Nigerian Diplomat Caught in India
A senior Nigerian diplomat was reportedly caught by Indian authorities on Monday as he was trying to board a flight from New Delhi to Lagos with $2.27 million (about N300 million) in cash in his possession.
The diplomat, Defence Adviser to the Nigerian High Commissioner in India, Captain G.A. Ojedokun, was reportedly caught when Indian Airlines staff members handling baggage on the early morning shift at the Indira Gandhi International Airport were alerted by the X-ray images of the contents of his bag.
It was reported that when Ojedokun was questioned concerning their findings, he tried to deceive the airline employees.
His case was later transferred to income tax officials, who seized the money from him.
An Indian tax department spokesman, A.K. Sinha, told the Associated Press (AP) yesterday that “the diplomat did not explain where the cash came from.”
He said when the tax department seized the money and handed Ojedokun to the country’s External Affairs Ministry, he had to be released on account of the immunity he enjoyed.
“The Income Tax department seized the cash, but released the diplomat after informing the External Affairs Ministry,” Sinha said.
AP also reported the ministry as confirming the report. The ministry was quoted to have said in a statement that Ojedokun was to leave New Delhi for Lagos by an Ethiopian Airline flight yesterday.
“He disclosed that he was carrying nearly $1.5 million in his check-in baggage,” the statement was quoted to have said, adding that a search by Indian tax officials resulted in “the seizure of $2.27 million in cash from his person and baggage.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
ATLANTA — A judge sentenced a man to life in prison for raping his own daughter in a cemetery.
The man, whose name is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim, was convicted of the March 10, 2006, incident on Friday. Just days after his daughter's 16th birthday, the man took her to a graveyard and told her to lie down.
"You're know you're old enough to date boys now," he told her. "I'm about to break you in."
He took out a condom and raped her, and he later brought her back to the cemetery and sodomized her, Fulton County prosecutor Kimberly Esmond Adams said.
The jury did not convict him on the sodomy charge. With prior convictions for drug and weapon charges, the man was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 20 years, for rape and incest.
During the sentence hearing Friday, the daughter sobbed as she spoke to her father for the first time in a year: "I got so depressed that I wanted to kill myself. How could someone I trust to protect me and I knew all my life do something as evil and dirty as this?"
Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter told the man he has no sympathy for him.
"You did this to your daughter twice once in the graveyard and then again in the courtroom," Baxter said.
The man, whose name is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim, was convicted of the March 10, 2006, incident on Friday. Just days after his daughter's 16th birthday, the man took her to a graveyard and told her to lie down.
"You're know you're old enough to date boys now," he told her. "I'm about to break you in."
He took out a condom and raped her, and he later brought her back to the cemetery and sodomized her, Fulton County prosecutor Kimberly Esmond Adams said.
The jury did not convict him on the sodomy charge. With prior convictions for drug and weapon charges, the man was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 20 years, for rape and incest.
During the sentence hearing Friday, the daughter sobbed as she spoke to her father for the first time in a year: "I got so depressed that I wanted to kill myself. How could someone I trust to protect me and I knew all my life do something as evil and dirty as this?"
Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter told the man he has no sympathy for him.
"You did this to your daughter twice once in the graveyard and then again in the courtroom," Baxter said.
Obasanjo: A Failed Statesman
Finally, the verdict of history beckons on President Obasanjo. As a man out of time, he once said he didn’t want to be popular while secretly coveting popularity particularly at other levels. He may not fully realise how unpopular he has become locally and internationally in the last three years of his administration until perhaps next Tuesday when his tenure ends. But for a nation notoriously noted for being short of heroes since the death of the famous leading nationalists of yore, we may have been condemned to another era of long wait for a national political icon. What ideally should have been an occasion for a worthy tribute, celebrations, homage and praises has instead turned into a season of dirges, regrets, tribulations and recriminations. And whatever his media and palace salesmen may say, Obasanjo is leaving the Presidency most disliked by people and a leadership failure. It is a dislike that cuts across generations; the depth I realized recently at two unrelated events. One at home and the other abroad. About three weeks ago, I had been invited as Chairman to the Valedictory Ceremony of one of the 38 schools in Lagos which my ministry in conjunction with the New Era Foundation of the Lagos First Lady has successfully developed an Advocacy Programme on Sanitation and Conservation in the last two years. The SS3 students would soon be leaving school and it was better to do the Valedictory before their final examinations. It was an occasion meant for prize giving to deserving students and speech- making on careers and counseling. The most interesting part of the programme was when 30 out of 121 graduating students were selected to speak about leadership, what they think it means, and which leaders in history have inspired them most. I became more interested in who their inspirational leaders were. Sixteen out of the 30 student speakers chose former Southern African President Nelson Mandela, 6 chose former American President Bill Clinton, and 2 would like to be like billionaire Bill Gates, and 2 girls chose Director-General of National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Dora Akinyuli while the rest fluctuated between Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka and former labour leader and Gubernatorial Candidate of Action Congress (AC) in Edo State Adams Oshiomhole. I instantly became curious. I wanted to find out more, particularly why no Nigerian political leader both present and past was chosen. I referred them to Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Zik, and Aminu Kano among others, but they looked blank, as they knew little or nothing about the exploits of these past national heroes, a question mark on some contents of our school curriculum. I then came to the present and the first person I mentioned was President Obasanjo. I had not even finished pronouncing his name when a thunderous NO! filled the air as if I had committed an abomination. Curiously, I explored further as to why no single student chose his or her President. It was then I realised how our future generation has lost so much faith in the system. Individually, many preferred to go for further studies abroad. They have no hope of what the future has in stock for them. Many lamented about their senior brothers and sisters who had left University but can't find jobs and are still living on handouts from parents at home. Lack of electricity and high cost of living are the realities they confront daily and they felt the present Federal Government has failed to inspire hope in their future. Indeed, it was an experience worth revisiting in another one year or two to see if things have changed for the better. Then last week, I was in New York to represent the Lagos State Governor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at a C40 Cities Climate Change Summit organised by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone in partnership with President Clinton Foundation. It was a conference that brought 40 Mega Cities of the world together being the most active in terms of environmental degradation. Only Lagos, Cairo and Johannesburg so qualified in Africa. It was a Summit that brought together the world's biggest cities' Governors and Mayors with President Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Ken Livingstone of London. I had attended with Yemi Cardoso, Lagos State former Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget and now the Chairman of our World Bank Project on Urban Renewal and Environment, Lagos State Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP), the General Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) and our Director of Ecology and Conservation in the Ministry. Introducing ourselves as the Lagos delegation was enough to arouse discussions on Nigeria particularly the last general elections. For many particularly the South Africans, Americans and Europeans, President Obasanjo has been a big disappointment given the hopes that they thought his inauguration in 1999 gave the world. Some who had visited Nigeria recently have been disappointed particularly at the poor state of infrastructure in the country as well as the government's human rights record and the inability to provide level playing field within the political space. For some, it was the last elections they felt so sad about. Yet some were disappointed that given the amount of resources Nigeria has and the democratic experiment of the last eight years, Nigeria ought to be the leading light in Africa. It was lamentation and Obasanjo to them has