Hadiza Bala Usman..The Descent And Sad End Of A 'Painted Devil'. As President Buhari Approves Panel To Probe Her - By Pius Ogundimu

It is the eyes of a child that fears a painted devil, so goes a popular saw, but when the painted devil is a ravishing female sitting atop Nigerian Ports Authority, she becomes an enigma of sort. If by virtue of her sass and unrivalled wiles, she wins the heart of Mr Minister, she succeeds getting him to wag his tail in utter submission to her craziest whim. If she is devious enough, she exploits her position to amass great fortune for herself, often at the nation’s expense. With unparalleled dexterity and finesse, she wields power like a utility weapon; sometimes like a hideous cloak, often like a deadly dagger. She adds inordinate vile to her already chilling nature and thus becomes terror to the most valiant of men. She is Hadiza Bala Usman, the former NPA head honcho, and she could ruin a man with an imperceptible smile. Yes, Hadiza is as scary as that. And men and women who had been on the receiving end of her Machiavellian and ruthless plots have only gory stories to share. The several victims of Hadiza are however, ecstatic over her suspension. That puts paid to her reign of terror; prior to her dire straits, Hadiza had mindlessly bullied and treated with disdain anyone who dared cross her path. However, not all of Hadiza’s victims can confidently say that they have survived her cutthroat plots against them There is no gainsaying Usman is manically haughty and high-handed. Many of her staff claim that she is a control freak who brooks no confrontation from anyone no matter how highly placed the fellow is; once you cross her path or incite her wrath, you are get in serious trouble and she always supported by the power that be. Interestingly, like a dull actress that persistently forgets her part, Hadiza has exhausted her bounds of grace. As you read, reality bites her in vicious mouthfuls, the time for humouring her haughty bulk is unarguably over. Now, she understands the actual difference between being everybody’s darling and a social pariah of sort. Hadiza will finally understand and come to terms with the cold, bitter truth, that, it’s not actually her person that commanded the power she enjoyed but her office. However, to Hadiza, love was the thorn that pricked her strides in the valley of marriage. She hurt and bled from sting. Since her celebrated marriage to Taminu Yakubu, the former chief economic adviser to late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, crashed, she has put her heart under lock and key.

EXCLUSIVE: How Buhari, Amaechi violated govt. policy in suspending NPA MD, Hadiza Usman

