POLICE AND THIEVES

            Two days ago, on Tuesday 2^nd of August 2011, armed robbers reportedly stopped a half-full luxury bus on the Okene-Lokoja-Abuja road in the middle of the night. They forced all the passengers and the driver to alight and lie face down on the road, and then commenced robbing them. Midway through the operation, a bus, similar to the one being robbed, came upon the scene, and in an effort to avoid the robbers, ran right over the robbery victims. Another large truck following the bus also run over them. The robbers fled, leaving behind many dead bodies, some badly mangled, and many injured. The Police arrived later to move the dead and injured away from the scene. There are unconfirmed figures of the dead put anywhere between 16 and 40. One of the dead was a small child.

            The misfortune of the victims of the armed robbery who were killed by another vehicle while being robbed will touch even the hardest hearts in a nation almost desensitized by the daily occurrence of the most horrific crimes on our highways and in our homes. The incidents of robbery on Okene-Lokoja-Abuja road in particular have become almost routine, yet this road represents one of the major north-south arteries of the nation. If people are not being mangled in accidents, they are robbed almost at will by heavily-armed highway robbers. Elsewhere, travelling by night has become a very hazardous venture, with the probability being very high that you will either be involved in a serious fatal accident, or fall victim of robbers. 

            Obviously, the police cannot cover every inch of our highways, and it will be wrong to stop commercial vehicles from travelling by night. But these are not reasons why the nation should resign itself to living with mass slaughter called road accidents, or rampant criminal activities on our highways. The challenge before the government, the police and security agencies is to raise their levels of performance and restore some confidence of the public that we still live in a civilized country where citizens can expect protection as a matter of right.

            The practice of robbing luxury buses which had been almost eliminated a few years ago appears to be resurfacing. This threat had almost killed the business of night travelling, a popular choice of many people, and a useful measure which reduced traffic on our highways in the day. The relative success recorded a while back in reducing the incidents of luxury bus robberies was the product of better intelligence, greater presence of the police on highways, and quite possibly the result of conscious efforts to flush out bad eggs within the force. Now the police has to go back to the drawing board, and re-examine its strategy to deal with this serious problem, particularly on highways such as the Okene-Abuja road.

            There is no doubt that the challenges which all security agencies face in Nigeria today are very serious indeed. The police in particular are involved in internal security, as well as policing many more flashpoints than had existed in the past in many parts of the country. They are still under-manned, under-equipped and under-funded. Many policemen justifiably worry about the fate of their families if they are killed by heavily-armed criminals, or if they are badly injured in the line of duty. There is therefore the need to improve the logistics and equipment of the police to deal with new and old challenges. Its intelligence gathering must also be radically enhanced. Many communities which dot our highways are very good sources of intelligence. They can identify suspicious movements of strangers, who may be highway robbers, or locate their abodes in or near villages. The Federal and State Government must also improve the security situation in many sensitive areas and flashpoints in the nation, so that thousands of men and women who are deployed there can be assigned other responsibilities. The funding for highway patrols vehicles and improved communication should be improved. Similarly, the Police should improve its liaison and cooperation with road transport owners and workers unions to examine how our highways can be made safer.

            The killings on our highways, either through accidents or robberies make our country appear extremely unsafe. The world uses our highways as an index of our security and safety, and our image as an unsafe nation is largely the product of what happens on our roads. No foreigner will be encouraged to invest in a nation this unsafe. Nigerians now travel with their hearts in their mouths. Day or night, you are grateful if you get to your destination in one piece. This is not a way for a people to live, and those with responsibility to make us more secure should sit up and do something about it.          

