THIS CREEPING MADNESS

“Some men go through a forest and see no firewood”

A Fulani Proverb

Governors from South South states are angry with the north over its temerity to hint that their States are sitting on, and developing on resources to which they are not strictly entitled. They express a widespread indignation across much of the oil and gas producing region which has followed the publicized intention of Northern Governors to demand for a review of the formula for allocation of revenue from oil and gas derived from off-shore resources of the nation. The anger of the governors from the South South is being further stoked by the utterances and posture of a group led by Dr. Junaidu Mohammed, to the effect that the north’s claim to a share of the off-shore resources is legitimate, non-negotiable and realistic. The governors think that Dr. Junaidu’s recent statement over the issue is insulting, provocative and ill-informed, and represents the type of arrogance which is “symptomatic of a pattern of thinking that has not helped the unity, stability and progress of this country.” They are particularly irked by the insinuation that revenue from derivation which goes to oil-producing states cannot be adequately managed by them, and the implied suggestion that it will breed corruption, while other parts of the country which deserve it as a matter of right wallow in poverty and insecurity.

Just to the north, the socio-political group, the Ohaneze Ndigbo has also challenged northern leaders to declare their true intentions behind the flurry of meetings on the insecurity situation in the north. The North has indeed been going through a frenzy of meetings and consultations in the last few weeks. First, the shoot-from-hip Junaidu initiative which sets a very visible agenda: prepare the north better to deal with its many problems, and engage the rest of Nigeria more constructively from a position of strength. To do this, it says it is willing to go where few would: to demand for a review of the manner off-shore revenues are shared out; and announce the willingness of the North to discuss all options on the structure and future of the Nigerian nation. It brought together an impressive array of northerners who defy partisan, cultural or religions boundries, a rare feat in the north these days.

Then very old people from the north, many long thought to have retired from any public or political outing on behalf of the north, met to look at its current security, economic and political situation. It was the type of meeting the nation had to take note of, and it said either of two things. Either the north is finally waking up to its damaging limitations and is now willing to find northern solution to its problems; or, the leadership deficit in the north is so acute that it requires these elders to step forward. That meeting was followed a few days later by another in Minna convened by General Abdussalami Abubakar, which had in attendance some people and interests that were involved in the Junaidu and Alh Maitama Sule initiatives, a many other. This initiative also had a similar goal: stop the bleeding of the north, salvage and rebuild its economy, and prepare it to engage more constructively with the rest of Nigeria. Seeing all these meetings, Ndigbo wants the north to say what they are all about. Many people will not miss the irony that northern leaders are being suspected for concerted efforts to deal with insecurity, when a few months ago all you heard was their silence and inactivity over it.

These are indeed very interesting times in Nigerian politics. They also challenge students of Nigerian history to find some puzzling answers to many questions. The quarrels around the questions over sharing revenue is taking place among governors and other interests almost entirely defined by membership of the PDP. Between the South South and the North, the PDP ¾ of Government of the nation, the vast majority of legislators and about over 70% of the resources of the nation. Yet the PDP cannot provide a framework for discussions on sensitive matters such as this, so that the nation’s temperature is not further raised unnecessarily. What does this say about the largest party in Africa, now being increasingly referred to as the cult of a few which is only good enough to buy and allocate offices? What do these quarrels say about Governors themselves, who are either hiding behind groups to demand for a few more crumbs or who are defending huge wealth without showing what they actually do with it? What is Ndigbo afraid of when it sees Northerners running around trying to put out a fire ravaging its economy and society? Could its curiosity be the result of its worry over where the 2015 PDP ticket will go, South-East or the North? Could there be some discomfort that finding a solution for the insurgency of Boko Haram, the decaying economy of the north and improving its capacity to negotiate a good deal in a Nigeria of the future may reverse the plan to keep it permanently on the margins? Are northern Governors in any position to raise issues regarding the fortunes and rights of the north, when they are largely responsible for so spectacularly bringing it to its present position? Would all these meetings, committees and resolutions issuing from many groups succeed in healing the damaging divisions which exist in the north; re-building its economy and re-inforcing its social and cultural structures to deal with the Boko Haram insurgency, which is prima facie an insurrection against the northern establishment?

There is a worrying vacuum at critical points in the Nigerian political system, which is why many worrying quarrels and posturing by people who should know better are compounding the problems of Nigerians. President Jonathan appears to have drawn rigid lines around his willingness to mediate in some of these quarrels before they become additional sources of insecurity. By the time Nigerians know whether he plans to run again in 2015 or not, the environment may be entirely beyond his capacity to handle. The polarization of the nation along political lines is becoming more pronounced, in spite of the dominance of the PDP in the political process. The failure of the north in managing its political and social pluralism, its economy and its security is providing an additional impetus for other parts to grow and develop. If the north can fix itself, it may challenge the position of some regions and groups which believe that it is history. But the nation as a whole will be the better for it. What represents the biggest threat to a holistic solution to a national problem, of which the poverty and insecurity in the north is only one aspect, is this creeping madness which is taking control of leaders. Tinkering with structures or revenue formula will not solve the national leadership deficit. A wholesale replacement of this quarrelsome group who fight each other when we are scared and hungry may be the most useful steps to take.

Chidi’s Assets, a bridge and a prayer

“There is no end to what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit”

 –Florence Luscomb

 

I have never met Professor Chidi Odinkalu, the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in person, although I hear he is the type of Nigerian I should list among my friends. Chidi and I belong to a cyberspace group which has many other people I know very well, most of whom think very highly of Chidi. Every time Chidi says or reacts to something someone says, you see evidence of learning, grooming and an open-mindedness rare even among educated people these days. Our group is passionate about most things important, and we often get all worked up for days when there is something to argue over. Chidi is always in the thick of it, even when the matter involves Islamic theology, Fulani marriage customs, the place of Ojukwu in Nigerian history, or the worrying tendency for the younger generation to see everything through very narrow and destructive prisms. You could tell Chidi has spent much of his life in foreign lands, but he does not have that see-me-here diaspora mentality.

So why is Chidi on the title of this column today? Because, on 23^rd of November, 2011, he, as is required by law, went and declared the totality of his assets and liabilities with the Code of Conduct Bureau. So what? You say. Everyone does that. And you might even say many deliberately increase their assets to make allowances for what may “accrue” during the periods they hold offices; and then pray that the severe lack of capacity of the Code of Conduct Bureau to verify such exaggerated declarations will remain severe. They will then stay on the shelves of the Bureau until an exit declaration is made, which may not be cross-checked with the entry declaration either.