Hadiza Bala Usman, Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority Federal Government insiders are raising due process concerns in the suspension of NPA boss, Hadiza Bala Usman, who was axed Thursday. ByTaiwo-Hassan Adebayo May 7, 2021 3 min read The Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority, Hadiza Bala Usman, was not queried, nor was she made aware of the allegations against her management prior to her suspension by President Muhammadu Buhari, PREMIUM TIMES can authoritatively report. Presidential spokesperson, Garba Shehu, on Thursday night announced that Mr Buhari had approved the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Rotimi Amaechi, to set up an administrative panel of inquiry to investigate Ms Usman’s management of the NPA. “The President has also approved that the Managing Director, Hadiza Bala Usman, step aside while the investigation is carried out. Mr Mohammed Koko will act in that position,” Mr Shehu added. However, PREMIUM TIMES determined Friday morning that the NPA managing director was not told what her offences were or formally communicated before her suspension was announced by the presidency. When contacted early Friday morning, Ms Usman confirmed that she neither received a query nor a suspension letter. She declined further comments on her ordeal. Not querying her or making her aware of her offence(s) before suspending her is a clear breach of the processes stipulated in the government’s own regulation for disciplining heads of government agencies. According to a government circular dated May 19, 2020, and endorsed by the Secretary to Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha, when there is an issue of impropriety against the head of an agency, the federal government requires a minister, through the permanent secretary of the supervising ministry, to refer the matter to the governing board of the affected agency in line with its enabling law and chapters three and 16 of the Public Service Rules on discipline and government parastatals. The board will then issue the affected official a query and subsequently advise the minister of its findings and recommendations. But whether the board is itself the source of the allegation of misconduct against the chief executive or the chief executive is the chairman of the board, the minister, on the advice of the permanent secretary, still has to ensure a query is issued, requesting an explanation from the accused official. “The Minister after due consideration of the submission from the Board shall, on the advice of the Permanent Secretary, forward the ministry’s position along with the recommendations of the Board and explanation of the Chief Executive Officer to the Secretary to Government of the Federation for processing to Mr President, for a decision,” the circular stated. Upon receipt of the submission from the minister by SGF, the procedure then establishes another layer of the probe, requiring the SGF to “without delay, cause an independent investigation and advise Mr President on the appropriate course of action, including interdiction or suspension in accordance with the principles guiding Sections 030405 and 030406 of the Public Service Rules, pending the outcome of the independent investigation.” Based on the outcome of the independent investigation, “it shall be the responsibility of the SGF to further advise Mr President on the next course of action,” the circular stated. Continuing, the memo said it is the SGF that will “implement and/or convey the approval and directives of Mr President on every disciplinary action against the Chief Executive Officers in the Public Service.” In this case, neither the governing board nor the SGF was carried along before action was taking on Ms Usman. The chairman of the NPA board, Jide Adesoye, was not available to comment on this report. Repeated calls to his known telephone number were not answered. A source close to him said he was travelling abroad. The spokesperson for the ministry was similarly unavailable. The allegations against Ms Usman remain unclear as of 2 pm on Friday. But this newspaper learnt that Mr Amaechi and Ms Usman had been at loggerheads in the past few months over the procurement procedures for at least two multimillion-dollar contracts at the NPA. Government insiders familiar with the matter said while Mr Amaechi wanted contractors handling the projects retained, Ms Usman insisted on a competitive tendering process in line with the Public Procurement Act 2004. This newspaper also learnt that Mr Amaechi recently accused the NPA management of low remittances of revenues to the country’s Consolidated Revenue Fund and demanded an audit of the agency. Our sources said both the NPA management and the Authority’s governing board rebuffed him, saying the agency had remitted funds to the government in line with its budget and as detailed in its audited financial statement. Mr Buhari reappointed Ms Usman for a second five-year term in January several months before the end of her first tenure. That development is said to have surprised Mr Amaechi, with whom Ms Usman has endured years of tension,

PREMIUM TIMES

FG says prominent Nigerians to face trial for terrorism financing. By Don Silas

The Federal Government says some prominent businessmen and organisations will soon be prosecuted for alleged offences relating to terrorism financing in the country. Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, revealed this when he fielded questions from State House correspondents in Abuja on Friday. According to him, far-reaching investigations have indicated that high-profile individuals have been implicated in various cases of terrorism financing across the country. He said: “As you will actually know, sometimes back there were certain convictions of Nigerians allegedly involved in terrorism financing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). “That gave rise to wider and far-reaching investigations in Nigeria. “I’m happy to report that arising from the wider investigation that has been conducted in Nigeria, a number of people, both institutional and otherwise, were found to be culpable. “I mean some reasonable grounds for suspicion of terrorism financing have been established, or perhaps has been proven to be in existence in respect of the transactions of certain higher-profile individuals and businessmen across the country. “I’m happy to report that the investigation has been ongoing for a long time and it has reached an advanced stage. “Arising from the investigation, there exists, certainly, reasonable grounds for suspicion that a lot of Nigerians, high-profile institutions and otherwise, are involved in terrorism financing, and they are being profiled for prosecution.” According to the minister, the Federal Government is initiating processes of prosecuting those high-profile individuals that are found to be financing terrorism. Malami, who could not disclose the names or number of those to be prosecuted for terrorism financing, said more discoveries were being made as fresh facts were being uncovered. “As to the number, the investigation is ongoing, and it has to be conclusive before one can arrive at a certain number, but one thing I can tell you is that it’s a large number and they are being profiled for prosecution. “It is indeed a large number, and I’m not in a position to give you the precise number as at now because the profiling and investigation are ongoing,” he added. The minister reiterated the determination of the government to “aggressively pursue those people that are involved in terrorist financing as far as the Nigerian State is concerned.”

