Welcome To America, Pres. Jonathan By Rudolf Ogoo Okonkwo

Correct Me If I Am Right By Rudolf Okonkwo

Dear President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, PhD, GCFR: Welcome to America, Mr. President. I’m glad you are not just in America but you are, as we say here in Brooklyn, in my neck of the woods.
I’m sorry I have not been able to come to see you. I’ve been kind of busy, you know. It may surprise you to know that in this part of the world, there is no free lunch. The best that I’ve seen is buy one and get one free. I actually wanted to pull my kids out of school to have them line up on 7th Avenue to wave the Nigerian flag as you pass. But their teachers threatened to call social services and have them taken away from me by the state for neglect.
I’m trying to eke out a living over here. I’ve tried several times to see if President Obama will give me an oil block but I’m consistently told it won’t happen. I’ve even donated $50 dollars here and there to the Democratic Party but the man just sends me thank you notes. Na thank you me and my family go chop?
Anyway, how has your visit been so far? I understand that you have been having a great time. You drive around well paved roads with closed sewage systems; you enjoy constant supply of light without the sound of generators hurting your ears; and you breathe air that is not polluted by poisonous gases coming off generators. I’m sure that the water pressure from your presidential suite’s bathroom shower is powerful. No houseboy is needed to carry a bucket of water upstairs for you.
I know that you have no need for it, but if you try the stove in your kitchen there, gas will come out. No need carrying gas cylinders around. Just so you know, these things do not happen only in expensive hotels like yours. It happens even in the poorest part of Alabama and Tennessee.
I know what you will say- Rome was not built in a day. Yes. It’s the usual excuse that I hear. Please do me a favor, when you come back from listening to the First Lady address African First Ladies, please tune to History channel on your TV. You will see that when America was 53 years old, it had structure and strategic planning and was guided by ethical people who had purpose and love for country. If age makes all the difference, how come Mexico is where it is today while America is somewhere else? How long ago did Haiti gain its independence compared to Sweden?
I had wanted to ask if you have had the chance to go into New York City’s subway, but then I remembered that you move around the city in a limo. The network was built over a century ago and continues to be expanded and upgraded. It moves 2 million New Yorkers around every day. It was not abandoned soon after the opening ceremony the way Abuja National Stadium was for which you needed to spend N300 million to renovate.
I’m sure you breezed through the Central Park. That is a modern wonder of nature reserve. It has been preserved there for over a century. No politician has sliced it up and given to his wife and business associates.  In a city where land is more expensive than gold, the 1317 square miles of space, at $1000 a square foot, is worth over 39 trillion dollars. Mouthwatering, isn't it?
Anyway, I saw you on MSNBC as you rang the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange yesterday. Cool. It must have felt good.  Olusegun Obasanjo, despite all his garagara, never got the chance to hold that hammer and strike. I’m happy for you. I’m happy that you have seen where Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke did her internship. Where she learned all the abracadabra she implemented at our stock exchange.
I’m really sorry I could not make it to the luncheon you had with Nigerian professionals on Sunday. Well, do you want to know why? Your ambassadors told me that the dog ate my invitation. I guess that’s diplomatic speak for “enemy of the state.” I understand that it went very well. You came, you saw, you mesmerized. A friend of mine who was there told me that you made it clear that your enemies must allow you to govern because you won the election.
