... ... 10/20/19 | IYANDA'SBLOG

Local News, Sport Updates, Politics, Educational News, Religious etc.

10/20/19
Twitter Facebook

6:27 PM

 

The Oba of Benin, Ewuare II, has urged the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari to create policies that would improve the security of lives and property in the country.

He made the call while receiving guests from within and outside Edo State on Sunday in commemoration of the his 66th birthday.

Oba Ewuare II tasked the Nigerian Government to create a conducive environment for the youth to be gain fully employed, maintaining that this would prevent young people from migrating to more developed countries in Europe, America and other parts of the world.

Speaking further, the traditional ruler thanked Buhari’s administration for bringing the National Festival for Arts and Culture to Edo State, adding that the annual ceremony had the needed ingredient to unite the different peoples of Nigeria. 

 

Politics Tradition News AddThis :  Original Author :  SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2J7i0pC
Twitter Facebook

1:57 AM

 

The purported impeachment of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr Simon Achuba, by the Kogi State House of Assembly and the alleged nomination of one Mr Edward Onoja as his replacement by Governor Yahaya Bello, are acts of constitutional vandalism and a nullity and should be deprecated by all lovers of democracy and adherents of the rule of law.

Without much ado, let me say clearly that the futile impeachment proceedings initiated against Mr Achuba by the Kogi State House of Assembly ended by operation of law (automatically) the moment the House received the Report of the seven-man investigation panel dated October 18, 2019 which completely exonerated Mr Achuba of (all) the five allegations of gross misconduct brought against him by the House.

Impeachment is not, and can never be deployed as a malignant weapon for insatiable political vendetta. It was not the intention of the framers of the 1999 Constitution to give a House of Assembly omnipotent powers in the process of removing elected governors and deputy governors. This is apparent from the role ascribed to the Chief Judge of a state and the institutional independence given to the seven-man panel under Section 188 of the constitution.

There are only two definitive conclusions that the panel is mandated to reach under the constitution, and they have variant implications. The panel must arrive at one of the two conclusions without ambiguity.

First, the panel can report to the House that the allegations of gross misconduct against a governor or deputy governor as the case may be, have been proved. In that case, the House “within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.”. See Section 188 (9) of the constitution.

Second, “Where the panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter.” See Section 188 (8) of the constitution.

I have perused the report submitted by the seven-man panel constituted by the Chief Judge of Kogi State on August 26, 2019 to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct brought against Achuba. The report was signed and endorsed by the Chairman, Mr John Baiyeshea, SAN, and by all the six members of the panel. In its conclusion, the panel stated and reported to the Kogi State House of Assembly as follows:“In line with Section 188 (8) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) quoted herein before, we hereby report to the Kogi State House of Assembly that the allegations contained in the notice of allegations admitted in evidence by this panel as Exhibit C7 have not been proved.”

It is a settled principle of constitutional interpretation that when the words used in the constitution are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain, literal, ordinary and grammatical meaning and interpretation. See the case of Dangana & Anor V. Usman & ORS (2012) LPELR-25012(SC) where the Supreme Court opined thus: "In the literal rule of interpretation, courts must interpret words in the constitution in accordance with the intendment and certainly, not in a way opposed to the purpose intended for the enactment. There should be no divergence but a strict confinement within the ordinary meaning of the words used in the constitution unless it is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be gathered from the words used or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance. Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 665) pg. 481. Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51." Per ADEKEYE, J.S.C (Pp. 32-33, paras. F-B).

From the relevant constitutional provisions reproduced above, it is beyond disputation that the Kogi State House of Assembly is barred by Section 188 (8) of the constitution from deliberating, vetting, supervising or in any manner reviewing the conclusion of the investigation panel. Indeed, the House is not in a position to express any opinion on the report.

The constitution has expressly determined the destiny of the impeachment proceedings upon the exoneration of the subject of the investigation by the investigation panel. There is no ambiguity as to what should happen where the panel reports to the House of Assembly, as in the instant case, that the allegations have not been proved. The constitution states that “no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter”.