become another episode in Africa's litany of failed leadership. You needed to listen to some mayors and Governors during private discussions to really understand how Obasanjo has lost it including his previously well-known international reputation. I offered no defence and I could not have either, having being part of a government, which has been at the receiving end of Obasanjo's high handedness. In New York, I felt that if I were in the presidency, I would have recommended a refund of all monies spent by the Federal Government on public relations to burnish Obasanjo government's image by the likes of Andrew Young and Carl Masters. Beyond all the sentiments, however, there is need to make a critical examination of a leadership that held so much hope only to end up as a big disappointment. When the Military in 1999 anointed Obasanjo as its successor and next civilian president, those of us who had our doubts about his suitability given his antecedents were soon bought over within his first two years in office when his initial steps pointed towards a brighter future for the country. As a journalist, I was one of those who fought against his impeachment by the National Assembly, a fact I have since regretted. Obasanjo was already a statesman before becoming the President. The statesmanship in him propelled him in taking some good steps in his first two years; thereafter he lost it and allowed the African political disease to overwhelm him. The pursuance of his political enemies then became one of the primary objects of his administration. Apart from this, the outgoing President has one basic flaw-lack of vision. He is one man who has so much passion for the country yet he confuses this with vision. Vision requires broadmindedness, ability to see what others cannot see, tapping opportunities when they are present, creating synergy between resources and competent personnel, and meticulous planning. Great leaders in history have both. Love of one's country helps to propel vision. But if you have the former and lack the latter, you would only end up like a doctor who said the operation was successful but the patient died. Inability to see the bigger picture has been the hallmark of his government in the last eight years. Instead of seeing Nigeria on a large scale, he got consumed with mundane matters like competing with governors, local chiefs and career politicians over small issues. This explains why he works so hard with passion morning and night and junketing from one part of the country to the other, yet no improvement in the lives of his people. When he took over in 1999, the challenges facing him were quite well defined given the right vision. These were first, the civilian control of the military, fundamental reform and restructuring of the economy, security of life and property, provision and re-development of basic infrastructure to cope with the challenges of modern economy, combating mass unemployment and lastly building viable and enduring democratic institutions that would also have dealt with the larger issue of corruption. These were the issues arising from the long years of military misrule, but Obasanjo largely failed to put these issues in clear perspective and failed woefully at responding to them. Modern government secures confidence of the people if it fulfils the first basic law of governance: that is security of life and property. The experience of the last four years is that life has never been so short, brutish and unsafe in almost every part of Nigeria. When a president encourages lawlessness and subversion of other levels of government as we have seen in Oyo and Anambra, it only says how much the quality of national leadership has sunk. It is a disgrace, that in a nation seeking foreign investments, its police stations are always thrown into darkness at night with only kerosene lanterns to the rescue. While many Nigerians cities are short of enough policemen to combat crime, some of the president's cronies that thrive by telling him lies about his enemies at night go about with as many as 12 policemen as personal escorts and we claim to be running a transparent and fair government. Modern economy thrives on heavy investment in basic infrastructure such as roads, railways, electricity, information technology and security as we have learnt from Roosevelt in United States, Lee Kuan Yan in Singapore and General Park in South Korea. In eight years, this President cannot boast of a single new highway. We thought that by keeping money in external reserves, we were saving for the raining day and cultivating our creditors, when in fact we had set the economy back by another 10 years due to lack of investment in infrastructure and had also lost opportunity to create millions of jobs. It is part of the lack of vision that we failed to tap the opportunity provided in 1999 when Governor Bola Tinubu introduced IPP on electricity in year 2000, which was well frustrated only for the same government to turn to same IPP at its twilight. Our economy today resembles that of Russia otherwise called KGB economy where the Oligarchs backed by the state have taken full control. In our own case, we can best describe it as a Transcorp economy. It is an economy that favours few while killing the small and medium scale industries, the real engine of growth. Sadly, when the history of this era is finally written, it would definitely be devoid of any elements of statesmanship at a time when a long-suffering nation needed one.
Finally, the verdict of history beckons on President Obasanjo. As a man out of time, he once said he didn’t want to be popular while secretly coveting popularity particularly at other levels. He may not fully realise how unpopular he has become locally and internationally in the last three years of his administration until perhaps next Tuesday when his tenure ends. But for a nation notoriously noted for being short of heroes since the death of the famous leading nationalists of yore, we may have been condemned to another era of long wait for a national political icon. What ideally should have been an occasion for a worthy tribute, celebrations, homage and praises has instead turned into a season of dirges, regrets, tribulations and recriminations. And whatever his media and palace salesmen may say, Obasanjo is leaving the Presidency most disliked by people and a leadership failure. It is a dislike that cuts across generations; the depth I realized recently at two unrelated events. One at home and the other abroad. About three weeks ago, I had been invited as Chairman to the Valedictory Ceremony of one of the 38 schools in Lagos which my ministry in conjunction with the New Era Foundation of the Lagos First Lady has successfully developed an Advocacy Programme on Sanitation and Conservation in the last two years. The SS3 students would soon be leaving school and it was better to do the Valedictory before their final examinations. It was an occasion meant for prize giving to deserving students and speech- making on careers and counseling. The most interesting part of the programme was when 30 out of 121 graduating students were selected to speak about leadership, what they think it means, and which leaders in history have inspired them most. I became more interested in who their inspirational leaders were. Sixteen out of the 30 student speakers chose former Southern African President Nelson Mandela, 6 chose former American President Bill Clinton, and 2 would like to be like billionaire Bill Gates, and 2 girls chose Director-General of National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Dora Akinyuli while the rest fluctuated between Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka and former labour leader and Gubernatorial Candidate of Action Congress (AC) in Edo State Adams Oshiomhole. I instantly became curious. I wanted to find out more, particularly why no Nigerian political leader both present and past was chosen. I referred them to Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Zik, and Aminu Kano among others, but they looked blank, as they knew little or nothing about the exploits of these past national heroes, a question mark on some contents of our school curriculum. I then came to the present and the first person I mentioned was President Obasanjo. I had not even finished pronouncing his name when a thunderous NO! filled the air as if I had committed an abomination. Curiously, I explored further as to why no single student chose his or her President. It was then I realised how our future generation has lost so much faith in the system. Individually, many preferred to go for further studies abroad. They have no hope of what the future has in stock for them. Many lamented about their senior brothers and sisters who had left University but can't find jobs and are still living on handouts from parents at home. Lack of electricity and high cost of living are the realities they confront daily and they felt the present Federal Government has failed to inspire hope in their future. Indeed, it was an experience worth revisiting in another one year or two to see if things have changed for the better. Then last week, I was in New York to represent the Lagos State Governor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at a C40 Cities Climate Change Summit organised by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone in partnership with President Clinton Foundation. It was a conference that brought 40 Mega Cities of the world together being the most active in terms of environmental degradation. Only Lagos, Cairo and Johannesburg so qualified in Africa. It was a Summit that brought together the world's biggest cities' Governors and Mayors with President Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Ken Livingstone of London. I had attended with Yemi Cardoso, Lagos State former Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget and now the Chairman of our World Bank Project on Urban Renewal and Environment, Lagos State Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP), the General Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) and our Director of Ecology and Conservation in the Ministry. Introducing ourselves as the Lagos delegation was enough to arouse discussions on Nigeria particularly the last general elections. For many particularly the South Africans, Americans and Europeans, President Obasanjo has been a big disappointment given the hopes that they thought his inauguration in 1999 gave the world. Some who had visited Nigeria recently have been disappointed particularly at the poor state of infrastructure in the country as well as the government's human rights record and the inability to provide level playing field within the political space. For some, it was the last elections they felt so sad about. Yet some were disappointed that given the amount of resources Nigeria has and the democratic experiment of the last eight years, Nigeria ought to be the leading light in Africa. It was lamentation and Obasanjo to them has become another episode in Africa's litany of failed leadership. You needed to listen to some mayors and Governors during private discussions to really understand how Obasanjo has lost it including his previously well-known international reputation. I offered no defence and I could not have either, having being part of a government, which has been at the receiving end of Obasanjo's high handedness. In New York, I felt that if I were in the presidency, I would have recommended a refund of all monies spent by the Federal Government on public relations to burnish Obasanjo government's image by the likes of Andrew Young and Carl Masters. Beyond all the sentiments, however, there is need to make a critical examination of a leadership that held so much hope only to end up as a big disappointment. When the Military in 1999 anointed Obasanjo as its successor and next civilian president, those of us who had our doubts about his suitability given his antecedents were soon bought over within his first two years in office when his initial steps pointed towards a brighter future for the country. As a journalist, I was one of those who fought against his impeachment by the National Assembly, a fact I have since regretted. Obasanjo was already a statesman before becoming the President. The statesmanship in him propelled him in taking some good steps in his first two years; thereafter he lost it and allowed the African political disease to overwhelm him. The pursuance of his political enemies then became one of the primary objects of his administration. Apart from this, the outgoing President has one basic flaw-lack of vision. He is one man who has so much passion for the country yet he confuses this with vision. Vision requires broadmindedness, ability to see what others cannot see, tapping opportunities when they are present, creating synergy between resources and competent personnel, and meticulous planning. Great leaders in history have both. Love of one's country helps to propel vision. But if you have the former and lack the latter, you would only end up like a doctor who said the operation was successful but the patient died. Inability to see the bigger picture has been the hallmark of his government in the last eight years. Instead of seeing Nigeria on a large scale, he got consumed with mundane matters like competing with governors, local chiefs and career politicians over small issues. This explains why he works so hard with passion morning and night and junketing from one part of the country to the other, yet no improvement in the lives of his people. When he took over in 1999, the challenges facing him were quite well defined given the right vision. These were first, the civilian control of the military, fundamental reform and restructuring of the economy, security of life and property, provision and re-development of basic infrastructure to cope with the challenges of modern economy, combating mass unemployment and lastly building viable and enduring democratic institutions that would also have dealt with the larger issue of corruption. These were the issues arising from the long years of military misrule, but Obasanjo largely failed to put these issues in clear perspective and failed woefully at responding to them. Modern government secures confidence of the people if it fulfils the first basic law of governance: that is security of life and property. The experience of the last four years is that life has never been so short, brutish and unsafe in almost every part of Nigeria. When a president encourages lawlessness and subversion of other levels of government as we have seen in Oyo and Anambra, it only says how much the quality of national leadership has sunk. It is a disgrace, that in a nation seeking foreign investments, its police stations are always thrown into darkness at night with only kerosene lanterns to the rescue. While many Nigerians cities are short of enough policemen to combat crime, some of the president's cronies that thrive by telling him lies about his enemies at night go about with as many as 12 policemen as personal escorts and we claim to be running a transparent and fair government. Modern economy thrives on heavy investment in basic infrastructure such as roads, railways, electricity, information technology and security as we have learnt from Roosevelt in United States, Lee Kuan Yan in Singapore and General Park in South Korea. In eight years, this President cannot boast of a single new highway. We thought that by keeping money in external reserves, we were saving for the raining day and cultivating our creditors, when in fact we had set the economy back by another 10 years due to lack of investment in infrastructure and had also lost opportunity to create millions of jobs. It is part of the lack of vision that we failed to tap the opportunity provided in 1999 when Governor Bola Tinubu introduced IPP on electricity in year 2000, which was well frustrated only for the same government to turn to same IPP at its twilight. Our economy today resembles that of Russia otherwise called KGB economy where the Oligarchs backed by the state have taken full control. In our own case, we can best describe it as a Transcorp economy. It is an economy that favours few while killing the small and medium scale industries, the real engine of growth. Sadly, when the history of this era is finally written, it would definitely be devoid of any elements of statesmanship at a time when a long-suffering nation needed one.
Obasanjo: A Failed Statesman
Finally, the verdict of history beckons on President Obasanjo. As a man out of time, he once said he didn’t want to be popular while secretly coveting popularity particularly at other levels. He may not fully realise how unpopular he has become locally and internationally in the last three years of his administration until perhaps next Tuesday when his tenure ends. But for a nation notoriously noted for being short of heroes since the death of the famous leading nationalists of yore, we may have been condemned to another era of long wait for a national political icon. What ideally should have been an occasion for a worthy tribute, celebrations, homage and praises has instead turned into a season of dirges, regrets, tribulations and recriminations. And whatever his media and palace salesmen may say, Obasanjo is leaving the Presidency most disliked by people and a leadership failure. It is a dislike that cuts across generations; the depth I realized recently at two unrelated events. One at home and the other abroad. About three weeks ago, I had been invited as Chairman to the Valedictory Ceremony of one of the 38 schools in Lagos which my ministry in conjunction with the New Era Foundation of the Lagos First Lady has successfully developed an Advocacy Programme on Sanitation and Conservation in the last two years. The SS3 students would soon be leaving school and it was better to do the Valedictory before their final examinations. It was an occasion meant for prize giving to deserving students and speech- making on careers and counseling. The most interesting part of the programme was when 30 out of 121 graduating students were selected to speak about leadership, what they think it means, and which leaders in history have inspired them most. I became more interested in who their inspirational leaders were. Sixteen out of the 30 student speakers chose former Southern African President Nelson Mandela, 6 chose former American President Bill Clinton, and 2 would like to be like billionaire Bill Gates, and 2 girls chose Director-General of National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Dora Akinyuli while the rest fluctuated between Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka and former labour leader and Gubernatorial Candidate of Action Congress (AC) in Edo State Adams Oshiomhole. I instantly became curious. I wanted to find out more, particularly why no Nigerian political leader both present and past was chosen. I referred them to Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Zik, and Aminu Kano among others, but they looked blank, as they knew little or nothing about the exploits of these past national heroes, a question mark on some contents of our school curriculum. I then came to the present and the first person I mentioned was President Obasanjo. I had not even finished pronouncing his name when a thunderous NO! filled the air as if I had committed an abomination. Curiously, I explored further as to why no single student chose his or her President. It was then I realised how our future generation has lost so much faith in the system. Individually, many preferred to go for further studies abroad. They have no hope of what the future has in stock for them. Many lamented about their senior brothers and sisters who had left University but can't find jobs and are still living on handouts from parents at home. Lack of electricity and high cost of living are the realities they confront daily and they felt the present Federal Government has failed to inspire hope in their future. Indeed, it was an experience worth revisiting in another one year or two to see if things have changed for the better. Then last week, I was in New York to represent the Lagos State Governor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at a C40 Cities Climate Change Summit organised by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone in partnership with President Clinton Foundation. It was a conference that brought 40 Mega Cities of the world together being the most active in terms of environmental degradation. Only Lagos, Cairo and Johannesburg so qualified in Africa. It was a Summit that brought together the world's biggest cities' Governors and Mayors with President Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Ken Livingstone of London. I had attended with Yemi Cardoso, Lagos State former Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget and now the Chairman of our World Bank Project on Urban Renewal and Environment, Lagos State Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP), the General Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) and our Director of Ecology and Conservation in the Ministry. Introducing ourselves as the Lagos delegation was enough to arouse discussions on Nigeria particularly the last general elections. For many particularly the South Africans, Americans and Europeans, President Obasanjo has been a big disappointment given the hopes that they thought his inauguration in 1999 gave the world. Some who had visited Nigeria recently have been disappointed particularly at the poor state of infrastructure in the country as well as the government's human rights record and the inability to provide level playing field within the political space. For some, it was the last elections they felt so sad about. Yet some were disappointed that given the amount of resources Nigeria has and the democratic experiment of the last eight years, Nigeria ought to be the leading light in Africa. It was lamentation and Obasanjo to them has become another episode in Africa's litany of failed leadership. You needed to listen to some mayors and Governors during private discussions to really understand how Obasanjo has lost it including his previously well-known international reputation. I offered no defence and I could not have either, having being part of a government, which has been at the receiving end of Obasanjo's high handedness. In New York, I felt that if I were in the presidency, I would have recommended a refund of all monies spent by the Federal Government on public relations to burnish Obasanjo government's image by the likes of Andrew Young and Carl Masters. Beyond all the sentiments, however, there is need to make a critical examination of a leadership that held so much hope only to end up as a big disappointment. When the Military in 1999 anointed Obasanjo as its successor and next civilian president, those of us who had our doubts about his suitability given his antecedents were soon bought over within his first two years in office when his initial steps pointed towards a brighter future for the country. As a journalist, I was one of those who fought against his impeachment by the National Assembly, a fact I have since regretted. Obasanjo was already a statesman before becoming the President. The statesmanship in him propelled him in taking some good steps in his first two years; thereafter he lost it and allowed the African political disease to overwhelm him. The pursuance of his political enemies then became one of the primary objects of his administration. Apart from this, the outgoing President has one basic flaw-lack of vision. He is one man who has so much passion for the country yet he confuses this with vision. Vision requires broadmindedness, ability to see what others cannot see, tapping opportunities when they are present, creating synergy between resources and competent personnel, and meticulous planning. Great leaders in history have both. Love of one's country helps to propel vision. But if you have the former and lack the latter, you would only end up like a doctor who said the operation was successful but the patient died. Inability to see the bigger picture has been the hallmark of his government in the last eight years. Instead of seeing Nigeria on a large scale, he got consumed with mundane matters like competing with governors, local chiefs and career politicians over small issues. This explains why he works so hard with passion morning and night and junketing from one part of the country to the other, yet no improvement in the lives of his people. When he took over in 1999, the challenges facing him were quite well defined given the right vision. These were first, the civilian control of the military, fundamental reform and restructuring of the economy, security of life and property, provision and re-development of basic infrastructure to cope with the challenges of modern economy, combating mass unemployment and lastly building viable and enduring democratic institutions that would also have dealt with the larger issue of corruption. These were the issues arising from the long years of military misrule, but Obasanjo largely failed to put these issues in clear perspective and failed woefully at responding to them. Modern government secures confidence of the people if it fulfils the first basic law of governance: that is security of life and property. The experience of the last four years is that life has never been so short, brutish and unsafe in almost every part of Nigeria. When a president encourages lawlessness and subversion of other levels of government as we have seen in Oyo and Anambra, it only says how much the quality of national leadership has sunk. It is a disgrace, that in a nation seeking foreign investments, its police stations are always thrown into darkness at night with only kerosene lanterns to the rescue. While many Nigerians cities are short of enough policemen to combat crime, some of the president's cronies that thrive by telling him lies about his enemies at night go about with as many as 12 policemen as personal escorts and we claim to be running a transparent and fair government. Modern economy thrives on heavy investment in basic infrastructure such as roads, railways, electricity, information technology and security as we have learnt from Roosevelt in United States, Lee Kuan Yan in Singapore and General Park in South Korea. In eight years, this President cannot boast of a single new highway. We thought that by keeping money in external reserves, we were saving for the raining day and cultivating our creditors, when in fact we had set the economy back by another 10 years due to lack of investment in infrastructure and had also lost opportunity to create millions of jobs. It is part of the lack of vision that we failed to tap the opportunity provided in 1999 when Governor Bola Tinubu introduced IPP on electricity in year 2000, which was well frustrated only for the same government to turn to same IPP at its twilight. Our economy today resembles that of Russia otherwise called KGB economy where the Oligarchs backed by the state have taken full control. In our own case, we can best describe it as a Transcorp economy. It is an economy that favours few while killing the small and medium scale industries, the real engine of growth. Sadly, when the history of this era is finally written, it would definitely be devoid of any elements of statesmanship at a time when a long-suffering nation needed one.
Finally, the verdict of history beckons on President Obasanjo. As a man out of time, he once said he didn’t want to be popular while secretly coveting popularity particularly at other levels. He may not fully realise how unpopular he has become locally and internationally in the last three years of his administration until perhaps next Tuesday when his tenure ends. But for a nation notoriously noted for being short of heroes since the death of the famous leading nationalists of yore, we may have been condemned to another era of long wait for a national political icon. What ideally should have been an occasion for a worthy tribute, celebrations, homage and praises has instead turned into a season of dirges, regrets, tribulations and recriminations. And whatever his media and palace salesmen may say, Obasanjo is leaving the Presidency most disliked by people and a leadership failure. It is a dislike that cuts across generations; the depth I realized recently at two unrelated events. One at home and the other abroad. About three weeks ago, I had been invited as Chairman to the Valedictory Ceremony of one of the 38 schools in Lagos which my ministry in conjunction with the New Era Foundation of the Lagos First Lady has successfully developed an Advocacy Programme on Sanitation and Conservation in the last two years. The SS3 students would soon be leaving school and it was better to do the Valedictory before their final examinations. It was an occasion meant for prize giving to deserving students and speech- making on careers and counseling. The most interesting part of the programme was when 30 out of 121 graduating students were selected to speak about leadership, what they think it means, and which leaders in history have inspired them most. I became more interested in who their inspirational leaders were. Sixteen out of the 30 student speakers chose former Southern African President Nelson Mandela, 6 chose former American President Bill Clinton, and 2 would like to be like billionaire Bill Gates, and 2 girls chose Director-General of National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Dora Akinyuli while the rest fluctuated between Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka and former labour leader and Gubernatorial Candidate of Action Congress (AC) in Edo State Adams Oshiomhole. I instantly became curious. I wanted to find out more, particularly why no Nigerian political leader both present and past was chosen. I referred them to Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Zik, and Aminu Kano among others, but they looked blank, as they knew little or nothing about the exploits of these past national heroes, a question mark on some contents of our school curriculum. I then came to the present and the first person I mentioned was President Obasanjo. I had not even finished pronouncing his name when a thunderous NO! filled the air as if I had committed an abomination. Curiously, I explored further as to why no single student chose his or her President. It was then I realised how our future generation has lost so much faith in the system. Individually, many preferred to go for further studies abroad. They have no hope of what the future has in stock for them. Many lamented about their senior brothers and sisters who had left University but can't find jobs and are still living on handouts from parents at home. Lack of electricity and high cost of living are the realities they confront daily and they felt the present Federal Government has failed to inspire hope in their future. Indeed, it was an experience worth revisiting in another one year or two to see if things have changed for the better. Then last week, I was in New York to represent the Lagos State Governor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at a C40 Cities Climate Change Summit organised by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone in partnership with President Clinton Foundation. It was a conference that brought 40 Mega Cities of the world together being the most active in terms of environmental degradation. Only Lagos, Cairo and Johannesburg so qualified in Africa. It was a Summit that brought together the world's biggest cities' Governors and Mayors with President Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Ken Livingstone of London. I had attended with Yemi Cardoso, Lagos State former Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget and now the Chairman of our World Bank Project on Urban Renewal and Environment, Lagos State Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP), the General Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) and our Director of Ecology and Conservation in the Ministry. Introducing ourselves as the Lagos delegation was enough to arouse discussions on Nigeria particularly the last general elections. For many particularly the South Africans, Americans and Europeans, President Obasanjo has been a big disappointment given the hopes that they thought his inauguration in 1999 gave the world. Some who had visited Nigeria recently have been disappointed particularly at the poor state of infrastructure in the country as well as the government's human rights record and the inability to provide level playing field within the political space. For some, it was the last elections they felt so sad about. Yet some were disappointed that given the amount of resources Nigeria has and the democratic experiment of the last eight years, Nigeria ought to be the leading light in Africa. It was lamentation and Obasanjo to them has become another episode in Africa's litany of failed leadership. You needed to listen to some mayors and Governors during private discussions to really understand how Obasanjo has lost it including his previously well-known international reputation. I offered no defence and I could not have either, having being part of a government, which has been at the receiving end of Obasanjo's high handedness. In New York, I felt that if I were in the presidency, I would have recommended a refund of all monies spent by the Federal Government on public relations to burnish Obasanjo government's image by the likes of Andrew Young and Carl Masters. Beyond all the sentiments, however, there is need to make a critical examination of a leadership that held so much hope only to end up as a big disappointment. When the Military in 1999 anointed Obasanjo as its successor and next civilian president, those of us who had our doubts about his suitability given his antecedents were soon bought over within his first two years in office when his initial steps pointed towards a brighter future for the country. As a journalist, I was one of those who fought against his impeachment by the National Assembly, a fact I have since regretted. Obasanjo was already a statesman before becoming the President. The statesmanship in him propelled him in taking some good steps in his first two years; thereafter he lost it and allowed the African political disease to overwhelm him. The pursuance of his political enemies then became one of the primary objects of his administration. Apart from this, the outgoing President has one basic flaw-lack of vision. He is one man who has so much passion for the country yet he confuses this with vision. Vision requires broadmindedness, ability to see what others cannot see, tapping opportunities when they are present, creating synergy between resources and competent personnel, and meticulous planning. Great leaders in history have both. Love of one's country helps to propel vision. But if you have the former and lack the latter, you would only end up like a doctor who said the operation was successful but the patient died. Inability to see the bigger picture has been the hallmark of his government in the last eight years. Instead of seeing Nigeria on a large scale, he got consumed with mundane matters like competing with governors, local chiefs and career politicians over small issues. This explains why he works so hard with passion morning and night and junketing from one part of the country to the other, yet no improvement in the lives of his people. When he took over in 1999, the challenges facing him were quite well defined given the right vision. These were first, the civilian control of the military, fundamental reform and restructuring of the economy, security of life and property, provision and re-development of basic infrastructure to cope with the challenges of modern economy, combating mass unemployment and lastly building viable and enduring democratic institutions that would also have dealt with the larger issue of corruption. These were the issues arising from the long years of military misrule, but Obasanjo largely failed to put these issues in clear perspective and failed woefully at responding to them. Modern government secures confidence of the people if it fulfils the first basic law of governance: that is security of life and property. The experience of the last four years is that life has never been so short, brutish and unsafe in almost every part of Nigeria. When a president encourages lawlessness and subversion of other levels of government as we have seen in Oyo and Anambra, it only says how much the quality of national leadership has sunk. It is a disgrace, that in a nation seeking foreign investments, its police stations are always thrown into darkness at night with only kerosene lanterns to the rescue. While many Nigerians cities are short of enough policemen to combat crime, some of the president's cronies that thrive by telling him lies about his enemies at night go about with as many as 12 policemen as personal escorts and we claim to be running a transparent and fair government. Modern economy thrives on heavy investment in basic infrastructure such as roads, railways, electricity, information technology and security as we have learnt from Roosevelt in United States, Lee Kuan Yan in Singapore and General Park in South Korea. In eight years, this President cannot boast of a single new highway. We thought that by keeping money in external reserves, we were saving for the raining day and cultivating our creditors, when in fact we had set the economy back by another 10 years due to lack of investment in infrastructure and had also lost opportunity to create millions of jobs. It is part of the lack of vision that we failed to tap the opportunity provided in 1999 when Governor Bola Tinubu introduced IPP on electricity in year 2000, which was well frustrated only for the same government to turn to same IPP at its twilight. Our economy today resembles that of Russia otherwise called KGB economy where the Oligarchs backed by the state have taken full control. In our own case, we can best describe it as a Transcorp economy. It is an economy that favours few while killing the small and medium scale industries, the real engine of growth. Sadly, when the history of this era is finally written, it would definitely be devoid of any elements of statesmanship at a time when a long-suffering nation needed one.
Way to True Sportsmanship
If the hype of British tabloids is to be believed, I was one of the estimated one billion TV viewers in 160 countries that watched the English FA Cup final last Saturday between Chelsea and Manchester United at Wembley Stadium. Although not a Manchester United fan, I was a little bit disappointed that Chelsea won. I was disappointed partly because as a lover of beauty and skill, I did not want Chelsea’s power and directness to vanquish Manchester United’s attractive attacking playing style. I was equally disappointed partly because I, like most Arsenal fans, always wished that Chelsea got a heavy spanking whenever they are playing irrespective of whether their defeat would in any way affect the fortunes of Arsenal. I believe I started wishing Chelsea lost every match since Jose Mourinho took over the team and turned Arsenal’s traditional “wife”, as we describe a weaker side in this part of the world, into a formidable and unbeatable machine for my darling team. Despite people like me, Chelsea always managed to grind out victory after victory even when they play very badly. They did that again on Saturday although the match lacked the expected thrills and chills of an FA Cup final between the two best teams in England.Nonetheless, the FA Cup final was a fitting way to bring to an end the 2006/2007football session in England. For it has been a long session of excitement and disappointment, of victories and defeats, of injuries and good health, of fair play and foul, of improvisation and organisation, of tactical brilliance and sheer incompetence, and of youth and experience. Although football is a game, its conduct is akin to war, perhaps because it has become a huge global business driven by men with big ego. And as in war, everything appears fair on and off the football pitch as long as victory is achieved. That is why some players would dive and roll on the ground at the slightest touch. That is why some others would wrestle and push and box and slap and tackle viciously. That is equally why coaches would shout and jump and kick and curse and punch and wail. The beauty of this game is that there is no lasting personal enmity between the players or the coaches or the teams, despite the anger and bitterness and tension and contestations and rivalry on the field of play. After the victory and defeat at the end of a match, after the emergence of the winner and the loser at the end of the session, every team returns to the drawing board to plan for the next match or strategise for the next session. The winner would want to consolidate and the loser would want to win next time. That is why almost every team in the Premiership, particularly the tops ones, are already planning for next session, identifying players to be acquired to strengthen their squad. In a way politics could be likened to a football tournament, with elections akin to a soccer match. It is particularly so in Nigeria where participants in the political game would do anything to win at the polls. That was why there was intimidation and violence and bribery and ballot stuffing and disappearance of ballot boxes in the just concluded elections. It is similar to all the bad tackles and diving and playacting on the football field. Just as there are incompetent or inexperienced referees who would not penalise a violent tackle or disallow an offside goal or who could easily be conned by a diving striker or intimidated by a star player; there are also incompetent and corrupt electoral officials who may either be blind to the snatching of ballot boxes or close their eyes to ballot stuffing. However no matter the irregularities on the field of play in a football match, neither players nor coaches nor club owners call for the cancellation of a concluded match. All they do is take cases of irregularities to the FA whose disciplinary panel thereafter sanctions players, coaches and teams in accordance with its rules and in proportion to the offences committed. Participants in our political game are yet to adopt this the way they have borrowed from the violence and cheating during the run of play. That is why opposition elements would call for the cancellation of the elections, the formation of an interim government and the conduct of fresh polls. At the end of a meeting in Abuja Tuesday last week, opposition parties including the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the Action Congress (AC) resolved that none of those who won in the April 14 and 21 elections should be sworn in on May 29. They rather demanded the formation of an interim government which would be given “reasonable time” to organise fresh elections. Spokesman of the opposition, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite (Was he a candidate in the elections?) said, “There will be no inauguration anywhere in Nigeria with the overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud, loss of lives and complicity by electoral and employed “ad-hoc” officials.”It is curious that opposition parties supposedly fighting for democracy do not have faith in democratic processes. The constitution and electoral law are very clear on how those who are dissatisfied with the outcome of any election could seek redress. Election tribunals are part of the electoral process. It is strange that those who say they are better qualified to manage the affairs of this country do not believe in the very institutions put in place to make democracy work. The judiciary is one such institution and despite its problems and shortcomings, it has by and large stabilised the nation’s democracy in the last eight years. After the 2003 polls for instance, the election tribunals reversed some results, the notable one being the victory of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State where Dr. Chris Ngige lost the governorship to Dr. Peter Obi of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA). The judiciary also voided the impeachment of Governors Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo), Obi and Joshua Dariye (Plateau). In the multiple legal battles between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice president Atiku Abubakar, the latter won many of the cases including the declaration of his seat vacant and his disqualification to contest the presidential elections.If the judiciary has been courageous in dispensing justice without fear or favour, why are the opposition parties shy of taking their cases to the election tribunals? If the April 14 and 21 polls were worse than the 2003 elections as the opposition parties have collectively argued, isn’t that an indication there are likely to be more reversals at the tribunals particularly since the opposition claim they have “overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud”? Shouldn’t they go and overwhelm the tribunals with such documentation rather than call for interim government? Isn’t the very idea of interim government in the circumstance extra-constitutional and therefore akin to a coup? Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution says “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.” How will the credible citizens that would constitute this interim government be formed and who will be the appointing authority? How will that government have constitutional legitimacy to “within a reasonable time” organise a free and fair election for the country in the light of the above constitutional provision? Have the opposition parties forgotten a similar interim government we had not too long ago and its outcome?Fraudulent as the elections may be, there is no way forward in an interim government of whatever kind. Let all those who are aggrieved go to the tribunals and prove their case. Those who cannot should immediately begin to plan for the elections of 2011. That is the way to true sportsmanship.
If the hype of British tabloids is to be believed, I was one of the estimated one billion TV viewers in 160 countries that watched the English FA Cup final last Saturday between Chelsea and Manchester United at Wembley Stadium. Although not a Manchester United fan, I was a little bit disappointed that Chelsea won. I was disappointed partly because as a lover of beauty and skill, I did not want Chelsea’s power and directness to vanquish Manchester United’s attractive attacking playing style. I was equally disappointed partly because I, like most Arsenal fans, always wished that Chelsea got a heavy spanking whenever they are playing irrespective of whether their defeat would in any way affect the fortunes of Arsenal. I believe I started wishing Chelsea lost every match since Jose Mourinho took over the team and turned Arsenal’s traditional “wife”, as we describe a weaker side in this part of the world, into a formidable and unbeatable machine for my darling team. Despite people like me, Chelsea always managed to grind out victory after victory even when they play very badly. They did that again on Saturday although the match lacked the expected thrills and chills of an FA Cup final between the two best teams in England.Nonetheless, the FA Cup final was a fitting way to bring to an end the 2006/2007football session in England. For it has been a long session of excitement and disappointment, of victories and defeats, of injuries and good health, of fair play and foul, of improvisation and organisation, of tactical brilliance and sheer incompetence, and of youth and experience. Although football is a game, its conduct is akin to war, perhaps because it has become a huge global business driven by men with big ego. And as in war, everything appears fair on and off the football pitch as long as victory is achieved. That is why some players would dive and roll on the ground at the slightest touch. That is why some others would wrestle and push and box and slap and tackle viciously. That is equally why coaches would shout and jump and kick and curse and punch and wail. The beauty of this game is that there is no lasting personal enmity between the players or the coaches or the teams, despite the anger and bitterness and tension and contestations and rivalry on the field of play. After the victory and defeat at the end of a match, after the emergence of the winner and the loser at the end of the session, every team returns to the drawing board to plan for the next match or strategise for the next session. The winner would want to consolidate and the loser would want to win next time. That is why almost every team in the Premiership, particularly the tops ones, are already planning for next session, identifying players to be acquired to strengthen their squad. In a way politics could be likened to a football tournament, with elections akin to a soccer match. It is particularly so in Nigeria where participants in the political game would do anything to win at the polls. That was why there was intimidation and violence and bribery and ballot stuffing and disappearance of ballot boxes in the just concluded elections. It is similar to all the bad tackles and diving and playacting on the football field. Just as there are incompetent or inexperienced referees who would not penalise a violent tackle or disallow an offside goal or who could easily be conned by a diving striker or intimidated by a star player; there are also incompetent and corrupt electoral officials who may either be blind to the snatching of ballot boxes or close their eyes to ballot stuffing. However no matter the irregularities on the field of play in a football match, neither players nor coaches nor club owners call for the cancellation of a concluded match. All they do is take cases of irregularities to the FA whose disciplinary panel thereafter sanctions players, coaches and teams in accordance with its rules and in proportion to the offences committed. Participants in our political game are yet to adopt this the way they have borrowed from the violence and cheating during the run of play. That is why opposition elements would call for the cancellation of the elections, the formation of an interim government and the conduct of fresh polls. At the end of a meeting in Abuja Tuesday last week, opposition parties including the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the Action Congress (AC) resolved that none of those who won in the April 14 and 21 elections should be sworn in on May 29. They rather demanded the formation of an interim government which would be given “reasonable time” to organise fresh elections. Spokesman of the opposition, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite (Was he a candidate in the elections?) said, “There will be no inauguration anywhere in Nigeria with the overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud, loss of lives and complicity by electoral and employed “ad-hoc” officials.”It is curious that opposition parties supposedly fighting for democracy do not have faith in democratic processes. The constitution and electoral law are very clear on how those who are dissatisfied with the outcome of any election could seek redress. Election tribunals are part of the electoral process. It is strange that those who say they are better qualified to manage the affairs of this country do not believe in the very institutions put in place to make democracy work. The judiciary is one such institution and despite its problems and shortcomings, it has by and large stabilised the nation’s democracy in the last eight years. After the 2003 polls for instance, the election tribunals reversed some results, the notable one being the victory of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State where Dr. Chris Ngige lost the governorship to Dr. Peter Obi of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA). The judiciary also voided the impeachment of Governors Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo), Obi and Joshua Dariye (Plateau). In the multiple legal battles between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice president Atiku Abubakar, the latter won many of the cases including the declaration of his seat vacant and his disqualification to contest the presidential elections.If the judiciary has been courageous in dispensing justice without fear or favour, why are the opposition parties shy of taking their cases to the election tribunals? If the April 14 and 21 polls were worse than the 2003 elections as the opposition parties have collectively argued, isn’t that an indication there are likely to be more reversals at the tribunals particularly since the opposition claim they have “overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud”? Shouldn’t they go and overwhelm the tribunals with such documentation rather than call for interim government? Isn’t the very idea of interim government in the circumstance extra-constitutional and therefore akin to a coup? Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution says “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.” How will the credible citizens that would constitute this interim government be formed and who will be the appointing authority? How will that government have constitutional legitimacy to “within a reasonable time” organise a free and fair election for the country in the light of the above constitutional provision? Have the opposition parties forgotten a similar interim government we had not too long ago and its outcome?Fraudulent as the elections may be, there is no way forward in an interim government of whatever kind. Let all those who are aggrieved go to the tribunals and prove their case. Those who cannot should immediately begin to plan for the elections of 2011. That is the way to true sportsmanship.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The beauty of Democracy is, when an electoral illegality is believed to have been committed, it can only be overturn by a legal or constitutional means. Despite the fact that, the process that led to the emergence of Umaru Musa Yar’adua as Nigeria’s President-elect was dented by gross irregularities and widespread rejection of the election results, Yar’adua is Nigeria’s President-elect as declared by ‘almighty’ INEC, until it is decided otherwise by a competent court of law.
Of recent, the political atmosphere of Nigeria was clouded by two burning political issues: the call for power shift by the North, and the call for resource control by the South–South, these two ‘regionally-coloured’ political issues have so much overwhelmed the political system of Nigeria to the extend that, they have successfully influenced the permutations in the politics of the country- a typical example is the Yar’adua–Goodluck presidential ticket presented by the ruling PDP; Yar’adua to satisfied the power shift agitation in the north, Goodluck to pacify the Niger Delta. But one interesting question is, is the concession of the vice presidential slot to the Niger Delta going to calm down the agitations in the Niger Delta? Certainly not, it will only answer the problem of the region at the political front, which is merely a quarter of the problem in the Niger Delta. The recent bombing of Goodluck’s country home by militants, have certainly sent a clear signal to those in authority that, the bulk of the problem in the Niger Delta is socioeconomic; which is also the main problem of the entire Nigerian state.
Oil, which is the key sustainer of the economy of the Nigerian state, is also the main factor that contributed to her crocodile-phase development. The discovery of Oil in Nigeria has brought laziness in the larger society- the complete neglect of agriculture which was hitherto the main source of revenue for the nation, hence, the stifling of creativity in revenue-generation especially at states and local government levels, degradation of the environment in the oil producing communities , corruption among the political class, uncontrolled spending spree by governments, and stunted growth in industrialization, all because of the easy money oil provides. Due to the huge earnings in oil, coupled with some period of oil booms and windfalls, the management and distribution of this huge amount of petrodollars to the benefits of the entire Nigerian populaces has become painstaking, Herculean and sensitive issue, which entails the employing of complex technicalities and formulae in the re-distribution of the oil revenues. The management and distribution of oil revenues has raised many questions and debates both in political and economic tunes, one of them-the Resource Control struggle.
Proponent of Resource Control argued that, the current system had distorted fiscal federalism, rendered the Niger Delta poor, and they believe the introduction of some criteria in the sharing formula was a veiled attempt at favouring other parts of Nigeria above the oil producing areas, thus, they argued, the need for Resources Control. Moreover, these proponents of resource control see the issue within three prisms; ‘Absolute’ resources control, ‘Relative’ Resource Control or, an upward increase in the 13% derivation index. Absolute’ resources control imply that all states take full control of the mining and sales of resources on their land, keep the bulk of the revenue accruable from the resources, but give “pocket money” to the centre, while relative resources control imply that, the status qua on the sharing formular be maintain but states will be in charge of awarding the lucrative oil blocks and choosing which oil company will be allowed to explore for oil. The third type of resource control, calls for an upward review of the 13% derivation index to something around 50% or above.
Opponents of resources control are of the view, a happy-go-lucky tempering of the re-distribution mechanism of oil revenues would facilitated the disintegration of the Nigerian state, and a state that controls or retain the kind of money derivable from oil, can easily declare independence and become a country of it own. Allowing states to allocate oil blocks will promote animosities between communities in the Niger Delta, because it would be a controversial issue, as who will be responsible for the allocation of the oil blocks will be a contentious issue; is it the state government? Is it the government local government? Is it the communities or the clans? Or is it the local chiefs? These horny issues will raise its heads, because the Niger Delta is made of different ethnic groups, and there is disconnection of the leadership from the citizenry, rather than generate healthier competition in development; absolute resource control will only end in generating tension among communities in the Niger Delta.
Another point raised by opponents of resource control is, resource control may distort the Nigerian social order- if all the oil revenues go to the Niger Delta region, the region will witness an unprecedented influx of Nigerians from all the corners of the country- thus, the beginning of another social crisis.
Nevertheless, between these diverging thoughts, opinions and suggestion on resources control, there is always a middle-line approach, which most Nigerian governments try to adopt, but it has failed woefully, because of the lack of genuine political will for constructive engagement with the real and grassroots stakeholders in the Niger Delta, who have been pushed to the wall and this had made the youth in that area crisis citizens, majority of them never experienced a normal national political life in the political setting called Nigeria .
Nigeria needs a bold measure to rehabilitate these promising citizens to a healthy and productive life. The major leeway is to produce a desirable environment for negotiation with the real and grassroots stakeholders in the Niger Delta, who are the problem owners, give more concessions, including more sacrifice by the Nigerian state, which is a hard measure, but very necessary, this will diffuse tension, sanitise the environment and win the support of majority of Niger Delta masses who are the real and true stakeholders. However, the Niger Delta people should be aware; they will be safer and well-off in the greater Nigeria.
Of recent, the political atmosphere of Nigeria was clouded by two burning political issues: the call for power shift by the North, and the call for resource control by the South–South, these two ‘regionally-coloured’ political issues have so much overwhelmed the political system of Nigeria to the extend that, they have successfully influenced the permutations in the politics of the country- a typical example is the Yar’adua–Goodluck presidential ticket presented by the ruling PDP; Yar’adua to satisfied the power shift agitation in the north, Goodluck to pacify the Niger Delta. But one interesting question is, is the concession of the vice presidential slot to the Niger Delta going to calm down the agitations in the Niger Delta? Certainly not, it will only answer the problem of the region at the political front, which is merely a quarter of the problem in the Niger Delta. The recent bombing of Goodluck’s country home by militants, have certainly sent a clear signal to those in authority that, the bulk of the problem in the Niger Delta is socioeconomic; which is also the main problem of the entire Nigerian state.