Chidi did not just go through the statutory ritual of declaring all his assets. You would think this former lecturer in Law at the Havard Law School and a man vastly experienced in the frailties of the human character will be wary of telling relations, friends, in-laws and the entire public what he is worth, as well what he is owing. Some people who will say even your spouse(s) should not know what you are worth (but will make allowances for telling them your liabilities) will be shocked that Chidi went the extra mile of requesting that his declaration should receive full public disclosure. In other words, even though the law does not compel him to disclose his assets and liabilities to the public, and most people will be reluctant to do this for fear of opening floodgates to relatives and sundry persons; kidnappers, armed robbers, and enemies who may reveal the lies in the declaration, he asks that his own declaration should be made public. Many people will say it is fine to do this, if you do not own much. But judge for yourself whether Chidi’s assets and liabilities are the type you declare quietly or the type over which you will be indifferent if everyone knows of them.

A Non-Governmental Organization, R2K (Right to Know) said details of Professor Odinkalu’s assets and liabilities were:

i.                    Personal Earnings from two standard Bank Accounts with balances of N94,000 and $11,700;

ii.                  Two Barclays Bank accounts in the U.K containing £7,752 and £4,542;

iii.                A mortgaged 3-bedroom house in Edmonton, London;

iv.               A 4-bedroom house in Lekki, Lagos;

v.                 A Toyota RAV4 bought in 2004;

vi.               A Kia Rio car bought in 2005;

vii.             Shares and stocks worth about N3m;

viii.           A personal pension plan managed by Friends Provident;

ix.                A 27 KVA Nioda generator;

x.                  7.5 KVA Inverter;

xi.                10,000 Books which the Professor described as “invaluable.”

Now, if you are among the 80% of Nigerians who earn less than N300 a day, Professor Chidi will be an incredibly wealthy man. But if you were an Ibori, or many of his former colleagues whose cases before the EFCC and the Courts appear unlikely to ever be concluded, what the Professor has may be the value of what you could dash a girl friend. Even if you are a serving Governor, Minister or some powerful person in the corridors or bedrooms of power,  the total value of Chidi’s assets are what your wife could spend on a two-day trip to Dubai or London.

The voluntary publication of Chidi’s assets and liabilities has raised the bar in accountability and openness. It is a challenge to all those who hold positions of trust to accord some respect to the Nigerian public and the values and rules governing probity and honesty by making public what they own, and are owed. Even as I say this, I know it is a challenge that will not be taken up. I was close to the take-off of the late Umaru Musa ‘Yar Adua’s administration, and I remember the panic he caused when he decided, against the most vociferous advise, not to publish his declared assets and liabilities. His decision was ground-breaking in terms of its impact, and it really set the cat among the pidgeons. Panic run right through all the political office holders and the hundreds angling to be appointed Special Advisers, Ministers, Chairmen of Boards etc. Will he demand that they did same, even against existing law? Will he change the law to compel the publication of declared assets and liabilities? Will he hold it against them if they did not? Would it be worth holding a public office under Yar’Adua if one had to declare his entire assets (or some of it, and then risk exposure from those who know better)? In the end the late President said it was a personal decision of his publish, and he was not going to compel anyone to do so. His number two, now President Jonathan, also published his own declaration. I do not recall anyone else doing same. And the nation lost the opportunity to raise the moral standards of leadership.

The loudest message sent by Chidi is that those in position of responsibility should be responsible. And there are no boundries to this responsibility. Its foundations are in the manner we conduct our lives and treat public assets and trust. There should be no reasons why people who sit in judgment over how billions of public funds are spent should not tell the public what they are worth. If you have a reason for hiding your real personal worth, you have no business approaching an elective office.

The failure to appreciate the burden of responsibility is the reason this nation is crumbling before our very eyes. It is the reason why the Dundaye Bridge which links Usumanu Danfodio University, Sokoto (U.D.U.S) where I am a Visiting Lecturer and Sokoto City could collapse again with the coming rains. The absence of the required levels of responsibility by the Federal Government is the reason why the patch-patch work done on the bridge when it first collapsed two years ago will give way. This bridge which links Sokoto with one of the biggest universities in the North, whose student population is about 70% north and 30% south, which links Sokoto with six L.G.As and even with Niger Republic; and which is a vital economic asset may collapse again because neither the Federal Government nor the State Governments will bother to mobilize the funds to reconstruct it. When it does collapse again, we will close the University again. Children of the rich and powerful will continue their studies in the U.K, Malaysia, Ghana and Ukrain, while those of the poor who go to U.D.U.S will sit at home. They will curse and hate the leaders whose personal wealth will build ten Dundaye Bridges. They will resent authority, resent their circumstances, and resent children of the rich and powerful who do not go to U.D.U.S.

Professor Chidi Odinkalu has challenged Nigerians who hold positions of trust and responsibility to take steps towards submitting themselves beyond ritual legal requirements, and to actually commit to one of the most important steps to fight corruption and official impunity. I have serious doubts over whether our leaders today will even notice, not to talk of being shamed. How I wish a wealthy northerner will shame the Federal Government and catchment States whose young people attend U.D.U.S, by reconstructing the vitally strategic Dundaye Bridge.

AND NOW THIS

When Professor Chidi Odinkalu’s declared assets and liabilities was published, my younger brother, Mouftah, posted this prayer: “Maulana Chidi, May your shadow never grow shorter. By di grace of God, school fees no go deplete those £12k and $11k. Mortgage interest and repayment sef, no go chop dem. Dat N94k no go go down…. Na so so e go increase, with legit earnings. Keke NAPEP no go scratch either dat RAV4 or di Kia Rio. From dat Kia na to Range Rover….. and from dat RAV4 na straight to aeroplane… Dat Lekki house go born for Banana Island. E go born country house…. Your two generators no go knock. Mechanic and rewire no go come near dem.. Dat pension plan and those stock shares no go experience 2008 meltdown… and may you never use BUPA insurance.” Could there be a better prayer?

THE NORTH FOR BEGINNERS

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

Confucius, Chinese Philosopher  551 – 479bc

Recent attempts to draw attention to the linkages between poverty, politics and insecurity in the North of Nigeria make it necessary to try to understand the basic elements of the political economy of the region, and its relationship with the rest of Nigeria. It is vital to that this understanding is informed by facts and analyses that do not mislead either northerners or other Nigerians, because wrong assumptions or conclusion could compound the political and security situation in the country. It is particularly important to appreciate that the North represents an asset and a liability for Nigeria; and it could be more of either, depending on how its current situation is handled.it is vital to realize that unless the problems of the North are fixed, Nigeria’s problems cannot be fixed.