However, the course of action would have differed if the panel were to report that the allegations against Mr Achuba have been proved. Since the opposite conclusion was reached, the only permissible consequence is that no further proceedings can be taken in respect of the matter.

To avoid any mischievous argument in favour of the constitutional delinquents in Kogi State, one point should be clarified. Section 188 (10) of the constitution states that “No proceedings or determination of the panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.”  

This ouster clause on the face value suggest that steps taken by the House of Assembly in relation to the impeachment proceedings cannot be questioned in court.

That is not the correct construction of the intendment of that subsection. The Supreme Court in 2007 laid down the conditions that must be strictly complied with before recourse can be made to the ouster clause in subsection (10) supra. In the case of Inakoju & ORS v. Adeleke & ORS (2007) LPELR-1510(SC), the apex court listed the conditions as follows: “1. The provisions of Section 188(1) to (9) must be strictly complied with before a governor or deputy governor can be constitutionally removed from office. 2. It is only when the provisions of Section 188(1) to (9) are complied with that the ouster clause of Section 188 (10) can be invoked 
in favour of the House and to the disadvantage of the removed governor or deputy governor. 3. It is only when Section 188(1) to (9) is complied with that the jurisdiction of the courts is constitutionally ousted.” (Pp. 129, paras D – F).

Impeachment is a process, it is not an event. There can be no accidental impeachment. The process has several stages which must be adhered to strictly and religiously. Any procedural infraction renders the entire process a nullity.

That is the point that the Supreme Court made in the above case of Inakoju & ORS v. Adeleke & ORS where the court nullified and voided the purported removal of the then governor of Oyo State, Mr Rashidi Lodoja.

 

In the Inakoju’s case, the Supreme Court made it clear that ignorance on the part of the legislature regarding the process of removing a governor or deputy governor is inexcusable. The court enthused thus:“Are we still in the learning process? What type of lessons will the appellants still need on Section 188? About four months to the end of a two-term of four years each making a total of eight years, or even a single term of four years, legislators cannot express ignorance of the provisions of Section 188. They cannot say that they are still learning the provision or they need more tutorials on the section. Unfortunately, no teacher will be available to them. A worst student of history can be a master of the subject after a period of four to eight years. If he still remains a novice of the subject after such a period, then history will not forgive him in its judgment.” (Pp. 130 – 131, paras. E – A).

 

Since the investigation panel in Kogi State has reported that the allegations against Mr Achuba has not been proved, that is the end of the matter. The question of subsection (10) does not arise. Any suggestion that the office of deputy governor of Kogi State is vacant is legally untenable. See also the case of Dapialong & ORS. V. Dariye & ORS. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332.

 

It is a sad commentary that lawmakers in the Kogi State House of Assembly have shamelessly reduced themselves to pawns of Governor Yahaya Bello, a man who’s scandalous, incompetent and unenviable record of public service remains unbeatable in the present day Nigeria. The lawmakers have by their inordinate acts, sent a message to the world that they are agents of constitutional vandalism with no regard for the rule of law and the tenets of democracy.

 

Kogi State and by extension Nigeria, has been registered in the global map of state sponsored impunity as a result of the sustained rape of basic constitutional values by tyrants who have found solace in complicit and morally bankrupt law enforcement institutions.

The constitutional vandals in Kogi State should be reminded of the immutable words of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the Inokuju’s case on the role of the legislature and the executive in our constitutional democracy. The court rebuked that: “The legislature is the custodian of a country's constitution in the same way that the executive is the custodian of the policy of government and its execution, and also in the same way that the judiciary is the custodian of the construction or interpretation of the constitution. One major role of a custodian is to keep under lock and key the property under him so that it is not desecrated or abused. The legislature is expected to pet the provisions of the constitution like the way the mother pets her day-old baby. The legislature is expected to abide by the provisions of the constitution like the way the clergyman abides by the Bible and the Imam abides by the Koran. And so, when the legislature, the custodian, is responsible for the desecration and abuse of the provisions of the constitution in terms of patent violation and breach, society and its people are the victims and the sufferers” (Pp. 131, paras. B – E).