I feel your pain. If I were around, I would have told you to ask President Obama how things have been for him when you met him on Monday. He, too, won- twice. Yet, some still do not believe he is a legitimate president. Some still demand that he shows his original birth certificate before he is allowed into the White House. There are people in the US Congress who have dedicated the rest of their careers to oppose anything Obama supports. They do everything to undermine laws like Obamacare. But Obama is not going about complaining that they must allow him to govern. He is governing. He understands that it comes with the territory.
You know what, try turning on that TV in your $9000 a night hotel room. Tune to Fox news. Watch it for just 30 seconds and tell me what you think? I bet you, after watching Fox news for one hour, you will never say that you’re the most criticized president in the world. Imagine Obama, acting like you by not making public his assets, he would have been ran out of town- impeached and banished to Hawaii.
I understand that you told Obama during your meeting with him that he must help fix Nigeria. Ok, Mr. President, I guess people around you did not tell you this. This is America, Jack. Here we refrain from using “must.” The use of “must” almost always illicits the response, “who the F…  do you think you are?”
The world may be broken but for Obama’s people, it’s been a pretty good life. If you doubt me, just check their life expectancy and compare it to ours. He must not fix Africa for his world to keep rolling. He must not fix Nigeria for his world to keep rising. It’s you, the man “we” elected, who must fix Nigeria. That’s why we elected you. You start it, pursue it with all your might, and then, if you need help, maybe Obama can help you. You don’t say that you know corrupt people in Nigeria but won’t mention their names because they will attack you and then beg Obama to come and fix Nigeria. Common, man!
I was told that you will be speaking at the United Nations today. You will speak on behalf of the government and people of Nigeria. I hope you don’t mind if I tell you something to say since you will be speaking on my behalf, too.
Each year you join other world leaders to troop into New York City to make a speech in that US National Security Agency bugged chamber. A speech nobody in this chamber will remember even before you get back to your seat. Even though the world media is there, they will not print any word that you say there today. For them, your presence there is just for the fulfillment of all righteousness.
Your large entourage of aides and hangers-on will justify the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars you spent to bring them here by going into meetings and bilateral talks with other nations of the world. You tell us that you are bringing investments, aids, capacity building to our people at home by striking deals with investors and governments across the globe. We have done this for over fifty years. When will you stand up and say to the world that it’s time we stopped deceiving ourselves.
You know that they expect you to restate how you plan to collaborate with the international communities to pursue peace in Africa and around the world. They expect you to talk about our fight against terrorism in Nigeria and how it fits into the global war against terror. They also expect you to say the mandatory banality about the scourge of corruption in Nigeria and what you are doing about it. And, of course, they are looking forward to hearing you talk about poverty alleviation and how to lift millions of our people out of poverty and into the middle class.
Are you not tired of playing this game of words with them?  When will you get out of the business of setting goals that you know are not going to be met in millenniums yet to come? Are you not tired of delivering platitudes to a people who desire concrete results?
Sir, please, do me a favor, tell them that you’re not the brightest crayon in the box. It’s important else they brand Nigeria on the basis of your performance.
I wish you all the best. I’ll try and stop by after work. Maybe we can go to Aso Rock Restaurant  in Queens, New York and eat fufu and egusi soup. Are you coming?
Yours truly,
Fellow Nigerian citizen

