligent than a B.Sc. holder, it does not qualify him to be a B.Sc. holder!  So, the interpretation of the constitution must be done according to the way it is.  It is clear.”
From Uromi, the administrative headquarters of Esan North East local government area came the contribution of Comrade Philip Adams, aka Eduze, chairman of the local government area chapter of the Road Transport Employers Association, RTEAN, who described the certificate tango as “uncalled for, since Oshiomhole’s victory at the last election was total and widespread.”
He noted that with the governor’s performance in the past four years, “the PDP should recommend Oshiomhole for a special award.”  He wondered why Oshiomhole should be made to suffer for the “laxity and error of INEC whose duty it is to disqualify any candidate.”  While insisting that the governor “has no case to answer,” Comrade Adams called on all political parties to use the opportunity of the open-door policy of the Comrade Governor’s to “cooperate to move the state forward.”
However, another Uromi resident, Hon. Friday Ibhazobe Ihemhilin, a PDP member, maintained that Oshiomhole was not the first to be accused of involving in a certificate scam, saying that “his case will not be different.”  He went down memory lane to cite the cases of Salisu Buhari, former Speaker Federal House of Representatives and Evans Ewerem, former Senate President, who were removed from offices based on proofs of certificate fraud.  “The removal of Oshiomhole, therefore, if he is found guilty as alleged,” he noted, “will not only be proper, but in line with the dictates of the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
community leader and practising politician in Igarra, the administrative headquarters of Akoko-Edo local government area, Hon. (Chief) Gabriel Olorunfemi Ojo, while fielding question fromThe Navigator on the controversial issue, remarked that there were always reasons for losers at elections to complain, just as there were ample reasons for the winners to engage in jubilation.
In his words: “The July 14, 2012 governorship election has come and gone.  Yet, government in her wisdom, equally according to the laws of the land, made provisions for anybody who have grievances to go to a properly constituted tribunal.  If a candidate in that election decides to go to court, and his party comes up publicly to say he should not go, then It gives direct indication that the party has dirty skeletons in its cupboard.”
  He said further: “In my own personal opinion, Charles Airhiavbere has good grounds to seek legal redress because I have read the grounds as published in the newspapers.  These legal grounds are very good because more democratic space will be opened.  The intriguing thing now is why are some people pressurizing him not to seek legal redress?  It only goes to show that something is wrong. As for me, I support his going to the tribunal 100%.”
     In his own contributions, Comrade Suru Akpata, a member of the Elders’ Council of the PDP in Akoko Edo local government area, said 'it is very unfortunate that the party leadership is not taking steps to back their candidate. There is no crime in trial. There are certain abnormalities that took place during the election. Charles has every right to go to court as it is incumbent that the party should assist him.”
        The National President, Akoko Edo Students’ and Youths’ Vanguard (ASYV), Comrade Aroyameh Bright, Jnr, in his own view said there was nothing wrong if General Airhiavbere decided to go to the tribunal.   In his words: “Adams Oshiomhole should be bold enough to come out and prove the petition wrong in court.”

PDP Warns National Assembly Leadership To Keep Silent Or Face Consequences

Olisa Metuh
By SaharaReporters, New York
Leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party on Wednesday fired off a warning to the National Assembly, especially, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mallam Aminu Tambuwal, to end the criticisms of the party in public.
The party said it would deal with any of its members who ridiculed or portrayed the party as incapable of disciplining its members.
The National Publicity Secretary of the party, Chief Olisah Metuh, who spoke after the weekly meeting of the party’s National Working Committee, said that the party would deal with any of its members who violate its constitution.
He said, “The NWC exhaustively discussed and frowned at the disagreeable trend where members of the party elected and appointed into federal positions engage in utterances and actions that portray the PDP in bad light and as having no unity of purpose.
"We wish to emphasize that our manifesto as well as our constitution is abundantly clear on the need for all party members, especially the elected representatives of the people to be on the same page at all times in order to ease the realization of our policies and programs for the benefit of the people.
“We therefore warn that the party will invoke the full weight of its disciplinary measures on any erring member who further brings the party to disrepute.”
His comment was a veil reference to the attack on President Goodluck Jonathan when he went to the National Assembly to present the 2013 budget.
The Senate President, Senator David Mark said the Senate and the entire members of the National Assembly would not be used as rubber-stamp for the budget, which described as ‘mere estimate.’
Also, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mallam Aminu Tambuwal lambasted the President and the Federal Government for poor implementation of the 2012 budget.
He also told the President that the House would not abide with the $75 per barrel benchmark the FG used prepare the budget.

REPORT: Patience Jonathan confirms she went through ‘ordeal’ but that God has given her a second chance

Dame Patience Jonathan’s brief remark to the media on her return
“Thank God Almighty for bringing me back safely to Nigeria. Wherever they are good people they are also bad ones. They are few Nigerians that are saying whatever they like not what God planned because God has a plan for all of us. And God has said it all that when two or three are gathered in his name that he will be with them. And Nigerians gathered and prayed for me and God listened and heard their prayers, so I thank God for that,” she told journalists, supporters and friends who received her at the airport.
Even though she also denied being in ‘that hospital’, she did not confirm what her ordeal was
“At the same time I will use this opportunity to tell those few ones that are saying that anybody that goes to villa or Aso Rock will die. They mentioned Abacha, they mentioned Stella Obasanjo, they mentioned Yar’Adua and other people. But those people why didn’t they mention those ones that went there with their families and succeeded and they still came out alive. “We should remember that Aso Rock is the seat of power and that is where God has ordained for we Nigerians that our leaders should rule from and to rule us right. God is wonderful and his infinite mercy endures.
“At the same time, I read in the media where they said I was in the hospital. God almighty knows I have never been to that hospital, I don’t even know the hospital they mentioned.
“I have to explain what God has done for me. I do not have terminal illness, neither did I do any cosmetic surgery, talk more or less of tommy tuck. My husband loves me as I am and I am pleased with how God created me I cannot add anything.
“But at the same time, I will use this opportunity to thank my beloved husband and my children and my staff in general and all Nigerians for standing by me during my trial time.
“God has given be a second chance to come and work with women of Nigeria, children and the less privileged. I have come to serve Nigeria, I have come to work with Nigerians, I am there for them. Once more I am pleased to be back. I love Nigerians they are my family,” she added.
LibertyReport