 

The sinister, ludicrous and ‘treasonous’ insinuation by the Kogi State House of Assembly that it has “removed” or “impeached” Mr Achuba should not only be dismissed with unrestrained contempt, but should be visited with appropriate legal sanctions which should include the immediate arrest and prosecution of the impostor, Mr Edward Onoja, and his accomplices.

Let me reiterate that the office of the deputy governor of Kogi State is not vacant. The deputy governor of Kogi State has not been impeached. By Section 191 (3) of the constitution, a governor can only nominate a person to the office of deputy governor during the currency of his term if the office becomes vacant “…by reason of death, resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal in accordance with section 188 or 189 of this constitution.” 

As earlier shown, Mr Achuba has not been removed in accordance with Section 188 of the constitution.

I call on the Chief Judge of Kogi State and all judicial officers in Kogi State to rise to the occasion and end the legislative and executive lunacy that is playing out in Kogi State. Members of the Kogi State judiciary should exude courage and fidelity to their oath of office; and bear true allegiance to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They should not be participles criminis (they should not aid, abet or assist in the criminality).

By the combined effect of Sections 185 and 187 of the constitution, a person nominated as deputy governor must be sworn-in by the state’s Chief Judge before he or she can assume office. The Chief Judge of Kogi State and indeed all judicial officers in the state are urged to distance themselves from the duplicitous dance of shame of Yahaya Bello. They should resist any invitation to desecrate the constitution.

I also call on the Inspector-General of Police and all security agencies in Nigeria not to lend their cohesive instruments to the subversive and patently unconstitutional actions of Governor Bello and his cronies in the Kogi State House of Assembly. The security men attached to the deputy governor should be restored immediately. Mr Achuba still enjoys immunity under Section 308 of the constitution. Thus, he can neither be arrested nor detained.

We all have a collective duty to halt Nigeria’s continuous descent into a banana republic. History will vindicate the just.

Inibehe Effiong is a Lagos-based legal practitioner and human rights activist. He can be reached on inibehe.effiong@gmail.com

 

Opinion AddThis :  Original Author :  Inibehe Effiong Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2J6IlEi
Twitter Facebook

1:57 AM

 

I have just read what one Churchill Okonkwo wrote about a recorded phone call where an aide of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu was purported to be threatening another man on the phone. The issue, expectedly, has been widely discussed and, sadly, few well known anti-Ikpeazu soldiers have jumped on the bandwagon to use that opportunity to write their usual unsavoury things about the Abia State governor.

The target of those, who have been unnecessarily bashing the governor was to pitch him against the public, particularly the media. However, in their short-sightedness and haste to condemn, they forgot to do a background check to ascertain if Governor Ikpeazu has at any time in the last five years he has been governor, threatened, directly or indirectly, any media personnel even though he is arguably the most unfairly criticised and scurrilously attacked governor in the South-East today. See Also Opinion Governor Okezie Ikpeazu Is An Ugly Woman With Bad Character By Churchill Okonkwo 0 Comments 2 Days Ago

However, that has not stopped him from interacting with Abians openly, at least, once every month, in uncensored, no holds barred live phone-in programmes using the same media he is accused of threatening. What people like Churchill, who want to sit in judgement over those they know little or nothing about, end up doing is repeating the fatal mistake of Pontius Pilate where the good man was wrongly judged and condemned based on the cacophonous belligerence of a supposed majority whose acrimonious shouts were mistaken for truth, justice and fairness.

If anything, Governor Ikpeazu is one of the few governors in the federation who have, on more than one occasion, personally taken journalists round his projects for their verification rather than engage them in war of words as some are wont to do. Neither the opposition nor the press, nor political commentators nor anybody for that matter has ever been harassed either subtly or otherwise by the government of Abia State or any of its officials based on their opinions of government. What happened in the recorded phone call in question this time around was more of a conversation between brothers as both the one purported to have threatened and the one said to have been threatened are linked and had their personal issues which sadly boiled over. Churchill does not know any of the issue around the leaked conversation and hence unfit to sit in judgement over any of the parties involved.

