The Greatest Good for the Smallest Group

There is a belief that societies should make decisions or policy based on the greatest good for the greatest number. In Nigeria, going by our antecedents, we can argue that those in positions of authority, the elite and/or the educated do not subscribe to this.

Five years after the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (the Act) was signed into law and after billions of dollars have disappeared into a bottomless sinkhole, we are not any closer to implementing the Act or solving the acute electricity problem.

The lack of power is one of the hottest presidential campaign issues and every time there is an opportunity for people to speak about the issues which need the attention of the man who will be president in 2011 – electricity is on the list. All the pressure to resolve the problem seems focused on the president and the presidential aspirants and how we need them to fix our power problems.

But what about us? What is our role in assisting the implementation of the Power Act? If there are only six degrees of separation between people, then we all know one or more of the 50,000 employees of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) who are partnering with other alleged enemies of electricity such as the generator and diesel importers to ensure we stay off the track to sustainable and consistent power.

These 50,000 Nigerians together with the NLC and other ‘comrades’ who jettison socialist thinking when it suits them think that their fears about job security should hold the rest of us to ransom. Has anyone tried to quantify how much revenue and value Nigeria and Nigerians have lost from our abysmal power supply? The lives lost in hospitals during surgery or the death of premature babies in incubators with no power? The lives lost to generator fumes and malfunctions? The loss to our productivity and industry? Is it right for Dimeji Bankole, the Speaker of the House of Representatives to say, five years after the Act was passed that ‘he is worried about 50,000 jobs which will be lost’ as a result of the implementation of the Act? What did the legislature think would happen as a result of privatization and why is the loss of jobs accepted as a fait accompli? Across many sectors in different parts of the world, privatization has frequently resulted in job creation and skill development.

So what are the fears of the national union of electricity employees (NUEE) and their agents who see the privatization of PHCN as a tragedy?

The first is that they will loose jobs. And the quick answer to this is that privatization could (i) increase jobs because there will be competition and power companies will need people with the skills to manage our archaic equipment and infrastructure and (ii) we could see an increase in compensation for electricity sector employees because the competition will drive the power companies to pay more in order to attract and retain the best. Instead of thinking positively and creatively, these 50,0000 people prefer to scuttle the privatization of PHCN in order to cripple the future of 150,000,000 people so they can secure jobs which are only guaranteed until retirement. Then what? They retire to sitting outside in the dark or inhaling the carbon monoxide from their generators with the rest of us.

Another argument that labour and the NUEE make in “Power Reform: Labour Moves Against Privatization” (published in Thisday, November 9 2010) is that corruption is a larger obstacle to electricity reform than government ownership. I say corruption and government ownership go hand in hand. We know from all the failed enterprises the Federal Government is involved in (steel manufacturing, refining petroleum products, making fertilizer, manufacturing sugar, telecommunications etc.) that our government is inefficient and should not be concerned with managing businesses. The best role for government is as regulator and provider of an enabling environment for business.

Privatizing power is the reason why countries like India, Chile and Ghana to name a few are no longer suffering the embarrassing power cuts we have in Nigeria. Those opposed to the privatisation of PHCN routinely hold up Enron and the 2002 California black outs as an example of a failed privatisation. But Enron is an example of corporate greed not isolated to privatized entities and the dangers of government slacking off on its role as regulator.

The NUEE and labour groups are also worried that PHCN will be bought by corrupt Nigerians but since PHCN has been broken up into several companies, it is unlikely that all will be purchased by Nigerians. I am not condoning corruption but isn’t it better for those who appropriate our wealth to spend it in Nigeria instead of buying up real estate abroad? Besides, employees of PHCN allegedly have their own corrupt racket going on – from the executives who divert funds meant for investing in infrastructure to the mystery of the disappearing transformers and technicians who extort money from ‘optionless’ customers during the holidays and special occasions.

Whether privatization opponents like it or not, the telecom sector has made the benefits of privatisation glaring because despite the growing number of GSM subscribers, NITEL cannot get its act together because it is still managed by government. Should we hold on to decaying assets merely to keep a few thousands ‘ungainfully’ employed?

