National Convention: APC Govs DG warns against electing emperor as Nat Chairman by Romanus Ugwu

...Questions credibility of current aspirants The Director General of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Progressive Governors Forum (PGF), Salihu Moh. Lukman, has warned the ruling party against electing an emperor as the National Chairman of the party in the forthcoming National Convention. In a statement he issued in Abuja on Thursday, Lukman chided the Governor Mai Mala Buni-led Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) for insulting party members and Nigerians with the laxity it has been approaching the proposed National Convention scheduled for February next month. Questioning the credibility of the aspirants for the position of the National Chairman, he advocated looking beyond the current aspirants. “Unfortunately, reckless party leadership is diminishing all these excellent political credentials. APC leaders must wake up to the responsibility of resolving the leadership challenges facing the party. Part of what is required at this point is to commence leadership engagement towards consensus building on a number of these issues and assess all the so-called aspirants. “Where necessary, APC leaders may wish to stretch the search for a National Chairman beyond current aspirants. APC need a National Chairman who is humble, with very good relations and respect among both party leaders and members. Steps must be taken to ensure that APC National Chairman and other members of the NWC do not reduce themselves into extorting parting leaders, especially aspiring candidates. “APC leaders must take every step to avoid vesting the responsibility of the National Chairman of the party on another ‘emperor’ who will end up conducting affairs of the party with absolute disrespect and contempt for decisions taken. APC need a National Chairman who can provide every level playing field for the internal party electoral contest for 2023. “Any new National Chairman of APC who can lead the party to electoral victory in 2023 must not be a surrogate to any aspirant for 2023 Presidential contest. Similarly, such a person must be ready to control other members of the NWC from demonstrating bias in favour of any candidate for 2023 Presidential contest within the party. “Being a humble National Chairman, such a person must be ready to subordinate himself/herself to party leaders at local levels. A situation whereby as National Chairman, the person become overbearing to leaders at state level must not be acceptable. There should not be any debate or contest about who should exercise leadership at state level. “The model should be what exists between President Buhari and leaders of the party in Katsina State. However, the National Chairman and party leaders at state level should be encouraged to develop structured processes of consultations to ensure that the political interest of the National Chairman is protected in the state. “Similarly, the National Chairman must also accept to protect the political interest of other leaders from the state, especially any serving Governor of his home state,” he said. “Beyond the National Chairman, APC leaders must also take every necessary step to elect very competent Deputy National Chairmen (North and South). It is important that the two Deputy National Chairmen to be elected are people with integrity. “In addition to Deputy National Chairmen, positions of National Secretary, National Legal Adviser, National Organising Secretary and National Publicity Secretary must be head hunted,” he noted in the statement. Enumerating other criteria for the national leadership positions, the PGF DG wrote: “Any potential candidate must have good relations will party leaders at national level, especially President Buhari. “The candidate must also have good relations with all party leaders in his/her state, including the Governor, where there is an APC government. It should be a strong advantage when the aspiring person has played any role during the merger negotiation that produced APC and has been consistent in the party since 2013. “This means such a parson would have the needed institutional memory to recognise and respect sacrifices made by party leaders and members to make the merger that produce the APC successful. It should be a strong disadvantage when any aspiring candidate has records of defection from the party or any of the legacy parties that merged to form the APC. “Finally, public service experience will not only be an advantage but a measure of determining the democratic credentials of the candidate. Any candidate with public service experience at whatever level without incontestable records of achievements, such a person can not inspire any party member and by extension Nigerians into believing that his/her leadership can bring any good electoral fortune for the party,” he wrote in the statement. Writing earlier, Lukman warned that the Buni-led Committee ‘ll get Oshiomhole’s treatment, he noted: “it will be necessary to remind all members of the CECPC and by extension all leaders of APC that part of the reasons that made it very necessary to dissolve the Comrade Adams Oshiomhole-led NWC was the disrespect for leaders and members of the party. “The CECPC leadership have returned the party back to mode of open disrespect for any recommendation given. It is even worse now given that the CECPC is ready to sacrifice the future of the party. Clearly, what is steering us in the face is that all the bad leadership records under Comrade Oshiomhole led NWC is about to be met and outstripped by the present CECPC,” the statement read.