          Three important comments have recently been made with reference to the linkages between poverty, politics and insecurity, all of which provide basic insights into the current state of the North. First, a few weeks ago the Governor of Borno State said that poverty and poor governance in the last few years are responsible for fuelling the Boko Haram insurgency in his region. He said there are linkages between PDP politicians and Boko Haram insurgents. In making a case for massive state spending to fight poverty, he alluded to the secret behind the successful control by the murdered leader of the Boko Haram insurgency, Yusuf Muhammad over his followers, which was his painstaking attention and investment in their stomachs, employment and personal dignity. The second insight into the North’s economy came from the Governor of Niger State, Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu when he said that Northern Governors will soon demand for a review of the revenue allocation formula to address the absence of fairness in the manner national revenues from petroleum and gas are distributed. He said current allocations are not informed by equity or the law, and are responsible for extreme imbalance in the manner the north and some southern states are developing. He complained that the North is gravely poor, and its levels of illiteracy, poverty, ignorance and general backwardness are rising. The chairman of the Northern Governors’ Forum said that his State receives, on the average, N4.2b monthly, from which it pays out half as salaries, while some other States with much smaller populations receive 20 times more. The third comment on the state of the North came from the U.S Ambassador to Nigeria, who said his country will encourage the Nigerian government to reach out to people in the desperately poor north in its fight against the Boko Haram insurgency, in addition to better use of technology and intelligence. He said the insurgency would not be solved by treating it exclusively as a security issue, and advised the adoption of a holistic approach to dealing with the problem.

Now, all three of these comments and insights provide a glimpse into how the North is defined today. The region is currently defined principally by poverty and an escalating insurgency. These defining characteristics are challenged by some basic facts about the North. Its taxes and agricultural economy for decades, supported the development of the early colonian Nigerian state, including much of the most developed sections of Nigeria today. It was a vital part of a federation where populations meant much, and where resources were derived directly from productive activities of the people, long before virtually all of Nigeria came to adopt a parasitic existence around revenue from petroleum and gas. It was and is the region with the potential to provide enough food for much of Africa; to support a vibrant agro-allied industrial base, and which has more solid minerals under it than almost any part of the world. The North is the region that frittered away its achievements, and failed to tap into, and develop its potential. It was sucked into the dangerous dependence on revenues from products located in far-away places, where politics is played in a manner that makes it appear that they belong to the people who live on top of them. It failed to develop its two largest assets: its considerable population and vast, rich agricultural potential. It is de-industrializing and regressing economically at a rate which threatens every facet of its existence, and the Nigerian nation.

The North has far more voters than the rest of Nigeria, so in free and fair election, it does not need to beg the rest of the nation to allow northerners to become President. It does not need zoning, which is the product of elite scheming, that severely short-changes the north, and deprives all Nigerians of the right to vote for the best candidates available. Yet the north also has the largest number of poorest people in Nigeria among its population. It has the largest number of children beggars, and young people who do not go to school, or go to schools without learning anything of value; and pass out of schools without qualifications, skills or any hope of leading productive, responsible adult lives. The North has an aging political leadership which has lost control of the political process in the region. Its political machinery is firmly under control of Governors, who show no evidence that they have the capacity, or vision or commitment to address its fundamental problems. It is being politically weakened by the increasing incursion of faith-based politics, ethno-religious conflicts and the declining influence of traditional values. Its pluralism is dragging it down in terms of competing as a region. Huge chasms have developed between its muslim  population which has a long list of grievances against its christian population; and a christian population which is developing a split personality: now telling it that it is free of decades or centuries of Hausa-Fulani domination; and next being warned about engaging the south entirely as northern minorities.

The North is being presented now as a victim of endemic poverty, and that its current security and political problems will be addressed once there is massive public spending in its human capital and basic infrastructure. In a nation where fortunes of entire populations increasingly depend on the ethno-religious origins of leaders who determine the allocation of scarce resources, the loss of political power engineered by northern Governors appears to be hurting the north much more than all its old problems. The Boko Haram insurgency is still being labeled as a northern rebellion against the loss of political power by the north to President Jonathan. Little attention is paid to the fact that Boko Haram is pre-eminently an insurgency against the northern Muslim establishment, in both its doctrinal and political forms; and that it is the insurgency that now appears to be setting the agenda for northern Muslims, whether they agree with it or not.

The poverty of the north, manifested in its poor leadership, its declining economy and the absence to a visible and purposeful challenge to the damaging dominance of Governors and their party in its politics will be compounded by the image of the beggar region that will be made more pronounced when Governor Babangida and his colleagues go abegging cup-in-hand, for a few more crumbs from the South South. They will cause northerners to be insulted even more, and will get nothing because they have nothing to leverage in their demands. They will not convince the rest of Nigeria to yield more of the resources the north deserves as a matter of right, because they cannot answer questions over what the north did with its own resources. They will get little support from northerners who will ask what value additional allocated revenue will be to the north when Governors and their army of sycophants and parasitic Local Governments will absorb all of it. They have no capacity to show in terms of their own efforts to develop the huge potential of the north, which additional revenues from oil and gas will boost.

Northern leaders will behave like loyal party men and hope that their party will help. It will not. The PDP has no influence over what the President does. They cannot therefore push through genuine reviews of the manner resources are allocated. They cannot organize an informed response to the rest of Nigeria which believes that it is better off without the North, a region and people full of poverty and violence. They cannot assure its people that the north fought times without number for the unity of Nigeria, and will do so again, if necessary. They cannot articulate a range of options for the north, including the possibility that parts of the nation may go their separate ways; and that this could actually be a good thing for the North.

