PRESIDENT JONATHAN SHOULD TAKE CHARGE

Against the background of intense hostility against the idea of a single longer term for elected officials which President Jonathan’s spokesman said the President is about to initiate, the President himself came out yesterday, Thursday 28^th of July and spoke at his Party’s National Executive Committee. The President’s detailed explanations on the origin and intention of the single tenure idea was significant in many ways, the most important being the appearance of major disconnects in the manner the administration handles its relationship with the Nigerian public on many issues. The comments of the President also raise many issues which appear at variance with the specific statements of his spokesman, Mr. Reuben Abati which suggest that Mr. President will soon send a bill to the National Assembly that will seek to amend the tenure provision. The one thing the President his spokesmen agree over is that the President restated the fact that his tenure will expire on 29^th may, 2015.

The President’s effort to clarify issues over the tenure controversy will confound even the most sympathetic of his admirers. Just two days after his spokesman put out a detailed statement on the imminent plan to initiate action towards tenure elongation, President Jonathan says there is still a long way to go before he even concludes basic consultations, particularly with Governors. He said he had only mentioned the idea to one or two Governors and some leaders of his Party and the National Assembly, during informal discussions. The story leaked out, and that some people, presumably people close, to him began to meet to discuss the elongation of his tenure, which he stopped. Then, efforts to clarify the position regarding the single, longer tenure made the matter worse. President Jonathan did not refer to Mr. Abati’s statement released earlier in the week even once, so it is difficult to say whether it is that statement which the President says made matters worse, or if the statement should not have been made at all. The comments by Mr. President have not helped the situation either. Nigerians still want to know if President Jonathan intends to submit a bill to the National Assembly to affect an amendment to the constitution which will give elected officials a single term of six or seven years. If he intends to do so, when?

The poor manner this sensitive issue of tenure elongation is being handled will remind Nigerians about the increasing gaps which are evident in the manner President Jonathan is relating to Nigerians. A President who has just been handed a brand new mandate to govern and who speaks repeatedly about transformation should be more visible, active and decisive in national affairs. To start from the tenure elongation debacle: if the President’s position is that he is only at the early stages of consultations, and therefore the proposals are not even on the table, who then authorized Mr Abati to release a signed statement on the matter? If Mr Abati is acting on his own, Mr President should distance himself from him, given the sensitivity of the issue, and the fact that the statement could quite possibly anger and alienate his own party, the all-powerful governors and the legislature. What appears to be the case at this stage is that there is a worrying absence of control and coordination at the highest office in the land.

There are other areas where more damage is being done to the image of the President in relation to his handling of important national issues. One of these is the failure or refusal of the President to visit Maiduguri . As a  Commander-In-Chief President Jonathan should visit troops he has deployed to a difficult assignment in Maiduguri to boost their morale and find out if they have any special needs. The President should visit the citizens of Maiduguri to sympathise with them over their harrowing experiences since the conflict involving members of the Yusufiyya Movement and security forces escalated.

There are also good reasons why President Jonathan should have visited Borno, and one or two neighbouring states to meet with their elites and ordinary citizens, and assure them of the support and sympathy of the Federal Government and seek further understanding for the presence of security forces particularly in Borno State. Leaving these efforts to commanders on the ground to justify their presence, or to State Governors, just simply is not good enough. By all means, there are many occasion when others will need to speak for President Jonathan, but it is an attribute of a good politician to know when you should step forward, and when you should have issues and positions taken up for you.

There are major challenges in governance, many of them relatively new or becoming more pronounced, that President Jonathan should take a firm control of, and assure the nation over. Security is a major concern for every Nigerian, and we all want to see more of the President assure us that he is on top of our problems. Nigerians what the president to speak on the open and undignified quarrels between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation and the Chairperson of the E.F.C.C over the manner the Commission operates. Nigerians want to see Mr President speak on the raging controversy over the operations of the newly-licensed Islamic Bank, an issue which has the potential to cause another major breach in our security.

The President has far demonstrated an uncomfortable detachment from many important political developments and controversies, and proxies have not done a good job for him. The untidy manner the Presidency is putting forward the controversial tenure elongation matter is a strong reminder of the need for the President to be more assertive and show evidence of firmer control on the affairs of the nation. There are bucks you just cannot pass if you are the President, because those you pass it to may do irreparable damage to the nation, for which you will be held responsible and accountable.

TENURE ELONGATION: A WASTEFUL DIVERSION

After some kite flying and media manipulation, President Goodluck Jonathan finally said he intends to propose a constitutional amendment that will provide for a single, elongated tenure of office for the President, State Governors and all Federal and State legislators. Currently, the President and Governors are limited to not more than two, four-year terms. There was no specific information on how long the single term will be. According to the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr. Rueben Abati, the amendment will take effect from 2015, and the President himself will not be a beneficiary of the amendment. This will suggest that Mr. President will not seek to run for another term of office.

          Even though the statement of the Special Adviser is silent on the length of the tenure, there is widespread speculation that the proposed amendment will seek for a seven-year, single-term tenure. The arguments being made for the amendment include the view that the two four-year terms for Presidents and Governors which the Constitution provides for do not help the leadership to focus on governance and the institutionalization of democracy at this stage of our development. It is also intended to eliminate  the acrimony which the issue of re-election every four years generates, and the Special Adviser draws attention to the fact that the nation is still smarting from the election-related violence, which he describes as the result of the desperation for power and the tendency of every election to overheat the polity. These endemic crises, he says have stunted the growth and development of democratic values and institutions, as well as the overall economic aspirations of Nigerians. Mr. Abati argues that a longer, single term will make elected executives concentrate on governance and service delivery for their entire term, rather than run governments with re-election as their primary focus. Similarly, he suggests that a longer term for legislators will help to stabilize the polity. Finally, Mr. Abati says the proposed amendment is part of President Jonathan’s transformation agenda aimed at sanitizing the nation’s politics.   

          Many Nigerians have expected some sort of initiative towards constitutional amendment since President Jonathan indicated last May that he will push through another round of constitutional changes. Most Nigerians have also expected that the changes will seek to give President Jonathan himself some sort of advantage, contingent of course, on the consideration that it will confer other advantages to Governors and Federal and State legislators as well. Now that there are some sketchy details about the planned amendment, the most notable part of the initiative is the claim that President Jonathan will not benefit from it. In clear claims, it means that he has no plans to run for another term in 2015. This interpretation will not impress many Nigerians who believe that the President is already disqualified from running in 2015 by the constitutional provision which bars anyone from being sworn-in more than twice into an executive office. What would appear as an altruistic concession is therefore nothing more than an acknowledgment of the law; and it will not convince Nigerians on its own that the proposed amendment has merit beyond the ambitions of President Jonathan Even if this position is faulty in law, many Nigerians cannot see President Jonathan pushing through an amendment from which he will not benefit.

          A more profound question at this stage is what benefit these amendments aim to achieve, for an administration and nation grounded by insecurity, poverty, corruption and the absence of ideas and strategies for moving forward. President Jonathan has used up the entire period since his election to set up a not-so-new Federal Executive Council, and beyond the transformation mantra, the nation is entirely in the dark over how the economic and social infrastructure will begin to be fixed; how the administration intends to heal the wounds of election-related violence; how it will handle the new threats to national security; how to deal with crushing poverty and corruption; and how to galvanize a nation weighed down by cynicism and self-doubt, to dream big dreams.

          In the midst of this suffocating quagmire, President Jonathan flashes a constitutional amendment on tenure for elected people who are barely months into their tenures; an amendment that will take effect four years away, if it does get through. The intense arguments and bitter disputes which will follow this effort at an amendment will divert attention and energy away from the challenges of governance and will deprive Nigerians of even the most minimum of the benefits of the democratic process. The proposals will widen the gulf between government and the opposition. They will open up old wounds, as suspicions and recriminations come to the fore and further polarize the nation. They will remind Nigerians of President Obasanjo’s term-term misadventure, and people will close their minds to any arguments about merits or demerits of the amendments. In the end, whether they pass the crucial steps of becoming law or not, these amendments will leave the nation worse off than it is presently.

          So why would a President sitting on a mountain of complex problems compound those problems by starting a potentially damaging argument that is irrelevant under the prevailing circumstances? Could it be that the administration is diverting attention from its seeming inability to move the nation out of its massive limitations towards some economic and political reconstruction? Or, as some commentators have said, are there plans to introduce other far-reaching constitutional amendments that will alter the basic structure of the Nigerian State , and which will require the full support of the legislature, which could be secured by an elongation of its tenure as a carrot?

          Without a doubt, these amendments will generate a huge and bitter debate, because Nigerians will be suspicious of their real motives, their timing and the possibility that they may be just the first in a line of a long list of other constitutional amendments which will seek to confer undeserved advantages to groups or individuals. Apart from public suspicion and the fact that they represent lowly-placed priorities, there is also the fact that all the reasons behind them are rooted in our failure to institutionalise the conduct of free and fair elections. Whether you give Presidents, Governors or Legislators four, six or seven years, and whether they have one, two or more terms, unless you have a credible electoral system, party primaries will be expensive and will be hijacked by incumbency and money. Elections will be rigged whether we have them after every seven or four years, unless you have an electoral system which will not lend itself to power and money. Leaders will not be better because they have seven years, rather than four. Good governance is not determined by how long you stay in office. Good leaders are genuinely elected; they govern with responsibility and are transparently accountable; and they submit to the popular will during elections.

The argument about number of terms or length of tenure of elected leaders will be more useful if we have settled the basic issues about the nature of our election. What the proposals of President Jonathan seek to do is to attempt to cure a basic political problem with the wrong solution. They divert attention from the need to look hard at our electoral process, and to try to fix it before the next elections in 2015. President Jonathan is reluctant to draw attention to the need for a critical assessment of our electoral process because he is worried that this may be interpreted as a stain on the recent elections that brought him to power. The late President Yar’Adua indicted the elections which gave him victory in 2007, and went ahead to try and improve the electoral process. He did not succeed. If President Jonathan wants to leave a lasting legacy in Nigeria , he cannot do it better than by improving the integrity and credibility of our electoral process. The amount of energy which will be wasted in debating the proposed amendments on tenure for elected leaders will be much better utilized if the nation takes a critical look at our politics and electoral process which make our nation progressively worse off. The best that can be said of the proposed amendment on tenure is that Nigerians should reject it as irrelevant, diversionary and wasteful. Those we have just elected, including President Jonathan should get to work and make a difference in our lives in the four years that they have.

CORRUPTION FIGHTS BACK

         The not-so-discreet manoeuvres for control of the anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria, particularly the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (E.F.C.C) finally blew open in a most undignified public quarrel last week. The newly-reappointed Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN gave an interview in the Daily Trust newspaper in which he raised the issue of the need to reduce the powers currently enjoyed by Mrs Farida Waziri, the chairperson  of the E.F.C.C, by bringing the Commission directly under his supervision. He lamented a situation in which the Commission is operating largely on its own, with an Executive Chairman who oversees her own management function. He complained that Mrs. Waziri operates as if she is a sole administrator, because the law which establishes the Commission has not provided for sufficient checks within the board against the Chairperson. He says if the Chairman operates without the effective input of other members of the Commission, and is not under the supervision of another organ of government, such as his Ministry, then abuse and the impunities which he complains about will continue. Mr Adoke is bitter that efficiency in the trial of accused persons is severely compromised, and that there are many cases where human rights of suspects or accused persons are evident, or where are conflicting interests are not properly balanced.

         Mrs. Farida Waziri immediately fired back through her spokesman, accusing a top functionary in government of going all out to frustrate he work and smear her record in service in the Nigeria Police and her personal integrity. She claimed that a clique is working intimately with defenders of the corrupt, who are either being investigated or are standing trial to smear her image and scuttle trials. She says that the recent commencement of the  trials ofhigh profile suspects is the impetus behind the escalation of vile propaganda against her person and the Commission.

         The quarrel between the Attorney General and Chairperson of the E.F.C.C represents an additional source of concern for a nation which is choking under widespread and deep-seated corruption; and an administration which has re-stated its willingness to fight corruption, but appears incapable of even harnessing all its anti-corruption arsenal together. Only two weeks ago, President Jonathan listed the fight against corruption as a major objective of his administration, and warned ministers that they will go to jail if they are found to be corrupt. If this type of talk is to have any impact on the low expectations of Nigerians with regards to corruption, then this open quarrel by two of the most important officers of government who can make a difference can only be seen as further subversion of the fight against corruption.

         There is a lot more to this quarrel than the matter of how the E.F.C.C relates to other institutions of government. For a long time now, it has been obvious that accused persons involved in high profile trials have found a way of manipulating gaps in political will behind the trials, or exploiting technicalities or institutional weaknesses to stall trials. The quarrels over the powers of the Executive Chairman of the E.F.C.C are as old as the organization. The fact is that the E.FC.C law was crafted around the person and character of its former Chairman, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, and it gave him intimidating powers. The concern over the weakness of other members of the Commission in terms of determining how the Commission functioned was not even the most serious. The more serious concern was that the Commission appeared to have been created to operate on its own, and it appeared to function with little regard for the laws of the land, or substantial autonomy and the larger-than-life powers and status of its Executive Chairman made it relatively easy to lend its considerable weight to partisan interests under its former Chairman, and consequently acquire the reputation that it was essentially a political lap dog of the leadership. Persons being investigated or prosecuted complained that they were being victimized for political reasons, and others who discovered that the Commission is integrity has been tainted by its involvement in political activities sought other ways of weakening its effectiveness through destructive propaganda. Many others used huge funds suspected to have been corruptly acquired to hire very expensive and experienced lawyers to frustrate their trials.

         It is a strong evidence of the ineffectiveness of the E.F.C.C that to date it has not been able to put more than a handful of the hundreds of suspects it is prosecuting through concluded trials. It is even worse that the public only hears of missing files and trials lasting for years, while corruption eats even deeper into the fabric of our lives. Mischief makers and Sabobaurs of the anti-corruption crusade are having a field day denigrating the Commission Almost daily, the media comes up with red herrings intended to further weaken the fight against corruption. A few weeks ago, some sections of the media floated a sponsored debate over the utility or otherwise of merging the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (I.C.P.C) with the E.F.C.C. Much energy was wasted on arguments over two agencies which, put together, have done little to put a dent on corruption in Nigeria. Together or separately, the I.C.P.C and the E.F.C.C cost Nigerians a lost of money, and have produced little to show for it. Yet they are frequently engineered to engage in a distracting fight to protect their furfs, while blaming the courts, rich suspects who hire good and expensive lawyers, society’s degenerating value systems and Nigerians generally for their weaknesses. There is no greater indictment of our anti-corruption agencies than the fact that their most celebrated suspect, Chief James Ibori is today standing trial in Britain, and not in Nigeria where most of the crimes he is being accused of took place.

         Nigerians will be disappointed that President Jonathan is tolerating a public quarrel between the Minister of Justice and Chairperson of the E.F.C.C over issues that are best settled through constructive assessment of the weaknesses of the anti-corruption mechanisms. If the Attorney-General’s position is informed merely by the desire to build empires, the President should call him to order, and stop him from further weakening the image and capacity of the E.F.C.C. If, on the other hand, there is merit in the case he is making for major changes in the law establishing the E.F.C.C to make it more transparent, accountable and efficient, the President should support his position by pushing through the necessary amendments. The E.F.C.C is not a personal institution of the Chairman, and it must meet the requirement of all public institutions in terms of their legal framework and the conduct of the people who run them.

         It is also obvious that the person and image of Mrs. Fedrida Waziri is being dragged into this rather messy fight. Perhaps it is evidence of the rather distant nature of the Commission that the Chairperson has to fight vicious opposition seemingly alone and in her own personal capacity. If she is being maligned by forces bent on distracting attention or destroying the integrity and credibility of the Commission, she must be protected by Mr. President. The best way can do this is by calling the Minister of Justice to order in his public comments about the E.F.C.C, and working with the National Assembly to address possible weaknesses in the E.F.C.C law. If Mr President wants to make any inroads, into the fight against corruption, he must take personal charge of the need to strengthen the nation’s institutional mechanisms for fighting corruption. Right now the public quarrels between the Ministry of Justice and the E.F.C.C is showing the Government in very bad light, and those who think it is corruption’s way of fighting back may be right.      

POLITICIANS AND HAJJ

There are widespread reports that politicians and officials of the Federal and State Muslim Pilgrim Boards have bought off most of the allocated Hajj seats for this year, or have hoarded it for sale at much higher prices. Consequently, thousands of intending Pilgrims are finding it impossible to pay for seats. The fares have not even been announced yet by the Federal Government, a move which largely determines public response. At the moment, it would appear that many intending Pilgrims will either be prevented from going to the Hajj or will have to pay a lot more for the religious duty. This is regrettable, and a major indictment of politicians or leaders, who treat a major element of the faith of Nigerians as a Political commodity. It is also evidence of the most despicable manifestation of corruption by officials, which should not be allowed to continue.

Over the past few years, more and more intending muslim pilgrims had undergone harrowing experiences in their efforts to pay for the right to perform the Hajj because governments, politicians and officials have turned the Hajj into major sources of patronage or the acquisition of huge amounts of easy money. The practice had been more pronounced during years when elections will hold, because politicians and public office holders buy off, or simply commandeer thousands of slots to send people to the Hajj on the assumptions that Allah will accept their prayers for their successes at elections. It is also noticeable in years following elections, when politicians and public office holders send thousands of people, largely at public expense, to the Hajj as reward for support during the elections; or use the Hajj opportunities to weaken opposition. Many more seats are taken up by large members of government delegations and officials, many of whom add little value to the welfare or comfort of pilgrims.

Between the greed of politicians and corruption of officials, ordinary muslims who have laboured to save to perform a major pillar of their faith have had to struggle for very few seats available, at prices much higher than those advertised. Hajj seats are allocated by the Saudi Arabian authorities under very trying conditions, and Nigeria has historically found it very difficult to negotiate for  lager slots, owing largely to the very bad reputation of our Pilgrims in the holy land. The Saudi authorities also know that only about 3 out of every 10 pilgrims from Nigeria are first timers. The others are repeat pilgrims, many of whom have been to the Hajj many times before, and had done so at public expense. The annually-allocated slots for Nigeria are then allocated to States, and most governments and State Pilgrim Boards treat the allocations as their own property, and release them to the public only as a favour. Yet these slots are also heavily subsidised, not just directly by the manner in which government relieves the intending Pilgrim of some of the cost, but also through the billions which is spent in maintaining many large Pilgrim Boards in the country as permanent government structures. When governments and officials deprive citizens of access to subsidized Hajj seats, or make illegal money from selling them to the same citizens at higher cost, they are stealing public funds, pure and simple.

   Governments, particularly State Governments have turned the Hajj into a political instrument, and this reinforces the widespread public perception that elected leaders treat public property as private property. Seats allocated to States are taken up by allocations to the Governor, Deputy Governor, leaders and members of State legislatures, party leaders and a whole army of Party supporters. The little allocated to Local Governments are then taken up by Chairmen and Councillors and so called Stakeholders. Most of these people do not even pay for their allocations. The State and Local Governments pay for them from public funds; and the little that is left is then allocated to citizens purely on the basis of their relationship with those who run the affairs of State.

Another large chunk of the seats is cornered by Pilgrim Board officials who share them between themselves, and who are reported to sell them to the public at highly inflated prices. In fact, there are stories of an entire middleman industry thriving around the Hajj, and one consequence of this is that the vast majority of Pilgrims are either intimately connected to powerful people, or they bought their seats at costs much higher than they should have. The very few who manage to secure seats without political patronage or without additional cost perform their Hajj under difficulties and inconveniences without complaints or recourse to a caring government.