SINGLE TERM CONTROVERSY: BEATING A DEAD HORSE

Prominent politicians, eminent lawyers and other leaders appear to be spoiling for a bruising fight with President Goodluck Jonathan over his reported plan to push through a constitutional amendment which will give elected persons a single term. It is being reported that across the length and breadth of the land, meetings and consultations are being held, as many groups, particularly in the opposition, appear to have smelt some blood, and are preparing to take the President to the cleaners over the issue. Some of the groups being reported to be mobilizing against the planned amendment include the Northern Political Leaders Forum which was involved in the ill-fated PDP consensus project; a Lagos-based group made up of lawyers and politicians called the National Consensus Group; and a host of other Civil Society Groups and Non-Governmental Organizations. It is not unreasonable to assume that many more groups will also the resistance to the idea, even before it becomes real. It is also to be expected that others sympathetic to the President’s initiative will galvanize support for him and the idea.

            After Mr. President’s lengthy exposition on the genesis of the single-term idea before his Party’s National Executive Committee meeting last week, during which he appeared to say that he is still at the early stage of consultations on the idea, and that the idea was the product of some earlier work involving other political Parties more than two years ago, it would have been expected that some of the sting in the attacks would have been taken out. Alas, all Mr President’s  explanation appear to have done are to confuse the situation even more and raise the levels of suspicion and cynicism of many Nigerians on the issue. In the first place, the President’s explanation were grossly at variance with the statement of his spokesman, Mr Reuben Abati, which explicitly stated that the President is about to send a bill to amend provisions on tenure and even giving details and justifications. The President did not distance himself from Abati’s rather categorical statement, or even refer to it before his party’s National  Executive Committee. Then some of the parties and persons involved in the inter-party committee which the President says contemplated and recommended the single – term idea denied that they did so. Thirdly, the media reported such a deluge of criticisms against the idea that many people would have bet the shirts on their backs that the idea would be denounced by the President himself.

All these apparent setbacks ought to have made a difference either in the manner the opposition is assessing its strategy, or in the manner the President plans to proceed. They apparently have not. On the contrary, the opposition is becoming move active and organized around challenging the plan, while the President’s people are examining better options to spin the idea and whittle down the resistance. There are a number of possible explanations for this.

One explanation is to do with the very low levels of trust and faith of many Nigerians in President Jonathan. Obviously, much of this has to do with the circumstances under which he contested for the Presidency against his Party’s zoning policy. There is also a strong residue of resentment in some parts of the country over the perception that the elections were not credible. And they have therefore bought for President Jonathan a permanent army of hostile citizens on every issue. Then there are also endemic inconsistencies of quite a few of the people around President Jonathan, such as former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who only last week said that the zoning principle of the PDP which he denounced earlier is so sacrosanct and that the Speaker of the House of Representatives must step down for someone from the Southwest. Former President Obasanjo himself had failed in his bid to secure a constitutional amendment for a third term, so his relationship with President Jonathan will not exactly be a plus when credibility and political integrity are at stake.

A second explanation for the increasing resistance against the tenure proposals is related to the sheer irrelevance of the issue under our circumstances, and the suspicion that it has a major, sinister motive. When people cannot understand why a President, fresh into his mandate is seeking to affect a change in the constitution to prolong the life of elected leaders, and he says he is only interested in improving the quality of our political process because he will not be a beneficiary, they are not likely to believe him.  The more sinister they suspect the motives to be, the more they will resist the President.

The danger with the manner this controversy is being handled is that it is capable of making both sides more desperate to win in the end. President Jonathan and his supporters may see a loss over the single tenure issue as a do-or-die affair, and his opponents may also will see it in the same light. An issue which has no relevance to the current challenges which Nigerians face, at least on face value, is therefore capable of becoming a major source of political friction and much energy and attention will be diverted from the real issue.

It will be difficult to see how President Jonathan will sell the single term idea to Nigerians without polarizing the nation completely. Late Sani Abacha and former President Obasanjo attempted to tinker with the constitution around issues related to their persons and ambition. They failed. Nigerians do not trust their leaders enough to believe that this issue has no hidden agenda. It was dead on arrival, and the nation should not be made to expend energy and attention beating a dead horse.

