I need police protection too

It was US President Barack Obama, who, during his maiden visit to Africa, declared that the continent needed to create strong institutions, and de-emphasise ‘strong leaders’, if it is ever to develop. Obama’s line of thought, of course, is one that resonates with several African leaders. And, in fact, many of them have continued to parrot that stance ever since in their public speeches.

But that is as far as it goes. The reality on ground, however, is that these same leaders remain the biggest stumbling blocks to the creation of such sustainable institutions. Of course, the reason for this opposition is not farfetched: With democracy still tied to the whims and caprices of pseudo-democratic autocrats in many African countries, building strong institutions essentially restricts the ability of such leaders to impose their selfish will on the polity. It would make it impossible to use the resources and apparatus of state to pursue selfish interest of those in power, as is becoming very obvious in Nigeria with the ongoing PDP crisis.

Take the police, for instance: If we had a strong institution by way of a well established, well funded and independent police, would we have got to the present situation whereby the police inexplicably went to seal off the secretariat of the New-PDP at Maitama, Abuja? When the people are still in court? If PDP was in crisis and threatening national security, why did the police not also seal off Wadata Plaza? How did force headquarters determine which faction is now the authentic PDP? Who even gave the policemen at the Eagle Square venue of last month’s controversial mini-convention the order to fence out delegates from Adamawa State? Who told the police that only those Adamawa PDP members loyal to Bamanga Tukur should be allowed into the venue? So, we might as well as: Which faction of the PDP does the Nigeria Police belong to? I suppose, we all know the answer already.

And while we are on this same police issue, why is it now that serving senator and former governor of Kwara State, Bukola Saraki and Alhaji Abubakar Kawu Baraje (factional chairman of the PDP) are fraternising with the New PDP that the police have suddenly remembered that they are not entitled to police escorts and, therefore, decided to withdraw the escorts? Why were these policemen not withdrawn when other government and party property with Baraje, for instance, were taken away at the expiration of his tenure as PDP chairman? Bukola Saraki stopped being governor since May 2011; why has it taken all of two years for police to realise they should have recalled his escorts? If Saraki is out of office and would, therefore, have to apply to police for escorts (and wait for police to appraise application and approve or refuse), what can be said about the Amaechi case in Rivers State? Can we just put a little finesse to this dirty politicking? Or, who are the police really working for?

I am sure that by the time Saraki makes his next visit to the EFCC, to answer to allegations that are now increasingly appearing more political than economic, we would probably be hearing a different story. But there might not be any new facts. It would just be the same old unsubstantiated allegations, which have been recycled over and over since the last six or so years. Of course, it is these same unintelligent tactics that make people suspect that indeed, Saraki, like Amaechi, is paying for his role in the Nigerian Governors Forum crisis. Or, maybe, it is something that has to do with the subsidy cabal? I learnt that the new power brokers had wanted to come after Saraki, using the subsidy issue but beat a retreat when it turned out that pushing the case further would expose some well-connected friends of government. Next, they tried the failed-bank route but again discovered that they’d be messing up even more connected friends of government. Now, as the Saraki nightmare won’t go away, they have begun to thrash around for just anything.

Of course, I am not in doubt that they would eventually get him. There is this belief in my area that nobody can fight government. Once government comes after you, it will ultimately get you. If the IRS people don’t get you, then the airport people will ground your private jet. If that does not work, then, they will get your lawmakers to impeach you, suspend you from National Assembly or from the party. Government agencies and other friends of government will stop doing business with your companies. If you have waiver to import anything, they will revoke it. It there is incentive on anything you produce or export, they will withdraw it. They will, as we say in our local parlance, bring federal might to bear on you. That has been the bane of our democracy. And that is what is now playing out again, as the PDP crisis gets messier.

Yet, some people are still saying Jonathan is not baring his fangs enough. And I ask: With a ‘weak president’ like Jonathan, who needs a ‘strong president’? For the truth is: All those who are today abusing Jonathan and saying he is a weak president are those who have unwittingly come to accept the illegal practice of using the enormous powers at the disposal of the Nigerian president to crush political opponents. They readily cite instances from the Obasanjo years when the Presidency unleashed the Police, Army, EFCC, ICPC, Inland Revenue Service, Customs, NAFDAC, CBN, FAAN, NCAA, Revenue Allocation, and just whatever regulatory body that was relevant on the persons, businesses, families of political opponents. For them, economic strangulation, persecution, extra-judicial detention, intimidation, media trial and conviction were all part of politicking.