Saharareporters

A Parable of Brainless Leaders, By Okey Ndibe

Okey Ndibe

There’s this apocryphal story that a friend of mine, an exiled Zimbabwean writer, told me a few years ago. It went like this. President Robert Mugabe had sent one of his ministers to represent him at an important state function in Japan, to which other leaders from different countries were also invited. On the day of the event, Mr. Mugabe’s representative was beset by a monstrous, migraine-grade headache. There was a danger that he would not be able to attend the event.
Urgent arrangements were made to take the pain-racked Zimbabwean biggie to a hospital. Japanese doctors x-rayed his head to determine the source of his malaise. They then prescribed one or two medications, and, pronto, the man became fit enough to attend the official ceremony. As the Zimbabwean official left the hospital, the Japanese doctors gave him a sealed envelope addressed to President Mugabe.
Back in Zimbabwe, the minister went straight to President Mugabe’s office and delivered the envelope. The president slit it open. As he read the short letter, an expression of astonishment seized his face. The letter contained a simple request, expressed in a disarmingly direct tone. The Japanese doctors offered, upon the minister’s death, to buy his brain for $10 million. Mr. Mugabe’s astonishment soon gave way to fury.
“What is this?” he raged. “I’m the president of this country, and nobody has offered even five hundred dollars for my brain. But the Japanese want to pay $10 million for the brain of a man who is my mere minister. Something is wrong here.” For a moment, he held his minister in a blistering gaze. “You must have told them that you’re the brain of my cabinet. In fact, you must have boasted that you’re the one who thinks for this country,” he accused the man.
The minister, beads of perspiration on his forehead, body quavering, assured Mr. Mugabe that he had made no such boast in Japan. “Please call them,” the fear-gripped minister suggested, afraid that his life was on the line. “They will confirm that I never told them I was this country’s brain.”
Mr. Mugabe held his rage in check, and then dialed Japan. “President Mugabe here,” he announced imperiously. “What is this nonsense about buying my minister’s brain for $10 million when he dies?”
“Well, sir,” said a Japanese doctor, “we’re delighted that you called. You see, we treated your minister for a paralyzing headache he suffered during his visit to Tokyo. We scanned his brain in order to find out what caused his almost paralyzing headache. We marveled at what the scan showed. You see, Mr. President, your minister is 75 years old, but his brain is still almost brand new, hardly used. That’s why we made an offer to buy it when he dies. We plan to implant the brain in somebody who knows how to make use of a brain. Let me assure you, Mr. President, that your minister made scientific history. This was the first time scientists anywhere in the world discovered a virtually unused brain in a certified old man. By the way, sir, if you can find a few more unused brains like your ministers, your country can count on earning huge revenues from brain exports.”
Mr. Mugabe smiled. “That’s no problem. I can guarantee you a steady supply.”
This narrative – the parable of the brainless leader – struck me as a powerful way to grasp the tragedy of Nigeria and many African countries caught in “a recurrent cycle of stupidity,” to borrow a phrase used years ago by Wole Soyinka. As I write, President Goodluck Jonathan and his delegation were supposed to be arriving soon in the United States. Mr. Jonathan and his delegation have visited numerous other countries in the world, among them France, the UK, South Africa, China, Ethiopia, Brazil, Botswana, Belgium, Rwanda, and Germany. Without exception – even if to varying degrees – these are countries whose institutions work, where a visitor immediately gets a sense of a vital, organized leadership bringing vision and intelligence to bear.
The Nigerian president and his cohorts must see, in many of the countries they haunt, that streets are planned; water runs; there’s dependable electric power; police officers do their jobs, without prompting or intervention by the powers-that-be; the judiciary is demonstrably independent; the healthcare system is healthy and caring; schools deliver quality education, equipping students with skills and ethical grounding; the environment is clean; and the economy is buoyant, constantly producing jobs and enhancing the quality of life of citizens and residents alike.
By contrast, Nigeria is a veritable zoo, a social jungle where might determines right, a sheepdom run by a coterie of mediocrities. To hear somebody described as a “chieftain” in Nigeria is, almost as a rule, to encounter a thief – a “thieftain”! When Nigerian officials speak about somebody as a “stakeholder,” the person so identified is invariably a certified, brainless buffoon who contributes nothing to society, but who receives huge handouts – oil blocks, security votes, constituency allowance, or inflated contracts. These thieftains and steakholders relish foreign trips aboard the presidential jets or in the first class cabins of commercial airlines. They gloat as they luxuriate in the comforts provided by the ingenuity and enterprise of other people, and bask in the fineries of societies that have struck a prudent balance between production and consumption.
Chinua Achebe wrote in The Trouble with Nigeria, his most polemical work, “There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership.”
I’d add that there’s nothing wrong with the brains of Nigerian leaders – nor with the broad class of the country’s elite. The tragedy lies, I suggest, in the refusal of a good number of them to exercise their mental faculty for their good and the good of their society. In their shameful fascination with conspicuous consumption – especially of the goods and services of other people – those who run (and ruin) Nigeria forget that the expensive products they treasure and the comforts they bask in when they travel to better-organized societies – are the result of human imagination matched by commitment.

