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.