The danger of linking the current threats of the Boko Haram insurgency with poverty is that it gives a wrong picture. Poverty has always been a feature of the northern political economy, and it will require trillions in real investment over many years to address those unacceptable and dangerous levels of poverty in the region. Nigeria has no choice over whether it should undertake this massive expenditure. It should, and it must. A desperately poor North is a danger to itself, and a danger to the rest of Nigeria. Restructuring the country or threatening poverty and insecurity with radical reviews of the nature of the union will achieve little. This nation may have to fight another war to settle the question of its future, its structure and its values. It does not need to; but if or when it becomes necessary, the North will fight as it had done in the past. Not necessarily to preserve a union when many others do not want it; but to preserve a national or regional arrangement which allows all sections to live in peace and develop on the basis of the resources which God gave each or all of us. A vital element in understanding the North today is to appreciate that its fundamental weakness is at the political level, and poverty and insecurity cannot be decisively tackled unless its quality of leadership radically improves.                                                                 

                                                                                  

LEADERS OF THE FRINGES

A group which gave itself the title of Eminent National Leaders of Thought met a few days under the umbrella of a forum called National Summit Group with suspicious official support at the expensive Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Lagos. They met to review the condition of the Nigerian State, and examine what options exist in dealing with its many problems. The self-acclaimed leaders, the vast majority of whom were all elderly men, who have never tested their popularity or acceptability with the Nigerian people through the democratic process, or any other means that will entitle them to speak for the Nigerian people, know each other very well, and have spoken the same language to each other for many years. They used to congregate every time the nation went through some political turbulence; they consulted each other and delivered the same verdict: the nation is on the brink, unless Nigerians yield their sovereignty to them to convoke a conference of tribes and cultural groups to decide whether it should continue to exist as one entity, or break up into hundreds of tribal homelands. A few among them who see themselves as moderates say the nation could survive as one entity, but each tribe must say how it wants to relate with other tribes, as a basis for the survival of the Nigerian nation. The difference this time was the suspicion of the Federal Government in the organization and participation.

This meeting was no different from the other similar meetings in its conclusions. The moderator of the event, Professor Pat Utomi said Nigeria is on the brink of collapse. The former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa said in almost every respect, Nigeria is on the verge of being a failed state. A former Presidential candidate and former Secretary to Government of the Federation, Chief Olu Falae, said there are no solutions to the many problems the nation face unless a Sovereign National Conference is convened, and Nigeria is structured. Most of the other participants and speakers which included eminent legal practitioners, distinguished and accomplished tribalists, religious leaders, professionals, politicians who have no place in the current political dispensation (not for lack of trying) and many others with a long record of stay in the political fringes, concluded that our 250 tribes must be allowed to sit down together and discuss the terms of the Nigerian union. Just in the event that the tribes do not know what the solution to our problems are, and what positions they should all adopt, the Summit put forward its unchanging magic solution. It says all Nigerian ethnic groups must meet and agree to restructure the Nigerian federal system in such a manner that it becomes essentially a federation of tribes. This is the only way Nigerians can redress the historic injustice which British colonial rule visited on all Nigerians when it forced us to subsume our basic tribal identities under a Nigerian citizenship and an artificial nationhood. If all tribes revisit this historic injustice and choose to have a loose federal system where tribes organize their politics and economy substantially along lines of their choice, or even if they choose to opt out the Nigerian state, that decision should be binding and final. In order to do this, the current constitution which claims to derive its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the Nigerian people, and which establishes a government and other institutions that exercise this sovereignty in delegated form, should be repudiated and jettisoned.

They say our constitution is an illegitimate document because it is not the product of tribal conferences and consensus. A new constitution should be written and endorsed by all the federating units (tribes), and only a system of government produced by a national conference made up to leaders of all tribes, and which should be legally superior to the constitution, and find,  should be accepted by Nigerians as legitimate. This government, and all other governments, institutions and structures which derived their powers from the current and past constitutions were and are illegitimate, and are very source of Nigerians’ problems, according to these leaders. A new Nigeria may emerge, with different fiscal arrangements, different federating arrangements, and new institutions or structures which may give all citizens and federating units the sense that they live in a fairer and just nation. Presumably, a new nation with all Yoruba living together as an autonomous nation or largely-autonomous sub-nation may emerge. Igbos may similarly have one of their own, and possibly Hausa, Kanui, Tiv and Ibibio. Other Nigerian ethnic groups will be organized into over 200 tribal organizations reflecting their relative sizes and cultural autonomy. They could choose to federate with each other, or go their own ways. No one will have the legal or any other right to insist that Ijaw and Itsekiri, Bajju and Atyap, Fulani and Kilba should live under the same federating unit, or even in one nation. Then all our problems of corrupt and inept leadership, insecurity, unacceptable levels of poverty and massive alienation from a democratic process which merely allows the wealthy to grab power by all means necessary, will disappear.

The Summit of our self-styled leaders on the fringes is a sad reminder that Nigeria desperately needs genuine leaders who will think through and lead it into finding solutions to its real problems. Virtually everyone who participated at that Summit where discredited and worn-out ideas were re-hashed and given the semblance of real solutions knows that there is nothing new that it offered. This may, in part, explain why President Jonathan said he will forward its conclusions to the Alfa Belgore Committee to look at. The idea of a National Conference of tribal organizations is as old as the Nigerian federal system in its post-colonial stage. Every time pseudo-intellectuals on the margins of relevance find something wrong, they demand a Sovereign National Conference, which is explicitly a demand that delegitimizes existing authority in all its forms. The talks in  Aburi, Ghana in 1967  represent the nearest that this nation came to a sovereign discussion on Nigeria’s structure and future; and even those talks were all about arresting a declared rebellion, but they fell flat when the rebels insisted that the talks gave them autonomy. The administrations of Babangida and Abacha came under intense pressure to open up questions about the legality and acceptability of a united, federal Nigeria by some of the very people involved in this Summit. General Babangida’s Political Bureau ended up looking like a grand diversion from a military strongman who had become used to the illusion that he can take the nation for a ride every time he chose to. General Abacha’s constitutional conference was hijacked by politicians who had the courage to call off the military’s bluff and reckless brinkmanship. The combined sins of Babangida and Abacha, which included, among others, the hanging of the Ken Saro-Wiwa group and the annulment of the 1993 elections, and the incarceration and death of Chief M.K.O Abiola gave rise to even more strident demands, spearheaded by late Chief Authony Enahoro and his fellow sovereign travellers, for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference.

The logic of their demand was located in their insistence that the Nigerian state is illegitimate, unworkable and doomed to failure. It can be salvaged in some form, but that form must be what they have already pre-determined. The solutions for them must take the form of a constitutionally-elected government “handing over” sovereignty to a Conference of delegates from Nigerian tribes who should decide every element of the existence and structure of Nigeria and its constitution. Presumably, the conveners of the Summit will be the delegates, along with a few they may also handpick, because they offer no formula for representation. Although they appeared to draw some historical inspiration from a few post-crises West African States which, under the firm guidance of France, convened National Conferences made up of delegations from political groups due to their failure to achieve orderly military-to-civilian transitions, they ignored the tricky question that no authority was ever going to hand over sovereignty to a conclave of tribal leaders in Nigeria. The only way that could happen was if the tribal leaders themselves took over power by force and therefore assume the sovereignty of the people, or if someone else takes over power and hands it over to them. That would have made them more illegitimate than the un-elected governments they condemned, and any decision, including constitutional amendments or wholesale changes they make, will be illegal. They routinely ignored the possibility that a tribal conclave will be led by our “traditional rulers” or other such culturally-determined “leaders”, as well as priests of all types, who are the nearest to our “cultural identities”, or as they like to say, our “nationalities”. 