PremiumTimes

PDP Urges President Jonathan To Be A Statesman And Not Run in 2015

PDP PRESS RELEASE
BE A STATESMAN, SAVE NIGERIA FROM NEEDLESS CRISIS, PDP TELLS JONATHAN
*Urges President not to seek re-election in 2015
As a patriotic group that cares about the present and future of our great country and that wants President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to succeed, the Abubakar Kawu Baraje-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) after reviewing the state of the nation and the pulse of Nigerians, wishes to advise President Jonathan to abandon his plan to seek re-election in 2015 as this ambition of his is not in the best interest of the country.
Though he has yet to categorically declare his intention to run, President Jonathan has given enough clue that he is working towards doing so. The latest of such clues came on Sunday in New York, USA. Speaking at a luncheon with Nigerian professionals in the United States, President Jonathan insisted that he is eligible to contest in 2015 as “we have a constitution that makes a provision for a maximum of eight years for anyone who wants to become a president or a governor.”
The President however said nothing new as he made a similar claim in April last year in his affidavit in response to the suit instituted at an Abuja High Court by a PDP chieftain, Cyriacus Njoku, seeking to stop him from contesting the 2015 presidential election.
We are worried that Mr. President is intent on running despite his earlier promise not to do so and in spite of the wise counsel of well-meaning Nigerians, including respected elder statesmen.
In February, 2011 while interacting with Nigerians and diplomats working in the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the African Union (AU) in Ankara, Turkey, President Jonathan clearly stated: “I would have loved that the Nigerians in Diaspora vote this year (2011) but to be frank with you, that is going to be difficult now. Presently, the law does not allow the voting outside Nigeria and so this year Nigerians in Diaspora will not vote but I will work towards it by 2015 even though I will not be running for election.” Mr. President went ahead to add: “Four years is enough for anyone in power to make significant improvement and if I can’t improve on power within this period, it then means I cannot do anything even if I am there for the next four years.”
This is a historical fact which Mr. President himself cannot deny now since he had two years to deny that statement but never did so. How does Mr. President want Nigerians and the entire world to see him for this volte face? Why can he not keep his words as a man of honour instead of allowing himself to be misled by selfish advisers to go back on his words, thereby overheating the polity?
Mr. President should heed the advice of well-meaning distinguished personalities such as constitutional law guru, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) and Archbishop Emeritus of the Catholic Archdiocese of Lagos, His Eminence, Anthony Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie, all of whom have advised him to correctly read the handwriting on the wall and stay away from the 2015 presidential race.
By 2015, President Jonathan would have served our nation for six solid years. This, surely, is enough time for him to achieve whatever he is capable of doing for Nigeria. What else is he looking for that is making him desperate to participate in the 2015 presidential election despite warnings that doing so may spark a chain of events capable of culminating into the country’s disintegration thereby bringing to pass the predictions of Lord Lugard that Nigeria as a nation by 2014 maybe history, which was later confirmed by the USA Think-Tank that Nigeria may disintegrate by 2015. Apart from all these, should President Jonathan contest and win by 2015 it means he would have spent ten years in office and will be sworn in three times as the President of Nigeria against the Provisions of the country’s constitution.
We wish to appeal to Mr. President to abandon this ill-advised move and save our nation from catastrophe. God has been merciful to you, Mr. President, lifting you from being a university teacher to President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in so short a time is something you should be grateful and be contented with. We urge you Mr. President to listen to the voice of reason and avoid overstretching your good luck. A word is enough for the wise!
Long live PDP!
Long live Nigeria!!!
Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze,
National Publicity Secretary, PDP

PremiumTimes

IntelOpinion: Towards 2015: Where will the change be? – Mark Amaza

Although it is less than two years to the 2015 elections, almost all political actions, calculations and commentary are geared towards it. It is the quest for the Presidency in 2015 that has informed events such as the merger of major opposition parties into the All Progressives’ Congress (APC) and the crisis within the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). Hardly a day goes by without some conversation about whether President Goodluck Jonathan deserves a second term and who is most eligible to replace him, making one of the buzzwords to be ‘change.’

However, while everyone is focused on bringing change at the topmost level, it has escaped the notice of most Nigerians that there are many more avenues for change in public offices in 2015. Of the 26 states where governorship elections will be held, in only eight of those states will the incumbents be eligible for re-election (Borno, Yobe, Zamfara, Nassarawa, Kwara, Gombe, Ogun, Oyo and Imo States). This means that come what may, there will be 18 new governors in 2015. This is besides Anambra State where an election will be held in two months as Peter Obi is finishing his second term next year.