Don’t Call Nigeria a Failed State -By Fola Aina and Prof. Nic Cheeseman

Prof. Nic Cheeseman An article in Foreign Affairs, the Quarterly journal by the US based Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR), is going against the trajectory of predictions of Nigeria as a failed state. Rather, the article by Fola Aina, a Doctoral Fellow in Leadership Studies at King’s College London and Nic Cheeseman, a Professor of Democracy at the University of Birmingham argue that Nigeria “is more resilient and inclusive than ever, despite rising insecurity”. It is not about whether theirs is the right or wrong position. Instead, their position means that there is now a counter-hegemonic narrative about the future of Nigeria hitherto predominantly posed in terms of state failure. Their article, therefore, marks the beginning of a struggle between the two narratives. Over the last few months, Nigeria has experienced a worrying spate of kidnappings and violent attacks. Boko Haram insurgents have long terrorized the north of the country and are responsible for some of the violence, but so are organized crime syndicates, which have come to adopt kidnap-and-ransom as a business model. So-called bandits have abducted more than 600 schoolchildren since December, including in two mass kidnappings reminiscent of the Chibok schoolgirls incident that captivated the world in 2014. Armed marauders have killed scores of civilians and security forces in recent months and kidnapped hundreds of Nigerians from villages, schools, and motorways across the country. Nigeria’s swerve toward insecurity has prompted even sober and well-respected analysts to press the panic button. “The definition of a failed state is one where the government is no longer in control. By this yardstick, Africa’s most populous country is teetering on the brink,” the Financial Times warned late last year. John Campbell, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, raises similar concerns in his recent book, Nigeria and the Nation-State, in which he describes the country as “not quite a nation” and “not quite a state.” Not only is Nigeria failing to protect its citizens from rampant crime and corruption, according to Campbell, but its people lack a shared sense of what it means to be “Nigerian.” Future-oriented studies such as “Failed State 2030,” a case study of Nigeria published by the Center for Strategy and Technology of Air University, go even further, imagining Nigeria as a state that only exists on paper, sustained by the recognition of the international community. Such dire prognoses have profound implications not just for Nigeria but for all of West Africa and the Sahel. With more than 200 million people and the largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria has enormous influence over economic and political developments in West Africa. When Nigeria slips into recession, the rest of the region’s economies typically stop growing. And if Nigeria were to collapse, the security of neighboring Niger, Chad, and Cameroon would deteriorate as well. Fortunately, it is far too early to declare that either the nation or the state of Nigeria has failed. On the contrary, many indicators of interethnic tolerance have actually improved in recent years, and distinctive innovations—such as an informal agreement to rotate control of the presidency between different groups—have made Nigeria’s political system far more inclusive and sustainable than it was in the past. There is no doubt that the coronavirus pandemic has devastated Nigeria’s economy and contributed to a breakdown of law and order, which in turn has fueled the rise in banditry. But in some ways, Nigeria is actually a stronger and more resilient state today than it was 20 years ago. Shared Identity A national military with glorious performance outside but which seems caught napping and under-performing at home? Nigeria is often said to have an “identity problem.” Home to more than 250 ethnic groups and three distinct religious affiliations, it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. It faces an Islamic extremist insurgency in the north in the form of Boko Haram and is still haunted by the legacy of the Biafran war, which pitted the government against Igbo separatists between 1967 and 1970 and resulted in more than a million deaths. Given these facts, it is easy to see why some analysts conclude that Nigerians lack a shared aspiration or even common understanding of what it means to be Nigerian. By some measures, the country’s national identity is indeed very weak, in line with Campbell’s argument. Many Nigerians identify more closely with their ethnic and religious group than with the nation as a whole, and according to surveys conducted by Afrobarometer, Nigerians are among the least nationalist people in Africa. Nigerians from ethnic groups, such as the Igbo, that have taken part in past or present separatist movements are particularly unlikely to embrace a broad Nigerian identity. But while strong communal identities have often been associated with episodes of political violence, especially around elections, they have not caused relations between groups to deteriorate as a whole, as many analysts feared might happen after Nigeria transitioned to democracy in 1999. Rather, Nigerians from different ethnic groups have grown gradually more tolerant of one another, suggesting that the prospects for the