Benin artifacts and the choice facing Robin Hood By Azu Ishiekwene

WHEN you find two people from the Benin kingdom talking these days, chances are that they are talking artefacts. That kingdom never ceases to amaze me with the mythical, almost perplexing rootedness of its people to the past, side by side with a modern, avantgarde spirit. Not that bread-and-butter issues have disappeared in Bini talk. Or that safety and security are no longer a concern. It’s just that the news of the possible return of artefacts stolen from the Benin kingdom over 120 years ago has somehow displaced current misery, however, temporary. Yet, the conversation is also a statement of reckoning, an indication of how far the world has moved from Robin Hood, the decorated thief in English legend. Part of the legacy of slavery and colonialism was that the spoils belonged to the victor. Humans were chattel, and artefacts, side menu. In the world of the marauders of the time, humans, animals and artefacts were part of the spoils of war. Aborigines in North America and Australia; blacks in Africa and minorities in different parts of the world were victims of this travesty for centuries. The world has come a long way since, yet the vestiges of that horrific era linger on. Not only in our memories but also in the private collections and museums of private and institutional thieves who keep making money and excuses at the same time, for delaying restitution. The art of stealing The value of art stolen from Africa alone is worth billions of dollars by current estimates. But it is worth even more in spiritual currency. A BBC report three years ago quoting the New York Times, said, US art collector, Harry A Franklin, bought the Bangwa Queen, a wooden carving from Cameroon, for $29,000 in 1966. After his death, the artefact was sold for $3.4million. At Sotheby’s, the famous British-founded American auction house, the Clyman’s Fang Head, a Gabonese masterpiece, was offered for sale at between $2.5 and $4million last year. On a visit to Africa in 2018, French President, Emmanuel Macron, said while there were historical explanations for the theft of African artefacts, there are no valid justifications that are durable and unconditional. “African heritage,” he said, “can’t just be in European private collections and museums.” But that’s precisely where they have been for centuries. Three years after Macron’s lip service, the plundered artefacts are still languishing in private collections and museums. Macron is not the only problem. From ongoing discussions in Nigeria, the misery of pirated artefacts would be compounded not only by empty promises, but also by needless squabbles about provenance – their original home. Journey to Germany Nigeria is expecting Benin bronzes looted since 1897. Two senior German ministers told a Nigerian delegation on a recent visit to that country led by Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, that the German government planned “a substantial” repatriation of the plundered artefacts. The Nigerian government is demanding, and rightly so, that the return should be “whole” and “unconditional”. According to reports, the trove of looted items includes carved elephant tusks, ivory leopard statues, wooden heads and at least 900 brass plaques dating from the 16th and 17th centuries. Reports also say that over 3,000 Benin bronzes stolen in the 19th century are marooned in Europe and the US. German museums are hosting nearly half of this figure. The debate in Nigeria, especially among Benin folks, from whose homeland the artefacts were stolen, is not whether the loot should be returned, but to whose custody it should be returned. The house is divided against itself. Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki wants the artifacts back in the custody of the state government and has, in a subversive masterstroke, recruited the Oba’s son to press his case. Obaseki, the private sector’s gift to public service, is brimming with ideas of how to make the artefacts speak in foreign currency, by bringing in hundreds of tourists. The suspicion is that his motive is to hijack the collection and privatise it as retirement benefit. Ewuare II, the Oba of Benin, on the other hand, wants the artefacts returned to the palace, from where they were stolen; while Mohammed has said the priority of the Nigerian government is to have the artefacts on Nigerian soil. Since the artefacts don’t speak or understand German, I’ve tried to establish in whose course history might deploy itself. The closest historical antecedent in support of the palace is the case of the Faberge Eggs, looted from the palace of Russia’s imperial family by Bolsheviks during the Russian revolution. Who owns the art? Around 2004 when Roman Abramovich was lusting after Chelsea Football Club in the UK, his counterpart, Victor Vekselberg, made a stake of $90million on the Faberge Eggs. The storied egg is an intricately woven treasure chest made of precious metals and gems including the Coronation Egg, containing the prototype of the coach which Empress Alexandra rode into Moscow in 1897. Though Vekselberg did not say what he wanted to do with the collection, which is the second largest after those in the Kremlin, he said it was a redemption which captured the religious and spiritual essence of the Russian people. Since the revolution swept away the Russian imperial family, we cannot say what might have been the family’s disposition towards the retrieval of the Faberge Eggs. The point is: its recovery was an investment by a Russian oil sheikh. What he has done with it is nobody’s business. When countries have been involved in negotiations for the return of plundered artefacts, however, the records suggest that they’re returned directly to the country of origin, first of all. Eight years ago, when The Boston Globe reported that eight artefacts, including a wooden ancestral figure stolen from Oron, Southern Nigeria, were being returned from the Boston Museum, the objects – including the wooden figure – were apparently returned to the Nigerian museums. I’m not sure the “Ahta Oro”, the paramount traditional ruler of Oron, made a case for provenance. Similar repatriations by the US, Australia and the UK to India were received by the country, not by private individuals or the domains from where they were plundered. The Netherlands did the same with the stolen antiquities of Indonesia, returning artefacts dating back to 5000 B.C. It would appear though that once pirated collections have been returned in certain jurisdictions, a valid case can be made for repatriation to the crime scene. ‘Arti-cedents’ In the US, for example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funeral objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony to lineal descendants. Australia has no laws directly governing repatriation, but a government programme exists