I don’t even want to talk too much on this matter or else someone at Force Headquarters would suddenly remember that the Lagos backwater neighbourhood where I live is not among those neighbourhoods entitled to police patrol and protection. I would just get home this night and discover that the IGP has reappraised the security threat in my area and come to the conclusion that we are too inconsequential for the police to ‘waste’ its scarce resources protecting us and has consequently banned police patrol teams from coming into the area. After all, who, in my backwater, is as important as Saraki, Rotimi Amaechi or Baraje? And if the security escorts of these big men can be withdrawn, who am I to take police protection for granted?

But, jokes apart, there is always this morbid sense of excitement that sweeps through me every time I hear that police have withdrawn the security details attached to one big man or the other. I always feel that all these big men should be left to drive through the streets without this added protection, return to unguarded homes and go to sleep at night, knowing that like the rest of us, they are at the mercy of the gentlemen of the night. I always believe that it is only when they feel the insecurity as we all do that they can seriously commit to fund the police better and take the issue of security for the populace more seriously.

Moreover, I believe the big men have acquired enough – either legitimately or otherwise – to hire the best private security outfit in the world to watch over them, their family and their’ loot’.

For me, there is simply no fairness in devoting the largest chunk of our country’s security personnel, equipment and taxpayers money to secure the very political class and elite, who are largely responsible for the insecurity in the land while the rest of us, victims of their greed, mindless looting and mismanagement, are again left to bear the brunt of insecurity that is a direct consequence of their failure. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Be that as it may, I still believe that even among thieves, there is still honour.  That is why I am piqued at the way those in government today use the instruments of state and the apparatus of government to arm-twist and intimidate political opponents.

LAST LINE:

I am sure everyone would now be asking: If you were Jonathan, what would you do? Would you just sit there and watch governors and other political opponents overrun you? My answer is simple: That is why we need strong institutions and not strong leaders. The same thing Jonathan and Tukur are doing at the centre is what virtually all the governors, including those fighting Jonathan today, replicate in their states. None of them can broach any opposition in their domain. Like the Presidency, they also use state funds to fun their personal political ambitions. They use their taxmen to harass opponents’ businesses and even use ministry of lands and urban development to seal off and, sometimes, pull down opponents’ buildings, citing the flimsiest of regulation infractions.

We just can’t go on like this. Let’s genuinely build strong institutions.

TheSun

As the PDP war spreads…

Since the outbreak of the civil war in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), there has been unease in some quarters (at times openly expressed) that unless the crisis is resolved in time, it may lead to disintegration of the Federal Republic. That is cheap blackmail unconsciously or even deliberately aimed at reducing the Nigerian Federation to mere PDP.

Nigerians must, therefore, be bold enough to resist any idea that PDP is Nigeria to the extent that anytime there is a crack, it must be patched at whatever cost. The PDP is just one of the numerous political parties in Nigeria and if the party dies, the Nigerian Federation will stay afloat.

The raging civil war in PDP is like a time bomb due, all along, to explode at one time or another. There was no way the party could have continued in its previous form indefinitely. Neither would the party return to its business as before. If ever there were some altruistic ones among them, such were overwhelmed by the others (the majority), who commandeered Nigeria and partitioned our national resources without any concern or attention for the interests of Nigerian indigenes. Recall how Western powers partitioned Africa among themselves at the Berlin Conference in 1885?

In the present PDP crisis, two issues are involved: (a) survival/freedom of Nigerians and  (b) survival/interests of PDP leaders. The two are as distinct as life and death. The possible outcome? Only one of the following two: (a) A completely weakened PDP, which will be a relief for the Nigerian Federation or (b) A PDP stronger in its stranglehold over the country, leaving it to Nigerians to tolerate. In either case, the choice is ours. Why then should we equate Nigeria to PDP? We dare PDP leaders to destroy themselves and their party. Nobody will lose sleep, as there will be carnival all over Nigeria.
Meanwhile, PDP’s civil war is taking different courses, some of them illegal and unconstitutional.

The most dangerous is the spinelessness of police authorities, which caved in to be used for settling political scores. More disturbing is the speculation in the press that the same police authorities even admitted the order to discharge duties along political interest is unconstitutional. Obviously, that was unconvincing public relations aimed to portray police hierarchy’s helplessness when directed to carry out unconstitutional act.

Instead, we should, by now, in Nigeria be in a situation where police leadership, especially on self-admission or recognising the unlawful nature of a directive, is bold enough to point out to whoever gave the directive, that controversial content. Failure to point out the non-political nature of police duties under the constitution is in itself an act of disloyalty to the Nigerian authorities concerned. If on the other hand, police authorities were still directed to break the law, a reputable police boss will maintain his stand.

Of course, the police boss concerned may be sacked. So what? Were his predecessors not sacked? The matter would then become a public issue to be addressed once and for all. There is no law in Nigeria that empowers either the Inspector-General of Police or his appointor to withdraw the security detail of public figures, who are statutorily entitled to security of their lives and property.

There are implications for such abuse of office. The first implication is that governance is a personal or indeed family property to be dished out in crumbs, what, in civilised societies, are official entitlement of public figures. The second implication is that governance along security (of persons) line is some kind of largesse solely at the discretion of a Nigerian president. This is wrong. Every Nigerian citizen is entitled to personal security ensured by the state and the more politically exposed is the citizen, the more statutorily deserving is the beneficiary.

Why should a state governor’s ADC be withdrawn or even replaced without his knowledge and indeed consent? Why should a former state governor’s security detail be withdrawn, all on the grounds of political difference known to Nigerians? This misuse of power started under ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo when he withdrew the security details of the then vice-president Atiku Abubakar. Since the matter was not challenged in a court of law, the same unlawful conduct is being exercised under President Goodluck Jonathan. And nobody could tell him the position under the law? Even if he has the power (actually he does not), should such be displayed to show that “I can deal with you”?

Would an American President, an Indian or Australian Prime Minister (as heads of identical Nigerian federation) withdraw or even change security details of a state governor on account of political differences within the same party or with rival political parties?

It was similarly wrong to send armed policemen to the property of political rivals. Again, the dangerous precedent was set by Obasanjo when he sent mobile policemen, armed to the teeth, at 2 o’clock in the morning to the official residence of the then Senate president Chuba Okadigbo, purportedly in search of mace. There was no official report from the Senate president on disappearance of the mace. But for political differences, Obasanjo tried to intimidate Okadigbo.

A new sector of the civil war in the PDP was opened when President Jonathan sacked six cabinet ministers and three ministers of state. Over the past one year, there had been speculations on the exercise. In fact, Jonathan, on an occasion, publicly hinted he was to reshuffle his cabinet. And at the height of the Boko Haram crisis, the same Jonathan complained that Boko Haram had infiltrated sympathisers his cabinet.

Yet, the timing of dismissal of the ministers is instructive. Information Minister, Labaran Maku (now overseeing Defence Ministry), was understandably being official when he said exit of the ministers had nothing to do with the crisis. But even if that was not suspicious, surely the personalities affected aptly reflected the partisan divisions of the PDP’s on-going internal conflict. Despite this bitter truth, President Jonathan could not be faulted either on the timing or the ex-ministers concerned. In war, you employ every weapon at your disposal. The only fallout is that the cabinet reshuffle makes the PDP crisis bloodier.

The highlights of the exercise show that President Jonathan seemed set for total showdown with either known political enemies or ordinary suspects like ex-president Obasanjo. Earlier, the Minister of State for Youths, Inuwa Abdulkadir (from Sokoto State), had been dropped on account of being acolyte of Governor Wammako (one of the seven PDP state governors opposed to Jonathan’s second term bid) and House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, who himself is maintaining solid silence on the PDP internal crisis.

Ministers dropped or elevated owed their fate to political affiliation. It was also not clear if Boko Haram ties influenced the loss of jobs for any of the ministers. If it did, there should be no surprise. Former president Obasanjo is visible in the on-going reconciliation efforts of the PDP crisis but there is no doubt he is merely being tolerated by the Jonathan faction. In fact, stories were leaked to the press last week of Aso Rock distrust of Obasanjo’s sincerity  in his seeming neutral posture.
Accordingly, Obasanjo’s very patronage, which earned Gbemiga Ashiru his stint as Minister of Foreign Affairs, also caused him the dismissal. The ex-minister occupied the slot for Ogun State.

It is not clear if Jonathan will pacify Obasanjo by allowing him to provide a replacement. But if Jonathan’s countenance is dissected, especially in the current PDP crisis, he may most likely seize the replacement of Ogun ministerial slot as an opportunity to further undermine Obasanjo’s political influence in Ogun State by requesting the Kashamu faction of PDP in Ogun State (Obasanjo’s political antagonists) to nominate a replacement for the minister.

It is also a different matter if, either way, that will necessarily translate into votes for Jonathan in Ogun State.
For the dismissed minister of State for Defence, Erelu Olusola Obada, it was something like triple jeopardy. First, she was the nominee of former governor of Osun State, Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, and, therefore, of South-West under ex-President Obasanjo. Erelu Obada was, therefore, a ministerial victim of Jonathan’s determination to diminish Obasanjo’s political influence in South-West. Second, Erelu Obada was also a victim of the on-going PDP war in which Oyinlola is on the other side against Jonathan’s 2015 ambition.

Furthermore, the ex-minister of State for Defence was for seven years, the deputy to ex-governor Oyinlola in Osun State. When, therefore, the civil war broke in PDP, it was a case of head or tail, she lost. In a tense situation of stand up to be counted, Erelu Obada marshaled the remnant old PDP in Osun State to distance themselves from former governor Oyinlola’s challenge to Jonathan’s political muscle on the national branch of the old PDP. But like a gallant soldier, she did not survive the cabinet re-shuffle.

Similarly, there was no surprise in the dismissal of National Planning minister Shamsudeen Usman, on the slot of Kano State where Governor Kwakwanso rules the waves against Goodluck Jonathan’s 2015 race plans and in the current PDP war.
In fact, any minister from the North; especially North-west zone, can only enjoy Jonathan’s trust through sheer luck. Little wonder, therefore, that education minister, Rukuayat Rufai, had to go. In any case, Jonathan had to compensate his loyalist from Rivers State, Minister of State, Nyesom Nwike, by elevating him to substantive Minister of Education.
Who but Nwike had been doing the dog bite in Rivers State against Governor Rotimi Amaechi on behalf of Goodluck Jonathan for the 2015 showdown?

With the dismissal of his nominees from South-west as ministers, unless, of course, he is privileged to name substitutes, it is doubtful if Obasanjo can exercise any influence in resolving the PDP crisis. On his part, it is also doubtful if President Jonathan can hope for any settlement of the PDP crisis on his terms. He does not seem to be in such mood.
And so, the PDP civil war spreads.

TheSun

Anambra’s Field of the half baked: A response to Okey Ndibe

By Igboeli Arinze

I naturally have an appeal for Okey Ndibe’s write ups and I give it to him. Since 2007 his “Offside Musings” has been a regular delight of mine. In most of his pieces he sends the message even to the most adamant of his antagonists, and vituperate as you like, he’s done his bit, and will give no hoot even if you opened the gates of hell itself. Now that’s Ndibe for you.

However, Okey Ndibe’s recent column, last Tuesday stirred me a little, I had chanced upon it when some fellow,  a fan of the All People’s Grand Alliance, produced an excerpt of the article, where he had criticized Senator Chris Ngige for not living to his billing in the Senate, I scratched my head and wondered if there was another Okey Ndibe, or whether the writer was up to some mischief and had decided to make use of the Okey’s name to advance his futile course of marketing his candidate.

Due diligence, required that I checked up Ndibe’s page on facebook or on Sahara Reporters, and there it  stood, the write up like some old principal of yore, handed out lashes of koboko to his non-impressive students, first in line  were the duo of Andy Uba and his present nemesis, Tony Nwoye,  next was the leadership of the All Progressives Grand Alliance, for disqualifying some of her worthy candidates to pave the way for Peter Obi’s stooge in a Willie Obiano, an Executive Director of Fidelity Bank, a bank, Peter Obi is alleged to have a controlling interest in. For Obiano himself, Ndibe largely portrayed him as one more given to ethereal matters of life than the weightier dimensions of governance.

Next in line was Senator Ngige, whom Ndibe described as the top of the pack. At first it did seem that principal Ndibe’s whip would not crack, as he recalled Ngige’s immense achievements in the past, then came the crack, Ndibe had erroneously labeled Ngige as a poor performer in the Senate, accusing Ngige of going to sleep, thus losing a  little of the glitter his political image had exhibited since 2003.  The PDP then takes its share of strokes, first for its existence as a threat to a free and fair poll in Anambra and then for its fielding of two candidates for the forthcoming polls.

Ndibe then calls up Tony Nwoye and Andy Uba again for more strokes, owing to another litany of offences of which possession of false academic credentials, did stick out like some sore thumb for both of them.  Last but not the least was the new enfant terrible of Anambra politics, Mr. Ifeanyi Uba, who Ndibe berated for crass exhibitionism and in not many words described Uba’s gubernatorial ambition as morally bankrupt.

I am largely stirred because it seems that Okey Ndibe did not get his facts right on the Ngige angle of the write up and I say this with authority. Of the three senators representing Anambra in the National Assembly, Senator Ngige has topped the pack, superbly contributing his quota to debates on the floor of the senate as well as during oversight functions. Are we quick to forget how the Alor-born senator whilst performing one of his many oversight functions, recovered for PHCN container loads of barges which had earlier been auctioned by the Nigerian Customs? Can we not remember the senator’s speech on the floor of the senate where he shot down by virtue of his oratory the anti people bill by name the Trade Union (Consolidation) Act?

Can a Senator who has attracted more constituency projects to his people than his peers not only in the state but also in the country be said to have gone to sleep? On the issue of bills, it seems that Okey Ndibe has been bitten by the bandwagon bug; perhaps sadly he has bought into the falsehood sold by the senator’s detractors, otherwise he would have known that Senator Ngige did sponsor four bills in the senate, namely the National Health Bill, the National Health Insurance Bill, Anti Gay Bill and Farmers Registration Council Bill , also  Senator Ngige also moved a plethora of motions, most notable amongst these is the motion requesting that the Federal Government accord Professor Chinua Achebe, a state burial.

One would generally agree that these bills are not only significant but also have immense contributions to the welfare of Nigerians in general. Can an old woman learn new dance steps at her old age? Will Senator Ngige, after making his marks as a Deputy Director, Federal Ministry of Health in charge of hospital services, and Governor of Anambra State now throw away the same values which have helped him thus far?
Senator Ngige as I speak now happens to be the only senator serving in seven committees in the senate, this obviously is an attribute of the senator’s inclination to hard work, in each of these committees the senator has been the toast of his fellow lawmakers, his Chairman in the Senate Committee of Power and Mines, Senator Philip Aduda describes Ngige as a goal getter and workaholic, even President Goodluck Jonathan at some point in time has paid glowing tributes to the man Ngige.

Ngige is surely no half baked candidate and should not erroneously have been featured in that piece, to describe the senator as mediocre and underwhelming is rather misleading. On residual goodwill, let me assure the Brown University Professor that ndi Anambra do not suffer from amnesia, armed with his good works and past achievements, the senator will surely win the gubernatorial election, one man, one vote.
One cannot accuse Okey Ndibe of mischief, far from it, but one would permit me to accuse Okey Ndibe of missing the point totally. Responsible journalism requires that one seeks truths from facts, that one checks one’s facts before going to the press with it. A writer like Okey Ndibe has a moral burden to ensure this.

TheSun

Oranyan was never a king in Ile-Ife, says Alaafin of Oyo

From GBENGA ADESUYI, Ibadan

The controversy between Oyo and Ile-Ife in Oyo and Osun states over the celebration of Oranyan festival resurfaced last weekend as Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi 111 declared that the legendary Oranyan was not in any of the four ruling/royal lineages of Ile-Ife as being claimed by Oni of Ife.