Because of the sensitive nature of the conversation and the weighty allegations that have trailed it, the state government is not taking the issue lying low even though it was between brothers and is investigating it with a view to making its findings known. Although the voice threatening was said to be that of one person, the images attached to it were those of more than one official of government giving rise to the need for it to be properly diagnosed for the records and action. The state government, through the Honourable Commissioner for Information, John Kalu, has reassured journalists that no media person will be harassed in the state under the watch of Governor Ikpeazu.

More bewildering of all the accusations from Churchill against the Abia State helmsman is the one hinged on corruption. Ikpeazu might be falsely accused of anything by anybody but adding corruption in the mix is wild, unrealistic, unfounded and baseless. It is not only puerile, it is also jejune and facile. Not even a section of the opposition in Abia as toxic and caustic as they might be has ever accused the governor of corruption because they know that he is a man of austere lifestyle and does not condone corruption by whomsoever.

The other bewildering accusation against the governor is the now overused cliché, “He has done nothing” when indeed ordinary Abians who are on the ground see and use all those which the governor has done. So, they are always shocked to hear when people especially those living outside the state keep saying that. Was this not why the people still voted en masse for Ikpeazu at the last governorship election despite the overwhelming scathing criticisms based on malicious propaganda, resentful half-truths and outright falsehood thrown in his path?

True, Abia is still work in progress and even the governor has several times said we are not yet where we want to be but fact is we have made progress and more blocks have since been laid on the achievements met on the ground prior to 2015. From education, MSMEs, infrastructure, agriculture, security to health etc, Ikpeazu’s verifiable marks of progress are visible for everyone to see.

The reason we take security matters for granted in Abia State is because the governor has not only been on top of security issues in the state, he has personally taken the lead in ensuring that what afflicts other states in terms of insecurity does not come near Abia as he takes proactive measures in securing the lives and property of the people. While other states are battling with a plethora of major violent crimes like banditry, kidnapping, armed robbery, among others, Abia has been enjoying peace and tranquillity to the extent that insecurity is not an issue in the state’s political discourse. Given a choice, many Nigerians living in some other parts of the country would prefer to live and settle in Abia for its tranquillity.

There are also some other states whose peace have been shattered by political tension between their governors and other political leaders. But in Abia, despite the excesses of some of our opposition figures, the governor has maintained an equanimity that guarantees a serene atmosphere thereby creating an enabling environment for the people to thrive in all their endeavours.

In education, it is no longer news that Abia has maintained first position in the West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examinations (WASSCE) for five unbroken years owing to the governor’s deliberate policies and actions anchored on the youth and children of the state which has also seen school enrolment rate rise from 115,396 to an unprecedented 658,472 as at 2018. Abia has remained the only state where pupils in primary school are fed from Primary 1 – 6: while the federal government feeds pupils from Primary 1 – 3. Abia State Government under Ikpeazu has taken the school feeding programme a notch higher by feeding her pupils from Primary 4 – 6; this is in addition to the construction of 340 new classroom blocks, 19 renovated ones and 4 new model schools. The regular training and retraining of teachers in the state even by foreign consultants has also ensured that the teachers are up to date with latest global teaching skills.

The governor’s commitment to the youth in particular and Abians in general is also evidenced in his aggressive promotion and support to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the state for which he has won many awards. Today, “Made in Aba” is no longer just a slogan but a brand, a global brand that has empowered Abia entrepreneurs and made them as competitive as their counterparts in Asia, Europe and the Americas.

In the area of infrastructure, the delivery of 76 verifiable road projects with over 90 others under construction and at different stages of completion in four years is no mean feat. Although the state has infrastructural deficit to still fill just like every other, she is surely meeting up with the challenges especially with Governor Ikpeazu’s renewed commitment and speed in his second term.

Contrary to what the Churchills of this world want people to believe, whether they say Ikpeazu is beautiful or not, the good thing nature has done is to give everyone their own pair of eyes to see things for themselves and conclude without anyone deploying their eyes as those of meddlesome interlopers to see for others. The fact that Abians still chose Ikpeazu over others in a landslide victory at the last election confirms that indeed, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. No matter what Churchill and his likes say, Ikpeazu is their chosen beautiful bride!