This will be the highest number of newly-elected governors in Nigeria since 1999, and it also represents an opportunity for massive change in the pedigrees of who will occupy those offices.

Also, it also means that we as the electorate should equally apply our energies in our various states in ensuring that only persons who have the capability to perform are elected into office. But why is this not so?

Inasmuch as we have a presidential system that places enormous, even excessive powers at the centre, a lot can be achieved if we had functioning state governments led by performing governors and state legislators who do the business for which they are elected for excellently.

For example, while it is generally agreed that the Federal Government since 1999 has not lived up to expectations, a state such as Lagos State has had uninterrupted, visible and impacting positive growth in the same amount of time, courtesy of well-performing governors.

I recall former Bauchi State Governor, Ahmadu Mu’azu circa 2004 saying in an interview that no state can claim to not receiving enough money to make a positive impact on its citizenry. This means that despite the constant cries of our governors of not receiving enough federally-allocated funds to better their chances of performance, what they receive currently can go a long way in making life better for their people.

Sadly, however, we also contribute in allowing our governors to get away with a lot of non-performance, impunity and even corruption, as we are so focused on the federal level as to lump everything that is going wrong in our states on the Presidency.

Very few of us even know the budgets of our states, not to talk about demanding that it is well implemented. We have no idea what the priorities of our state governments are; how then can we critique their performance?

This is not to say that a well-functioning Federal Government is not important; but that an excellently functioning state government can exist even when the centre is inefficient and ineffective. This can also go vice-versa.

So as 2015 approaches, it is time for us to start getting involved in the politics of our states. Let us start joining political parties and movements and take part in the selection of the candidates that will run in the governorship elections.

While admittedly, not all of us can or will join parties and movements, we must not shy away from dissecting the candidates and expressing our support for our preferences. We can also mobilize to support those we feel can do the job, even when they are not in the race, and put pressure on them to run.

A failure to do this could result in persons who have no business with governing a state ending up there, and causing a lot of ruin and havoc in the minimum of four years they spend there.

If we really want change that will bring impact, we should stop focusing solely on the centre and start focusing on the states as well.