evolution of a unifying national identity are getting better, not worse. For the last three decades, the World Values Survey has been asking a nationally representative sample of Nigerians whether they would object to having a neighbor of a “different race or ethnicity.” When the WVS first asked this question in 1990, 32 percent of Nigerians said that they would object—a worryingly high figure. By 2020, however, the proportion of Nigerians who objected to a neighbor from a different group had fallen by half to just 16 percent. In a 2018 Afrobarometer poll, only 13 percent of Nigerian respondents said they would mind if someone of a different ethnicity were to live next to them, while 42 percent said they would “strongly like” it. “Nigerians from different ethnic groups have grown gradually more tolerant of one another” Both surveys found that such attitudes have improved over time. Part of the reason for this improvement is greater political inclusion. Nigeria’s federal system devolves considerable resources and authority to elected state governors, helping to lower the stakes of national political competition. Since the country’s return to multiparty politics in 1999, Nigeria has also practiced a form of temporal power sharing that has helped to prevent a return to civil conflict. Through an informal but widely accepted system known as “zoning,” control of the presidency alternates between the north and the south of the country every eight years, and northern presidents select southern vice presidents and vice versa. While this system does not ensure adequate representation for the country’s 36 states and numerous ethnicities (and can cause controversies if a leader dies in office), it does mean that no one region—and no one religion—can hold power indefinitely. This system for temporal power sharing helps to explain why the proportion of Nigerians who feel that their ethnic group is discriminated against has fallen markedly in recent years. In 2005, for example, 37 percent of Nigerians said that their ethnic group was “often” or “always” treated unfairly by the government, according to Afrobarometer. By 2018, the proportion had declined to just 21 percent—with 48 percent saying that their ethnic group is “never” treated unfairly. Greater political inclusion and falling perceptions of discrimination have allowed for a stronger national spirit to emerge, one that can be observed in the fervent popular support for the national football team and the shared pride that Nigerians of all religions and ethnicities take in the international success of many Nigerian artists and musicians. There are of course those who reject these national symbols, most notably Boko Haram. But the group and its supporters represent a very small proportion of the population, and according to Afrobarometer, Muslims are actually more likely than Christians to prioritize their national identity over subnational ones. Nigeria’s strengthened national spirit is also evident in various popular movements that have mobilized citizens from a broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds in recent years, from the Occupy Nigeria protests against the reduction of fuel subsidies in 2012 to the demonstrations against police brutality in 2017 and 2020. Far from a failed nation, then, Nigeria has in some ways become a stronger and more cohesive one. A typical hegemonic narrative of Nigeria which is usually taken too seriously beyond the geopolitics of it by some Nigerian consumers of such The State of the State Just as it is easy to see why some commentators have concluded that Nigeria has a national “identity problem,” it is easy to see why others have branded Nigeria a failed, failing, or chronically weak state. At present, the Nigerian government simply cannot guarantee the basic security of lives and property across much of its territory. In the troubled northeastern region, the Boko Haram insurgency continues to rage. Over the last ten years, the conflict has claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people and displaced close to three million. Meanwhile, clashes between farmers and pastoralists—estimated to be six times deadlier than Boko Haram’s insurgency in 2018—have spiraled out of control in Benue, Plateau, Adamawa, Nasarawa, and Taraba States. Intercommunal clashes and organized crime operations have surged in Nigeria’s northwest and north-central regions and are now spreading to parts of the southwest. In the country’s historically marginalized Niger Delta region, many fear a militant resurgence, as they do in the predominantly Igbo southeast, where secessionist militants are suspected to have played a role in a recent attack on a jail that enabled 1,800 prisoners to escape. Nigeria’s government has not only failed to deliver law and order but in some cases contributed to the violence and lawlessness. The police and military have struggled to win hearts and minds, and both stand accused of human rights violations and incompetence. Nothing illustrates popular frustration with the security forces better than the protests against police brutality that erupted in cities across the country last year. Like claims that Nigeria is not a true nation, however, claims that its state has completely failed go too far. Whereas nearby countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone have suffered repeated and prolonged civil wars, Nigeria has