that returns Aborigine artefacts. Sweden returned the totem pole stolen by a Swede from Canada to the community of origin; while Italy returned the magnificent sixth-century krater to its place of origin in Rome after a period of loan to the national museum. From the time of Erediauwa, the father of the current Oba, the Benin palace has invested in and campaigned vigorously for the return of pirated artifacts. The governor should not give the impression that he wants to reap where he has not sown or that he is desperate to have the collection as another set of trophies on his front desk. It would appear that the disagreement between the palace and Obaseki’s Osadebey House over the artefacts is a continuation of war by other means. In last year’s governorship election between incumbent Obaseki and his challenger, Ize Iyamu, the palace barely disguised its preference for the latter. For Obaseki to win the election and on top of that also strive to become the curator of priceless objects stolen from the palace, possibly with the assistance of his forebears, is understandably too much for the Oba to bear. Unfortunately, the governor’s winner-takes-all politics is re-echoing concerns that he could still be possessed of the subversive spirit that aided and abetted the plundering campaign of the Benin kingdom. The parties must close ranks. They need to work with Abuja first, to develop a cultural preservation programme, and then to recover the artifacts as quickly as possible to their ancestral home. There’s nothing more a reluctant Robin Hood would love than a house divided against itself. Strife and irreconcilable differences among members of the elite would suggest that the stolen artefacts might indeed be safer in exile. Let’s bring the artefacts home, where they belong. Vanguard News Nigeria

Nigerian Minister tried to stop Britons returning Benin stolen artefacts – Prince Akenzua By Gabriel Enogholase

• Says British looter worshipped artworks Prince Edun Akenzua is a member of the Benin Royal Family and the Enogie (Duke) of Obazuwa Dukedom. In this interview, Akenzua speaks on his involvement in the campaign for the repatriation of looted Benin artworks by invading British troops in 1897, the return of two artworks by Dr Walker to Oba Erediuwa of blessed memory in 2014 and the recent move to return the Cockerel by the Jesuit College, Cambridge University, London, and the head of Oba (Benin King) removed from the ancestral shrine by the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Excerpts: How did you get involved in the demand for the repatriation of the artefacts? I congratulate Omo n’ Oba, Uku Akpolokpolo, Ewuare II on his hosting of his guest on Monday, December 13, 2021. It is during his reign that the Federal Government made a pronouncement, for the first time, on the desirability of returning Nigeria’s artefacts that were looted from their makers and owners more than a hundred years ago. The Oba spent energy and resources to ensure that the reception was successful. The Oba warmly thanked President Muhammadu Buhari for saying the artefacts will be sent to the Oba and those from other parts of Nigeria to be returned to their places of origin. I join the Oba to thank the President. He is the first President to publicly speak in that tone. Military President Ibrahim Babagida set up Africa Reparation Movement and named the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola as Chairman. Although the movement’s mandate included the repatriation of Africa’s looted artworks, he did not go the whole hog or make public demands as President Buhari has now made. MKO worked doggedly to ensure that the looted artworks were returned. He established the United Kingdom and European branch of the movement in London and named the late Bernie Grant, a member of the British Parliament, as Chairman. I had the privilege of collaborating with Bernie Grant on the same cause for about five years. We were to jointly present a paper to the House of Commons. I know about the Cockerel. A journalist, Colin Freeman, writing for the Telegraph of London, came to interview me in 2016. His article was published on October 8, 2016. While the students union of Jesuit College, Cambridge University, England protested that the Cockerel must be removed from where it was mounted, students of Oriel College, Oxford University also demanded the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes from the college. Jesuit students said the Cockerel presence reminded them of British colonialism and its inhumanity to colonized people. The Cockerel, which had resided in Jesuit College since 1930, was removed from public view in March 2020. It is like tracking down a thief who has stolen your car, only for him to tell you that you can’t have it back because there is a risk it might get stolen again. What was the agreement signed at the Benin palace on Monday, December 13 all about? I have not seen the agreement signed. I was told five persons signed including Nigeria’s High Commissioner to London. I was told the High Commissioner said that was how they do it over there. I wonder why a person who is being given back his stolen property needs to sign an agreement or MOU? It is ludicrous that a person who’s stolen property is being returned is made to sign an agreement or an MOU before the stolen items are returned to the owner. It is a colonialism hang-over. For the Federal Government to fall for that ruse or scam make itself a neo-colonialist. A simple letter of acknowledgement would have sufficed. I cannot comment much on this because, as I said, I have not seen or read the agreement signed. What are the relationship between Oba Erediauwa, the present Oba and your good self? Oba Erediauwa was my brother. We were born of the same mother. Oba Ewuare II is his son and therefore my biological nephew. In our custom in Benin, Oba is the traditional father of every Benin person including uncles, aunties and cousins. You talked about collaborating with MP Bernie Grant. How did you meet him? Omo N’ Oba Erediauwa, my brother, set up a committee in 1986 which he named Benin Centenary Committee. The committee was to organize and execute the commemoration of the British invasion of Benin in 1897. The Oba named me as Chairman of the committee. In that capacity, I and some members of the committee travelled to the United Kingdom, Europe and places where the looted bronze and elephant tusk works were domiciled. It was then I met MP Bernie Grant with whom we carried on the campaign for the return of the looted cultural properties. Which of the artefacts were brought during the time of Oba Akenzua II, and Oba Erediauwa? A British medical doctor, Dr Walker, returned two bronze works, Ahiamwen Oro and a Gong, on June 20, 2014, to Oba Erediauwa. Dr Walker’s grandfather was an intelligence officer, a major in the British military that invaded Benin