NigeriaIntel

$25,000 bribery scandal: How the plot was funded

by AYODELE OJO AND SOLA ADEBAYO 

*** Hotel where the money was shared
*** Real reason why Emordi was fired
The large amount of cash allegedly used to bribe members of the National Assembly, in a bid to effect the leadership change of the Senate and House of Representatives, was reportedly provided by a senior cabinet member of the Goodluck Jonathan administration.
National Mirror also exclusively gathered that the alleged bribe payments were not limited to the House of Representatives as several senators benefitted from the largesse.
It was reliably learnt that the minister, who was once an elected public officer from the North, provided more than N500m to execute the plot along with a senior presidential aide.
A source close to the Presidency told our correspondent that the northern minister holds one of the most sensitive ministries and he is a kitchen cabinet member of the Jonathan administration.
The discovery of the plot allegedly pushed the sacked Special Adviser on National Assembly Matters, Senator Joy Emordi, to confront the minister at the Presidential Villa last week, where the duo were involved in a shouting match.
Emordi was said to have complained bitterly about her not being intimated with the details of the plot.
She also felt bad with the decision to resort to financial inducement of the lawmakers at this material time, saying the action would be misconstrued.
It was learnt that the lawmakers collected the money at Bolingo Hotel in Abuja. Each of the lawmakers was made to sign for the money.
The money was used to get signatures for two purposes: To know those on the side of Bamanga Tukur and President Jonathan in the crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and ultimately to checkmate the National Assembly leadership.
It was learnt that the Senate is also a beneficiary of the Presidency largesse.
Sources said the largesse is believed to be an inducement to effect the change of leadership of both houses. But a source close to the Presidency said the money was just to empower the lawmakers.
A source in the Presidency told National Mirror that several senators loyal to President Goodluck Jonathan were also given the money.
The largesse was to be distributed among pro- Jonathan lawmakers in the sum of $100,000 (N16 million) but members of the House of Representatives were short-changed and given $25,000 (N4 million) per lawmaker.
Senators were to benefit in the sum of about $150,000 (N24 million).
National Mirror learnt that one of the most senior presidential aides was saddled with the responsibility of mobilising the lawmakers and sharing the largesse.
The money was allegedly channelled to the senators through a member of the Senate very close to the President.
Lawmakers loyal to the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, have since cried out that the money was meant to facilitate the impeachment of the House leadership.
The spokesman of the House, Hon. Zakari Muhammed, told National Mirror that whatever the motive of the inducement, impeaching the House leadership can’t work.
He said: “We heard about the sharing of the money. I can’t confirm or deny it. What it is intended for I don’t know because I was not part of it. If it is for impeachment, it can’t work.
“Of course you need a simple majority to elect a Speaker while you need two-thirds majority to remove the Speaker. And twothirds of the 360 members, meaning that 240 lawmakers are required to effect a change. No party has the required number. So you need the understanding of all the parties to be involved in the process.”
A source in the Presidency confirmed that the money was given to the members of the House of Representatives by the Presidency. The information only leaked when the lawmakers realised that they have been shortchanged.
“The money is $100,000 per member of the House while the senators get higher. But the lawmakers were short-changed by those saddled with the responsibility of sharing the money.
“While it is true that money was passed on from the Presidency to the lawmakers, the money was not meant to effect the change of leadership. You can see that it is only the House members that are talking about the largesse, the senators got theirs too.
“It is because of the perceived animosity between the Presidency and Tambuwal, that is why it is being seen as an inducement for impeachment. Why is it that there is no noise about it in the Senate?”
When asked about the motive of the money, the presidential aide said: “You know the lawmakers have been complaining that they are not being taking care of by the Presidency. So, it is just to empower those who are considered to be loyal to the Goodluck Jonathan administration. There is nothing attached to it.”