There have always been legal options in the search for real changes in the manner Nigeria is structured and governed, but our unelected, self-appointed leaders do not like them. These options involve using the political process to achieve power and amend the constitution or any aspect of our existence as a nation. But majority of the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference do not accept the legality of the political process or our present democratic dispensation. They do not accept, therefore, that it can engineer the type of changes they want all Nigerians to live under. They will not test the popularity of their ideas in the political arena, and they will not even submit themselves to popularity contests, except for the few who tried many times and lost at elections. Ironically, many of the delegates at the Summit had submitted themselves many times to elections and courts provided for by this same constitution. None had repudiated the electoral process or the judicial system as illegitimate.

There are many things wrong with our federal system and our constitution, but whatever we think of the origin and evolution of the Nigerian state, the fact of a Nigerian nation made up of many ethnic groups has been an accepted fact in our lives, and has been built with blood, sweat and hardwork. No Nigerian should be ashamed of the historic origin of our nation, and its history cannot be an impediment to making it work well for its citizens.  It is not by any means a perfect arrangement, but any useful discussion on its defects must acknowledge that a gathering of elitist, elderly Nigerians who see themselves not as concerned citizens but as tribal leaders cannot wish it away. A productive discussion on the merits and defects of our constitutional arrangements and federal system could draw attention to a number of issues which should improve the way the Nigerian state is structured. For instance, why do we need 36 States, when the six geo-political zones can suffice as federating units? Why do we need a bi-cameral legislature when it is obviously wasteful, and the cost of governance has become unbearable? Why should a few States receive so much of our national resources under a revenue sharing formula which impoverishes other parts of a federal system, and generates massive social and security problems for the nation? Why should elected leaders receive so much pay for serving their nation, and making political offices the fastest routes to wealth? Why shouldn’t larger but fewer federating units have their own police, and much more responsibility for socio-economic development which is currently being handled unsatisfactorily by the Federal Government? What needs to be done to improve national security, and the electoral process, and to bring an end to the tendency for some Nigerians to deprive fellow citizens of basic rights, including rights to the security of their lives and property, and their rights to economic progress under some dubious claims to superior rights? Why haven’t tribes given room to the emergence of citizens? How could a nation as blessed as Nigeria fail to live up to its full economic and political potential?

These and many other questions could have been raised and possibly some answers found for them by these highly educated Nigerians. But, no. They want to use all their knowledge, experience and wealth to demand for what is clearly impossible to achieve. Their meeting has very little value for majority of Nigerians who are under 35years, and who were not even considered fit to attend the Summit, even though it is their future that was being discussed. Women, who constitute half of the population, and who suffer greatly from the fallouts of a corrupt system, underdevelopment and widespread insecurity had no voice or significant presence at the Summit. The only conclusion which can make sense is that these elite with some support from the administration assume that raising the bogey of a Sovereign National Conference will balance, and possible cancel out the threat from the Boko Haram insurgency. If that was the assumption, it was a waste of energy and resources. The Boko Haram insurgency threatens the very foundation of the Nigerian state, and conferences which create the impression that you can distance some parts of the country from it merely play into its hands.

The nation should take note of this Summit only as a reminder that there are highly privileged Nigerians who prefer to live in their own world because they do not like this one. A group such as these self-styled leaders could have drawn the attention of President Goodluck Jonathan to the fact that his failure to govern well, and his inability to tackle the Boko Haram insurgency effectively is threatening the lives of Nigerians and making life unbearable. They could have reminded him that the Committee on Review of the Constitution under Justice Alfa Belgore whose mandate is basically to tidy up past reports, will not achieve anything of value in terms of addressing the real weaknesses of our constitutional arrangements. They could have made substantial and well-informed inputs into current concerns about the foundations of our insecurity, rampant corruption and the difficulties of everyday life for the vast majority of Nigerians. That they failed to do this makes them part of the problem of the Nigerian people. Unless their expensive outings are funded by governments which seek to divert attention of Nigerians, they should save the nation more of their tired prescriptions, or engage the political process and convince Nigerians that they do have real solutions. 

No section of Nigeria should resist a critical examination of its foundations, structures and values. If doing this will address its fundamental weaknesses, by all means let us have a National Conference to do this. But neither these champions of primitivism nor this administration which shows no capacity to address any of our fundamental problems should even venture into this important issue. Let those who have legitimate powers to respond to the pressure to re-asses our union as a nation take note, and respond appropriately. If they do not, we will not hear the end of these fringe voices.

OUTSOURCING INTEGRITY

The Minister of Petroleum Resonances, Diezani Alison Madukwe has set up a 21-member Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force in response to widespread public demands for improved accountability and transparency around all facets of the oil and gas industry. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Malam Nuhu Ridabu, former Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Presidential candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) during the last election, have terms of reference derived largely from the statutory function of  many government agencies. These terms of reference generally give the Special Task Force the power to work with consultants to establish all amounts payable to the government; to collect unpaid but due payments; and generally to devise better systems for ensuring that all proceeds due to the federal government from the industry are properly assessed and paid. It is to submit monthly reports to the Minister, and report directly to her.

The work of this Special Task Force is the same work which is the core responsibility of government ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, NNPC, Ministry of Finance and the Accountant-General of the Federal, Central Bank of Nigeria and the Federal Inland Revenue Service and the National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other agencies involved in enforcing laws and regulations which should eliminate corruption and waste in the economy. The Minister did not make it clear whether all these agencies will now cease to have any responsibility for ensuring that every kobo due to the government from the oil and gas sector is properly and promptly paid. It is also unclear how this committee will work better than all these statutory dodies, or whether they have powers over and above those enjoyed by government agencies and ministries.

The first major conclusion to be drawn from the establishment of this committee is that the Jonathan administration has no political will, competence or capacity to deal with the serious issues raised by the overwhelming rejection of the fuel subsidy removal, which were the need to radically improve the levels of accountability by key operators and the transparency of the whole process. Everyone even remotely familiar with the absence of transparency and corruption around the oil and gas sector knows that their root is to be found in the office of Ministers of Petroleum Resources which the nation has had, including the present Minister. Many informed non-government organization and prominent citizens have demanded for the removal of the current Minister of Petroleum Resources, because no real progress can be made in investigating abuses or weaknesses in the system, or discovering corruption and waste with her in place. President Jonathan ignored these calls, and instead allows the same Minister to appoint a Task Force to report, not to him, but to her. Needless to say this will not solve any problem of improved accountability or transparency.