THE MORAL BURDEN OF PRIVILEGE

This occasion provides a very good background to discuss the problem of the widening gap between social and economic groups, and the dangers which this poses for social cohesion, security and development in Nigeria. An elite institution such the Zaria Academy represents a symbol of privilege, and it is fitting that it should also provide a setting for discussing the irrevocable linkages between wealth and poverty, power and weakness, privilege and its responsibilities. It is also vital that the students and products of this great institution understand that the privilege they enjoy in their association with this College is linked with the conditions which make it difficult for their peers in different social and economic conditions to achieve quality education and some assurances of a good future.

         I am aware that the moving sprit behind the establishment of this College was the desire by its founder and proprietor to establish an institution which is both affordable and capable of providing world-class education to young Nigerians. It is also a fact, however, that quality is expensive; and like everything else in life, either you or someone else will pay for something you enjoy. As Karl

________________________________________________________________________________________

*Text of a Lecture delivered at the Graduation and Prize Giving Day Ceremony of Zaria Academy on 3oth July 2011.

** Visiting Reader in Political Science, Usmanu Danfodio University, Sokoto and Executive Chairman, D.I.T.V/Alheri Radio, Kaduna.

Marx once said, there is no such thing as a free meal. Ideally, the Nigerian society should provide for every young boy or girl the type of education enjoyed by the students of Zaria Academy. In reality, this is not too idealistic; and it is even necessary to make the case that every Nigerian child should receive the type of education which Zaria Academy provides as a matter of right.

The provision of quality education to its young citizens, to the limits of their capabilities, is the irreduceable minimal obligation of the Nigerian State. Where the State fails to do this, it must be held accountable for its wrong priorities and failure in its responsibilities to citizens. The failure or unwillingness of the Nigeria State (defined broadly as all governments and agencies which collect and expend public resources) is itself a function of the nature and disposition of leadership; and the capacities of groups or classes to compel changes in the manner leaders behave in relation to allocation of resources. Leaders whose positions are not contingent on public support, such as those who rule without popular mandate, or treat such mandates as commodities which they purchased through fraudulent elections, are not likely to show profound sympathies towards allocating resources around the provision of the basic necessities of life and the preconditions of social and economic progress of  the people. These leaders are more likely to use their positions to reinforce their control over the political process, and to limit the economic empowerment of poor citizens. The use of state resources therefore serves the purpose of reinforcing class divisions, even if these are not the intended outcomes by the leadership. In developing societies such as ours, access to good education and skills is the most decisive instrument for reducing or expanding the gap between social and economic groups.

         The failure of the State to provide fair access to quality education served as an impetus for privileged groups to secure it for their own young people outside the framework of the State education system. The nation then witnessed a massive expansion of private schools for the week-to-do which are characterized principally by relatively high cost and better quality than public-sector education. The divisions in society between wealth and poverty are then reproduced and reinforced, and the gaps between groups become wider and more pronounced.

         Under colonialism, policy towards education served the purpose of producing the basic indigenous skills and competencies which were necessary for control and management of the colonized territory and people. In parts of Nigerian where there were pronounced existing cleavages around wealth, power and prestige, such as Northern Nigeria, colonial Policy on education sought to both protect existing power structures as well as facilitate the emergence of a new elite. The development of western education in Northern Nigeria was therefore a highly controlled process, and was informed by multiple concerns, one of which was that it targetted the creation of a new elite which however was to exist with the new elite in such a manner as to create a largely conservative society. Free and high quality public funded education bridged the distances between social groups, provided the fastest mode for upward mobility and created the nucleus of a middle class. Colonial society was extremely fluid, in spite of the deliberate efforts to shield the old privileged groups from being entirely subordinated by new groups; especially in the north. Given the many advantages which earlier commercial contact made with the south of Nigeria and their impact on economic progress and the rate of spread of western-style education, western education in the north also reduced the damage which could have been caused by amalgamation and secured a federal system which brought groups together with widely differing cultures, and at different stages of development.

         Post colonial Society built up on the dynamic foundations of education, and in northern Nigeria in particular, the new elite adopted an aggressive expansion of public-funded education. The new post-colonial society expanded opportunities for disadvantaged groups and communities, and privileged groups also recognized that the preservation of their privilege was largely a function of the degree to which they responded to the new education system which alone appeared to define group and class distinctions.