successfully avoided a return to widespread violence, despite a recent increase in agitation from Biafran separatists. The absence of renewed conflict along this dangerous cleavages is not an accident but rather the product of careful statecraft. Both the successful creation of a federal system, which spread political control of the eastern region over nine separate states, and the system of zoning the presidency described above have reduced tensions and made secession a much less viable option. Nigeria has also strengthened its democracy over the last three decades. For the first 16 years after it transitioned to multiparty politics in 1999, Nigeria was dominated by one political party, the People’s Democratic Party. But in 2015, PDP candidate and incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan lost to Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress, resulting in the country’s first democratic transfer of power and demonstrating that poorly performing governments could be punished at the ballot box. “Whereas Liberia and Sierra Leone have suffered repeated and prolonged civil wars, Nigeria has successfully avoided a return to widespread violence” Taken together, these achievements exceed what many thought possible in the early 1970s: they have held Nigeria together and strengthened its national identity. They have also facilitated innovation at the state level, such as improvements in governance and tax collection in Lagos State under Governors Bola Tinubu and Babatunde Fashola that states such as Kaduna in the north are now trying to replicate. State governors have also undertaken new regional security initiatives, including Amotekun in the southwest and Ebube Agu in the southeast—well-funded regional security networks that aim to support official state forces through better intelligence gathering and local knowledge. These decentralized security responses have the potential to generate new problems, especially if struggling states are left to implement them with little regulation and support from the central government, and some forces have already been accused of extra-judicial killings. But they also have the potential to generate more flexible and nuanced responses to local security challenges, especially if the federal government can start to address some of the economic drivers of instability. These modest achievements do not come close to fulfilling all of Nigeria’s enormous security and governance needs. Nor do they make up for the failure of political leaders to come to grips with some of the country’s most pressing problems—not least the recent spate of killings and kidnappings that have so unnerved Nigerians and Nigeria watchers alike. The rising instability of recent months has been driven in part by the severe economic challenges of the pandemic and in part by longer-standing environmental pressures such as drought and diversification that have exacerbated competition over land in the central and northern regions. Over repeated cycles of violence, loss of cattle and economic security has created a growing pool of armed and frustrated individuals who can be recruited into militias, bands of bandits, and terrorist organizations—creating new conflicts and exacerbating existing ones. Left unchecked, these overlapping security crises certainly have the potential to push Nigeria in the direction of state failure. But the saving grace is that the vast majority of these groups—with the obvious exception of Boko Haram—are not antistate or anti-Nigerian. Rather, they are opportunistic criminal networks fueled by insecurity and economic and environmental instability. Their aim is to amass wealth and status, not to topple the national government. As such, they can likely be addressed through effective policy solutions, such as the National Livestock Transformation Plan, which has been hampered by staff and funding shortages but has the potential to substantially reduce herder-farmer conflict. Don’t Make the Doomsayers Right Warnings of impending state or nation failure don’t just create the false impression of a country in which nothing at all works. They can be used to justify the imposition of external solutions—for example, foreign state-building efforts that emphasize militarized solutions at the expense of socioeconomic and environmental ones. A more nuanced look at what the Nigerian state and political elite have actually achieved over the last 30 years suggests a need for something else: continued progress toward political inclusion, including by strengthening the federal system, focusing on homegrown strategies that resonate with political elites, and developing regional solutions to regional problems. Nigeria must also continue to invest in the common symbols of national identity— leadership in regional organizations, pride in its world-leading sportspeople and artists—and work to sustain popular confidence in its democracy. It is vitally important that Buhari stand down at the end of his second and final term in 2023 and that the resulting election is seen as an improvement over the 2019 election. Anything short of this would undermine the hard-won progress toward political inclusion over the last 30 years and increase the risk of civil conflict. Nigeria’s doomsayers have often overstated their argument, but failure to heed this lesson at a time of political peril would be the surest way to make them right.