Opinion AddThis :  Original Author :  Jude Ndukwe Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2RVKvcf
Twitter Facebook

1:57 AM

 

Something doesn’t smell quite right in the milk. And despite its pungent and piquant nature, this particular feline fiend seems to be impishly and calculatingly lapping it up.

For some time now there has been a growing opinion that the Nigerian Ports Authority, a government parastatal under the Ministry of Transport, has been nitpicking at the operations of BUA International Limited, one of the most successful business groups of all time to emerge out of Africa, to the point that it has been expressed in many quarters that the government organisation had been playing a deliberate and cunning cat and mouse game with the international conglomerate.

The two organisations have been going at it in and out of the courts in an exchange that looks more like a cat and mouse game with the former taking the shape of the Nigerian Ports Authority and the latter being BUA International Limited.

Whether this perception is correct or not, it is left for one to decipher once the facts are laid out. To go ahead and unravel this rather onerous affair and understand what has been going on between the two organisations, let us examine some of the said particulars.

The rigmarole between The Nigerian Ports Authority and BUA International Limited started some years ago. This led to a situation that created palpable confusion at the headquarters of the Eastern ports, the Rivers Port complex over the decision by the Nigerian Ports Authority to stop all vessel call at Terminal B, one of the terminals of the Nigerian Ports Authority. This particular terminal had been earlier concessioned to BUA Ports and Terminals Limited. At the time that the vessel call was terminated, the Nigerian Ports Authority stated that the decision to stop vessel call at BUA Ports was down to safety concerns over the concessionaires’ berths and quays.

Among others, one of the effects of the Vessel Call suspension at Terminal B was that there would be no work for dockworkers at the facility. The fallout of this was abysmal because it affected the livelihood of innocent Nigerians who had no dog in the cat and mouse fight that the Nigerian Ports Authority had seemingly launched against BUA. 

Consequently, the Nigerian Ports Authority had commenced an arbitration proceeding against them at the ICC, London, in late July 2019, with ICC Arbitration Case No. 24630.

Now, BUA Port and Terminal Limited were concessionaire Terminal B of Port Harcourt by virtue of a lease agreement dated May 11, 2006. The concession was to be for a duration period of 20 years. However, the Nigerian Ports Authority had terminated the lease agreement in November 2017 over an alleged breach of the port of the agreement, which was failure of the BUA P&T to rehabilitate/reconstruct the berths.

The Nigerian Ports Authority has the obligation under the agreement to dredge the ports before any meaningful rehabilitation/reconstruction could take place, but it had failed to dredge the ports.

In carrying out their part of the agreement, BUA had awarded a contract to JBN for the reconstruction of the berth and Julius Berger had already moved to site to start work in 2014. The work could not be carried out without the dredging of the ports.

 

 

Despite much frustration, BUA was hesitant to commence an arbitral proceeding against the Nigerian Ports Authority despite the fundamental breach of the terms by the government organisation.

However, on its own part, the Nigerian Ports Authority rushed to the arbitral court in the United Kingdom and filed an action against BUA. In response, BUA filed a preliminary defense to the claim and also a counterclaim against the Nigerian Ports Authority, a counterclaim, which is quite exorbitant.

The cost implications for both parties as regards fees of the arbitration, the arbitrators and legal representations will be hinge ruling into millions of dollars. That is putting unto cognisance the fact that while the outcome of the arbitral proceeding is uncertain, there is an intervention of government for an amicable resolution of the issues with the Nigerian Ports Authority, outside the arbitral process.

Part of the governments attachment in this process was the lease agreement dated May, 2006, the request for arbitration filed by the Nigerian Ports Authority, the answer and counterclaim of BUA Ports & Terminal Limited. The concession was to be from May, 2006 –May 2026.

It is however, interesting to note that the MD of the Nigerian Ports Authority failed to state that the Nigerian Ports Authority actually did not carry out any of its own obligations under the agreement, up on till date. These are obligations, which are necessary and are required for a concomitant obligation for any meaningful reconstruction in the matter.

By way of explanation, for instance, the Nigerian Ports Authority has the specific obligation to dredge the ports, repair, renew, rebuild the quay walls and provide security for the terminals. It did not do any of these.