When National Mirror asked why the money was not channelled to the leadership of both chambers if there were no strings attached, the source said: “Don’t forget that this is not the first time the Presidency will be empowering the lawmakers. There was a time N4bn was given to the lawmakers to be shared. But some of the lawmakers came back to complain that the money was shared by the leadership and some lawmakers. They complained bitterly that they didn’t partake in the sharing of the money. So, that is why the money was shared to the lawmakers direct from the Presidency.”
It was learnt that the President felt embarrassed with the leak of the largesse and was enraged with the mishandling of the entire process.
The source said that there is internal mechanism already put in place to deal with the situation and those found culpable in short-changing the law-makers and mishandling the “assignment” will be dealt with internally.
According to the source said: “Don’t forget that the Presidency cannot admit giving the money. Any admittance will rubbish the administration and its antigraft war. So, the Presidency is not talking and will never admit giving such money to selected lawmakers. What will be the justification?”
Meanwhile, indications have emerged that the former Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters, Emordi, was sacked by the Presidency because of her failure to garner support among the federal lawmakers for the impeachment of the principal officers of the Senate and House of Representatives.
National Mirror gathered that reports by some members of the kitchen cabinet of President Goodluck Jonathan that Emordi lacked the political clout to effectively represent and protect the interest of the Presidency in the National Assembly ahead of 2015 presidential election cost her the plum job.
It was learnt that President Goodluck Jonathan and his cronies in the Presidency were disturbed that Emordi, a former senator, could not pull through the impeachment of the principal officers of the National Assembly, especially the Senate President, Senator David Mark and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Aminu Tambuwal, despite enough resources deployed for the assignment.
Findings by National Mirror revealed that the Presidency was bothered that Emordi could not secure the mandatory twothirds majority support of the federal legislators to ease out Mark, Tambuwal and other principal officers of the National Assembly considered to be opposed to the Presidency and factional Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur.
Emordi was relieved of her appointment on Friday in company with the Special Adviser on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Dr. Tunji Olagunju.
Emordi was fired amidst controversy that the Presidency was plotting the impeachment of Mark, Tambuwal and other leaders of the National Assembly due to perceived disloyalty to the seat of power in Abuja.
The impeachment moves were further reinforced by last week’s visit of the leaders of the New PDP, led by its Chairman, Mr. Abubakar Baraje and seven dissenting governors to the National Assembly.
It was gathered that the Presidency was upset that the leaders of the National Assembly hosted the dissenting faction of the ruling party and the ex-presidential adviser was said to have been reprimanded for her inability to abort the visit.
A principal officer of the National Assembly told National Mirror yesterday that the Presidency was initially interested in the removal of only Tambuwal. He said Mark was added in the aftermath of the visit of the rebellious faction of the ruling party to the two chambers of the National Assembly.
One of the lawmakers, a member of the House of Representatives, said the Presidency considered Emordi as “being politically inconsequential to face the challenges in the National Assembly ahead of the 2105 elections” following the failure of the impeachment moves.
The source said, “The sack of Senator Emordi was imperative when the Presidency was convinced that she lacked the political clout to secure the twothirds majority of the federal lawmakers to remove the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives despite huge resources set aside by the Presidency for the assignment.
“The inability of the drivers of the impeachment moves to secure the two-thirds majority of the lawmakers led to temporary suspension of the action but the Presidency was disturbed that Senator Emordi could not effectively represent and protect its interest in the National Assembly.
“It was clear that removal of Senator Emordi was imminent when the National Assembly played host to the faction of the PDP led by Mr. Abubakar Baraje and the failure of the moves to impeach the leaders of the National Assembly. It is clear from the sack of Emordi that the Presidency is becoming very desperate on a daily basis and nobody knows who the next victim will be,” added the source, who pleaded that his name should not be mentioned in print.

NationalMirror

Divorce Study Shows That Unreasonable Behavior Ends More Marriages Than Infidelity

Infidelity is to blame for fewer divorces today than it was in the past, according to new research by Co-operative Legal Services, a U.K.-based company.
The researchers looked at over 5 million U.K. divorce cases beginning in the 1970s and found that people today are half as likely to list cheating as the reason for their marriage breakdown.
Their research indicated that in the 70s, 29 percent of divorces were caused by infidelity, while today only 15 percent of divorcing couples blame their breakup on an affair. Modern couples are much more likely to cite unreasonable behavior as the cause of their splits; 47 percent of divorcés today cite unreasonable behavior, compared to 28 percent in the '70s.
According to The Guardian, some examples of unreasonable behavior include "an unsociable husband making his wife feel guilty when she wanted to go out with her friends, a cross-dressing husband who decided to have a sex change, and a spouse withdrawing all the family savings."
This isn't the first study to look at rationales for divorce. Research from August 2013 found that parents are more likely to divorce after their kids' summer vacations, and a recent study out of Kansas State University found that couples who argue about finances, particularly early in their partnerships, face a greater risk of divorce.

HuffingtonPost

What The Deadly Attack On A Kenya Mall Was Really About

By Ken Menkhaus,

The bloody Shabaab attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall on September 21 was an act of desperation by a jihadi group beset by internal power struggles and plummeting support. It is intended to provoke a violent backlash against ethnic Somalis by the Kenyan government and Kenyan citizens. Angry and frustrated Kenyans must resist the urge to play into Shabaab’s hands.
Ever since Shabaab’s ascent to power in 2007, security and country experts have worried about the possibility that Shabaab – which has long had a network in Kenya – would attack one of Kenya’s many soft targets. Nairobi’s busy shopping malls have always been a top concern. In addition to the loss of life, such a terrorist attack would have enormous ripple effects, costing Kenya hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tourist and business dollars.
Yet for six years, the jihadi group opted only for a series of relatively small-scale attacks in Kenya, most of which appear to have been free-lance actions inspired by, rather than directly launched by, Shabaab. What was constraining Shabaab, even at the height of its power and popularity in Somalia in 2007-08, from taking the war to Kenya?
The answer, we surmised, was that Shabaab did not want to disrupt the interests of hundreds of thousands of Somalis living and investing in Kenya. Since the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, over a million Somalis have fled to and through Kenya, and many now have extensive business and real estate investments there. For all of the deep tensions between Somalis and Kenyans, Somalis are major stakeholders in Kenya today. Were Shabaab to launch a large-scale terrorist attack in Kenya, the argument went, it would risk provoking a heavy Kenyan crackdown on all of those Somali businesses. That in turn would provoke a backlash by Somalis against Shabaab. At that point, Shabaab would not have to worry about what the Kenyan or US governments would do to them — they’d have to worry about what fellow Somalis would do to them. Messing with Somali business interests has never advanced the interests of any political actor in Somalia, foreign or local.
But the argument went further than this. Many of us also warned that Shabaab’s reluctance to attack soft targets in Kenya (or elsewhere, including in the US) was contingent on the group’s continued success in Somalia. Were the group to weaken and fragment, it would be more likely to consider high-risk terrorism abroad. Paradoxically, a weakened Shabaab is a greater threat outside Somalia than a stronger Shabaab.
And make no mistake – Shabaab is weakened. It is still one of the strongest armed groups in south-central Somalia, and still capable of daily assassinations and terrorist attacks in Mogadishu, but it is in a state of serious decline. Over the past two years, it has lost control of almost all urban areas and the lucrative revenues from seaports like Kismayo. Its deep internal divisions exploded in armed conflict this year, resulting in the deaths of several of its top leaders and the splintering of the group. Most foreign mujahedeen have become disillusioned and left Somalia. And, most importantly, far fewer Somalis, both in country and in the large Somali diaspora, actively support the group.
The Westgate attack is the latest sign of the group’s weakness. It was a desperate, high-risk gamble by Shabaab to reverse its prospects. If the deadly attack succeeds in prompting vigilante violence by Kenyan citizens or heavy-handed government reactions against Somali residents, Shabaab stands a chance of recasting itself as the vanguard militia protecting Somalis against external enemies. It desperately needs to reframe the conflict in Somalia as Somalis versus the foreigners, not as Somalis who seek peace and a return to normalcy versus a toxic jihadi movement.
Those who argue that this was a bid by Shabaab to demonstrate its continued relevance to Al Qaeda are mistaken. Shabaab’s gratuitous violence against civilians has long been a source of friction with Al Qaeda, whose leaders have been appalled at Shabaab’s counter-productive tactics. An attack on a shopping center filled with civilians of all religions and nationalities only damages further Al Qaeda’s “brand name” and is likely to widen further the gap between Al Qaeda and Shabaab leadership. The fact that Shabaab is too violent for Al Qaeda says a lot about how extreme this group has become.
The Kenyan people and government now control the next move. If they respond to this terrible tragedy with restraint and respect for due process and rule of law, they will do more to undermine Shabaab than all of the counter-terrorism operations conducted inside Somalia.
Kenya and Kenyans are not the only players who have the next move. Somalis – in Kenya, in Somalia, and in the diaspora – also face an unavoidable and immediate choice. Either they can mobilize against Shabaab and take the movement out once and for all – by drying up its financial sources, exposing its operatives, and denying the movement any safe space from which to operate – or they can sit on their hands and make vague calls for a negotiated settlement, as they have done for years. Somalia desperately needs a “Sunni uprising” against the hard-core extremists who now make up what is left of Shabaab. If Somalis refuse to act decisively against Shabaab, then it will be up to foreign governments to crush the group. But this will entail crackdowns that will almost certainly impact innocent Somalis and legitimate Somali businesses in Kenya and around the world, and that is not in anyone’s interest except Shabaab’s.
This is ultimately a Somali problem, and requires a Somali solution that is swift and unequivocal. If that happens, the terrible attack of September 21 will go down as the day Shabaab dug its own grave.
Ken Menkhaus is a professor at Davidson College and a fellow at the Enough Project.

TP