Sagay: unconstitutional removal of president must be resisted

•Right to criticise govt guaranteed, say SANs By Joseph Jibueze and Robert Egbe An eminent professor of law, Itse Sagay (SAN), yesterday urged security agencies to bring to justice anyone plotting to remove the president undemocratically. He was reacting to the Presidency’s claim that a plot to destabilise the country and force leadership change was in the offing. Sagay noted that Nigerians had the right to criticise the president, but condemned any attempt at illegal power takeover. He told The Nation: “If any activity involves a breach of the law, then it should be dealt with in that manner. They (those behind it) should be brought to justice. “Anything that creates untidiness in succession to power at that level can cause chaos and anarchy in the country and will result in a lot of bloodshed and death. “Anyone caught trying to remove the president illegally and clandestinely outside the constitutional provisions deserves a very stern action by the law enforcement agencies. “Anyone can criticise the President if they feel he is not doing his job effectively, but criticism must not constitute clandestine removal. “For instance, if all the insecurity is part of a move by people to destabilise the country and give the impression that Nigeria is ungovernable under the president, therefore, an unconstitutional measure should be introduced to remove him, that is unacceptable, otherwise he should be criticised by anybody who feels he is not effectively dealing with the security situation in the country, and there is nothing wrong in that.” Two other Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), Mba Ukweni and Chino Obiagwu, emphasised that Nigerians were entitled to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of expression under Section 143 of the Constitution. The senior lawyers opposed the idea of criminalising the act of expressing discontent with the government. It was in reaction to the presidency’s claim that “these disruptive elements are now recruiting the leadership of some ethnic groups and politicians around the country, with the intention of convening some sort of conference, where a vote of no confidence would be passed on the President, thus throwing the land into further turmoil”. Ukweni said: “There’s nothing wrong in Nigerians meeting to express their view on any particular issue. “If the President is afraid that a particular gathering is going to pass a vote of no-confidence on him, then he should do the proper thing by resigning because that means that he is not governing the country well.” He argued that elections were not the only way elected officials could be removed. “It is not correct to say that the only way to remove the president is by voting him out of office. There is an impeachment procedure. “The constitution in its wisdom has made provisions for the removal of a president from office. “Section 143 of the Constitution stipulates the procedure for the removal of the president or vice president. If the provisions of section 143 are complied with, the president leaves office,” Ukweni said. He said the constitutional grounds for removing the president include gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office and incapacity to perform those functions. Obiagwu’s views were similar. He said: “There is freedom of expression. So, people have a right to express their views about government. “Whether they’re satisfied or not, they have the right to express their opinion. There’s nothing illegal about it. It is everyone’s constitutional right.” He wondered why the Presidency was worried about a vote of no confidence, noting that “there is no provision for that”. “The only way a president can be removed through a vote of no confidence is through impeachment, which only the National Assembly can do. “The people have a right to call for the impeachment of the president if they think he is not performing well, by rallying their representatives at the National Assembly,” he said.

Governors Shift Ground On Financial Autonomy For State Legislatures, Judiciaries By Unini Chioma