It was the failure of the Nigerian Ports Authority to provide the required security that led to the nefarious activities of hoodlums and vandals who, over a period of time, cut the pipes and steel beams of the berths, thereby affecting their stability and consequently making remedial works imperative.

As a matter of fact, within three months of the Nigerian Ports Authority’s MD assuming office, she went to Port Harcourt and in her haste to stop BUA. The said MD led NPA and immediately terminated the contract without any recourse to the provisions of the lease agreement, which does not grant her or the Nigerian Ports Authority such powers.

In defense, BUA approached the Federal High Court for the protection of its rights and investments. The court dutifully granted an injunction restraining the Nigerian Ports Authority from giving effect to the notice of termination and also ordered parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  In essence, the Nigerian Ports Authority was enjoined to await the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

The Nigerian Ports Authority and its MD, upon realising their grave error, initiated arbitration proceedings. This was stipulated in the lease agreement. This was a move that BUA welcomed and, as at now, it is actively participating in. This can be seen in documents which annexes the Nigerian Ports Authority's request for arbitration, BUA's response and BUA's Counter Claims. 

However, while the arbitration process is still ongoing and in a move that has baffled everyone, the MD of the Nigerian Ports Authority has once again disregarded the entire judicial process and gone ahead to decommission the terminal, allegedly based on the contents of a letter written to the Nigerian Ports Authority by BUA seeking to perform remedial work on some parts of the terminal that were vandalised. 

Rather than wait for the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, which it had itself initiated, the Nigerian Ports Authority again issued a letter decommissioning the terminals, which is tantamount to an effective termination of the agreement, ostensibly relying on the said letter written by BUA requesting the approval of NPA (as required under the agreement).

From the actions of the Nigerian Ports Authority, one can comfortably call ‘codswallop’ to the initial reason it gave of safety concerns over the concessionaires’ berths and quays for terminating the Vessel Call at Terminal B concessioned to BUA Ports and Terminals Limited. From the actions of the Nigerian Ports Authority, it doesn’t look like it is actually interested in settling this matter in the best and quickest way possible. From the actions of the Nigerian Ports Authority, it doesn’t look like it is considering the plight of the helpless Nigerians forced out of work because of its actions.

The agreements, regulations and facts speak for themselves. The suspected persecution looks like it is likely to continue for now. For whatever reason only known to her, the MD of the Nigerian Ports Authority seems to have it in for BUA and seems to be willing to truncate any agreement to undermine the conglomerate. 

In this case, the end will not justify the means because BUA will not just lay low and play dead. The conglomerate will continue to fight for the laid-off Nigerian workers trying to make ends meet and working at the ports. And the lifeline of BUA will continue even after the tenure of the MD of the Nigerian Ports Authority is exhausted because that NPA gig has a time limit. 

This legal battle is going to be one for the books even when that clock stops ticking. Trust me!

I invite you to follow me on: Twitter- @hanneymusawa

Hannatu Musawa Column Opinion AddThis :  Original Author :  Hannatu Musawa Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2o2QO47
Twitter Facebook

1:57 AM

 

It's exactly 33 years ago today on October 19, 1986 that Dele Giwa was assassinated by IBB's blood-soaked evil regime. It was a dark day, not only for the vanquished nation and journalism, it was pretty much darker for the African race and her primitive inclination for power without responsibility; fraud, vanity and vandalistic mentality as a vampire humanity. 

Dele Giwa himself had earlier noted that Nigerians have been shocked to a state of unshockability. In other words, nothing, not even the worst human catastrophe, can shock Nigerians any more. But it would appear that Dele Giwa spoke too soon. Shortly thereafter, the prose maestro himself was dispatched by a novel and spectacular method of public execution.

If he had been around in contemporary Nigeria, Dele Giwa, who would have turned seventy plus last July, would have witnessed the infinite capacity of human beings for elaborate suffering stretched to its elastic limit. The limit that we thought was the limit was not quite the limit. Two months ago, taking a dim view of developments, the Oodua Peoples Congress, the Yoruba self-determination group, requested that Nigeria should be declared a war zone. Nobody can fault the premise on which the request was based.