         The liberalization of education policy coincided with a massive expansion of the new middle class in. Nigeria. The State ceased to have sole responsibility for providing education to all the classes, and private education spread quickly, taking along with it a substantial portion of faith-based education that also played a critical role in the emergence of new groups for particularly-disadvantaged communities. The new ruling elite was distinguishable by its wealth, power, and its capacity to bestow advantage on its own younger generation by the manner it gave them quality and expensive education. State-funded education became progressively poorer in quality as leaders educated their own children in private schools. In spite of the appearance of increased funding, public sector educational standards collapsed completely. Children of the upper classes received quality and expensive education, which further reinforced the distance between them and children of the economically disadvantaged. Government schools witnessed a massive expansion in enrollment by children of the poor, but gave as education, skills or hope to their products.

         Our society therefore became more and more polarized between those who received quality education, acquired skills and competences at great cost, and whose future was relatively assured; and those who received no training or skills, and who are consigned from childhood to a marginal existence. Those whose parents bought them very expensive education grow up feeling that they owe society nothing. Those who are also abandoned by a leadership and society which appeared less able and willing to change their lives also grow up with no sense of obligation to the society or the nation. The nation today has no central unifying values, institutions or processes. The well-to-do are daily moving away from the poor. The gulf between the two groups is fertile ground for individual and collective insecurity. It makes everyone less secure, and deprives society of the critical stability which only a middle class can provide. And, of course, the first casualty of the failure of high-quality, state-funded education was the middle class, which was further decimated by wrong economic policies.   

         Our young people, even those who receive quality education such as our children at Zaria Academy today grow up without vital sentiments of patriotism and pride in their nation. They feel that the nation has let them down, and even the good education they receive has to be paid for in full by parents or guardians. Their poorer counterparts think even worse: they, are bitter, disillusioned and desperate to fight a society to which they owe nothing.

         Today, our Nation is reaping the dangerous harvest of five decades of lack of vision from our leadership; of unspeakable corruption which has turned public assets that could otherwise provide good education for all young citizens into virtual private assets of leaders; and the failure of a political system to re-invent our nation and place it along a constructive path. Our cities and towns are bursting with young people who have no faith in the government, and no hope for a decent future. Our rural areas are fast depleting, or are struck in timeless poverty and drudgery. The rich live behind high walls and tinted glasses, and run for cover every time the multitudes are aroused to action by a political and electoral system which progressively delivers less and less.

         This downward spiral into disaster for all can and must be stopped. It can be stopped through the adoption of an enlightened policy of self preservation by the rich and the wealthy, who need to recognize that their privileges are build upon the squalor and hopelessness of the vast majority of their fellow citizens. It can be stopped by a political system which draws into it better quality leaders who will not plunder public assets as the sole purpose for acquiring public offices. It can be stopped by each citizen, particularly those who are privileged, acknowledging and taking steps towards mitigating the dangerous chasm which exist between power and impotence; between wealth and poverty, and between hope and hopelessness.

         Nigerians are still attempting to come to terms with the genesis and sheer depth of feeling and intense violence which characterized the post-election violence last April. It is important that we understand exactly what created both the remote and immediate causes of the violence. But even at this stage,, it is clear that many of our young people are intensely disillusioned with a political system which promises them major changes in their lives, but fails to deliver. They are angry at a leadership which seems bent on preserving its firm control over our resources, while the population wallows in poverty. Power and privilege which cannot handle their opposites risk extinction. Our nation is at that point where history will record us as having taken the right strategic turn away from unending strife; or failing to avert a total collapse. The moral burden of privilege is to reduce itself, and if all we do is to teach the young in this Hall that rich and poor; the weak and the powerful; the privileged and the pauperized are inextricably linked, we would have made a good beginning.  

       

       

PRESIDENT JONATHAN SHOULD TAKE CHARGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TENURE ELONGATION: A WASTEFUL DIVERSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRUPTION FIGHTS BACK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLITICIANS AND HAJJ

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

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

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

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

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

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