Oil, which is the key sustainer of the economy of the Nigerian state, is also the main factor that contributed to her crocodile-phase development. The discovery of Oil in Nigeria has brought laziness in the larger society- the complete neglect of agriculture which was hitherto the main source of revenue for the nation, hence, the stifling of creativity in revenue-generation especially at states and local government levels, degradation of the environment in the oil producing communities , corruption among the political class, uncontrolled spending spree by governments, and stunted growth in industrialization, all because of the easy money oil provides. Due to the huge earnings in oil, coupled with some period of oil booms and windfalls, the management and distribution of this huge amount of petrodollars to the benefits of the entire Nigerian populaces has become painstaking, Herculean and sensitive issue, which entails the employing of complex technicalities and formulae in the re-distribution of the oil revenues. The management and distribution of oil revenues has raised many questions and debates both in political and economic tunes, one of them-the Resource Control struggle.
Proponent of Resource Control argued that, the current system had distorted fiscal federalism, rendered the Niger Delta poor, and they believe the introduction of some criteria in the sharing formula was a veiled attempt at favouring other parts of Nigeria above the oil producing areas, thus, they argued, the need for Resources Control. Moreover, these proponents of resource control see the issue within three prisms; ‘Absolute’ resources control, ‘Relative’ Resource Control or, an upward increase in the 13% derivation index. Absolute’ resources control imply that all states take full control of the mining and sales of resources on their land, keep the bulk of the revenue accruable from the resources, but give “pocket money” to the centre, while relative resources control imply that, the status qua on the sharing formular be maintain but states will be in charge of awarding the lucrative oil blocks and choosing which oil company will be allowed to explore for oil. The third type of resource control, calls for an upward review of the 13% derivation index to something around 50% or above.
Opponents of resources control are of the view, a happy-go-lucky tempering of the re-distribution mechanism of oil revenues would facilitated the disintegration of the Nigerian state, and a state that controls or retain the kind of money derivable from oil, can easily declare independence and become a country of it own. Allowing states to allocate oil blocks will promote animosities between communities in the Niger Delta, because it would be a controversial issue, as who will be responsible for the allocation of the oil blocks will be a contentious issue; is it the state government? Is it the government local government? Is it the communities or the clans? Or is it the local chiefs? These horny issues will raise its heads, because the Niger Delta is made of different ethnic groups, and there is disconnection of the leadership from the citizenry, rather than generate healthier competition in development; absolute resource control will only end in generating tension among communities in the Niger Delta.
Another point raised by opponents of resource control is, resource control may distort the Nigerian social order- if all the oil revenues go to the Niger Delta region, the region will witness an unprecedented influx of Nigerians from all the corners of the country- thus, the beginning of another social crisis.
Nevertheless, between these diverging thoughts, opinions and suggestion on resources control, there is always a middle-line approach, which most Nigerian governments try to adopt, but it has failed woefully, because of the lack of genuine political will for constructive engagement with the real and grassroots stakeholders in the Niger Delta, who have been pushed to the wall and this had made the youth in that area crisis citizens, majority of them never experienced a normal national political life in the political setting called Nigeria .
Nigeria needs a bold measure to rehabilitate these promising citizens to a healthy and productive life. The major leeway is to produce a desirable environment for negotiation with the real and grassroots stakeholders in the Niger Delta, who are the problem owners, give more concessions, including more sacrifice by the Nigerian state, which is a hard measure, but very necessary, this will diffuse tension, sanitise the environment and win the support of majority of Niger Delta masses who are the real and true stakeholders. However, the Niger Delta people should be aware; they will be safer and well-off in the greater Nigeria.
English is well on its way to becoming the dominant global language. Is this a good thing? Yes, in fields such as science where a common language brings efficiency gains. But the global dominance of the English language is bad news for world literature, according to CEPR researcher Jacques Mélitz (Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique, Paris and CEPR). Why? Because if the English language dominates world publishing, very few translations except those from English to other languages will be commercially viable. As a result, virtually only those writing in English will have a chance of reaching a world audience and achieving ‘classic status’. The outcome is clear, Mélitz argues: just as in the sciences, those who wish to reach a world audience will write in English. “World literature will be an English literature”, Mélitz warns, “and will be the poorer for it – as if all music were written only for the cello”. His work appears in "English-Language Dominance, Literature and Welfare," (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2055). By literature, he refers to imaginative works of an earlier vintage that are still read today, and therefore the accumulation of world literature refers to the tiny fraction of currently produced imaginative works which will eventually be regarded as ‘classics’. According to Mélitz, the tendency of competitive forces in the global publishing market to privilege the translation of English fiction and poetry into other languages for reading or listening enjoyment may damage the production of world literature and in this respect make us all worse off. Because English is so widely spoken, it has often been referred to as a "global language", the lingua franca of the modern era.[3] While English is not an official language in many countries, it is currently the language most often taught as a second language around the world. Some linguists believe that it is no longer the exclusive cultural sign of "native English speakers", but is rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures worldwide as it continues to grow. It is, by international treaty, the official language for aerial and maritime communications, as well as one of the official languages of the European Union, the United Nations, and most international athletic organisations, including the International Olympic Committee.English is the language most often studied as a foreign language in the European Union (by 89% of schoolchildren), followed by French (32%), German (18%), and Spanish (8%).[27] It is also the most studied in the People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.[citation needed]Books, magazines, and newspapers written in English are available in many countries around the world. English is also the most commonly used language in the sciences.[3] In 1997, the Science Citation Index reported that 95% of its articles were written in English, even though only half of them came from authors in English-speaking countries.Great authors write in only one language: Remarkably few people have ever made contributions to world literature in more than one language. Beckett and Nabokov may be the only two prominent examples. Conrad, who is sometimes mentioned in this connection, is a false illustration in a glaring regard: he never wrote in his native Polish. Quite conspicuously, expatriate authors generally continue to write in their native language even after living for decades away from home. This holds not only for poets, such as Mickiewicz and Milosz, which may not be surprising, but also for novelists. Mann went on composing in German during a long spell in the US. The list of authors who have inscribed their names in the history of literature in more than one language since the beginning of time is astonishingly short.If you want to reach a world audience, write in English: In science, as in literature, a person writing in a minor language has a better chance of publication than one writing in a major tongue, but will necessarily have a much smaller chance of translation and international recognition. The result in science is clear. Those who strive to make a mark in their discipline try to publish in English. By and large, the ones who stick to their home language – English excepted, of course – have lower ambitions and do less significant work. The same pressure to publish in English exists for those engaged in imaginative writing who wish to attain a world audienceAlong with the advances in telecommunications in the last thirty years, the dominance of English in auditory and audiovisual entertainment has become far greater than in books. Does the argument about translations in literature apply more generally and explain this wider ascension of English too? The answer is partly positive as regards television, but mostly negative in connection with the cinema. US television series indeed benefit from an unusually large home audience and only travel abroad when successful domestically. On the other hand, a film need not succeed in the home market before being made available to foreign-language cinema audiences. Hollywood achieved an important place in the cinema in the era of the silent film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)