As Nigeria roils in an epochal crisis of political, cultural, spiritual and economic values with the centre almost buckling under and the federating units engulfed in anomie and anarchy. It will take a miracle of political, social and psychological engineering to reclaim it and stem further loss of invaluable life. As the preceding catalogue of catastrophes suggests, that miracle will have to come sooner than later either through peaceful democratic reorganisation of the nation, biological coup d’etat or consuming revolutionary anarchy leading to a radical revamp of state architecture and its personnel.

There is no point in quibbling any further. Given the astonishing wastage of human and natural resources, the sharp erosion of hope and faith in the nation, the veneer of modernity and civilisation superimposed on primitive savagery, Nigeria has very poor prospects for surviving in one piece.

Opinion AddThis :  Original Author :  Erasmus Ikhide Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2YhZLUg
Twitter Facebook

1:57 AM

Why are Nigerian politicians ravished by the thought of election? They complot and machinate over it. And when they eventually get into office, they spend four years scheming for another turn instead of honouring their contract with citizens.

There is always a blue-print for the next election but a subterfuge for governance and duty. The last general election was held in February, and just eight months after, there are already “crusades and evangelism” ahead of the next one in 2023.

How can we make progress this way? We need to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions? Do we keep reprocessing the same class of predators every four years? Do we consider a single term presidency? How do we reduce the cost of elections?

Our elections are about the most expensive in the world, with the cost ballooning from about N2bn in 1999 to more than N240bn in 2019, trumping India’s — a country much bigger in size and in population than Nigeria.

Really, the argument of former President Goodluck Jonathan on this climacteric issue reverberates with me. He foregrounded the paradox of our elections at the constitutional term limits summit in Niamey, Niger Republic.

“Four years is quite a short period for a country that is developing for a person who wants to change the country to do much. 

“In Nigeria we just finished the election and some people are already talking about 2023 election. It is distracting.

“That is why some people came up with the idea of a single tenure; so a president can sit down and plan all his programmes for the good of the country. We are too distracted with these elections. Why must we waste money every four years to elect a leader? Those are the things that agitate our minds,” he said.

I think, a single term of six years may not be outrageous. Whoever is president will have to buckle-down and work, instead of thinking of the next election, which is distracting.

Also, I believe, this should apply to other elective offices. I know some lawmakers, who have become fossils at the National Assembly – every four years they buy their way into the legislature but with nothing to show for their perpetuity in office. Should this continue?

Electing credible candidates is a different matter entirely. As long as ethnicity and religion are the kernel for electing persons to public office here, competence and credibility will always be extraneous.

Fredrick Nwabufo

 

The current administration is yet to clock a year, but some agents of “the presidency cabal” are already crusading for a “pretender to the throne”.

Babachir Lawal, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, who is a consort of the rulers, principalities and powers of present-day Nigeria, has kicked off the crusade with evangelism for Bola Tinubu.

Hear him, “By 2023 when Buhari’s tenure will be over, he’ll go back to Daura to face his cows like I am doing. But you see, every leader must leave behind a legacy. I will like to see that he leaves behind a legacy of achievement.

“Bola Tinubu is my friend of many years. Buhari is my big boss. Bola Tinubu without prejudice that he’s my friend will make a good president.

“Other issues notwithstanding, he (Tinubu) will make a good modern president because the presidency these days is scientific. Nigerians, by convention, seem to have agreed that there should be rotation of the presidency.”

But, I would like to say, “buyers beware”. I do not intend to de-market product Tinubu, but I believe he should remain tamed as a wraith hovering over the seat of power. He could dance around the throne, but he should not sit in it. His antecedents are well established.

I do not think we need a president, who has publicly admitted arrogantly to conveying cash in bullion vans on the eve of an election, in contravention of the country’s money laundering laws.

If by 2023, the “children of Eris” unbalance the scale and decide to skirt the south-east by tilting the office of the president to the South-West, then, I will gamble my vote on a refined, expansive and level-headed person, who does not cut the figure of a mob boss, like Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo – if he decides to run.

@FredrickNwabufo

Opinion AddThis :  Original Author :  Fredrick Nwabufo Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2zI8YtI
IYANDA'SBLOG © 2016. All Rights Reserved.

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget