NORTHERN CHRISTIANS: TERMS AND CONDITIONS NEED NOT APPLY

On Saturday, 29th October 2011, an event took place at the Banquet Hall of Arewa House, Kaduna that was significant in many ways. It was one of the best attended events at a venue which has come to be associated with the life and times of the late Premier of Northern Nigeria, Sir Ahmadu Bello, and it is quite possible that the organizers of the event had its symbolic relevance in their choice of a venue. It attracted the cream of the northern christian community including Generals Yakuba Gowon and T.Y Danjuma, Professor Jerry Gana, Bishop Mathew Hasan Kukah, and an impressive representation of the elite of the christian community. It was obviously intended to be an event to make a statement about the contribution of the northern christian community to national development, and to celebrate its unity and roots through the life of one of its distinguished members, Professor David Adamu Baikie. The event was also well attended by the cream of the northern muslim community, politicians, traditional rulers, senior government officials, friends and former colleagues of Professor Baikie, his considerable number of former students, and simple folk who just wanted to be part of an event which celebrated a Nigerian who lived a life of service and excellence. No less a figure than the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and a Kano prince, Malam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi delivered a lecture which raised major issues in the management of public resources and the funding and quality of education in Nigeria.



On the whole, the event, during which the autobiography of Professor Adamu Baikie was presented, was well-organized and must have achieved its objectives. It helped the respected international academic and his family to celebrate his 80th birthday with hundreds of friends, colleagues and admirers. He had the rare opportunity to make public his own life in his 733 page book. It provided a rallying point for northern christians to rediscover their roots and history, in a nation to which they gave a lot more than their numerical strength would otherwise have demanded. It was also an opportunity for the Wusasa pedigree to be reinforced by other northern christians, with what appeared an intention of staking the claim that northern christians in today’s Nigeria have acquired a major political clout. But above all, it was an event that reminds the nation that it is fast losing its rare asset in people like Professor Adamu Baikie; people who spend entire lives solely in service of their fatherland. It put forward a man who was a Vice Chancellor in two Nigerian and a foreign University, and who today lives a contented life in the only house he has in Zaria. It was a celebration of the life of a man who touched lives in profound and life-changing manners as a teacher, administrator and community elder; who has roots in Kano, Zaria, Lokoja, and just about every part of Nigeria, and whose life was a study in how hardwork, discipline and the love of God can overcome all odds.

But the event was also significant in the way it opened up an argument over the manner northern christians see themselves in contemporary Nigeria; and how they perceive other, non-christian northerners. In a way the argument was also the only dent on an otherwise happy and well-attended event. In the course of reviewing the book, Bishop Kukah had highlighted Professor Baikie’s narrative that he had come top of a shortlist of three candidates elected by the Senate of the Ahmadu Bello University for the position of Vice Chancellor in 1978. Professor Baikie says on page 417 of his book that for some strange reason, his nomination which went to the University Council was not approved. Instead, he received information on television that he, along with Dr Mahmud Tukur and Professor Umaru Shehu were appointed to the Universities of Benin, Lagos and Nsukka respectively. Bishop Kukah made much of the failure of Professor Baikie to be appointed as Vice Chancellor; and linked that failure with a recent controversy around another Professor from southern Kaduna State who was alleged to have been shortlisted as first for the position of Vice Chancellor of A.B.U, but was denied the position on grounds of his faith and ethnicity. The Bishop lamented what he saw as the clear hands of religious prejudice, and regretted that the failure of Professor Baikie and other prominent Christians in the past to stand up against injustices is still haunting northern christians today.

Perhaps predictably, given the large presence of contemporaries and colleagues of Professor Baikie from the old A.B.U days, this episode in the book which was highlighted by Bishop Kukah caused much stir in the hall. Bishop Kukah had left the hall when another former Vice Chancellor, Professor Ango Abdullahi stood up to complain over what he said was a re-writing of history and a falsehood in the claim that Professor Baikie was denied the position of Vice Chancellor of A.B.U because of his faith. The mixed audience which until then was enjoying the outpouring of encomiums from muslims and christians, and which was even moving beyond Bishop Kukah’s review was stumped by the vigorous repudiation of the claim, and the manner it was given prominence in the review by the new Bishop of Sokoto Diocese.

The argument over the claim that a little over 30 years, a northerner was denied what he deserved on the grounds of his faith will find resonance in the context of a north today in which faith-based politics has assumed an unprecedented place. For those who are looking for clues over the current weaknesses of the north, the event will represent evidence of the widening gulf between christian and muslim northerners. Northern christians have made huge contributions, far in excess of their proportional size in numbers, to both the north and Nigeria. The longest serving Vice Chancellor of ABU was Professor Ishaya Audu, and he laid quite possibly the strongest foundations for the development of A.B.U. into a world-class university. Many others have left their marks in academia, in politics, in the military and in other sectors. They were as northern as their muslim kith and kin, and by almost all accounts, they were treated by leaders then as valuable assets and as equals. Their fortunes rose and fell with the fortunes of the north in Nigeria, and much of the south of Nigeria was largely oblivious of serious differences between muslims and non-muslim northerners.

The north, and indeed Nigeria, is of course much more complex than it was 30 or 40 years ago. State creation has given rise of additional political influence of northern christians, and in States with mixed faith populations, religion has become a major factor in the politics of power and economic resource allocation. Recurring crises arising form competition for more political power and economic resources have taken up religious characters, and the faith of northerners has now become a defining element of their fortunes in many parts of the north. In Plateau, Kaduna and Borno States and many other parts of the north, being Christian or Muslim is a valuable currency, or a virtual death sentence. In the last 25 years, thousands of northerners have died in the hands of fellow northerners in the name of religion. The two communities have drifted apart, but they have nowhere to go. They live behind political and economic barriers, or behind security check-points, waiting for the next round of conflict to scamper away, or take up arms once again.

This is the context in which the presentation of Professor Adamu Baikie’s book was made. The current state of politics in the north was evident in the high visibility of much of the northern christian elite at the event. It was evident in the large turn-out of muslims; in the polarization of the audience around the sensitive allegation of religious bias against even from elders like Professor Baikie, or even the lighthearted but symbolically important arguments over whether he comes from Kano or Kogi States.

There will be many who will say that if elderly northern christians like Professor Baikie who should provide bridges and inspiration for the muslim and christian northerners to re-discover their organic unity can fall prey to the sources of division and bitterness which divides the north today, then there is very little hope that the current generation will go beyond them. The north is only as strong as the unity of its people, and its weaknesses which are being exploited both by northerners who ride to power and wealth through the exploitation of faith, as well as other regions which exploit its heterogeneous nature will be paid for by all northerners when they are challenged by a Nigerian State which is fast fragmenting.

The political and economic poverty of the north will be compounded by increasing disunity among its communities. Its destiny is currently being determined by small people with little vision and a large appetite for self-glorification. Its clergy have assumed very influential roles in the direction and content of its politics, and has squeezed the political space further. Between petty leadership which merely gulps the little resources which northerners need for education, health and development, and the encroachment of the political space by people who have lots of power but little responsibility, the fortunes of the north are fast dwindling. It will be tragic if its considerable asset of northern minorities now pitch their tents in isolation, or in terrain which will be as hostile to them as it will be to northern muslims. No northerner needs further qualification than the place of his birth and the legacies of his ancestors. None should feel he has to play second fiddle to another northerner, no matter what the circumstances. There should be no terms or conditions for being a northerner, but unity has to be the product of hard work, sacrifice and justice. What the north needs is to produce a leadership which can provide this; because without it, its christians and muslims will all be victims.

NATIONAL SECURITY; THE THREAT OF INDIFFERENCE

On Tuesday 25^th of October, the Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI) called a press conference during which it called on the Federal Government to look into security threats being made against Muslim communities in the Niger Delta. The JNI was reacting to a one-week ultimatum given to all Muslims in the Niger Delta by a group which called itself the Egbesu Mightier Fraternity to leave the region. The group had, on the 10^th of October, 2011 dropped letters at mosques which were addressed to Muslim communities asking them to leave within a week, claiming that Boko Haram activities and the killing of Christians in the north have destroyed the basis of unity in development in Nigeria. The group had copied the letter to the Sultan of Sokoto.

          The Jama’atu Nasril Islam secretary-general said that the Muslim communities are under serious threats and as a result, some of them have started moving out of the region because it is no longer safe for them to live there. He regretted that government has not made any statement or taken any action to allay the fears of Muslim communities in the region; and this is fuelling fears that the threat may be credible. He also made references during the press conference to other threats from a group called Akwa’at in Kaduna State, as well as the reported demand by President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) that all Nigerians should be allowed by law to own guns.

          The press conference by the JNI, and in particular the reference to the threat issued to the Muslim communities in the Niger Delta and the resultant movement of people should be taken very seriously by government. It is difficult to understand how an administration which claims that security is its top priority could have failed to react to the letters from the faceless group since the 10^th of October. Certainly, it cannot claim to be unaware of the letters dropped around mosques in the area. It cannot claim to know that the communities have not raised alarm over the threats. State governments know of these threats, and have been aware of the concern of the communities that they may be credible. Yet, until the JNI made public its concern, not one Governor from the South South zone made any statement or took any step to assure the communities that they are safe. Not one Governor from the north made any statement, or made any effort to seek clarifications from his counterparts in the South South over the credibility of the threats, or the authenticity of a group called Egbesu Mightier Fraternity. No spokesperson of Mr. President or any of the security agencies have commented on the threat, or advised the Muslim communities to ignore the threat if there is no credibility to it. Yet only a few days ago, the Vice President, Namadi Sambo said that security is the top priority of this administration.       

          The reported movement of people away from the Niger Delta as a result of the threat has the potential to compound genuine concerns that this administration’s security management strategy, if one exists, is defective, to say the least. It is elementary knowledge that movement of people as a result of crisis or threat tends to trigger more movements the other way. Considerable efforts are needed to assure, protect and prevent people from moving out of particular communities in large numbers either during crisis or out of fear of one. The movement of Muslim citizens out of the Niger Delta alone is capable of triggering movement of Nigerians from the Niger Delta away from Muslim communities. It will be worse if another faceless group, from other parts of the country also issues threats to people from the South South to leave the north. Fortunately, no group has done that; and this is all the more reason why state Governors and the Federal Government should have moved much earlier than now to nip this issue in the bud.

          It is even more necessary now that the Federal and State Governments should raise their levels of sensitivity and awareness to the widening and inter-related nature of the threats to national security. The continuing threat and activities of the Yusufiyya movement popularly called Boko Haram is capable of triggering other threats and crises, as we now see the Niger Delta. Regretfully, there is no evidence that the Federal and State governments are willing to go beyond the strategy of chasing individual shooting and bombing incidents perpetrated by suspected Boko Haram members. The Galtimari Report has been submitted, but neither the report nor its outcome is providing the basis of bold and imaginative initiatives towards dealing with the problem. This leaves citizens in Borno, Yobe, Gombe, Kaduna and Abuja exposed to continuing attacks. It also provides a cover for dubious organisations like the Egbesu Mightier Fraternity to seek their own solutions by telling all Muslims to leave the Niger Delta region. Many people of northern origin are beginning to experience unsettling profiling by host communities or security agencies,  on the suspicion that virtually every northern Muslim is a Boko Haram activist or sympathiser.

          By far the biggest threat to national security is indifference and incompetence by leaders and security agencies over breaches of security, from the most innocuous to the most visible and dangerous. It is quite probable that the Egbesu Mightier Fraternity is a name for a few people who merely want to put fear in the minds of some Muslim communities; and compound President Jonathan’s many problems with national security. But ordinary citizens will not know this. So they leave behind their livelihood and their right to live and work anywhere in Nigeria because they are Muslims, and because no one has assured them that they are safe. They return to communities which are angered, and look up to some type of authority to assure them that their kith-an-kin can return; and to stop them from issuing the same threats to others.

          If State Governors in the South South had moved quickly to investigate the threat to Muslims in the Niger Delta and assure them of their safety, their reported movement would not have been taken up by the JNI. If the Federal Government had been alert and sensitive to the implications of the threat, it would have conducted an investigation into the threat of the Fraternity, and informed Nigerians of its findings. As it is, simple citizens earning a livelihood far away from their home communities chose to play safe and move. This is a major indictment of those with responsibilities to give us protection. They pose the biggest threat to national security; and will be an even bigger threat if they do not act quickly and with some level of competence and commitment to douse this spreading fire.

LESSONS IN LEADERSHIP

Malam Adamu Fika, Wazirin Fika gave the Barewa Old Boys Association (BOBA) Annual Luncheon Lecture last Saturday, 22^nd of October in Kaduna. As should be expected, given the nature of the Forum, and the status and stature of the lecturer, it was an event that was profound in its impact. The former Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, and a man whose life was defined by courageous service, gave a lecture with the intriguing title of “Going Back to Basics: The Past as Prologue”. The Wazirin Fika is Chairman of the Presidential Committee on the Review of Reform Processes in the Public Service; a job that he must have taken up with some level of reluctance given his widely-registered cynicism over the possible reversal of the fortunes of the Public Service as the foundations of governance in Nigeria. He had left the service he had given his life to when the then Head of State, General Badamasi Babangida introduced major reforms in the Service which were seen as the trigger for its pervasive politicization. Since then, he had remained a respected reference point in terms of the credibility, accountability and efficiency of the public service.

          Malam Adamu Fika’s lecture touched on many aspects of the public service which gave it its distinguishing characteristics and integrity. It was rich in history, and was a rare glimpse into a past when rules were obeyed; when changes were introduced only to improve institutions and the lives of citizens; and when the law, and only the law, provided the basis for public policy and conduct of politicians and bureaucrats. It made the case for a re-assessment of the present in the context of past legacies; and reminds Nigerians that the nation lost its way when political expediency took the place of the rule of law; and when leaders chose highhandedness and arbitrariness in place of respect for due processes and disciplined respect for institutional integrity. He reminds Nigerians that they had a glorious past; with leaders and public servants who set very high standards with service as their only motive. He drew attention to the imperative of according the past its due in history; not as a symbolic gesture, but as a key requirement for shaping the present and future.

          Those who are pained by the degeneration of our values and the corruption in our institutions and government should read Malam Adamu Fika’s lecture. It paints a picture of past leaders who faced huge problems in managing pluralism, poverty and all the social vices which rapid socio-economic changes brought all human societies; but who remained steadfast in their pursuit for good policies and a sense of mission to improve the lot of Nigerians. They led by example, and submitted themselves entirely to a value system which defined leadership as service. They commanded respect from citizens because they lived simple lives; and accepted that to lead is to sacrifice.

          The cases which Malam Adamu Fika mentioned in his lecture to show how leaders in our past lived should be brought to the attention of our current leaders, who not only earn salaries and allowances that rank among the highest in the world; but who live in their own separate world, paid for by the public. In 1962, Ministers voluntarily took a cut in their salaries by up to 10% to make it easy for government to manage its finances and pursue planned economic development. Today, our leaders take home millions of Naira in salaries and allowances. They live in government houses where food, water, power and all the luxuries of life are provided for by the public which they are supposed to serve.          

          The Wazirin Fika tells a story when the Premier of Northern Nigeria, the Sardauna of Sokoto was told that the only plane available to him for an official trip was needed to fly a sick civil servant from Idda to Kano. He had a choice between using his car for the official trip, or letting the plane go to pick the sick public officer. He chose to do his journey by road, while the plane went to pick the officer from Idda. On another occasion, the Sardauna was returning from pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, which he paid for from his own pocket. He duly paid the customs duty on the goods he brought into the country, and was even over-assessed by the Customs officers. They later refunded the excesses of ₤1 to him.

The older generation to which the Wazirin Fika belongs have many stories of statesmanship, vision and discipline of past leaders and bureaucrats. But they are becoming an extinct specie, and the very few of his ilk that remain have become reluctant to even describe a past to younger generations who think things were good then because life was simpler. Life was not, by any standard, simpler. The generation of Sardauna, Tafawa Balewa, Awolowo and Zik and Malam Adamu Fika faced all the challenges of leading poor societies with huge expectations; and they faced the same temptations all leaders face.

Nigerians are poor people today because they have leaders who have set very low standards for themselves. Many leaders treat public office as a commodity they paid for at elections. They treat public funds as if they are personal property. Public servants have lost the capacity to offer informed and competent advise because they are products of the same political system that produced bad leaders. Politicians have no respect for civil servants, or rules, or even the legal basis of public service operations. So they adjust to the system which defines public service as service to the whims and caprices of politicians. A combination of an incompetent and corrupt leadership and a compromised and cowed bureaucracy means only one thing: bad government.

Bad leadership cannot tackle major problems of governance. Corrupt and incompetent leaders cannot command respect and genuine affection of citizens. They therefore either retreat into their comfortable Government Houses and leave the people with their poverty and frustrations; or they buy huge layers of political psycophants to tell them how well they are doing. No bad leader will tolerate a good public service, which by definition, has an inherent capacity to ensure that the public is protected from corruption and highhandedness by leaders.

Nigeria does not have too many people like Wazirin Fika, so it should listen to them and take those difficult steps that should take our nation out of this path in which it will only self-destruct.         

POST-GHADDAFI LIBYA: A DIFFICULT ROAD TO MANY DESTINATIONS

The National Transitional Council which provided the political leadership for the insurgency which ousted and killed Muammar Gaddafi last week led the celebration for Liberation Day on Sunday, 23^rd of October. The world watched hundreds of thousands of Libyans formalize a victory in Benghazi the city, which provided the bulwark of the resistance against Gaddafi virtually for his entire reign, but particularly since the insurgency built up and took on much of the traditional cultural and political fault lines of the Libyan nation. It is difficult not to feel some of the relief of the Libya people that the 9-month old insurgency has come to an end. Nonetheless, even as they celebrate, it is not difficult to see that the road ahead for the people of Libya will be fraught with many challenges, some of them serious enough and with the potential to rob them of the benefits of removing Gaddafi. This is a time for deep reflection, and friends of the Libyan and African people should have the courage to give them honest and practical advise as they commence the difficult task of national reconstruction and reconciliation.

    The image of the dead body of Gaddafi being dragged virtually naked and being beaten up by a crowd made up of supposedly civilised Libyan Muslims will remain indelible in the minds of a global audience. It will dent the joy and accomplishment of the celebrations even in Benghazi. It will particularly leave a negative image in the minds of other Muslims who believe that a dead body, anyone’s dead body, deserves to be treated with some dignity. When Americans threw the dead body of Osama Bin Laden into the ocean for fish to feed on, they at least claimed that they gave him his rites as a Muslim, and did not humiliate and violate his dead body and gloat over their actions on television.  When the US captured Saddam Hussein, they tried and hanged him, instead of killing and desecrating his dead body. Now, even NATO nations who provided the fire power and the intelligence which led to the ouster, capture and eventual killing of Gaddafi are joining the chorus of demands for enquiry into how or why he was killed after his capture. Nothing will come out of this hypocrisy.

          The savagery which was shown on global television by some Libyans has exposed the soft underbelly of the revolution. Gaddafi’s 42years in power, much of it spent in brutal suppression of opposition must have robbed many Libyans of their basic humanity and compassion. The nine months of bitter and brutal campaign to oust him had affected every Libyan very badly. Both sides adopted the most inhuman methods in the conflict, and in the end, the struggle to remove Gaddafi had stripped Libyans of their civilisation and humanity to their bare bones. Those who fought these bitter battles against each other, including those who dragged a dead body through the sand, are going to continue to live within Libyan communities. They will also keep their arms and ammunitions. And some of their memories and bitterness. And they will count graves, and injuries and bullet holes. And others will ask how all these will be justified by the outcomes of the revolution.

          There will be many who will be counted among the defeated. They will continue to live in Libya, but may have to pay a price for siding with, or defending Gaddafi. They too will have their reasons and justification for their choices. And they will have their arms and ammunitions; and their grievances and bitterness. They too will ask how the revolution will be better than Gaddafi’s rule. There are yet many who will wake up to a new Libya which has been thrown wide open to NATO countries. They will ask how the new Libya will or should relate with Europe and the US. They will ask deep and searching questions over the cost of reconstruction; which nations among the NATO coalitions will get the biggest contracts for rebuilding what their bombers destroyed; and what type of constitution and political system Europe and the US will now insist is adopted by Libyans. They may retain some pride in being an independent people who, although at great price, stood up to the US and Europe under Gaddafi in the past. They may resent the possibility that their faith and culture will suffer to the degree of NATO influence in their lives. They too will have their arms and ammunitions; and their memories and their sympathisers.

          There are tribal leaders, religious leaders and leaders of factions who will each jostle for a place in the sun in the new Libya. Many will test the powers and the resolve of the NTC, and its NATO backers. They will quarrel and bicker on the type of constitution to adopt; on how victors and vanquished should be treated; how Arab and Islamic they want the new Libya to be; and how to deal with the many legacies of Gaddafi’s 42 years of rule. They will have to fight over, and learn how to elect new leaders; how hundreds of thousands of young people can be disarmed and demobilized; and how trust can be rebuilt among and across communities. And they will have their arms and ammunition; and their memories and bitterness over the course of the last 9 month conflict.

The Libyan people have come through one of the worst crisis any people can go through. The killing of Gaddafi and the bestial treatment of his body may have given a small percentage of the Libyan people some satisfaction. But now the real hard work of reconciliation and rehabilitation has to begin. There is no easy way forward. Every challenge they will meet has the potential of opening up new theatres of conflict. They need a strong and broad-based leadership which should disarm citizens and begin the process of reconciling the people. They need NATO to lower its profile, and retreat sufficiently to allow some semblance of Libyan influence in deciding a Libyan future. They need to re-integrate with Africa and the Arab world in a manner that acquires support for them to reduce the influence of NATO, as they embark on the difficult road to a new life. They need to look at the abuses and excesses on both sides of the conflict, and commence the process of addressing the requirements of guaranteeing basic human rights, particularly for the thousands of black people who have been imprisoned on sundry and questionable suspicions. The journey of the Libyan people will be difficult because there will be arguments over routes and destinations. It will be tragic if a post-Gaddafi Libya continues to suffer because its people and leaders fail to appreciate the fact that the reverse side of Gaddafi is the emergence of a democratic system that gives every citizen a fair chance to make concrete choices over how he lives, and who governs him. It will not be easy to build that system; but failure to build it will mean an unending conflict and real potentials for prolonged civil war. This is the one destination Libyans should avoid at all cost.                  

SUBSIDY REMOVAL: GOVERNORS FEEL THE HEAT

There are reports that some Governors are retreating from their wholehearted support for the decision of President Goodluck Jonathan to remove subsidy on petroleum products starting from January next year. The Governors are reported to have set up a panel of six to advise them on the subsidy issue, as well as the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Substantial investment into the Fund is expected to come from the revenue that will be realized from the fuel subsidy if or when it is removed. Then, the Chairman of the Northern Governors Forum, Dr. Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu and the former Governor of Benue State, Senate Minority Leader George Akume had a public falling-out over the merits or disadvantages of removing the subsidy. At a seminar to mark the 77th birthday of General Yakubu Gowon, Governor Babangida Aliyu supported the removal of the subsidy but regretted that Nigerians do not understand its benefits. He said only very few Nigerians benefit from the subsidy, but Senator Akume disagreed; saying that removing the subsidy will have a negative effect on Nigerians, and put the basic things in life well beyond the reach of most people.

          It is not surprising that many Governors are reacting to hostile public opinion which greeted their ringing endorsement of the subsidy policy. They got their fingers burnt in their desire to acquire a bigger share of the revenue that accrues from our petroleum resources. Their case is straight-forward, or so it appears to them. They need a lot more resources than they presently realize to execute development plans, projects and programmes that will impact on the people. The new N18, 000 national minimum wage is eating too deeply into the little they have, and they are now virtually limited to paying salaries of civil servants, and nothing more. In spite of efforts to lay-off thousands of state employees, they find that there is little left for anything else. Their hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of political appointees have to be settled. Luxurious lifestyles and huge take-home pays are at risk, and a political process which survives only on its capacity to dispense huge patronage cannot be sustained any longer. Governors had always suspected the subsidy as a wasteful drainage which deprives them of huge resources without accountability or transparency. In the vast majority of the States, petrol, kerosene and diesel sell at much higher prices than they should, so Governors from these States wonder who or what the subsidy is helping. Most Governors in these States whose citizens pay huge amounts to buy the products, in addition to paying huge subsidies so that a few Nigerians can become filthy rich or have the products at much lower costs, believe that it is in the interest of their citizens that the subsidy is removed.  

          There is a case to be made for the manner in which majority of Nigerians pay huge subsides with nothing to show for it, as an excuse for supporting the removal of the subsidy. Governors who think they receive much lower allocations each month as a result of the subsides need to engage their people and explain the basic economics and politics of the policy. To endorse it in a meeting with the President, and then turn around and blame the public for ignorance is not responsible leadership. Most Governors have only a remote knowledge of the crushing poverty and hopelessness of most Nigerians. Their problem is that they are too removed from their citizens, either because they fear them, or because they cannot handle the deluge of legitimate demands which communities make. They are surrounded by handpicked appointees, cronies and bureaucrats who have lost their capacities to advise. Governance has been reduced to what the Governor does or says in the comfort and luxury of Government House.

          If Governors want to make a positive contribution to the national debate on removal of subsidy, and wish to avert looming and potentially-damaging crises, they should first advise President Jonathan to embark on genuine and far-reaching consultations with major stakeholders in the nation, including labour and civil society groups before he removes the subsidy. Second, they must, themselves, engage the citizens in dialogue that will highlight the benefits and disadvantages of the removal of the subsidy. They must have facts and figures which should show that more will be gained than lost by the removal. Third, they must look inwards and examine strategies for reducing their dangerous dependence on monthly allocations from proceeds from sale of crude petroleum. This is particularly important for northern Governors who have become complacent and spoilt by monthly handouts that are becoming increasingly threatened by politics.

          Governors should represent their people fairly and courageously in their dealings with each other and the Federal Government. Their eager endorsement of the subsidy removal plans of President has pitched them against public opinion. They need to know that Nigerians are suspicious over the plans of the administration and do not trust their leaders. When Governors support a major policy of the Federal Government, they are committing their people behind it. They become part of whatever problem such policy generates, and cannot be part of the solution. The heat they feel from public reaction to the issue is genuine. They should respect the views and opinions of Nigerians and either go with them or work to change them. They are servants of the people, not masters who should take whatever decisions they want because the people are too ignorant to decide for themselves.     

SUBSIDY REMOVAL: THE WRONG CHEERLEADERS

It now appears that the much-touted resounding endorsement from the Nigerian private sector for President Jonathan’s plans to remove subsidy for petroleum was only a public relations gimmick after all. Those movers and shakers in the private sector who attended the President’s Retreat a few days ago in the comfort and security of the Presidential Villa, and who publicly expressed wholehearted support for the decision, apparently had no authority to speak for the Organised Private Sector on the matter. The groups more traditionally associated with the Organised Private Sector such as the Nigerian Employers Consultative Association (NECA); the National Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA); and Manufacturers Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) have released a statement saying that no one at the Retreat had their authority to support the planned removal of the subsidy. They say the 42 individual businessmen and women who endorsed the policy acted on their own, because the organisations which represent the private sector were neither invited to the Retreat nor consulted by the President over the issue.

          The repudiation by the organised private sector for the support which select and privileged businessmen gave the subsidy removal plans by the organised private sector group is a sign of opening skirmishes in the epic battle which this nation will witness over the plans. It is a rather predictable development when viewed against the obvious attempt to acquire a one-stop-shop support for a policy which has many complex elements. The President’s plan to rally support for the policy through a hastily-arranged Retreat, which itself had to be moved from Obudu in Cross River State back to the Presidential Villa never really looked like the genuine article where genuine consultations are concerned. Three thousand people (3000) hand-picked participants at a Retreat on the economy is neither a representative sample of Nigerians, nor a serious effort at engaging a hostile and suspicious citizenry. Perhaps the President was carried away by the support from Governors he had met a few days earlier, all of whom cannot wait for their share of the proceeds of the removed subsidy. Even with that support, the meeting with some legislators a few days earlier on the issue, during which some frank advise was given to Mr. President by many legislators ought to have cautioned against a stage-managed support from a group which will win with or without subsidy.

          In any case, the bottom appears to have fallen out of the attempt to get a critical sector to support the removal policy. The 42 leading businessmen and women who issued a press statement supporting the removal said the subsidy on pump prices of petroleum products is inefficient, corrupt and a waste of scarce resources. They said the subsidy only benefits a few Nigerians, while the financial burden it places on Nigerians is unbearable. They therefore support the removal of the subsidy, even though they urged government to consult widely with labour and civil society organisations, and to make sure that the benefits of deregulation accrue to the poor and underprivileged Nigerians.

          Leaders of the organised private sector said these signatories to the document supporting removal of the subsidy are individual business owners, multinationals and favoured businessmen in the private sector. They claim that they are the real private sector, and they have not taken a position on the issue. So the subsidy controversy has claimed its first casualty, which is private sector unity and cohesion over the issue. Perhaps not surprisingly so, given the fact that the private sector has been the major beneficiary of the corruption around the subsidy. Some private sector operators have made billions in dubious claims over imported products. Some imported the product, claimed huge amounts in payments as subsidy, and then helped export the same product for higher profits in neighbouring countries. Others bought the products at lower prices and sold it to 75% of Nigerian consumers at highly-inflated prices. Hundreds of thousands of importers, distributors and peddlers made huge profits from a system which paid billions in public funds as subsidy to people who sold at controlled prices only to Nigerians who live in Lagos, Abuja or a few other large cities.

          So when the 42 businessmen and women who spoke in favour of the removal claim that the subsidy is fraught with corruption and inefficiency, they know what they are talking about. It is the greed and impunity of wealthy businessmen and corrupt government officials which robbed Nigerians of trillions in subsidies, while they buy products at very high costs. It is quite possible that some of the 42 signatories are deeply involved in importing, or financing the import, or banking the proceeds of petroleum products. Some of them will know the intricate details about bogus imports, recycling, re-export or the elaborate multiple layers of distribution that forces rural folks to buy petrol at four or five times what they should. Some will have privileged information over why our refineries do not, and will not work.     This group of businessmen and women will be hard put to find a listening ear in Nigeria when they speak about corrupt and inefficient policies. They are the architects of the system, and are, even now, placing themselves in vantage positions to take maximum advantage of whatever is the outcome of the subsidy controversy.

          It should not surprise anyone that government has found in these big businessmen and women willing cheerleaders. Government itself would know a thing or two about most of them. An agreement on a common position over a matter that has huge implications for the standard of living of Nigerians will therefore not be difficult to struck. But government will be making a serious mistake if it thinks that endorsement from this group is a useful substitute for hard and serious discussions, consultations and negotiations with Nigerians over the issue of subsidy removal. The battle will be that much more difficult to win if government unwittingly adds the real organised private sector to the army of opposition against the subsidy removal. If President Jonathan is serious about convincing Nigerians of the merits of the removal of subsidy, he has to take the nation and the task more seriously. Forty-two very rich Nigerian businessmen and women make a pathetic cheerleading team.  

A CITIZENS’ REVOLT AGAINST CAPITALISM

When the financial infrastructure of the capitalist world almost collapsed on the head of the global community owing to dangerous and self-defeating greed of less than one percent of the entire world’s population, no one foresaw that the world would pay a much higher price than it did in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. That aftermath was coined as a meltdown, but in reality it meant that the economies of the industrialized world, and those of other countries which depended on them to survive, were devastated by unimaginable losses and total loss of confidence in the financial system. Entire financial subsystems collapsed, and an elaborate stricture sustained by greed and cult like relationships between politicians, bankers and other rich people who abused confidence and hard-earned money of ordinary people took down with them national economies. Every citizen in the world felt the impact of that disaster, and is still going through the trauma of that crash. Rich nations which had tolerated the abuses and excesses of their capitalist classes scrambled to save what was left of their financial systems at great cost to their public. Poor nations attempted to make adjustments on the logic and the interests of rich nations, and most became even poorer than they were. Across the world, poor people suffered, while the rich was bailed out to continue to scheme out the poor. A few cosmetic changes were made, most of which salvaged a corrupt financial system by giving it more of poor people’s money. A token global indignation was registered by a media controlled by a sub-elite which was responsible for the disaster, and some commentators offered the opinion that the world capitalist system had collapsed or had shown signs that it will completely collapse soon. The citizens of the world took notice.

Since the near-total collapse of the global financial system, and in spite of spirited efforts to salvage it through individual and collective efforts of the world’self-defetions, there has been marked restiveness on the part of the real victims of the crash, which are ordinary men and women across the entire system. Policies aimed at bailing out whole economies were built upon increasing the hardship on ordinary families and working citizens. Scarce resources were diverted to shore up collapsing sectors of the economy. Huge amounts of debts were incurred by governments in order to bail out indebted private sectors. Welfare programmes for the poor dried up because governments needed funds to bail out the rich. Countries whose economies were already on the brink of collapse borrowed more, or turned back millions of their citizens who needed assistance to go to school, get jobs or receive state-assisted medical attention. All in all, the world became a more difficult place to live in, and poor people pointed accusing fingers at the tiny percentage of the rich whose greed and control over the economic and political process brought untold hardship upon the lives of every living person on earth.

It now appears that the advanced industrialized countries who have been under the strangledhold of finance capital have ignored even the exhortations of the most prominent champion of global capitalism Christine, Lagarde. At an international forum which brought together all those who have responsibility for the mess the world finds itself today, the then new head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) advised political leaders and operators of the world’s financial system to take four basic but critical steps towards saving the world’s financial system from total collapse. First, she advised them to repair all balance sheets, from the household to the sovereign. This means higher levels of discipline and prudence. Second, she urged for reform of the financial sector. This means improving levels of efficiency, transparency and accountability of the system. Third, she advocated a re-balancing process between the public and private sectors; and between developed and non-developing nations. This means introducing real changes that will shield public funds from the excesses of the private sector; and improving access by poor countries into the benefits of the system which developed nations enjoy at their expense. Finally, she advocated the rebuilding of the basic economic infrastructure of the low-income countries which largely sustain the affluence of the rich nations, and which stimulate demand in the high income countries.

So, a few days ago, some citizens decided to draw the line and attention against the dangers and excesses of the American financial sector by protesting on Wall Street, a symbol of global capitalism. In a matter of days virtually the entire capitals of the western nations took over these protests. Their messages were simple. Ordinary men and women want the world to know that they hold the bankers of the capitalist world responsible for their difficult lives; and they want them exposed and brought down. They have no faith in a system which is rooted in corruption, and which feeds off high levels of collusion between rich investors and politicians they largely helped put in place. They want a new system in place that is more transparent and which punishes impunity and recklessness of the wealthy. They want a more humane and accountable capitalist system which will allow them to keep their homes, and jobs, and see their children go to schools and universities. They want their political leaders to demonstrate acceptable levels of autonomy from operators of a corrupt and dangerous financial system which continuously threatens a global economic system in which the poor is constantly exposed.

The multitudes who are now protesting in financials districts in major cities across the advanced industrialized world demanding for radical changes in the manner the global economy is being managed are the lucky minority. Poor people in three quarters of the world have very little say in these matters. Their world substantially collapsed with the setbacks in the economies of wealthy nations. Prices of everything went up. Their governments diverted the very little resources they had towards so-called mitigating policies aimed at shielding their fragile economies from fallouts of the meltdown. These policies failed because weaker economies which are appendages to stronger economies cannot protect themselves. Growth and development were set back by decades, and the dangerous linkages between the developed and the non-developing economies in a globalised system was exposed at its most vulnerable points.

Just when the world’s poor was about to give up the struggle, flashes of hope began to flicker. The uprising in the North African and Arab nations signaled the hope that ordinary people can make a substantial difference in terms of how they live. Then people in the poorer regions of the advanced capitalist world periodically rose in protest at the system’s demand that they gave up more and more of their livelihood for its survival, not theirs. In Greece and the southern regions of Europe, people rose up to say no. Young people ran around for days in major British cities a few months ago, looting shops like hoardes of barbaric conquering armies.

While citizens in rich countries are marching in protest against governments which are too weak or unwilling to protect them against bad policies or the impunity of wealth and privilege, our own government is rolling out plans to visit more hardship on us. Electricity tariffs have gone up; and will go up even higher in the near future. Petrol subsidy will be removed, starting from early next year. Subsidy on fertilizer will be removed. An entire system which will add cost to virtually every facet of our existence will be built upon these decisions of the government. Life will be a lot harder for ordinary Nigerians, and there are no parallel policies that will curb corruption, or improve the management of the nation’s economy in such a way that it will mitigate the negative aspects of these decisions.

The world today in a much smaller place. The crash of a bank in America has meant that a measure of maize in Kaura Namoda costs more. A man sets himself on fire in Tunis because he had no job; and many regimes collapsed across an entire political and cultural system. A few people pitched tents to protest against Wall Street in America, and many capital cities are now being besieged by protestors against a decaying capitalist system. The lessons for our leaders in Nigeria is to sit up and take notice. Intolerable levels of poverty will feed the current levels of insecurity and alienation among the vast majority of our citizens. They also see and hear how citizens rise up and demand for radical changes elsewhere in the world. They are part of the global community, and have tolerance limits. If we want to avoid a major social and political catastrophy, this is the time to act decisively to address poverty and the seeming indifference of the government to matters which affect Nigerians.

VICE PRESIDENT NAMADI SAMBO’S DISCLAIMER

The spokesman of the Vice President, Umar Sani says that the widely publicised launch of a campaign by his boss for the Presidency of Nigeria in 2015 is an act of mischief. He says the V-P has not asked anyone to promote his cause, and even the many vehicles with brands and posters heralding the campaign which caught everyone’s eyes at the PDP northwest zonal meeting were there to cause mischief and perpetrate falsehood. Umar Sani says the V-P’s enemies want to cause disaffection and blackmail him by implying that he is pursuing his own, rather than his and Jonathan’s transformation agenda.

          If the public was curious over the unnamed enemies which Umar Sani alleges are at work against the Vice President, another press release, this time from the Senior Special Assistant Media to Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa, Mr Reuben Buhari, quickly put that curiosity to rest. Mr Buhari immediately repudiated allegations that the Governor is involved in the campaigns to link the V-P with a Presidential bid in 2015. Mr. Buhari asks how anyone but mischief makers, will link Governor Yakowa with the purported campaign, and asks how the Governor could possibly benefit from such stories over the ambitions and plans of the Vice President. He asks pointedly if those behind the insinuation that the Governor is behind the allegation believe that President Jonathan will punish his Vice President for his reported plans, and replace him with Governor Yakowa. Mr Buhari admits that there are plans to create frictions between Sambo and Yakowa, but asserts that they will fail.

          It is tempting to dismiss these manouvers which have produced two revealing press releases as typical Nigerian politics. This will be wrong, and dangerous. It will be wrong to dismiss a public event which links the V-P with campaigns for the Presidency in 2015 because whether they are the handiwork of his political detractors or not, they speak volumes of the current tendencies in Kaduna State and in the nation as a whole. If indeed the whole episode was engineered to embarrass the Vice President in his own State; a State where he was a Governor before Yakowa, it represents strong evidence that V-P Namadi Sambo has lost much ground in Kaduna State, the northwest zone and the nation. His detractors must have tremendous confidence and access; and a huge store of hostility towards him to enable them mount an embarrassing activity that is likely to pitch him against his President. If, on the other hand, there are people who want to make the case that the VP can and should run for the Presidency in 2015; and who decided that Nigerians should know this just barely six months into the life of the administration, the nation needs to ask questions over the VP’s control over his supporters. Of course there are others who would say that the VP was flying a kite to test the waters, so to speak, over the acceptability or otherwise of his candidature in 2015. Even this unlikely group will have to presume some rather pedestrian thinking on the part of the Vice President, because, clearly, no one will be impressed with a pitch for the Presidency in 2015 from a Vice President who is still trying to settle down.                

          What the statements from the two spokesmen do is to highlight the possibility of the existence of very sour relations between the Vice President and the Governor of his State, who was his deputy. In the context of the manner Nigerian politics is played, many people will say even this is nothing out of the ordinary, or to worry over. But they will be wrong.

          A major falling out between the Vice President and the Governor of Kaduna State will be dangerous for the State and the nation. Kaduna State has been the worst victim of the post-election violence, which produced both Yakowa and Namadi Sambo. At this moment, thousands of refugees from murder and organized pillage are at the mercy of the elements in temporary camps. Only a productive collaboration between the State and Federal Governments will provide the political will and the resources to find them permanent relief. There are fears of unrest around the relocation of the Kafanchan market for the purposes of reconstruction, and both Namadi Sambo and Yakowa are neck deep in the project, one as the initiator, the other as the implementer. There are dangerous gaps in relations between Muslim and Christian communities that will require the two key citizens to collaborate openly and sincerely to reduce. There are massive economic and social problems in the State which are feeding the deplorable security situation that will require both leaders to work together and find solutions to.

          Both VP Sambo and Governor Yakowa are still facing robust challenges in court over their elections. They are also facing huge challenges to make impact on the lives of citizens. Governor Yakowa has not moved beyond dealing with immediate security issues to roll out major policies that will address poverty and sustainable peace. Right now, his administration is being accused of removing thousands of workers from their jobs to enable the State Government pay the N18, 000 minimum wage. The Vice President himself is holding firm to an office even though his political base appears to have been lost with the April 2011 elections. What he can offer President Jonathan is his personal qualities and capacity for loyalty. If his principal does not put much store in these, his position will be that much more uncomfortable. The experience of a former Vice President who was made utterly redundant and miserable by his principal is still fresh in everyone’s mind.

          Neither the V-P nor Governor can afford a war of attrition in a State like Kaduna. If they have a handle on what is going on, they should call their foot soldiers to order. If they don’t, they must worse politicians than the people of Kaduna State and Nigeria are entitled to expect. They occupy elective offices to lead governments to make a real difference in the lives of citizens. If they do not close ranks, and improve their personal and official relationships, they will both be losers. With a Vice President and a Governor who wants to make a difference in place, people of Kaduna State have a huge asset which they must not lose because political opportunists have the upper hand over elected leaders.       

BISHOP MATHEW HASAN KUKAH’S CROSS

            On the 8^th of September this year, an event of monumental significance took place in Sokoto, the spiritual heart of Nigerian Muslims. Thousands of Nigerians, Muslims, Christians and those who couldn’t care less all made the long and potentially hazardous journey to witness the ordination and installation of the new Bishop of the Sokoto Diocese, Mathew Hassan Kukah. A former President, and a whole army of V.I.Ps, along with simple, faithful Christians jostled with Muslims in a city with quite possibly less than 10,000 catholics, and then moved in a long motorcade to pay respects to the symbolic head of all Nigerian Muslims thereafter. It was a very happy event for everyone, not least for those who travelled to Sokoto with some fear and apprehension. It was a moving event that had many lessons for our nation which is going through some agonising soul-search over its ability to hold on to the idea that differences in faith and tongue are not in themselves impediments to building a nation that is united, and large enough for everyone to find full expression of their own beliefs and peculiarities.

          But for the foresight to transmit this epochal event live across the nation, many members of the Nigerian elite would not even have known it took place. Even with that, Nigerians who had no television sets, or power sources, or the time to watch television, and who are the victims of the cynical manipulation of religion by the elite, did not even know the event took place. A small literate group with the resources to buy a newspaper read about it, but most missed its profound significance. Then, just when the event was almost slipping into history and was being swallowed by daily and depressing news about killings by robbers and Boko Haram militants, the new Bishop himself writes a from-the-heart article thanking Nigerians and Nigerians for an event which he said allowed Nigerians an opportunity to show that a great people and a great country can still show their sense of solidarity. Bishop Kukah’s article will be a useful reminder that his ordination and installation as Bishop of Sokoto Diocese should be noted as a major benchmark in terms of inter-faith relations in Nigeria.

          One major benchmark set by the happy and peaceful installation of Bishop Kukah in Sokoto relates to the resounding defeat against the dangerous perception that Muslims are instinctively intolerant; and in the context of our current political limitations, that there are hostile no-go areas for Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. A few months ago, Muslims and Christians killed each other in their thousands in the north. Even as we speak, Boko Haram bombs and bullets kill Muslims and Christians almost daily. In Jos and parts of Kaduna State just being a Muslim or Christian alone is sufficient ground for being murdered by mobs. Yet Islam has set very strict and rigid ground rules under which human life can or may be taken. Similarly, one of the Christian commandments says no Christian shall commit murder. Muslims tend to lose the propaganda war in Nigeria and at the international level, and are generally portrayed as intolerant and prone to violence. Yet when Bishop Kuhah was installed in Sokoto, not one Muslim citizen threw a stone; or shouted an obsenity; or detonated a bomb, or threatened the thousands of visitors and Sokoto – based Christians who rejoiced at receiving a catholic Bishop who had a solid global image as one of their own. What the installation did was to remind Nigerians and the world that it has nothing to fear from Muslims; and to remind Muslims that they have nothing to fear from non-Muslims once they hold on to their faith. It also reminds the world that respect begets respect. If the Pope can send an emissary to the seat of the Sokoto Caliphate, and he is accepted and accorded the dignity and respect he deserves; authorities and symbols of christianity in Nigeria and beyond should accord muslims commensurate respect and tolerance to live as muslims.

          A second major benchmark set by the installation of Bishop Kukah is that Nigerian Christians and Muslims must examine why and where exactly their relationship went wrong. The public side of the installation represented only a tiny portion of the response and involvement of muslims and christians in the installation. Rather sadly, a man who is valued as a global icon of peace comes from a State where thousands of refugees live in squalid camps, and may never relocate back to villages where they had lived for decades, and from which they escaped after hundreds of men and young boys were slaughtered. He represents peace, compassion and tolerance, but comes from a State whose capital city, Kaduna, is split right down the middle between Christians and Muslims. He comes from a part of the nation where the fires of religious intolerance have fed unspeakable levels of violence in  Jos, in Bauchi, in Kaduna and in Borno. He is being installed as a Bishop in the heart of a Caliphate whose leader is being repudiated by spokespersons of Boko Haram. Even as he bestraddles these scary divides, Bishop Kukah knows that the distance between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria is growing wider; and politics in feeding off these divides, and building fortresses around hate and intolerance. Whole generations are growing up knowing nothing but hate and bitterness against particular groups. The installation of a good man in a environment which welcomes him and does not judge him on the basis of his faith will not transform Muslim-Christian relations in itself. What it can do is to alert Nigerians to the dangers of intolerance; and the escalating violence falsely erected around God.

          A third benchmark set by the historic installation of Bishop Kukah is that a good man will be a good man anywhere, whether he is Christian or Muslim. The thousands of Christians who travelled to Sokoto, or watched the installation of Bishop Kukah on television did so because a man whose life has been the embodiment of humble service to God and humanity has been elevated by God. Thousand of Muslims who have known the life and works of Bishop Kukah would also appreciate the fact that a good Christian who will build bridges between faiths and hearts has been given a bigger responsibility to do so. The life and elevation of Bishop Kukah is lesson for all leaders to lead with the fear and love of God, and to stay in touch with the basic humanity which is in all of us. Bishop Kukah says he is a missionary without borders. He lives the life of one as well. He touches lives in every endeavour he is involved in. His proximity to the seat of the Caliphate should be a beacon of hope that Nigerian Muslims and Christians can find sustainable peace. His extraordinary intellect and ability to connect, which gave him automatic access to just about every Nigerian should afford him greater opportunities to do more of God’s will as he works with the Sultanate to reclaim lost ground.

          In these depressing times when we are running out of answers to the many questions around our co-existence as Nigerians, Bishop Kukah’s bountiful optimism and a willingness to go further than most in the belief that God created us to live in peace will be very useful. Every time our political system demeans our faith by turning fellow citizens who do not worship our God into instant enemies, Nigerians will need to remember that neither Muslims nor Christians will leave this country for the other. We can either work hard and live in peace; or fight against each other and destroy each other. Those among us with faith should remind politicians that we are on the brink, and will not fall over. If they can only acquire power after we have killed each other in the name of our faith, then they represent the enemy. Father Kukah is a missionary, in a nation desperate to hear and live as God wishes. The cross he bears is to constantly remind us that there are better ways to live than we do.

THE FUEL SUBSIDY BATTLE

On Tuesday October 4^th 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan informed the National Assembly of his intention to phase out fuel subsidies under his Medium Term Fiscal Framework covering the period 2012 to 2015. The President says the removal of the subsidy will free more than N1.3 trillion, which will be invested by government to ensure faster national economic development. The announcement has predictably met with a full-blown condemnation from its traditional opposition, which is just about everyone outside the administration of President Jonathan. In the next few weeks, dire consequences will be promised by labour, the political opposition, organized public opinion, the media, students and market women. Old arguments in favour of the subsidy removal policy will be dusted-up and presented to a sceptical nation, and the administration will attempt to push through with the removal, even with resistance from all corners, including the National Assembly. In the end, no side will win. Whether the administration succeeds or fails, it would have exposed the nation to the real damage that decades of macro-economic mismanagement has done to our lives. Its own solution may actually make the problem worse. Its opponents’ case is also weak, and whether they succeed in getting the administration to back away or not, it will not have won any real victory over the manner the Nigerian economy is being managed.

          The battle over the fuel subsidy did not start with President Jonathan’s administration, but it appears that he has decided to bite the bullet. The case the President is making is not new either. In simple terms, the case for the removal is that fuel subsidy is a virtual source of waste, inefficiency and corruption. It ties down huge resources which will otherwise be more productively utilized in developing critical economic and social infrastructure. It benefits a cartel which has cornered the import of products, and not the public. It encourages inefficiencies in the utilisation of resources, and discourages initiatives towards industrial development around petroleum products. It creates a false illusion that it keeps the cost of living relatively low. It has politicised ordinary market-determined adjustments in the price of petroleum products, and has polluted government-labour relations over the years, more than even ASUU’s regular grievances. It is an albatross on the neck of the nation which must be removed, even at the cost of some economic, but transient inconveniences. This is the best time to do it, and since it makes economic sense in every respect, there will be no going back.

          The opposition to the removal of fuel subsidy has been successfully led, so far, by organized labour. Its own arguments are also well rehearsed. Subsidy is a major economic tool for managing a developing economy which is blessed with crude reserves, which Nigerians should enjoy as a matter of right because God gave it them. They are also, as a matter of right, entitled to it because without it, life will be unbearably expensive. While it accepts that the subsidy has been abused by a corrupt cartel and government, it blames government for this abuse, and not the subsidy. Why, they argue, shouldn’t government remove the abuse and corruption around the subsidy, and achieve both lower costs for the subsidy, and a more transparent system? They argue that removal of subsidies must be contingent on a whole battery of major economic initiatives and reforms, which include substantial concessions to low-income workers to cushion the effects of the removal; massive expenditure on road, rail and marine transport infrastructure and guarantees that internal refinery capacities will function to eliminate the drawbacks around an import – driven sector. These demands will make the removal of subsidies virtually impossible to achieve, pure and simple. If government had the resources for these extensive investments in infrastructure and social policy, why remove the subsidies in the first place?

          So this new battle in the old war around removal of fuel subsidies is not likely to put anything new on the table; except perhaps the argument that its success is part of the requirements for the success of President Jonathan’s transformation agenda. The adversaries around the issue will engage each other in another bitter round of skirmishes, the same skirmishes which saw Obasanjo step back from his contemplated fuel removal in spite of his much stronger clout than Jonathan’s; and the same skirmishes which the late ‘Yar Adua did not even contemplate after getting his fingers burnt over a small increase in pump prices. The public will go through another agony; the same public in whose interests both sides have taken to the trenches.  

          If President Jonathan intends to dig in during this battle, he should expect a very bruising fight. The circumstances and context in which he plans to introduce the phased removal of the subsidy which will raise pump prices ultimately from N65 to about N145 could not have been more hostile. The Federal and State governments have just lost a damaging moral battle over the payment of N18, 000 minimum wage, against the background of a widely-publicised,      difficult-to-believe take home pay of elected officials which they legislated for themselves. There is talk of a radical review of electricity tariffs, which will almost certainly materialise. The devaluation of the Naira is being contemplated in the light of dwindling foreign reserves and oil revenues. State Governors are up in arms the over the Sovereign Wealth Fund, and are running from pillar to post showing everyone who cares to listen how the minimum wage will cripple their efforts to do anything else but pay salaries of state employees. Political opposition will make much capital out of public sentiments against the removal, and will draw further attention to the fact that while President Jonathan’s administration has broken no new economic grounds since it came to power, it wants to visit a most cruel policy on poor Nigerians who are already desperately on the margins of survival. The media will dig up the history of the subsidy removal controversy and its links with the IMF, and may even link the current Minister of Finance with the issue. Other critics will draw attention to the very high cost of diesel and kerosene as outcomes of subsidy removals, and will, in addition, remind the nation that in spite of deregulation, these two products are still expensive and controlled by cartels.

          So, all in all, President Jonathan would appear to have entered the water when the sharks are most hungry. He will unite all his opposition against him in this battle. The bottom line is that Nigerians simply have no faith or trust in the leadership’s ability and capacity to remove subsidy and invest it elsewhere for the greater good. This, really, is what the whole controversy is about. President Jonathan’s track record in terms of engaging the Nigerian public on sensitive or complex issues is a very poor one. There is no evidence that much work will be done to reduce the hostility around the planned subsidy removal, or educate more Nigerians to appreciate its benefits. Most educated Nigerians understand that the fuel subsidy has largely created billionaires; even if it also created the illusion that Nigerians get what they consider their own oil cheaper than most people in the world. But even this educated group are weary of the integrity of the administration, and question whether the removed subsidy will not end up in other private accounts. The manner State Governors are resisting the otherwise good idea behind the setting up of the Sovereign Wealth Fund on grounds that they suspect it will be abused is a reminder that corruption has eaten so deeply into our psyche and our affairs that nothing is beyond suspicion.

          There are very good reasons why the fuel subsidy policy should be re-examined. Much of what is claimed to be paid on behalf of Nigerians as subsidy is merely swindled. It can be saved and invested in other sectors, but Nigerians will feel the effect in the short term. The parasitic layer which makes trillions of Naira would have been eliminated, though. But a number of things need to be done first. The administration must convince Nigerians that it is in our own interest to make short-term sacrifices for longer – term gains. Second, Nigerians would want firm assurances that corrupt government officials and elected leaders will not pocket the savings from the removed subsidies. Third, real palliatives do need to be put in place to reduce the pains particularly among those most vulnerable groups: the urban poor and rural peasants. Finally, the administration will need to engage opponents of the removal in a genuine and comprehensive dialogue on the issue. 

          It is doubtful if President Jonathan will do all these things. Which means Nigeria is in for another bruising fight over the removal of fuel subsidy. Chances are, President Jonathan’s weak political base, and poor capacity to engage his opposition will force him to back down in the event of a bitter confrontation with a combination of hostile public opinion and organised labour. Even if he wins some form of victory in the end, it will be little comfort to most Nigerians whose levels of scepticism over the conduct of our leaders in alarmingly high. If he does back down, the nation will merely live to fight another day, over a problem which needs real answers; because there are no easy choices as far as the fuel subsidy issue is concerned.

BEFORE THE NEXT INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARY

It is a tragic irony that a day which should be marked and celebrated as a major landmark in our resolve to live as free and enterprising citizens of Nigeria has now become identified with violence and fear. Last year’s expensive arrangements to celebrate 50 years of our Independence were bombed out by a group which said Nigeria had nothing to celebrate, among other grievances which offended and frightened most Nigerians. This year’s Independence anniversary was celebrated by our national leaders behind closed doors, and across the nation, Nigerians were told that the celebrations would be low keyed. This meant that Governors made broadcasts from the comfort and security of Government Houses; and in other places, excuses were given to citizens for the absence of traditional festivities. In Zamfara State, twenty two people were murdered on independence day by suspected armed robbers in one village alone. In Maiduguri, bombs killed three people. In Abuja, additional barricades went up around the city centre, in spite of the fact that there were no public celebrations.

Nigerians do not need further evidence to tell us that our lives and livelihood have become much less secure since last year’s twin bombs claimed by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). This year too, the Movement was reported to have issued threats to bomb the festivities if they held. Government claims that its decision not to hold the traditional parades which Nigerians had enjoyed for the last 50 years had nothing to do with the MEND threat, or the threats of bombs from Boko Haram. Nigerians do not believe the government, which is saying a lot for an administration that is yet to earn much confidence or acclaim from any policy, programme or quarter. It is worse, however, if, as is widely suspected, the cancellation was informed by the fear of bombs. What this does is to make many Nigerians wonder whether government is losing the battle against terror, in spite of all the checkpoints, barricades, C.C.T.Vs, and thousands of additional policemen and soldiers in and around Abuja and other capital cities.

The objective of terror is to force governments to act out the political agenda of the terrorist. It operates by instilling fear among the wider population through the use of violence, and it generally kills a few to frighten millions. Citizens hold governments responsible for finding solutions to the terror, and governments very often react under pressure. This is not the best position under which decisions are made by leaders. The instinctive and initial response is to attempt to use force to eliminate the terrorist, without, however, addressing the source of the terror. Government becomes hostage to the designs of the terrorist; and citizens become hostages to both. The war against terror is difficult, but impossible to win unless its sources, strengths and weaknesses are understood and appropriate strategies to deal with it are adopted.

Organized violence has largely defined our lives as Nigerians in the last one year. This means that terror has won so far. But violence has only won a few battles, not the war. The war over how we should live is not over yet, and to win it, it is vital that both the administration and Nigerians understand that it entails. It is about whether political objectives can only be secured by groups or interests on the basis of their ability to apply superior force against the opposition or the Nigerian State. All political groups have the capacity to acquire some capacities to inflict violence to protect their own interests; so a war of this nature has the potential to set all groups against each other. Even where groups do not fight each other to finish, as we see in Somalia, they may set standards and precedents for others in the manner their use of terror acquires for them political and economic advantages.

When leaders and governments yield to terror, or create the impression that they cannot fight it, citizens are even more endangered. Worse, others take up the terrorist’s strategy, and the State’s capacity to protect citizens and its integrity is further weakened. A leading tribal leader and a Senator from the South East in already pointing out the linkages between ethnic and regional grievances and the achievement of political goals. He makes the case that the uproar and violence by the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) and NADECO which followed the abortion of the 1993 elections in which Chief M.K.O Abiola contested was what created a national consensus around the concession to Yoruba people to produce a President in 1999, which resulted in Obasanjo’s 8-year rule. He also said that the Jonathan Presidency is the product of the prolonged and damaging militancy from many parts of the South-South geo-political zone. Now, he argues, the North is floating the Boko Haram movement as a political weapon to ensure that it gets the Presidency in 2015. Although he did not recommend the militarization of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), he advised Ndigbo as the leading Igbo socio-cultural group to support it towards achieving greater Igbo unity.

It is thinking of this nature which should engage President Jonathan’s administration, and focus its attention towards ensuring that the next one year is not charactinzed by more violence. So far, there is no evidence of any creative thinking or constructive and informed strategy which should isolate and engage the sources of terror in Nigeria. These sources go beyond the manifestation of the threat of Boko Haram, because the outcome of the insurgency and the criminality in the Niger Delta which is being peddled as the benefit of the Amnesty Programme remains vulnerable to manipulation. The search for the sources of the terror which is keeping us behind barricades should focus on massive and unacceptable levels of poverty; the total collapse of the social and traditional structures caused by the unbridled expansion of moral and economic corruption; injuries to human dignity and injustice meted out by agents of the State that appear beyond the reach of the administration, and seeming indifference and manifest incompetence in the management of complex security and political problems. Past administrations at all levels of government bear a major responsibility for this collapse; but the present administration will be held solely responsible for doing little to begin to address the rot.

The period until the next independence celebration will test the capacity of President Jonathan’s administration to provide the most valuable service to Nigerians, which is the security of their lives and property. Everything else will hang on this capacity, including the very survival of the nation. What Nigerians miss this year is not so much the parades and other festivities which they are used to. It is the sense of freedom from fear and insecurity. If this situation cannot be improved by this time next year, the administration will have nothing useful to tell Nigerians about its stewardship. But Nigerians will tell the administration it has failed them at the most critical moment, and on the most important issue.