in 1897. Their commander allowed the officers to take any of the items that they fancied as a memento. Major Walker took the Bird and the Gong which he passed on to his daughter, Dr Walker’s mother, and then to his grandson. The story and return of the bronze works make interesting reading. The doctor did not have pathological love for the items like his grandfather. Being a professional, he was also not money-driven. He saw how his grandfather worshipped the items. One day it just got into his mind that if his grandfather doted on the items that much, how much will the owners from whom they were looted dote on them? He made up his mind to return them to the owners. Then the drama began. He had heard of my campaigns for the Benin bronzes return. He got in touch with someone who knew some Benin persons in London. They finally got in touch with me through my daughter, Vivian. I called Engineer Uwoghiren, who is the Odionwere of the Binis in the UK, and urged them to go to the Nigeria House and see the High Commissioner, Dr Dalhatu Sarki Tafida, and that I will speak to him and request him to facilitate giving Dr Walker and his team Nigerian visa. Dr Tafida was very excited to hear that Dr Walker was bringing the items to the Oba for free, charging nothing. Dr Tafida then offered to give them tickets along with visas. By coincidence, the Minister of Culture and then-Director General of Nigeria Council for Museum and Monuments, NCMM, visited London. The High Commissioner was at the airport to pick them up. Back in his office in Nigeria House and still excited by Dr Walker’s gesture, he told the Minister of what the English man planned to do and how he (Dr Dalhatu) offered to give them tickets to travel to Nigeria. The DG told the High Commissioner to route the trip to Abuja so that they would hand the items to the President. They called me from London and told me about the development. Dr Walker said they would rather come to Benin because his grandfather got the items from Benin. What a sense of history? Surprisingly, the Minister told the High Commissioner that if Dr Walker will not go to Abuja, the High Commission should not issue the tickets. A few days before their flight, they were told the High Commission will no longer issue them flight tickets. I called then- Governor Oshiomhole promised to send first-class tickets to Dr Walker and three other members of his team to travel to Benin which he did. You keep using the word ‘loot’ or ‘stolen’ in describing what the British did after the war of 1897. Did the British troops not simply take away the spoils of war? Before the 1897 war, Capt. Philip, who was the Assistant British Consul in the so-called Protectorate of Benin, had written to the British Home Office, urging them to remove King Ovonramwen from the throne so that British companies in Benin will have access to trade. Their main interest was palm oil, which the British needed to prop up the industrial revolution. He told the British government that they did not have to worry about the cost of the war because they would find sufficient ivory and elephant tusk works whose value would compensate for the cost of the war. British troops fought with artillery guns, rocket and rocket launchers against Benin troops armed with only Dane guns, bows and arrows and charms. The war lasted 12 days. When Benin fell, the British meticulously searched for bronzes and ivories which they carried away. They were about four thousand pieces. After that, they torched the city, including the palace. We have a copy of Capt. Philips letter. The second reason is this. When Dr Walker brought back the Ahianmwen Oro (Bird) and the Gong, they also brought a diary that his great grandfather kept during the war of 1897. I told you earlier that his grandfather was a major in the army that fought in Benin. The diary was written by the major and contained photographs of Benin and the war in which he personally took part. Under two of the pictures, he wrote ‘loot’ and ‘more loot’. Those writings show that the British knew in 1897 that they were looting. He brought two replicas of the diary. He presented one to the Oba and gave one to me. Vanguard News Nigeria

38-Year-Old Businesswoman Declares Presidential Ambition Ahead Of 2023 General Elections.

A-38-year old businesswoman, Khadijat Okunu-Lamidi has joined the league of politicians seeking to replace President Muhammadu Buhari at the Aso Rock Villa as the battle ahead of 2023 begins. The businesswoman cum media entrepreneur declared her intention to seek a political party’s nomination to contest 2023 presidential election. Her decision many days is in response to the Not-Too-Young to run slogan recently signed into law by President Buhari. Okunu-Lamidi, who is the founder, Slice Media Solutions, declared that she had become the arrow-head for the intervention of her generation’s interests across the nation for politics and good governance. She declared, “I seek to change the direction of our country, because time and chance will happen to all of us and the time for action is today.” Stating further, she said “We need a better class and a better crop of leaders that are selfless, disciplined, and bound with integrity, and above all, who love the country and are invested in her future. I am here to activate all people, the old, the poor, the rich; to unite around a common ideal on the basis of a consensus about a superior national development agenda,” she said. She is of the opinion that 70 percent of youths were often disenfranchised and have not taken their rightful place in choosing the government of Nigeria. According to her, Nigeria had missed important milestones in building the nation, adding that, it was more pertinent that Nigerians must begin to think differently in the way things were being done. “We are all guilty for surrendering to temporary powerlessness, we can and must start to think differently. We sing often about our heroes past. These are people who entered the governance of Nigeria by design or by chance at a very young age to take over from the colonial power that ruled Nigeria,” she said. In her words, “This again is a generational inflection point for the nation. A nation desperate for leadership needs the young, the strong, those who have a vision, those who have ideas, those who have a united Nigerian identity and a belief in this country. The people of Nigeria believe in Nigeria, they should not be led by leaders who don’t. “We have to keep fighting for what we believe in, and above all, never lose hope. If you were waiting for a sign, this is it,” said Okunnu-Lamidi. She is yet to declare for any political party. Okunnu-Lamidi holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Management and Human Resources Management from the University of Bolton and a Master’s Degree in Strategic Project Management (MSc.) from Heriot-Watt University.