Secondly, the absence of any major scope for the Task Force to achieve any tangible result will strike many informed observers. Implicitly, the establishment of the Task Force amounts to an admission that everyone connected with accountability, transparency and efficiency in the oil and gas sector, including the Minister, has failed in their elementary responsibilities. If agencies or public officers whose failure  has made the Task Force a necessity will not be sanctioned, how can government improve accountability and efficiency in the public sector?  How can the Task Force achieve any result? When it has to work with inefficient and corrupt agencies? Is the Task Force to work on its own without institutional support from discredited agencies and public officers? Will the consultants which the Task Force work with do the work, including creating their own independent systems and entire infrastructure of data and processes?

Thirdly, it is important to ask why, if President Jonathan believes the Task Force is necessary, he does not make it report to him. This way, even the Minister of Petroleum Resources and the entire battery of agencies under it can be placed under scrutiny of the Task Force and the President. The design of the committee is such a way that it reports only to the Minister suggests that the President has no interest in any matter above the Minister, or has so much confidence in the lady that he cannot see how she can be a problem. Every chief executive in the oil and gas sector is still in place, and is still available to the Minister to query or to account to for their competence and honest. If the idea of the Task Force is the Minister’s in the first place, why doesn’t the President demand that the Minister recommends chief executive officers and other officials for removal and other sanctions? Does the Minister bear no responsibility for the failures of the sector; and if the President thinks so, does the same thing apply to all staff and officials in the sector? If there are no major institutional changes in the oil and gas sector and related agencies, why is the Task Force being created?

Fourthly, the Task Force major questions regarding legality of operations of government agencies. Is it going to be empowered by law? Is it advisory? Is it going to operate above NNPC, Department of Petroleum Resources, Federal Inland Revenue Service and many other agencies which are established by law; or simply make them redundant by doing their work? The Task Force will simply multiply bureaucracy at a time when Nigerians are demanding a major reduction in the cost of governance. It will add no value to the manner the institutional mechanisms operate, because it will obviously operate outside them, yet will depend heavily on them for its work.

Five, the membership of the Task Force will raise many eyebrows. Nigerians are yet to know whether all the people whose names were announced as members have actually accepted to serve. We do know that Malam Nuhu Ribadu has accepted to serve, and the views of many Nigerians are that he had made a serious mistake on accepting to serve in a committee which have very limited powers, and which will be entirely subject to the pleasures and whims of a single Minister, not even the President. Many of his admirers worry that he has placed his considerable reputation and integrity at risk.

The Task Force established by the Minister of Petroleum to work with consultants to improve accountability, transparency and efficiency in the oil and gas sector is a white elephant that will not solve the endemic problems which Nigerians seek solutions for. It will merely create a façade, using some names with personal integrity, that government is serious about the endemic corruption and lack of accountability in the sector. The Task Force is an admission that all organs and public officials, including the Minister in the oil and gas sector have major responsibilities in the absence of acceptable standards of conduct and personal and corporate responsibility. They have failed the nation, and so long as they are still in place, the Task Force cannot achieve any tangible result.

BOKO HARAM AND THE STATE: TIME FOR A RE-THINK

It is now painfully obvious that neither government nor Boko Haram will accept that it is losing the war which is bringing unprecedented pain to the nation. In the last few weeks, the Boko Haram insurgency has escalated its campaign of terror, and has claimed that it is doing so in response to arrests, killings and detentions of its members in Maiduguri, Kano and Kaduna, among other areas. It also claims to have issued threats to people in Sokoto through their leaders that it will attack the city if its members continue to be arrested. The government, on the other hands, has intensified its crackdown on members, and has made many arrests. There are allegations and accusations in Maiduguri that suspected members of the Boko Haram were being killed extra-judicially by soldiers after being arrested in their homes. Many members of the group have been arrested and are undergoing interrogation, but neither the attacks nor the proganda from the group is abating. The audacious attack on military formations in Kaduna on Tuesday February 7^th which is coming in the midst of the unceasing attacks on police stations in Kano is a reminder that the group’s intention is to continue to wage war against the Nigerian state and its agents, and if innocent citizens, muslims or christians get caught in the crossfire, it is just their ill-luck.

The manner this conflict is developing will leave all citizens extremely worried. With all the human, technical and legal resources at its disposal, government appears incapable of preventing spectacular and devastating attacks on security agents and the public. Its intelligence, if it is has any, is obviously severely faulty, when it cannot prevent a large and coordinated attack on many targets in Kano, and the subsequent attacks almost on a daily basis on police stations. This failure had already been amply demonstrated in the nature of the endemic assaults in Borno and Yobe States in the last few months. But the attacks on military formations in Kaduna will expose the weaknesses of the government and security agencies even more. These attacks remind the citizens how vulnerable they are; and the reported attempt to blow up the Kawo overhead bridge may indicate that the insurgency is beginning to target critical civilian infrastructure.

On the other hand, the Boko Haram insurgency must by now be acutely aware that the general population is both afraid and angry with it. It is fighting a war in the name of Islam and muslims, and many of its victims are muslims who just want peace. It wants the same thing most muslims and christians want; which is a just and fair Nigeria where leaders live as God decrees, and where lives are not taken at will without punishment. Overwhelming majority of muslims still believe that suicide and murder are irredeemable sins, so they are unlikely to find overwhelming support among the muslims umma when they claim that all they do is in the interest of Islam and muslims. Millions of muslims share the pain of the mass murder of muslims in Zangon Kataf, Zonkwa, Jos and Yelwan Shendam, but most muslims cannot see how the killing of chrisitans and fellow muslims, as well as policemen and soldiers with bombs today will avenge those atrocities. Most Nigerians also doubt that Boko Haram will succeed in bringing the Nigerian state to its knees, and forcing it and all Nigerians, muslims and non-muslims alike, to live only under the Sharia or risk living in perpetual conflict. Similarly, Boko Haram is operating in an environment which gives all muslims the comfort that if they are murdered, Allah Subhanahu wa Taala will visit their sins on their murderers, and they, in turn, are assured of Aljanna Firdausi, while their killers will be condemned to hell. There is also the danger that the insurgency will suffer splits fatigue and a dilution of its essence, leading it to an inglorious defeat, or a long war with itself.

Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the capacity of the Nigerian state to obliterate all traces of Boko Haram activity in the next few months, or a radical re-think on the part of Boko Haram to renounce all hostility, this conflict looks likely to drag on and take more casualties. Both are highly unlikely. Boko Haram leaders have very deep suspicions of the government’s offer to discuss their grievances, provided they can reveal themselves. They know that it expose themselves is to give up their strongest weapons; and they say  that past efforts to discuss with the agents of the government have betrayed them. Government, on the other hand, will not admit to a failure to bring the insurgency to an end, and will continue to throw troops and barricades at it. In the meantime, young people willing to commit suicide during missions seem to be more and more available to the insurgency. The ability to make local bombs appears to be spreading. The sophistication and intelligence of the Boko Haram field operations appear to be improving. Their access to weapons, uniforms and detailed intelligence against the Nigerian security agents is improving. Above all, they are succeeding in terrorising host communities into silence and enforcing  acquiescence, which makes their capacities to operate within innocent localities easy, but tends to attract hostility and some heavy-handed treatment from security agents.

It is time to re-examine other options for both government and the Boko Haram insurgency. If both of them agree, it may be useful to accept a three-month moratorium, during which all hostilities and arrests should cease. In these three months, avenues should be explored to put arrested Boko Haram suspects through the judicial process, and where it serves the law and public interest and security, they may be released from detention. The insurgency leaders should also demonstrate their control over their people by ceasing all attacks, and perhaps, in this manner, they may expose criminals widely suspected to be killing Nigerians and attacking churches and banks and making it appear as if Boko Haram is responsible. It may help to assure the nation that Boko Haram’s claim that it attacks only agents of the state and those who betray it is, in fact, true. After all, Boko Haram says many killings and destruction are done by agents of the state.

A three month moratorium on hostilities and arrest should be used by both the government and Boko Haram leadership to intensely explore options to their current strategies. Respected Ulama and other leaders should also get involved in mediating between the two, with firm assurances that their safely and integrity will not be compromised. The period should be used to explore genuine avenues for resolving the core grievances of the insurgency, and no options should be excluded. By the end of the moratorium, a formal and structured platform should emerge which may allow an all-inclusive dialogue and a roadmap towards a resolution.

The proposal for a moratorium on hostilities, arrests and trials is just about the most useful suggestion which could be offered in the current stand-off between government and the Boko Haram insurgency. It should be given serious consideration, because the only other option is a continuation of current hostilities which are threatening the lives of every Nigerian in the short term, and the future of the nation as one entity in the long term. There will be some Nigerians who will scoff at the idea of the ceasefire and dialogue with Boko Haram insurgents, but they should be reminded that it was dialogue and massive concessions that brought a resolution to the Niger Delta insurgency. There may be some in government who will feel that government is capitulating. They should be reminded that the government is actually losing this war, and it shows no capacity to win it in the long run, going by its present disposition. There may be some in the Boko Haram leadership who will insist in fighting on. But they should know that fighting alone, without some objectives which are achievable, is a wasteful exercise. The nation has taken note that Boko Haram has a grievance, and a capacity to force attention to it. It is time to consolidate on this, and not fritter it away in a war that is fast taking its toll on it. Above all, it is time for all Nigerians, particularly those respected by the people as men and women with unimpeachable integrity, leaders of opinion and the ulama to stand between the government and the Boko Haram insurgency, and broker a ceasefire for at least three months.

STATE POLICE, POLICE STATE

“No System of government was ever so ill devised that, under proper men, it wouldn’t work well enough.”

William Penn, 1644 – 1718

The respected former Director-General of National Security organization (NSO) and a former top policeman, Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi recently made a strong case for the introduction of police formations to be controlled and managed by State Governments. He made the case in the context of the current concerns over the need to improve the state of our national security; as well as the many problems which have arisen in the course of implementing a constitutional provision which vests control and management of the police exclusively under the Federal Government. The case he made also noted a widely-known fact that State Governments assume huge responsibilities for the upkeep and maintenance of the Nigeria Police, but have very little control over its operation.  He drew attention to the negative influences of State Governments on the police, particularly the tendency to subvert its neutrality and integrity in the achievement of partisan political goals by State Governors. Collusion and corruption at higher levels of State Governments and police leadership have created situations where the effectiveness and credibility of the Nigeria Police have become severely compromised. Finally, he reminded the nation that much of the criticism against state police is entirely informed by unfounded prejudice, because a state police had not existed in the nation’s history in the strict sense of the concept. The case he made is basically that state police will improve the management of internal security and the maintenance of law and order, because local communities are likely to be more involved, and those with power will also have responsibility to determine how a vital institution like the police operates.

Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi is well-placed and eminently-qualified to understand the weaknesses of the Nigeria Police, and the manner the political context in which it operates can affect its effectiveness. A lawyer and an intelligence officer who made his mark at a time the NSO was rated among the best of such organizations in the world, he also has genuine roots with the traditional authorities in the north, as well as an extensive network of relationships across the entire nation. A well-read man who has never shied away from offering his views in public on matters of national security, he is highly regarded in national and international circles as an authority on security management in Nigeria.

Alhaji Umaru Shinhafi has an extensive understanding of the operations and limitations of the Nigeria police; so when he makes the case for the establishment of state police, the nation should consider his advice very seriously. The examples of advanced industrialized democracies that have state or regional police which enjoy high degrees of autonomy, and effective collaboration with central police and each other, and which operate at very high levels of efficiency also speak volumes for the case being made by the Marafan Sokoto. Among the most telling arguments he makes for the introduction of state police is the position he puts forward that critics of the idea have no historical basis for their criticism. In spite of the existence of Native Authority and federal police prior to the unification of the police under the Nigeria Police Force, he says those local police operated only with limited powers, were substantially decentralized, but effective in dealing with local crime, protecting law and order and in intelligence gathering.

Sceptics and hostile opponents of the establishment of state police should pay more than a cursory glance to the case for state police put forward by the Marafan Sokoto. The professionalism and overall impact of the Nigeria police in maintaining internal security, law and order and fighting crime has been declining at such a rate that millions of Nigerians now see the police as a major liability, unless you want an illegal act to be committed, and you have the money to pay for it. The federal government which controls and manages it all but publicly acknowledges it as its biggest handicap in the fight against crime. In the last ten years, we have had numerous Inspectors-General of police, and the last one was removed because of the spectacular failure of the police to handle the Boko Haram insurgency. The federal government is supposed to finance the operations and maintenance of the police, but it does this substantially by default, or so it would appear. Time after time Nigerians accuse it of active collusion in subverting the electoral process, and sundry abuses of human rights. State and Local Governments spend huge amounts in providing logistics, allowances and many other unseen forms of assistance to the police. Yet, state governors particularly complain that what they have is responsibility for the police, but no power over them. As chief security officers, they have no power under the law to direct the police command in their states to undertake any activity unless it is cleared and authorised by superior police authorities outside the state. When, in order to allow the police in states some flexibility, their superiors outside the state give them room for some initiative or decision-making, governors complain that the relative autonomy and flexibility is put at the disposal of governors only at great cost. They find that they have to fund every emergency or contingency, even though the nation knows that billions are routinely budgeted for police operations and contingencies. What they do not publicly say, however, is that they routinely put police commands in their states to marginally-legal or out rightly-illegal use, most often around partisan political activities.