*Propose Percentage Payment Of Statutory Allocation To Legislative Arm Governors have shifted ground in their quest for an earnest resolution of the industrial crisis caused by the clamour by judicial and legislative workers for the implementation of financial autonomy for the two arms of government., According to Thisday report. Our correspondent gathered yesterday that the governors had proposed to pay lawmakers a certain percentage of their statutory monthly entitlements towards funding the legislature. A source said the governors’ offer followed the refusal of speakers of Houses of Assembly of the 36 states of the federation to accept the N100 million monthly offer made by the governors for each state legislature. In rejecting the irreducible minimum payment of N100 million monthly to each of the legislatures in the states to fund their operations, the speakers had insisted on N250 million monthly. It was also gathered that the governors had also rejected the demand of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) and the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria (PASAN) that the gross allocations should be remitted to the two arms of government directly. The governors’ hard-line position was said to be responsible for the delay in the resolution of the strike embarked upon by judicial and parliamentary workers in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to press for the implementation of financial autonomy for state judiciaries and legislatures. However, the governors agreed that the National Judicial Council (NJC) will handle funds for states’ judicial councils to take care of the high courts while the state governments will be responsible for funding the magistrates and customary courts. In a bid to resolve the issues and end the ongoing industrial dispute, the federal government has invited the leadership of JUSUN and PASAN to a negotiation today. A statement by the Deputy Director Press and Public Relations in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Mr. Charles Akpan, said the Minister, Senator Chris Ngige, would host the negotiations with the workers. An earlier plan to hold talks with the striking workers was stalled by a lack of harmony in the positions of the team representing the federal government and that of governors. The Solicitor-General of the Federation, Mr. Dayo Apata, who had represented the federal government, and the Director-General of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), Mr. Asishana Okauru, had presented different position papers, which stalled negotiations. But a source told THISDAY yesterday that the two parties had reached a consensus, while all the grey areas have been resolved. He confirmed that Ngige would schedule a meeting with the leadership of JUSUN and PASAN to sort out any other outstanding issues. He said: “Right now; there’s a consensus. There’s some agreement, grey areas have been cleared and I think the minister is committed to putting a meeting together with the workers and in the next couple of days. I think all the grey areas will be sorted out. “Some of the grey areas for the judiciary, for instance, is that it is clear to all the parties now that the National Judicial Council (NJC) will be handling that because that’s the position of the constitution. They have been doing that for recurrent at the state level, but have not been doing it for capital spending. “That will continue, especially for courts of record. The governors will be in charge of customary courts and magistrates courts. “For the legislature, the major issue was whether the deduction should be based on gross or net. What they have agreed is that it is going to be an agreed percentage of appropriated amount.” Following the different positions adopted by the federal government and the governors, Ngige had urged the governors to rework the agreement for negotiations to resume. The governors had accepted in principle the funding of both the state legislatures and judiciaries from their allocations from the Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC), to be deducted from the States Accounts Allocation Committee (SAAC). As part of its implementation, the state governments were expected from May 1, to set up the States Accounts Allocations Committee (SAAC) with members from the states Assembly committee chairmen on Finance and the States Commissioners of Finance to discuss on monthly basis the disbursement of funds. However, the governors and speakers could not reach a consensus on how much to be given to each state legislature monthly.

Gumi should explain whether he’s with bandits, says Adamu Garba - Segun Adewole

Adamu Garba Former Presidential Aspirant, Adamu Garba, has said that Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, has to state in clear terms whether he’s with bandits and terrorists or with the Nigerian people. This followed Gumi’s advice to the federal government to get N100 million from the Central Bank of Nigeria which will be used to secure the release of the students abducted by bandits from Greenfield University, Kaduna. This is in addition to his call for amnesty for bandits, saying the move will make them drop their arms. Read Also Bandits raze church, kill two, abduct scores in Kaduna BREAKING: Kaduna forestry college students released 56 days after abduction Please don't kill abducted Greenfield varsity students, parents beg bandits One Twitter user, @Yemi_News247, drew the attention of Garba to Gumi’s recent activities, as he wondered why the cleric hasn’t been picked up by the Department of State Services. He tweeted, “@adamugarba what do you have to say about Sheik Gumi recent activities? He is gradually becoming the financial secretary to the bandits/minister for banditry and ransom payments. It’s a shame that DSS has been compromised. I weep for my country.” In response, Garba said, “I think Sheikh Gumi would have to explain in clear times whether he is together with the Bandits/Terrorists or with the Nigerian people.”