The Oil Thieves Of Nigeria By Reuben Abati

The economics, mathematics, cost and politics of oil theft point in one direction: the need for the country to put in place a strong surveillance mechanism. The lead story in This Day newspaper of December 30, 2021 brought the year to a close with a reminder of one of the many ills that bedevil Nigeria, encapsulated in a telling headline: “With Rising Theft, Nigeria Records 193 million barrels of crude oil deficit in 11 months”. This is otherwise translated into an estimated $3.5 billion of revenue lost to crude oil theft in 2021 alone, in other words, about 10% of the country’s foreign reserves. For a country that depends on petroleum products for about 85% of its total exports revenue and has been unable to define a future for itself beyond oil, oil theft is akin to a national calamity, a massive erosion, and an economic sabotage of the highest order. Even if it may not be the only factor that contributes to crude oil deficit, its impact is worth investigating. With regard to oil theft, ThisDay newspaper was not exactly reporting any new trend. Oil theft has been perennial and unceasing and indeed, it gets worse by the year. In its latest audit report, made public in July 2021, the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) indicated that in 2019, Nigeria lost 42.25 million barrels of crude oil to oil theft, valued at 2.77 billion dollars. This was actually meant to be an improvement (imagine!) because in 2018, 53.28 million barrels were stolen. And then in 2021, 193 million barrels of crude vanished from Nigeria’s resources. The value of stolen crude in Nigeria is enough to fix many of the country’s problems and reduce the obsession with borrowings. This is the reason why oil theft must be stopped. On the average, Nigeria loses about 200, 000 barrels per day. What is stolen in concrete terms is not just crude oil, but jobs, opportunities, and possibilities. Oil theft is also a veritable example of grand corruption, and this is the point that has been made consistently in NEITI’s audit reports. The opaqueness that dominates the entire oil and gas value chain in Nigeria accounts for oil theft and loss of revenue. The absence of political will to tackle the problem makes it worse. Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total divested from Nigeria in part because of oil theft. In September 2021, the Federal Government decided to set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee on the recovery of crude oil and illegally refined petroleum products in the Niger Delta Region comprising the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), all backed by the security agencies – the Nigerian Army, the Navy, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and others. The committee’s mandate is drawn from the provisions of the Assets Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulations 2019. Yet, by the end of the year, 193 million barrels of crude oil had disappeared and certainly that must be an under-valuation, an estimate. It is well known that there is no proper documentation of anything in Nigeria. We don’t even know how many we are. The National Population Commission (NPC) has no accurate register of births and deaths. Should it therefore be any surprise that there is no mechanism in place for monitoring how many barrels of crude oil Nigeria produces or the exact volume of it that is sold? Three years ago, there was some fancy talk about the introduction of technology to monitor output and activities along Nigeria’s oil pipelines network to detect sabotage, human interference and protect critical infrastructure. Oil was discovered in Nigeria, in Oloibiri, Bayelsa state in 1956. In 2022, Nigeria is still talking about how to protect pipelines through the adoption of technology. Even if technology is deployed through automation, the internet of things, drone technology, and the electronic monitoring that certain commentators recommend would still be an excuse to award contracts and make more money. Whatever works in other countries, Nigeria takes the same ideas and turns them upside down. The people who want to stop oil theft are really not interested in stopping anything, so it seems, for indeed, oil theft is an organized crime, with a network of stakeholders that cuts across many layers of interest. And that includes the same agencies saddled with the responsibility to stop it. Illegal oil bunkering: hot tapping or cold tapping, or the smuggling and diversion of petroleum products is an expensive enterprise, that involves the collusion of both state officials and their agents. It may not be incorrect to argue, in fact, that nothing has been done because those who should take the decision or their agents are themselves involved, or they have been compromised. Crude oil in the international market has a signature imprint that indicates the source, but somehow, stolen crude from Nigeria simply disappears into a sinkhole, without trace. There are also illegal refineries in the Niger Delta. Every Minister of Mines and Steel Development develops a plan for addressing the menace of illegal refineries, but nothing ever gets done. Even Governors complain about illegal refineries. Most recently, on January 1, 2022, Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State, in his New Year address, devoted some paragraphs to the challenge of the environment in the state. He condemned the pollution of the environment by the operation of illegal refineries. He even knows their location: “illegal crude oil refining sites along Creek Road and adjoining areas of the city…” and he wants them shut down with immediate effect. He added that all local government Chairmen should work with “community leaders to locate and identify those behind illegal bunkering and crude oil refining sites in their localities and report to my office for further action…” It would be a miracle indeed if either Wike or any other Governor in the Niger Delta would be able to put a stop to illegal oil bunkering activities in the entire region. The big-time oil bunkerers are major figures in the communities and key financiers of political processes! Oil theft is further tied to the politics of Nigeria and the ownership of mineral resources. Section 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution, item 39 Schedule II of the Exclusive Legislative List and Section 1 of the Petroleum Act, 1969 vests the ownership and control of natural resources in any part of Nigeria in the Federal Government for the benefit of the people. (Also see Attorney General of the Federation vs. AG Abia State). For decades, the people of the Niger Delta and others have argued that this is a departure from the Federal principle that Nigeria claims to embrace and that as operationalized, the Federal Government’s ascribed ownership of mineral resources amounts to gross injustice more so as the Niger Delta which produces the mainstay of the economy remains dispossessed, marginalized and underdeveloped compared to other parts of the country that contribute less, and yet seek to control what does not belong to them. The battle over what is termed “Resource Control” has taken many dimensions over the years including the agitations that led to the Willinks Commission Inquiry on Minority Rights of 1957/58, the heroism of Isaac Adaka Boro (1966), the Ogoni people’s Struggle for Survival, the Kaiama Declaration, the politics of agitation for resource control, Niger Delta militancy and calls for a complete restructuring of Nigeria. In 2004, Niger Delta Representatives walked out of the National Political Reform Conference when a consensus could not be reached on the subject of resource control and derivation. Niger Delta activists have since taken up this matter by insisting that derivation is inadequate, development initiatives such as the Niger Delta Development Commission and OMPADEC before it, amount to mere tokenisms, and that total resource control is what the people want. This matter reared its head again recently, and apparently will never go away, given the North vs South alignment around it. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo had expressed the opinion at a public seminar that Nigeria’s crude oil does not belong to the people of the Niger Delta but to all Nigerians and to say anything to the contrary would be illegal and unconstitutional. President Obasanjo correctly stated the position of the Nigerian Constitution, but in so doing he stirred the hornet’s nest as Niger Delta stakeholders led by Chief E.K. Clark attacked him as “an enemy of the Niger Delta”. Niger Delta activists and many other Nigerians think that the 1999 Constitution is a dubious military decree that should not be quoted as Nigeria’s grund norm. President Obasanjo’s argument must have reminded them of that other argument actively pushed by Northern intellectuals in the 80s and 90s that the oil in the Niger Delta actually came from Northern Nigeria and settled in the Delta, as part of a given process of geological sedimentation. The consensus in the Niger Delta is that this is a thief’s argument and that the real thieves of crude oil are those who exploit other people’s resources and who then turn around to insult the real owners. It is also in this regard that local players in the Niger Delta who are involved in illegal oil bunkering do not consider their activities theft or crime. In a curious good thief vs. bad thief binary at the heart of oil politics in Nigeria, they justify their own oil theft, and openly flaunt their ill-gotten wealth because they believe that they cannot be taken to task for stealing what belongs to them, their grandfathers and generations yet unborn. They find ready allies across Nigeria and the rest of the world, because everyone else is anxious to make a quick buck. Many young persons in the Niger Delta would rather be a militant or an oil thief. Thievery, by the way, is a national pastime, a national creed, in Nigeria. Everybody is looking for something to steal: from gold in Zamfara and Ilesa to bitumen in Ondo, crude oil in the Niger Delta Basin, and the vaults of the Central Bank, if possible. The economics, mathematics, cost and politics of oil theft point in one direction: the need for the country to put in place a strong surveillance mechanism. The country’s pipeline network is decayed, hence making the work of the oil thief easy. There was a recent blow out at AITEO’s OML 29 well-head in Santa Barbara River, Nembe, Bayelsa State. It took nearly a month for NOSDRA to be aware of it, and for any agency of government to take any action at all. It is important to have the necessary infrastructure and technology in place, and to treat oil theft strictly as economic sabotage. The penal structure for the crime should also be strengthened. Given the cost to the nation, the minimum sanction for oil theft should be life or death sentence. The politics of oil ownership or trusteeship cannot be advanced as an excuse for criminality. Until Nigeria decides to address its divisive politics, and public officials stop their hollow sloganeering about national unity, the resort to self-help, in form of oil theft or illegal bunkering, should not replace the rule of law. Crude oil refining has also been a problem. When will Nigeria’s refineries begin to function again at optimal capacity and profitably too? II: Bolaji A. Akinyemi At 80 It would require a whole Festschrift to capture the essence of Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, who turns 80, today, Tuesday, January 4, 2022. Academic, author, public policy expert, distinguished Professor, man of letters, senior citizen, Professor Akinyemi is a Nigerian icon, one of the diamonds that continue to shine luminously in the Nigerian landscape and whose engagements with his country and the international community, through his writings, and policy interventions confirm his genius, humanism and excellence. In 1975, he was a 33-year old Political Science lecturer at the University of Ibadan when he was appointed as the Director-General of the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA,) Nigeria’s foreign policy think tank. Akinyemi brought not just youthful energy to the NIIA, he imbued the Institute with his exceptional brain power and intellection and left behind a legacy, upon which his successors, added their own blocks. His reward was his retention in that position, over a period of eight years, by a total of three administrations: Murtala Muhammad, Olusegun Obasanjo and Shehu Shagari and his subsequent appointment as Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs by General Ibrahim Babangida. Akinyemi was a creative thinker coming up, at every turn with original ideas: the Concert of Medium Powers, the Black Bomb, Nigerian exceptionalism, the power school, and although many of his ideas were rigorously debated, he was never found wanting whenever he was dragged into the arena of intellectual pugilism. I recall his exchanges with the polemicist and poet, the inimitable Odia Ofeimun. Akinyemi argued for the authenticity of African identity and ideas, and the continent as a frontier for development. It was during his time as Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Technical Aid Corps, (the TAC)) was conceived and established. He has since through all seasons remained active in the public domain, an affirmation of his top credentials as a public intellectual, and as a symbol of how intellectuals can with the power of ideas forge a necessary link between the world of ideas and the world of action, between theory and praxis. In this regard, Akinyemi is a master of the art of tact, balance and ambidextrous navigation, as he cultivates the persona of an insider who is yet an outsider, a key player within the establishment at various times, and yet an activist for public good in defence of the masses. The former DG NIIA, and former Minister, during Nigeria’s turbulent years of transition from military rule to civilian rule, joined Nigeria’s Democratic Coalition and lent his voice openly to the struggle to save Nigeria. He remains fully engaged in public affairs, both locally and internationally, refusing to slow down. His capacity for work-life balance is also impressive. In those days, he used to show up now and then at the Niteshift Coliseum, a night-club and entertainment centre, a stone-throw away from his Opebi residence, where he mingled with the young, and enjoyed the good life. He later joined us at The Guardian, on special invitation, as a Consultant to The Guardian Editorial Board. It was a pleasure working with him. These days, Professor Akinyemi has also been a major go-to person for us at Arise News TV for commentaries on international affairs. He never disappoints. Close to 50 years in the public arena, Professor Akinyemi has remained prodigious and intellectually formidable. I am tempted to say that they don’t make them like that anymore, but Professor Akinyemi himself would be the first to correct me on that score, because indeed what his generation has done is to inspire, amidst the rot that has enveloped Nigeria, a younger generation in academia and civil society, who continue to raise hopes about Nigeria’s future. I have no doubts that Professor Bolaji Akinyemi is fully aware that there are implications to his attainment of the age of 80. I look forward to seeing him soon in his signature bow-tie and bespoke suit, to toast to his life and times and distinction. Happy Birthday, sir. Many Happy Returns.