Governors complain that superiors of Police Commissioners in states at Zonal or National Headquarters are too removed from the ground to appreciate the need for some specific engagements or operations; and in many instances, the federal government uses its monopoly over the control of police operations to hamstring or frustrate them in exercising their responsibilities as chief security officers. When Commissioners of Police and State Chief Executives build close relationships, they are suspected by superiors of colluding to achieve narrow political objectives. Governors who are not in States controlled by ruling parties say that they literally have to buy loyalty of the Police, and even this does not guarantee that they will not face periodic hostility or obstruction. Funds expended by the Federal and State Governments together on the same police are impossible to establish; and this represents a worrying source of corruption. Finally, the case has long been made that a federal system which centralises policing severely crippled the capacities of federating units to function as effective levels of government.

Below the state level, all chairmen of Local Governments know you have to literally pay for operations of the police units deployed to the Area. At lower levels, the  police have very few linkages with the communities with which they are to work, and have few incentives to be transparent or accountable. Citizens who report crimes have pay for investigations every step of the way. When you report a crime, you have to fund logistics, intelligence, investigations and sometimes even prosecution if, that is, suspects are found. If you are unable to do this, your case is as good as dead, unless you have powerful political connections in lieu of a strong financial clout. This is why many citizens say to report crimes to our police is to risk suffering double jeopardy. The Nigeria Police has acquired a global reputation as the embodiment of crime, and most Nigerians will readily admit that the fight against corruption and serious crimes will not be won with the type of police Nigeria has.

If any evidence is needed that the manner our police is controlled, structured and managed is fundamentally flawed, they only need to look at the fact that in the last ten years, the size and funding of the Nigeria police has more than doubled. Yet, crimes are rising, and more significantly, the nature of the crimes are such that they represent far more serious threats to larger numbers of lives and the security of the entire polity. Before initial skirmishers were even over, the capacity of the police to deal with the organized criminality in the Niger Delta was entirely exhausted, and the military took over. It is now part of the infamous record of the Nigeria police that its handling of the leaders of the Yusufiyya movement was singularly responsible for the escalation of a localized problem into the monstrous threat we now have to deal with. Because the police has failed in its primary responsibility of maintaining internal security, law and order, our entire military asset has now been deployed to do its job. This has very serious consequences over the professionalism of the military, and the long-term effect of its exposure on civil-military relations. Neither the police nor the military is involved in exercising its core responsibilities at the moment, and no nation is as exposed as we are in this situation.

So, on the face of it, there are many good reasons why the case for state police should be given serious consideration. This consideration must however be informed principally by the nature of our political system. The quality of the political leadership basically determines the manner it manages critical institutions which are available to it for governance. The cynism of  a large section of Nigerians towards the establishment of state police is well-rooted in the poor perception of the capacity of our leaders to lead with transparent commitment to public interest, honesty and even-handedness. The worst example of State government- controlled institutions is the State Independent Electoral Commission (S.I.E.C), a vital institution for engineering the entrenchment of democratic values, institutions and practices at grassroots levels and in popular culture, but which has been turned into an embarrassing parody by State Governors. Governors have turned state civil servants into organized sycophants. They treat public funds as if they are their private assets to do as they wish. State legislatures have been turned into mere chorus lines of governors, even where opposition members are in large numbers. Local Governments have been perverted by Governors; their funding and autonomy have become entirely subsumed to the whims of Governors. In short, states are increasingly looking like personal estates of governors, and it takes less than six months after elections before all political and other forms of opposition are completely silenced or obliterated. To live with police controlled and managed by these types of leaders will be a nightmare few will contemplate. Certainly, even the worst critic of the police today is likely to prefer it to a state police under Governors. So, a major weakness of the argument for state police is that it is vulnerable to the accusation that it will make policing worse, not better for Nigerians.

To allow the type of leaders we have at state levels the control of their own police will amount to the Hausa proverb which says that God does not give the man with the knife in his hands access to the meat. This is most unfortunate for a nation genuinely in need of radical reforms in the manner it organizes its federal system and its security. Only recently, it was revealed that Kano State with a population of 9million has only 8,000 police deployed to it. Virtually the entire police personnel, particularly in the north, is now mobilized against the threat of Boko Haram. This means that essential duties of the police are being sacrificed. The South-East has long had the look of an occupied zone, yet it has an endemic crime rate unheard-of in the history of this nation. The current level of deployment of police in the South East will only will be reversed at great political cost and resentment. There are huge parts of the nation where only the visible presence of heavily armed police personnel will give citizens the comfort to sleep with both eyes closed. Even Governors only venture into some parts of their States with a very large, heavily armed escort of police. Yet, crimes and massive breaches of security continue to rise. We are told we are under-policed, but there is little evidence that more police personnel will make us more secure. Finally, there will be many citizens in states which experience ethno-religions conflicts who will shudder at the mere thought of a state government-controlled police.

The fear of having state police is that we will become a police state. In truth, we are not too far from that state, what with the self-defeating belief of the administration that it can fight Boko Haram with force, and the massive deployment of police personnel into every nook and cranny where armed robbery, kidnapping or communal strife are daily occurrences. There are many attempts by State Governors to raise quasi-police formations, especially in the western states, to plug loopholes in the manner policing is handled. These do-it-yourself, which include Hisbah and similar organizations in the north merely compound the problem, and make the management of law and order and the rights of citizens that much more complicated. The real value in the suggestion of Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi for the establishment of state police is that in the short-term, government and all citizens with responsibility must explore all avenues to bring the Boko Haram insurgency to an end. Those who complain that northern elite are silent on Boko Haram should see Shinkafi’s contribution as a major attempt to address the issues. The Boko Haram insurgency is the worst case scenario for a police such as ours which is poorly managed and structured. In the long run, it reminds us that a leadership creates a police after its own image. There is a case to be made for state police, but the quality of our political leadership must be radically improved before Nigerians can feel comfortable with the idea.