The two Yoruba towns had engaged in controversies over which of them had the right to hold the festival in view of the relationship of the legend with them.

Ile-Ife had insisted that Oyo had no right celebrating the Oranyan festival without seeking approval from its monarch, the Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade, Olubuse 11.

But Oba Adeyemi, who instituted the festival in 2012, argued that there was no other place central to the celebration of Oranyan festival than his kingdom, Oyo, where he said Oranyan once ruled as the monarch, a fact that made him a direct offspring of the legend as against Ile-Ife.

While speaking at Aganju Fore Court of the ancient palace of the Alaafin, during the grand finale of the 2013 edition of the festival, Oba Adeyemi maintained that there was no way the people of Ile-Ife could lay claim to Oranyan as the Oyo because, he was never a monarch in Ile-Ife the way he did in Oyo.

He described as falsification of facts, the claim that Oranyan ruled in Ile-Ife, noting that to further rubbish such claim, was the disclosure by some that he was the second king of Ile-Ife while in another breath, he was said to be the fourth king.

Alaafin said nothing could be farther from the truth than such claim, stressing that without mischief, none of the four ruling houses in Ile-Ife could claim to have been the descendant of Oranyan, “whereas, in our case, in the ancient Oyo town, Oranyan was our progenitor as one of our founding fathers.

“But we will not in anyway diminish from the fact that he was the founder of Oyo Kingdom.”

The grand finale of the week-long celebration attended by traditional rulers from across the Yorubaland and the Republic of Benin as well as top government functionaries, led by the state Deputy Governor, Moses Adeyemi witnessed diverse cultural displays and festival lecture.

TheSun

Anambra guber: More confusion over APGA, PDP candidates

•As Court gives Ukachukwu victory over Nwoye
•Maxi Okwu submits Obidigbo’s name as APGA candidate

From Geoffrey Anyanwu, Awka

The confusion over the candidates of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) worsened yesterday with a ruling by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, that Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu be made PDP governorship candidate in the place of Comrade Tony Nwoye.
This is coming barely 24 hours after the Federal High Court, Awka, granted an ex-parte order, directing that the names of two factional candidates of APGA, Mr. Willie Obiano and Dr. Chike Obidigbo, be submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), pending the hearing of the substantive suit.
Also yesterday, the APGA factional chairman, Chief Maxi Okwu submitted the name of his own gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Obidigbo, to INEC in line with the orders of the Awka Federal High Court.
The ruling by the Port Harcourt High Court against Nwoye was consequent upon a suit filed by Ukachukwu, who was a gubernatorial aspirant and runner up in the primary election that produced Nwoye in which he alleged that Nwoye forged tax clearance certificate and other relevant documents.
He had in his suit prayed the court to rule that Nwoye was not the candidate of the PDP on ground of forgery of certificates and urged the court to declare him candidate of the PDP in place of Nwoye.
Presiding Judge, Justice S.A Aliyu granted his (Ukachukwu) prayers and declared that Nwoye was culpable to the alleged crime of forgery and ruled that in his place Ukachukwu should be made candidate of the PDP.
However, a member of Nwoye’s campaign organisation and former member of Anambra State House of Assembly, Hon. Uchenna Umerie, confirmed the court ruling but said it was a non issue, as the PDP had closed the issue of party candidacy and submitted Tony Nwoye’s name as candidate of the party.
Prince Ukachukwu in his reaction told newsmen that “I am already in Abuja to present myself as the candidate of the PDP in Anambra State and I am happy that the court has given its final judgment that due to the forgery, Tony Nwoye is not the candidate of the party and the second person in the primaries becomes the candidate of the party and there is nothing anybody can do about it.”
On the issue of Senator Andy Uba, Ukachukwu said: “Andy Uba never took part in the primary election of PDP. There was no primary election that produced him as candidate of the PDP so, he cannot be claiming to be candidate of the party. So, Andy Uba is not in the picture at all.”
Meanwhile, Chief Okwu told newsmen yesterday that he had submitted Obidigbo’s name, saying: “Yes, it has been done in line with what the court order said and the matter in court will continue until it is determined. We still have time to dispense with the matter in court. So, there is nothing to fear about and APGA will have one candidate.” In his own reaction the state chairman of APGA, Chief Mike Kwentoh, called for patience for INEC to make known who the party’s candidate is.
The state, as at press time, is under serious tension, as the confusion seemed unending, though it was giving parties like All Progressives Congress (APC)  and Labour Party (LP) and their candidates, Senator Chris Ngige and Dr. Ifeanyi Ubah greater opportunities to penetrate the APGA and PDP ranks.