‘Let’s go back to competitive, constructive federalism’ By EVELYN OSAGIE

Professor of Political Science and former Minister of Foreign Affairs is 80 today. In this interview with EVELYN OSAGIE, Akinyemi, son of a famous principal of Ilesha Grammar School, the Canon J.A Akinyemi, speaks out on restructuring, true federalism, confab, electoral reforms and more Your illustrious father, Reverend Canon J.A. Akinyemi, was a key figure in Nigerian politics in his days and in the development of education. Could you shed light on his involvement in the formulation and implementation of the Free Education Policy of the Awolowo’s era in the defunct Western Region? Our contribution to life is determined by the time, circumstances, opportunities, what needs to be done and what can be done. In the case of my Dad, Nigeria and Africa were in that stage where little drops of water were making mighty pools. You had leaders who themselves were magnets for talents. They were few and because of that, they attracted people who shared their visions. There were not many of them and that’s why the pollution didn’t take place. And I suppose the vision of Chief Awolowo (Chief Obafemi Awolowo GCFR, a Nigerian nationalist and statesman), through his party, appealed to my Dad who himself was an educationist. And so, he gyrated towards Chief Awolowo’s vision for free education. You must have this belief that you educate a child, you are educating society and the contribution of this child to his environment is way beyond just educating one person. In those days, a village would sell the shirt on the back of every male in that village to contribute to educating one person in scholarship; knowing fully well that when that person becomes a graduate, you have actually pulled up that village. Development has already started. And a lot of them were first-generation graduates; this was their dream and passion. Not like now, nobody thought he/she was being educated in order to come back and exploit the society. No. There was no contradiction in terms that they would be educationists as well public servants in joining political parties because the political parties they joined, they were not being paid. Instead, they were making contributions from their paltry salaries. And when they contested the elections, if they won it was on a part-time basis. Not now, when…let me not talk about now before I get into another trouble. But then, it was on a part-time basis – it was a service. That’s why I called being a member of parliament at that time “Public Service”. It was not as if they were earning salaries as principal of a school and earning salaries as members of parliament. No. They were earning a sitting allowance. And that was what it was at that time. And that is what I would regard as my Dad’s status and contributions. Things have changed. If it is now, would my father and his colleagues have remained that way – who knows? We are all products of our environment. Why did ‘SLA Akintola close down Ilesa Grammar School, Ilesa, where your illustrious father was principal in the 6os? I don’t know the details too well because I wasn’t around. I had gone to the United States by that time. But Yorubaland has split down the middle at that time between those loyal to Chief Awolowo and who remained with him during his travail; and those who were loyal to Chief Akintola (Samuel Ladoke Akintola, Premier of Western Nigeria). There was a division of vision as regards the direction where Western Region should go: its relationship with the Federal government and its relationship with other regions. Chief Awolowo held one point of view; Chief Akintola held a different point of view. And so professionals in the intelligentsia, former friends and colleagues in the action group split. And my Dad went with Chief Awolowo. Chief Akintola and his supporters were in charge of the region. And unfortunately, as people visit the sin of the father on the son, people visit ‘the sin’ of the head of the institution which they followed. But the Yoruba has a saying that God is planning evil (of course, it would be sacrilegious to say that God is planning evil) whereas what He is planning is good. They drove my Dad out of being principal of Ilesa Grammar School only for him to be picked upon to become principal of the defunct St. Andrews College, Oyo, which is now a university. And that was his Alma mater. I think he would be the second alumnus to become principal of that school. The first one being Bishop Seth Irunsewe Kale, who went from being principal of St. Andrews College to the Bishop of Lagos; my father, being the second, was really a promotion. That was where the military picked him to come and be Commissioner of Education in the old Western Region which spread from Oyo all the way to Ondo. At one time he was Chairman, Public Service Commission responsible for the promotion of permanent secretaries in the civil service in the whole of the region. So that was why I said the evil plan actually turned out to be a promotion/ but it was not an easy time from what I was told. I shouldn’t give the impression that it was an easy time for him and for people of his generation. Those were violent times. And people escaped being killed by the scheme of their teeth and that included my father. Again, it was the grace of God and sheer luck that he escaped being killed. Some people still point at that division as the reason why the Southwest has not developed and grown beyond what it is today – both in politics and other facets. What do you say to that? Not only is it absolutely true. But there are two former heads of state who have expressed the view. And they didn’t mean it as a compliment; they meant it as a fact that the division in the Western Region has been the problem of Nigeria, not just the problem of the west itself. If that crack had not taken place, Nigerian development would have taken a totally different trajectory because before then, there was – what I would call – “competitive Federalism”. One region saw the other offering free primary education and before the people of other regions could say, “Premier what’s happening?” Others would copy it. Surprising it was Chief Awolowo, a Christian who first establishes the Muslim Pilgrim Board. He didn’t establish it on a religious basis but saw the need to put into place an institution that would cater for their interest. And other regions copied he set the marketing board, a form of indirect taxation in which when things are very high; they keep some of the money for the farmers. It was a social welfare programme. And when prices start to fall they release money from the excess that was put away to cushion for the effects on farmers so that they don’t fall below the net. And other regions copied good programmes from each other. It was competitive but “cooperative federalism”. All that disappeared when the military took over. It then became whatever he says in Lagos and now whatever he says in Abuja. What did Lord Akin say, “Power corrupts, Absolute power absolutely”. You have a man sitting in Abuja and he knows by snapping his finger Enugu can shake, Ibadan can sweat and so on. The temptation to snap that finger would be there: if for no other reason but to see what happens if the finger is snapped. Because not too many people occupy offices that have that inner development to do good with the power they are holding. I was going to say that we spent a whole week celebrating Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a renowned South African Anglican cleric). No! We spent almost 30 years celebrating Tutu, because he was one remarkable human being who God put in a position where one man was making a whole difference. One tree was making a forest, and he used it for the public good. That is why we were celebrating him. There are others who have found themselves in positions where they could have done things for the public good, but instead, they have done things for their own good. Desmond never fought for the Nobel Peace Prize, he got it. There are those who have spent their lifetime running after the Nobel Peace Prize, including sacrificing the interests of their country. Have they got it today? Why are you laughing, I didn’t mention anybody’s name! But not Tutu. He could have run into exile like most people, such as Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki (a South African politician). But he didn’t. I’m not even sure he was even aware of how many times he avoided being killed. It was the grace of God. As I said in my tribute to him on Arise, there was a time when the assassin, officially sanctioned by the government, had raised a gun, focusing on him as he stepped off the plane; but the instruction given was before you pull the trigger, you must wait for the last command. And the last command never came. So lowered the gun and the turbulent Bishop didn’t know what he had just escaped. Again, circumstances created the man but the man seized the circumstances/opportunities. God could create circumstances for you and you walk pass, not recognising what you’ve just passed. Some critics have said that the military has done more bad than good for Nigeria. Would you say differently, given the fact that you served under a military government? Don’t personalize it or particularise it because, tell me, who is who never served under the military. All our heroes served under the military. Because there was a time when “the man on horseback” was the epitome of being a saviour of his country. This concept of the man on horseback was the epitome started in Latin America when they needed people to rescue their society from hooligans and thugs who were in the government houses. And the soldier came along, who was disciplined and had a concept of development. And it then spread to Africa through Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Now, unfortunately, a good start if you are not careful, can be exploited for evil.” The man on horseback” was a good syndrome; and then the departing colonial authorities said, “Wow, this would be a good instrument to hold on to these people”. You’d give them nominal Independence. But in any case, we trained their military, and so we would use their military to get rid of people we don’t like, who are too nationalistic for our purpose. So, they started using our military to overthrow African leaders, like the Nkrumahs (Kwame Nkrumah, Ghanaian nationalist leader) of this continent. But there were then the Nzeogwus (Nigerian Major Patrick Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu) and the Afrifas (Ghanaian Lieutenant General Akwasi Amankwaa Afrifa) who sought to escape that entrapment of being instruments in the hands of colonial authorities and did some good. But they were never allowed to fully succeed. So, my judgement on the Nigerian military and its role in development is a mixed one. After all, the coup of 1966 stopped two things. One, it stopped the Tiv rebellion that had been going on ever since the British were here. We tend to forget that the Middle Belt was a bloody mess from even before Independence. And our military was still entrapped in the Middle Belt. Two, the military stopped ‘Operation Wetie’ – the military intervention stopped it in the West. We don’t know how far that thing could have gone. It got Awolowo released from prison in Calabar. Who knows what could have happened to him if the military had not intervened? The military may have meant well, but they are human beings after all. And to borrow the words of Fela (Fela Aníkúlápó Kuti also known as Abami Eda, a Nigerian multi-instrumentalist) “Cloth na uniform; na Tailor dey sew am”, human beings were in that uniform and some of them had less noble motives. And they were then prepared to use the institution for the less noble motives. And in the process, less noble motive clashed with less noble motive, led us into a civil war. And we haven’t gotten over it till today. Does it really occur to you that the first coup took place in 1966? How many years is that? Over 56 years! One of those involved in the coup is your president today. A military man had been the president before him. Hopefully, this would be the end of ’66 Syndrome’ in Nigerian politics, in the sense that nobody who had worn the uniform in that period would step forward to occupy that presidential villa. Not just being ruled by the same people but by people who were conditioned by ’66 – mental condition. Bob Marley (one of the pioneers of reggae) describes it as “Mental Slavery”. Some people would tell you that the black race has still not gotten over slavery even after so many centuries. We often don’t realise what events do to our mental development and what it conditions. And how long it takes – we don’t know! I think the judgement would always be out there. But then that is history and civilisation. We talk about Alexander the Great (a king in Greek’s history); we talk about the Roman Empire (Julius Caesar) and about Napoleon Bonaparte and his effect on French history. We also talk about their effect on European history. 300 years from now, generations after us will be talking about the effect of “the man on horseback” on Nigeria’s development. History then becomes a question of if this had not happened what would have happened? But does it really make sense to indulge in “If”. Do we know? If they haven’t jailed Nelson Mandela (South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and first President), what would have happened in South Africa?

I don’t interfere with judiciary, let Nnamdi Kanu defend himself — Buhari By Johnbosco Agbakwuru, ABUJA

PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari has ruled out the possibility of releasing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, saying that he doesn’t interfere with the judiciary. President Buhari in an interview with Channels TV, which was relayed on Wednesday evening, said that the IPOB leader should go to court and defend himself. According to him, “If there is one institution I wouldn’t like to interfere with, it is the judiciary. “But what I wonder is that when Kanu was in Europe abusing this administration and mentioning too many things, I never thought really he wants to voluntarily come to defend himself,” Buhari added. “So we are allowing him to defend himself in our system, not to be abusing us from Europe as if he was not a Nigerian. “Let him come and criticize us here. Nigerians know that I don’t interfere with the judiciary, let him be listened to. “For those who are saying we should release him, no, we cannot release him.” Political solution Asked whether there was the possibility of a political solution, he said it would depend on how Kanu conducted himself. According to the President, “there is a possibility of a political solution. If he behaves himself, all well and good. “But if you go to a foreign country and keep on sending incorrect economic and security problems against your country, thinking that you never have to account for what you have been doing; let him account for what he has been doing.” Vanguard News Nigeria