The disgraceful manner Governments and officials treat the Hajj cannot continue. All governments must stop the practice of taking away the bulk of the allocated seats, and giving it out almost free to political cronies or their relatives. If governors, local government chairman and other officials want seats, they should buy them from their own pockets, not from public funds. And they, together, should not take away more than 10 percent of all seats allocated to any State in any one year. Furthermore, the size of officials should be reduced to a level where it is reasonable, and related only to the welfare and comfort of Pilgrims. All corruption agencies should focus their attention to the activities of Hajj officials who have turned an act of worship into an avenue for corrupt enrichment. It cannot be the case that no one knows that most of our Pilgrims have to pay additional monies to secure seats, because officials claim that seats have been sold out even before fares are announced. The way forward is for Muslim leaders and honest elected officials to lead the way towards sanitizing access to the Hajj. Muslims who travel assisted and unhindered to perform the Hajj are a blessing to their communities. On the other hand, leaders who make it difficult or impossible for Pilgrims to perform their obligations will account for their actions to God. But they need to be held accountable to the people whose funds and faith they abuse first.    

    

THE FORTHCOMING AVOIDABLE STRIKE

The Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have said that their planned three day warning strike for Wednesday, 20^th July, 2011 will go ahead, in spite of the invitation to meet with the Federal Government and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum to discuss the implementation of the National Minimum Wage of N18, 000 which was signed into law last March by President Jonathan. The two Unions have said they will not call off the strike because they suspect that the invitations are a ploy to scuttle the strike. They pointed out that no payment arrangement has been made public by either the Federal Government or the Governors’ Forum to give them the assurance that payment, including arrears will commence. The Unions insist that the three day warning strike will be a prelude to an indefinite strike if all governments fail to commit themselves to acceptable programmed payment arrangements.

          The Unions say they suspect that the Federal Government and the Governor’s Forum are trying to demobilize the planned strikes by buying time. They say they have fully mobilised their members for the warning strike, and they have done this only after it became obvious that many governments will continue to dodge their legal obligations to pay the minimum wage. According to the Union, they gave governments all the time to pay the minimum wage, and will therefore not stand down on the warning strike one day before commencement. They insist that as from 12 midnight on Tuesday, July 20^th, they will shut down the country, and further advised the public to stock up on food and other essentials.

          If the warning strike by the NLC and the T.U.C does go ahead, Nigerians will hold the Federal and State Governments entirely responsible. The governments have had every opportunity to make inputs into the National Minimum Wage, from being members and facilitators of the Committee set up under Justice Alfa Belgore to advise government; to the considerations of the Committee’s recommendations; to the lobby of the legislature when it was considering legislation on the Minimum Wage, and through the many other avenues they have to influence the process. The approved and legislated N18, 000 minimum wages is not beyond any government in Nigeria to pay. Even if it will involve some adjustments in expenditure and plans, it is no longer a matter of choice, since it is the law. Governments which are refusing to pay, or attempting to buy time before implementing; or finding excuses for not paying are therefore in breach of the law, and are showing unpardonable contempt for public opinion.

          Most of the Governors’ who are making a case for re-negotiating the Minimum Wage, or choosing when to pay have just come through an election in which they spent billions of Naira. Workers represent a critical segment of the electorate from whom they sought for support; and they will continue to be the major vehicle for the execution of their policies and programmes. They have no legal or moral basis for refusing to pay the Minimum wage, and the public will not show sympathy to leaders who earn huge amounts and have massive powers to dispense with large quantities of public funds to secure themselves in power. On the contrary, workers who have a right to a minimum wage prescribed by law will have the public on their side, in a country where the cost of securing just the basic necessities of life is becoming less and les affordable.

          The Nigerian Public will not be impressed with arguments by State Governments that payments of the Minimum Wage will be contingent on a review of the revenue allocation formula in such a way that State Governments will receive more, so they can pay workers a minimum of N18, 000. Nor will the public support the reduction in the size of the public service just so that governments will pay the wage. Similarly, threats to cut back on essential   services as the price for paying the minimum wage will not meet with sympathy, in a situation where State Governments are generally operating on declining levels of efficiency and impact on the lives of citizens.

          Without a doubt, Nigerians are paying much more than they should as a cost of governance. We have too much government, both in terms of having three tiers with many branches, but also in terms of having huge bureaucracies, in relation to their values in our lives and output. But this is not the basis for making an argument against the payment of the new National Minimum Wage. One problem with Nigeria is that in the public service there are very few people who earn too much, and too many people who earn too little. The problem will not be solved by depriving those who earn too little of what they deserve, while those who earn too much keep their own. We have to find an opportunity and a time to re-assess the entire remuneration structure in the Nigerian Public Service. In the meantime, the Federal and State Governments should immediately announce an unconditional acceptance to pay the National Minimum Wage, and save Nigerians additional and avoidable hardship.

PRESIDENT JONATHAN RALLIES THE TROOPS

While inaugurating the new Federal Executive Council, and immediately after swearing-in the last batch of ministers, President Jonathan delivered a speech which essentially set the focus and priorities of his administration. The speech listed nine areas which will represent the administration’s 9-point agenda, and serious challenges such as corruption and the weaknesses of the Nigerian State which his administration has to tackle decisively and successfully. The President informed ministers that he intends to provide a transformational leadership which is willing and committed to reposition the country for economic growth and development, and win the support of all and sundry, including those who are in doubt or denial. He acknowledged that there will be difficult decisions and tough moments ahead, and urged Ministers to work as a team to show that the administration is prepared to work in the best way to focus on the people’s aspirations. He emphasized the importance of working quickly to address the issues which preoccupy Nigerians, while urging ministers not to see their position as merely another job or a reward for status, but as an opportunity to serve the people of Nigeria.

          President Jonathan admitted that Nigerians have serious concerns about the integrity of their leaders, and warned that mere talk about transformation will be of no value, because Nigerians want to see serious steps being taken in that direction. He said that his administration is not the government of the ruling party; it is the government of the Nigerian people. In order to focus its attention on key priorities, the President mentioned power, employment, agriculture, oil and gas, education, health, transportation and security as areas which will receive the highest priority. He also singled out the fight against corruption as a major objective, and promised that no form of abuse will be tolerated in any ministry, department or agency or tier of government.

          Nigerians would be excused if they raise their hopes that the inspiring and rallying speech of President Jonathan will be translated into action along the lines he promises. Certainly, the President is right in a number of areas he addressed. First, he was on the mark when he said that Nigerians have serious concerns about the integrity of their leaders. The questionable integrity of leaders starts from disputed elections, and Nigerians have almost resigned themselves to suspicions that they may spend their entire lives under leadership of people who may not have been genuinely elected. Then there is the issue of pervasive and crippling corruption in governments, which has led most Nigerians to believe that government resources are the private property of leaders, who do with it as they wish, and which trickles down to the public only when they beg abjectly, and show flattering gratitude. To make matters worse, most leaders work without vision, commitment or competence. Many leaders believe that they have laboured to acquire elective offices, and this entitles them to govern without being accountable; to lead without being questioned; and to administer without responsibility.  

          The President was also right when he warned against complacency, and sloganeering, and when he drew attention to the need for serious steps towards transforming the Nigerian economy. Seven or nine or twenty-point agendas of the administration are meaningless unless they translate into real improvement in the lives of citizens. Just the provision of adequate power supply and a secure environment for Nigerians would have made a major difference in the lives of Nigerians if they were pursued consistently and with sufficient political will. As it is, we are fast approaching a situation where Nigerians will suspect that the more money you throw at a problem, such as power or the security of life and property in Nigeria, the worse it will get. Now the administration has rolled out a nine-point agenda, and all it will do is raise the level of cynicism of Nigerians, particularly since they will remind us all of the previous administration’s 7-point agenda, an administration in which President Jonathan was a key actor.

          The President’s stirring challenge to ministers to rise to the occasion and deliver the benefits of good governance is a valuable reference point in terms of his personal commitment to lead the transformation which he so obviously believes is achievable and desirous. But the President will also need to recognise that his team’s performance will be only as good as his leadership. If Mr. President wants his ministers and all other elected and public officers to eschew corrupt acts, he must himself be absolutely above board, and demonstrate a willingness to fight corruption openly and decisively. When he says his government is not the government of the ruling party, but the government of the Nigerian people, he will need to distance governance from political party patronage, which had tended to treat governments as if they are mere extensions of political parties. When he challenges ministers to work hard and justify the mandate of the Nigerian people, he will be required on his part to provide them with the leadership they will follow, and standards they will aspire to. He will have to create an environment in which due process is followed without question; roles and functions are undertaken without friction; and goals and targets met without failures or excuses. He will have to be fair but firm, hard and compassionate; resolute and visionary.   

          For now, Nigerians are entitled to take due notice of a President and his team who say they are on a mission to transform Nigeria. All Nigerians will hope that they will succeed, and any sign that they are succeeding will be supported by tremendous goodwill. The success of the team will however depend on how much President Jonathan wants to lead personally. At this stage, Nigerians want to see him lead. They want to see him in Borno where they are suffering from the twin threats of the Yusufiyya Movement and the reactions of the Joint Task Force. They want to see him in the Niger Delta where the amnesty appears to be achieving results. They need to see him in Sokoto, in Katsina and Jigawa and Lagos where floods are wrecking havoc on the lives of citizens. They need to see him in Kaduna State which is still living with the wounds of the post-election violence. He is their President, and there is a lot more to Nigeria than Abuja.     

PRESIDENT JONATHAN RALLIES THE TROOPS

While inaugurating the new Federal Executive Council, and immediately after swearing-in the last batch of ministers, President Jonathan delivered a speech which essentially set the focus and priorities of his administration. The speech listed nine areas which will represent the administration’s 9-point agenda, and serious challenges such as corruption and the weaknesses of the Nigerian State which his administration has to tackle decisively and successfully. The President informed ministers that he intends to provide a transformational leadership which is willing and committed to reposition the country for economic growth and development, and win the support of all and sundry, including those who are in doubt or denial. He acknowledged that there will be difficult decisions and tough moments ahead, and urged Ministers to work as a team to show that the administration is prepared to work in the best way to focus on the people’s aspirations. He emphasized the importance of working quickly to address the issues which preoccupy Nigerians, while urging ministers not to see their position as merely another job or a reward for status, but as an opportunity to serve the people of Nigeria.

          President Jonathan admitted that Nigerians have serious concerns about the integrity of their leaders, and warned that mere talk about transformation will be of no value, because Nigerians want to see serious steps being taken in that direction. He said that his administration is not the government of the ruling party; it is the government of the Nigerian people. In order to focus its attention on key priorities, the President mentioned power, employment, agriculture, oil and gas, education, health, transportation and security as areas which will receive the highest priority. He also singled out the fight against corruption as a major objective, and promised that no form of abuse will be tolerated in any ministry, department or agency or tier of government.

          Nigerians would be excused if they raise their hopes that the inspiring and rallying speech of President Jonathan will be translated into action along the lines he promises. Certainly, the President is right in a number of areas he addressed. First, he was on the mark when he said that Nigerians have serious concerns about the integrity of their leaders. The questionable integrity of leaders starts from disputed elections, and Nigerians have almost resigned themselves to suspicions that they may spend their entire lives under leadership of people who may not have been genuinely elected. Then there is the issue of pervasive and crippling corruption in governments, which has led most Nigerians to believe that government resources are the private property of leaders, who do with it as they wish, and which trickles down to the public only when they beg abjectly, and show flattering gratitude. To make matters worse, most leaders work without vision, commitment or competence. Many leaders believe that they have laboured to acquire elective offices, and this entitles them to govern without being accountable; to lead without being questioned; and to administer without responsibility.  

          The President was also right when he warned against complacency, and sloganeering, and when he drew attention to the need for serious steps towards transforming the Nigerian economy. Seven or nine or twenty-point agendas of the administration are meaningless unless they translate into real improvement in the lives of citizens. Just the provision of adequate power supply and a secure environment for Nigerians would have made a major difference in the lives of Nigerians if they were pursued consistently and with sufficient political will. As it is, we are fast approaching a situation where Nigerians will suspect that the more money you throw at a problem, such as power or the security of life and property in Nigeria, the worse it will get. Now the administration has rolled out a nine-point agenda, and all it will do is raise the level of cynicism of Nigerians, particularly since they will remind us all of the previous administration’s 7-point agenda, an administration in which President Jonathan was a key actor.

          The President’s stirring challenge to ministers to rise to the occasion and deliver the benefits of good governance is a valuable reference point in terms of his personal commitment to lead the transformation which he so obviously believes is achievable and desirous. But the President will also need to recognise that his team’s performance will be only as good as his leadership. If Mr. President wants his ministers and all other elected and public officers to eschew corrupt acts, he must himself be absolutely above board, and demonstrate a willingness to fight corruption openly and decisively. When he says his government is not the government of the ruling party, but the government of the Nigerian people, he will need to distance governance from political party patronage, which had tended to treat governments as if they are mere extensions of political parties. When he challenges ministers to work hard and justify the mandate of the Nigerian people, he will be required on his part to provide them with the leadership they will follow, and standards they will aspire to. He will have to create an environment in which due process is followed without question; roles and functions are undertaken without friction; and goals and targets met without failures or excuses. He will have to be fair but firm, hard and compassionate; resolute and visionary.   

          For now, Nigerians are entitled to take due notice of a President and his team who say they are on a mission to transform Nigeria. All Nigerians will hope that they will succeed, and any sign that they are succeeding will be supported by tremendous goodwill. The success of the team will however depend on how much President Jonathan wants to lead personally. At this stage, Nigerians want to see him lead. They want to see him in Borno where they are suffering from the twin threats of the Yusufiyya Movement and the reactions of the Joint Task Force. They want to see him in the Niger Delta where the amnesty appears to be achieving results. They need to see him in Sokoto, in Katsina and Jigawa and Lagos where floods are wrecking havoc on the lives of citizens. They need to see him in Kaduna State which is still living with the wounds of the post-election violence. He is their President, and there is a lot more to Nigeria than Abuja.     

THE COST OF GOVERNANCE

On Wednesday 13^th July, 2011, the Senate completed the screening of the people nominated by President Goodluck Jonathan to serve as Ministers. By Friday 15th of July, all the Ministers would have known in what capacities they will serve, and whether they will be senior Ministers or Ministers of State. In all, there are likely to be 42 Ministers, with 36 representing States as is provided for in the Constitution, and the rest representing geo-political zones, as in the tradition of the PDP. Last week, 18 (eighteen) Special Advisers were appointed, leaving two more to be appointed, to make up for the 20 the President and his Deputy requested, and was approved by the Senate. Special Advisers have equivalent ranks with Ministers.

          The long drawn-out process of appointing Ministers is being concluded at a time the National Assembly is in uproar over attempts by some sections of its leadership to reduce the total remunerations of its members. As at this moment, it is not clear whether efforts by some of the legislators to accord some respect to public opinion which is generally hostile to the huge cost of supporting the legislature in particular, and of governance in general, will succeed. Certainly, those legislators who argue that their huge pay is a legislated matter, and the only way it can be reduced is by amending the law, are right. It will be difficult to see how legislators, many of whom would have been encouraged by the comfortable financial compensation of the position to seek for it in the first place, would voluntarily review their emoluments downwards. It is more reasonable to expect that the very high take-home pays of our legislators will remain, even though there may be attempts to tinker with some variable expenses in running their offices strictly as a public relations exercise.

          The nation appears to be struck with the extremely high cost of governance, and we may not even have heard the last of this matter, with all the talk about creating additional Ministries to give each Minister a portfolio of his or her own. Yet there are threats of strikes over the refusal of many State governments to pay the N18, 000 minimum wage, which is the law. Political and public office holders earn salaries and allowances that are totally unrelated to the realities of existence of citizens. Life is hard for the ordinary citizen, on whose behalf billions have just been spent to conduct a very expensive general election in April, as a result of which many more billions were destroyed, and hundreds of lives were lost. Government is seriously contemplating removal of fuel subsidy. Electricity tariffs are going up, and the cost of basic fuels such as kerosene and diesel is becoming intolerable. The costs of all basic necessities of life are rising, and unemployment, particularly among youth, is at alarming levels.   

          This is the context in which Nigerians are asking legitimate questions on the cost and value of governance. There are generally-acceptable benchmarks for judging a fair price for being governed the world over. As a general rule, federal systems are very expensive, because they do not only need to operate different arms of government and fund them in such a manner as to ensure their independence; but they also operate different tiers of government. In Nigeria, we have a federal government which has three arms, 36 State governments, each with three arms as well, and 774 Local Governments, each with two arms. All three tiers and arms also have huge bureaucracies. There are many other institutions and agencies of government, military and paramilitary agencies, ministries and parastatals, all of which are supposed to perform one function of governance or the other.  

          The only justification for the huge cost of maintaining a federal structure is that all three tiers of government work in tandem with the principles of federal system. Each tier will have to make maximum possible impact within its mandate, and citizens must derive the full benefits of having all three levels perform different, if related tasks. Then there is the requirement that all governments must operate with the highest levels of competence, so that policies and the utilisation of public funds will make a real impact on the lives of citizens. Furthermore, leaders must have integrity and cultivate the highest levels of honesty, so that public assets and trust are not abused. Finally, government must be run with flexibility and a capacity for being adjusted in terms of its priorities, targets and overall cost for the citizenry.

          The image of Nigerian leaders is not currently at its best due to the general perception that they take a major chunk of public resources which is unearned and unjustifiable. Now that President Jonathan has completed the appointment of his Ministers and Special Advisers, Nigerians can only hope that the new appointees will justify the huge amounts Nigerians will pay them. It is important that everyone appointed resists the temptation to corruptly enrich himself or herself in their new offices. The efforts of some members of the National Assembly to launder its image over its huge take home pay will not impress Nigerians, unless it results in a real reduction in the overall cost of maintaining our legislature. Nigerians have some serious and justifiable misgivings about the cost of our political system. If the cost of governance is not reduced, they may question the value of the types of governments they support with their own resources. Democracy is only useful to a people who can afford it.

MAIDUGURI: ONLY WORSE

A group of highly respected citizens from Borno State who call themselves Borno Elders Forum on Wednesday, July 13^th 2011, called on President Goodluck Jonathan to order the immediate withdrawal of soldiers from the streets of Maiduguri. The elders say that the security situation in the State in general and Maiduguri in particular has degenerated since the military intervened in the fight against the insurgency of the Yusufiyya Movement, known as Boko Haram. They complain that the innocent ciitzens are being subjected to increasing hardship which is the cause of the massive movement of people out of Maiduguri. They specifically accused the soldiers under the Joint Task Force of burning cars, killing innocent passers-by, looting private property, harassing innocent citizens and even raping young girls.

          The Elders further observed that the presence of thousands of heavily-armed soldiers on the streets of Maiduguri has turned the city’s situation into a nightmare, the worse Maiduguri has ever seen. They claim that hundreds of young people have been shot by soldiers for no known reasons other that that they are young people. They say that many communities have been sacked, and people in their thousands are fleeing Maiduguri, and the level of human suffering in Maiduguri has reached its peak, and Borno State is faced with horrific and horrendous humanitarian crisis.

          But the Elders went beyond requesting the Federal Government to immediately withdraw all soldiers from the streets of Maiduguri, and to rescue fleeing citizens and provide of relief materials to affected victims. They appealed to members of the Movement or Boko Haram, whom they referred to as friends in Kanuri language, to note current human suffering of fellow Muslims and look for alternative ways of pursuing their demands. They made the point that the general population are the brothers and sisters of the members of the Movement, and its members should therefore do everything within their powers to ensure its safety. 

          Reacting to the release of the Borno elders, the Joint task Force described their claims as baseless and uncalled for, and its spokesman insisted that the Army is acting strictly within its mandate in handling the serious security challenges in the State. The spokesman insisted that it is the members of the Boko Haram who are a threat to the public in the manner they plant explosives in residential areas, which damage houses and vehicles of law abiding citizens. The Army claims that reports of thousands of people leaving Maiduguri are rumours, which should be disregarded, and that those leaving the beleaguered city are motorcycle owners who are leaving for other places, following the ban on use of motorcycles by Borno State Government last week.

          The calibre and background of the members of the Borno Elders Forum who signed the statement should leave no one in doubt over the seriousness of the situation in Borno State. To the last man, the signatories are people of very high standing, some as very senior former officers in the military and police, and no one will accuse these types of people of playing to the gallery. On the contrary, it is safe to assume that they must have weighed the consequences and implications of their demands for the immediate withdrawal of troops, and the litany of accusations against officers of the Joint Task Force. These elders have lived with the twin threats and inconveniences of the Yusufiyya Movement and the security agencies for over two years, as residents of Maiduguri. They are well-placed to recognize genuine threats, and no one can accuse them of rumour-mongering. There is no basis for assuming that they have all suddenly become mouthpieces of the Yusufiyya Movement at the current stage of this intensifying conflict.

          When highly respected citizens make demands for the withdrawal of soldiers from the streets of Maiduguri, knowing very well that it is highly unlikely that the Federal government will comply, there is only one conclusion to be drawn; and this is the fact that the situation in Maiduguri is very desperate indeed. The demand by the Borno Elders Forum will put the Federal Government in a very difficult situation. It is obviously out of the question to order the full and immediate withdrawal of the Joint Task Force, as the Federal Government will insist that it has the duty to protect the citizens of the State, and restore full security and peace in Borno State and environs. The Federal Government will say that the real problem is the Yusufiyya Movement members, whose activities are the reasons for the presence of soldiers on the streets of Maiduguri in the first place. It will also argue that all law-abiding citizens of Borno State, including the elders who signed the statement should cooperate fully with the Joint Task Force by giving it good intelligence and preventing members of the Movement from operating and living in the community. The Federal Government will argue that all soldiers and other security personnel will leave the streets of Maiduguri as soon as the threats of the Movement or Boko Haram are contained.

          The demands by the Borno State Elders Forum will further emphasize the need to find a genuine solution to this problem. It will also draw attention to a major problem of leadership which appears to be severely lacking in the communities in and around Borno, and in the north in general. A responsible leadership will have to answer to its role in the genesis, growth and current dimensions of the conflict involving members of the Movement and the Nigerian State. It will need to demonstrate its credentials and credibility in the eyes of all citizens, and its record in terms of attempts to mediate this conflict. As leaders, many people will ask how much effort they are making in engaging members of the movement, particularly in the light of the fact that their bombs and bullets kill personnel as well as and other innocent citizens, and that they will account for their actions before Allah on the Day of Judgement. Many will ask how much pressure they attempted to exert on the Federal Government to prosecute the killers of Malam Muhammad Yusuf and his compatriots, and many innocent citizens in the past.

          The position of highly respected leaders in Borno state with regards to the current security situation and its impact on citizens must be taken very seriously by the government. On the face of it, it would appear that the Federal Government has no effective linkages with the community, which is why people of the calibre of the members of the Forum will confront it with demands that will be difficult to meet. This is a major weakness in the strategy of the Federal and Borno State Governments, which needs to be addressed. The leaders who stuck their necks out to both ask that soldiers are withdrawn and that members of the Movement should pay attention to the suffering of the people ought to lend themselves to a process of building bridges between government and the movement. The widespread complaints of excesses by soldiers should not be dismissed by the Joint Task Force, because the community is a major factor in determining whether the government or the Movement wins this battle. If the community turns its back entirely on the Joint Task Force, as the Elders appear to be symbolising, there will be no peace to win in Borno State.

          The Federal Government needs to recognise that the demand by the Borno Elders Forum that soldiers be taken off the streets of Maiduguri represents a major setback to its campaign. It should also recognise the need to reclaim the grounds it has lost in terms of empathy and support in the community as a result of reported excesses by security men. It needs to improve its understanding of the nature of the Movement, and examine options for dealing with it. No one will envy fellow Nigerian citizens living in Maiduguri these days. With the entrance of highly-respected people from Borno State into the fray, the situation will only get worse, as the parties to the conflict will squeeze law abiding citizens even more desperately. Other Nigerians need to speak up, and urge both the government and the movement to explore options for achieving their objectives, other than the use of violence which hurts the very people they need as sympathisers.       

INDEPENDENT SOUTH SUDAN: READING HISTORY WELL

On Saturday, 9^th of July, a brand new African nation came to life as South Sudan, with its capital in Juba. By any standards, the splitting of Africa’s largest country, the Sudan into two after more than 31 years of armed conflict between the North and South is a momentous event. The war which pitched the largely Arab and Muslim North against the largely black and Christian and animist South had taken more than two million lives, and had created the largest pocket of poverty in the African continent in South Sudan. The new African nation of South Sudan took its place proudly as Africa’s newest nation, and its people are justifiably celebrating the positive outcome of a long struggle with profound sense of faith in their future, and understandable concern over whether their independence from the North will translate into genuine changes in the quality of their lives.

          From the moment Sudan became independent of British rule in 1956, its history has been characterised by a conflict between races, religions, tribes and affluence and poverty. The country of Sudan had the sad history living with constant battles to contain separatist tendencies, and some of mankind’s worst atrocities have been committed by both sides in the vicious struggles to achieve limited military and political objectives. In the 1960s, the Nya Nya movement in the South took up armed rebellion against the Government in Khartoum, and succeeded in drawing world attention to the fact that Sudan was a country of many races, religion and of uneven development whose future as a united political entity was going to be preserved only through military domination of the South.

          A Peace Agreement signed by the Nya Nya rebels and the Khartoum government in 1972 collapsed in 1983 when southern military officers in the Sudanese army broke away to form the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (S.P.L.A). This marked the beginning of another civil war, which reportedly cost well over one million lives, most of them from the people of Southern Sudan. The Civil war created two Sudans, and it was clear even then that only a political solution will resolve the conflict. The Khartoum government signed a Comprehensive Peace Plan with the SPLA, which provided, among others, for a referendum by the people of Southern Sudan on whether they want separation from Sudan. In January 2011, the referendum was held, and within one month, the result showed that 99% of the people of southern Sudan had voted for separation from Sudan. On the 9^th of July, 2011, the people of South Sudan achieved their independence, and now they have to build their nation in the midst of many challenges, but with hope and a solid vindication that their long and bitter armed struggle was not in vain.

          While the rest of Africa and the world will rejoice with the people of South Sudan, the future for the new nation is by no means going to be without many problems. The new administration, known as the Government of Southern Sudan, Goss, will have to translate the profound sense of history and optimism into popular commitment to create a nation of many tribes, races and religions into a united country. The new government and the people will have to work hard to address the absence of any economic and social infrastructure outside Juba, the capital of the new country. The new country will have to share oil revenues with its neighbour in the North, but this will be inadequate to provide even the most basic necessities to match the extremely high expectations of the people. The new country has many unresolved issues with its neighbour, and former adversary, the Sudan, some of which include the territory of Abyei; the existence of tribal militias which receive support and inspiration from Khartoum; the presence of powerful political groups represented by the NCP, the political party which also rules Sudan; and the prospects of continuing economic dependence on Sudan through revenue sharing and absence of its own independent export infrastructure.

          But South Sudan will start life as a new nation with tremendous goodwill and support from the international community. How it resolves its problems will also largely depend on the degree to which the international community stands with it through its   difficult first steps as a new but very poor nation.

          For Nigeria, the independence of South Sudan has a unique significance, and it is important that Nigerians read and understand the history of the struggle in the Sudan properly. Nigeria shares with the Sudan large and mixed populations, distinguished by ethnic and religious differences. Nigeria, Sudan and the Congo were three countries long viewed in some circles of the western world as prime candidates for break up, either as a result of conflict, or out of the desire to achieve smaller, more manageable units giving their large sizes, volatile ethnic mix and tendency towards conflicts. Nigeria and Sudan in particular have had pronounced and prolonged crises centred around religion and ethnicity, and Nigerians have followed Sudan’s history with more than casual interest, given some of the underlying similarities between the two countries.

          Not unexpectedly, after the April 2011 post election violence, the nature and future of the Nigerian State became a matter of some considerable debate. Much of this debate could be dismissed as childish and merely irritating for a nation whose structural weaknesses are continuously being exposed by its particular brand of political process. The more serious comments focussed on the widening economic gulf between the North and South; the fragmentation of a hitherto cohesive national political elite; the resurgence and spread of primordial sentiments and values; and the rising evidence of linkages between religions and politics.

          The Nigerian social, demographic and economic situation is of course a lot more complex than Sudan’s. There are substantial mixtures of Muslims and Christians in large numbers in most parts of Nigeria, such that a clear demarcation on the basis of faith or tribe, as was evident in Sudan, does not exist. Nigeria had to fight its own civil war and many Nigerians will support the argument that all parts of Nigeria will be worse off if some sections cease to be part of the nation. The nature of the Nigerian economy has also created multiple levels of inter-dependence in the country, such that a Sudan option will be difficult to contemplate.

          All these are not to say, however, that Nigerians should take their own continued survival as one country for granted. Many Nigerians will be tempted to prefer separation to dying under bombs, or living under laws or value systems which they reject. These types of sentiments are becoming popular, and they need to be noted and acted upon by governments and other Nigerians who believe that the unity of Nigerian is worth preserving. The current spate of violence with political undertones; and the lessons to be drawn from the Niger Delta militancy need to be fully understood. The independence of South Sudan is a welcome development for its people; and for justice and freedom. It needs to be understood in all its ramifications, so that Nigerians do not read the wrong lessons from a different historical experience and context.                          

SHUTTING DOWN MAIDUGURI

On Thursday, 7^th of July 2011, the Borno State Government announced that it has outlawed the use of commercial or private motorcycles in Maiduguri and the neighbouring Jere Local Government Area. The decision to ban the use of motorcycles is part of the efforts the government and security agencies to curtail the rising wave of violence in the State, which in the last few weeks had reached unprecedented levels. The new Governor of Borno State, Alhaji Kassim Shettima acknowledged that the decision will cause serious problems for the people of Maiduguri and its environs, and appealed to the people to bear with the government which is planning to release 7, 000 tricycles, known as keke NAPEP into the streets for use by the public. He said the State Government already has 1, 680 of the tricycles to release immediately, and will source for the balance very soon. In addition, the State Government would buy 100 new buses for intra-city transportation next week.

          The immediate result of the announced ban on motorcycles which took effect mid afternoon on Thursday was that major streets in Maiduguri became virtually empty. This was of course, the most predictable outcome, since motorcycles are the most popular mode of transportation, and even private owners would be afraid to use it in view of the tense security situation and the blanket ban. Citizens had to trek for various distances as motorcycles were taken off the roads, in a city which had already placed a 6pm to 6am ban on motorcycles. Maiduguri town had been under a virtual self-imposed curfew in the last few months, as citizens stayed indoors in the evenings and nights, so as to be safe from attacks by members of the Yusufiyya Movement. Securitymen under the Joint Task Force had been attacked many times, and they have in turn intensified their crackdown, principally by leaning hard on the local population in their search for their elusive attackers. The public has been caught in the middle of a vicious campaign, with people who live in, and use the community as shield to launch attacks on security personnel and selected civilian targets, public places and places of worship on the one hand, and security personnel who are more and more desperate to contain them. The Yusufiyya Movement or Boko Haram, is putting the public under tremendous pressure and stress, including vulnerability to attacks when innocent people happen to be passing by, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The Joint Task Force is also leaning very hard on a community it apparently believes knows more of the identity, movement, plans and attacks of the enemy that it reveals. The more intense the conflict becomes, the more the public will be squeezed between the Yusufiyya Movement and the Joint Task Force. The ban on the use of motorcycles in Maiduguri is just one instance in which the people of Maiduguri and environs will suffer more and more as fight intensifies.

          The strategy being adopted by the Government of Borno State and the Joint Task Force will be limited in terms of its impact, unless it is supported by good intelligence and an intensification of initiatives to identify and engage the leadership of the Movement. Heavy-handed responses which involve some physical discomfort and searches in homes of citizens may yield some suspects and clues, but they also generate serious hostility from the public. On the other hand, it will be unreasonable and unrealistic not to expect the security agencies to pursue suspects, to mount roadblocks, or to insist on some other measures which will inconvenience the public. But a prolonged siege which exposes the public to all manner of hardship, and which produces little evidence that it is winning the battle will make the security agents to lose the battle of the hearts and minds of the community. The environment will be even more hostile for the security personnel, and it will be that much more difficult to acquire the type of solid and valuable security and political intelligence needed to deal with this very serious problem.

          There is evidence that many of the people who represented targets for members of the Yusufiyya Movement recognise the fact that rendering apologies to them will reduce the hostility of the group. The former Governors of Borno and Gombe States and the Governor of Bauchi State have publicly apologised to the group, as it demanded, among other conditions for peace. The security agencies also appear to recognise the fact that force alone will not defeat the movement, and last week the State Security Service said that suspect members of the Movement under arrest and interrogation will not be prosecuted, in pursuit of President Jonathan’s stick and carrot approach. Yet the attacks by the movement are increasing daily in and around Maiduguri. Other citizens in Abuja, and in Niger and Kaduna States are undergoing harrowing experiences in the name of security precautions. The movement has not shown any willingness to stop its attacks, or engage the government in a dialogue or negotiation. On the contrary, there appears to be more than one group under the movement, and the sphere of conflict appears to be widening.

          The people of Maiduguri and its neighbours have paid a huge price for the activities of the Yusufiyya Movement. Between the unceasing attacks of members of this movement and security personnel who use every means to limit the damage of the attacks and expose the members, innocent citizens have suffered. Now the total ban on the use of motorcycles in Maiduguri will compound the problem, and it is doubtful if relief will come as early as the government is promising. Unless there is a radical improvement in intelligence gathering and in efforts to find political solutions to the problem of the Yusufiyya Movement, life in Maiduguri and its neighbouring areas will be intolerable. This may be what the Movement actually wants, and more and more Nigerians will live a garrisoned existence far beyond the neighbourhood of Maiduguri. Government needs to examine its strategy to deal with this problem before it creates wider areas of conflict as a result of the application of naked force as a containment measure.