TheSun

Merger Parties Insist on Endorsing Keyamo

 Mr. Festus Keyamo



Shola Oyeyipo
The three main political parties involved in the merger that gave birth to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Delta State have insisted that Lagos lawyer, Mr. Festus Keyamo, has been adopted for the state central senatorial  district by-electionin the state.

A chieftain of the ANPP, Chief Tom Ikimi, had recently denied that the party adopted Keyamo as its candidate for the by-election.

But the chairmen, executive members, state officers and leaders of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) in the district yesterday openly reaffirmed that the lawyer would get their support to pick the party's ticket.

The party men in a resolution adopted after an emergency meeting held on Monday, stated that Keyamo was adopted by the parties.

"We stand by our earlier resolution adopting Keyamo as our preferred choice for the Delta Central senatorial elections.

"We see nothing wrong in giving our support to one aspirant over another.
"We are not saying this is the final outcome of the party primaries or selection process, but an internal political choice.

"That we totally disagree with the statement credited to Ikimi, that APC is a brand new party without members. The registered members of the three legacy parties, namely: ACN, ANPP and CPC are automatic foundation members of APC. This is a merger of existing parties and not a new party the said."

According to the group, the resolve to adopt Keyamo was strictly a Delta Central affair, and would be devoid of imposition from any other zone."

ThisDay

To Intervene In Syria Or Not…? By Hannatu Musawa

Hannatu Musawa

Should the U.S. intervene in Syria with Military Action or should it not…? That is the question. More than a year has passed since the start of the Syrian civil war and just as the violent crackdown on those who oppose the government of Bashar al-Assad has become more intense, so has the pressure on America and the West to get directly involved with military action. But while the prospect of military action is easier said than done, a look back at the metamorphic disaster that the 2003 Iraq War was for America, the strategic catastrophe that is the invasion in Afghanistan and the cataclysmic misadventure of sending troops to Lebanon in 1982 under the Reagan administration, the last thing the United States needs to do is get involved in another Middle East war. The United States has, no doubt, had its fair share in its un-judicious Middle Eastern fiascos and for the most part, American military intervention in Syria, at this time, would be most unwise.
Most would agree that some action needs to be taken in Syria. With as many as 8,000 civilians reported to have been killed since the start of the war and reports that chronicle an utmost level of brutality from both sides in the exchange, it would be unbecoming and immoral for the world to sit and just watch innocent civilians being slaughtered. Even on the scale of the most recent wars that the world has witnessed, namely during the Arab Spring, the present brutality in Syria surpasses all imagination. Every day, men, women, and children are imperiled with random bouts of artillery shelling, tanks in the streets and sniper bombardment. Now we are hearing of the use of chemical weapons. The number of people killed in Syria in this war is now five times the number of people killed in Libya in 2011 during the clampdown by the Muammar Gadaffi regime on the rebels during the Libyan revolution.
So far, the United States has had limited involvement in Syria in the form of sanctions against the Assad regime. But even if the United States had hoped on putting more effort in the war and bringing in its outside military force, it was never going to be an easy task. Unlike Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, toppling the Assad regime is somewhat more complicated. One the one hand, America's arch nemesis, Iran is standing firm behind Syria with reported military assistance and soft landing mechanisms for some of the sanctions imposed on Syria. And on the other hand, the super significant powers of Russia and China have both exhibited their staunch disapproval of U.S efforts and their support of Syria, most recently through a rejection of a United Nations Security Council resolution on the matter. As of now, there is no international consensus for action in Syria at this time that the United States can actually act on.
So given these state of facts and given the general belief that despite the state of facts, the United States has a moral imperative to step in to stop the escalating humanitarian crisis, what options are left for the United States in this sensitive situation?
For decades, vital universal security questions have focused almost entirely on this one question; should the United States utilize its own military force to deal with similar problems that escalate throughout the world? This is a corollary of America's unsurpassed military might in the world, America's under investment of diplomatic and economic tools of power, and low expectations of other countries taking responsibility for their own security affairs and events in their immediate region. But even with the responsibility placed on America by virtue of its position as the world’s sole super power, why America always needs to answer the question of intervention with a strategy that includes fighter jets, boots on the ground and military might rather than alternative tools at America's disposal, seems predictable to most spectators that have come to view America as a trigger happy nation with a gung-ho desire to intimidate its foes with its military might. Americans have George Bush to thank for this reputation. No matter how bad the situation is on ground, America has every reason to think twice about directly involving itself in military intervention in Syria or any other nation for that matter.
If America must impose itself in the Syrian crisis, there are other options that they should consider before the prospect of an outside military force. The United States can arm the various opposition groups in Syria and provide intelligence and logistic support for them in the war without going in them-selves. America can furthermore put more effort to reach out to these dissident and opposition groups in Syria and consider whether they will engage with them as the rightful representatives of the Syrian people, with a view towards getting international recognition; setting up a no-fly or no-tank zone of the type used in Iraq in the 1990s; and strengthening rebel forces with better resources, such as air support, intelligence, and special operations forces liaisons, which were used with great effectiveness to support anti-Taliban fighters during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. They can also encourage other concerned nations, especially those in the region, to strategically and financially support the democracy movements in Syria and to fund reconstruction in the nation should the Assad regime be eventually overthrown.
America could also make use of the social network and encourage the departure of the Assad regime with a flood of pre-emptive campaigns, using social media and other available media.
A major effort to try and come to some consensus between the Arab League, the major European governments, and the United States needs to be made in order to encourage Moscow and Beijing to step back from their current posture of supporting the Assad regime.
America would have to continue working with key countries that have strong economic links to Syria and have the strongest potential to provide assistance and safe harbour to Syrians looking to leave the conflict zone. Courting countries such as Turkey and Iraq would be strategically beneficial to the America and the West in getting support to isolate the Assad regime in Syria. Other options could include the United States working diplomatically with the members of the Arab league that want to oust the Assad regime. Already, there has been a new Arab League proposal to send a UN peacekeeping force to Syria. And although the body proposed does not appear to have the authority or firepower to respond to any breaches of the peace with force, the inclusion of the Arab league in fast forwarding the end to the assault in Syria is paramount to any peace deal or end game that will eventually take place there.
Rather than an outright military approach in Syria by the United States that is bound to end up inflaming the region's sectarian divisions and remaking the mistakes that the Bush administration made in Iraq, the United States would be best advised to not engage their military in the conflict but to continue its intervention with a focus on diplomacy aimed at getting other countries to pull their weight and exert their influence to stop the violence in Syria. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, President Obama spoke of America's new approach to foreign policy to be one that put greater emphasis on the responsibilities of other countries. In furtherance of that policy, the United States should strike a balance by offering support to Syrians seeking peaceful change and isolating the Assad government, with a strong focus on what other countries like Turkey and Iraq are willing and capable of doing on Syria.
The civil war in Syria risks drawing regional actors into a wider battle and the greater responsibility for intervention and addressing the conflict should come from key regional actors not the United States… not the West. Of course, the United States and the West have a role to play, but their role should remain engaged and be prepared to intervene using alternative measures rather than producing a military solution right here, right now.
The revolution in Syria is part of the Arab Spring of which the foundation is for the benefit of the democracy movement. And even though the journey for the attainment of the democratic movement in Syria is cloaked in the garb of a bloody civil war and with each new civilian death a piece of our conscience is chipped away, the question of whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria with Military Action should be one that is replied with an unequivocal 'Nay'… Yes, while the United states has a moral responsibility to support the Syrian people, that moral responsibility should come in the form of the super power doing everything short of direct military intervention to show their support.

Saharareporters