Finally, there is a tenuous argument made by counsel to the NUEE, that the privatization of PHCN is ‘illegal’ because the 1999 Constitution ‘imposes a duty on the Federal Government to manage and operate the main sector of the economy…which undeniably includes the power sector’. This is why according to him, Nigerians have a duty to resist the privatisation of PHCN.

But in the Part II of the 1999 Constitution – the Concurrent Legislative List expressly gives States the authority to make laws with respect to electricity and the establishment of electric power stations; generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas not covered by the grid; and the promotion and management of State electric power stations. This means States can manage electricity for themselves…if this is so, how can power generation be considered the exclusive right of the FG? Even without this provision, how can the duty to manage the economy mean that government must remain in the business of providing electricity especially when it has proven to be completely inept at it?

I sympathise with NUEE. They see our legislators, executives and politicians amassing private wealth and bending policy to benefit themselves – why shouldn’t they want to protect themselves as well? But Nigeria is in desperate need of electricity. We should not support this bid to stop the privatisation of PHCN for sentimental reasons. All our development needs, aspirations and visions for the future are tied to power and the short term value of jobs for 50,000 people masquerading as concern for corruption and legality should not trump the long term value for the entire country. The greatest good for the greatest number; that is what should guide us.

Read more...

The legislative coup against democracy

With stealth powered by effrontery, the Nigerian federal legislators have been and are doing their best to erode the foundations of democracy which Nigerians are trying to build on.

Quietly within the cyclone of noise about zoning, election dates, the back and forth between the National Assembly and the INEC chairman and governors who were not supposed to be governors and whatever else is being thrown at the public, the legislators have been chipping away at the Constitution and the Electoral Act to ensure they find a way to entrench themselves in power.

A few weeks ago they wanted a quid pro quo; to have a ‘right of first refusal’ to their positions as legislators in return for giving the President of Nigeria the right to use his assistants as ‘delegates’ during the party convention. Because legislators have no term limits, this right of first refusal means that once a person has been granted the God (since everything in Nigeria is done in the name of God) given right to ‘win’ then as long as he wants to contest that seat, no one in his/her party can contest for that seat. The American’s we ‘borrowed’ our presidential system from do not have this clause in their constitution or electoral laws but when it comes to mangling the democratic process, no one can beat Nigerians on innovation. Somehow, that story died down and no one is quite sure why or how. Did the story die because the legislators realized this was something they would not be allowed to get away with, or did the story fizzle back into the crack it came from because it was already a fait accompli?

Now they are back again with another trick. This time, they have tinkered with Section 87(4) of the 2010 Electoral Act to secure the opportunity to blackmail their parties into giving in to their demands. According to the new provision, all political parties must have a national executive committee which the legislators are automatic members to (along with former presidents, vice presidents, presiding officers of the National Assembly etc.). How is it that the nation’s Electoral Act is so concerned with the internal workings of political parties that it goes into detail about the quorum for decision making at these party national executive committees which of course give our legislators an advantage? This is a round about way of getting their ‘rights of first refusal’ because on the party level they can always vote as a block to ensure that they get ‘re-nominated’ even if members of their own party do not want them. How is that for democracy?

To be fair, they have a rational explanation for this inclusion: it is about time they did something to checkmate the president and the governors who use appointees as delegates during party primaries. If you have ever wondered why presidents and governors have so many special assistants and advisers – the mystery is solved – these special assistants and advisers turn into delegates who usually vote exclusively for their benefactors at party primaries. For these well meaning legislators, the fact that they will be able to vote to secure their candidacy is secondary – the realobjective is to strengthen democracy by protecting her from god-fatherism.

The Legislators also want to insert a clause in the 1999 Constitution in order to compel the executive to implement allmotions passed by the National Assembly. All. Absolutely no qualifications regarding the number of legislators who passed the motion or any review as to the practicality of the motion. This means that if the legislators in their wisdom decide to pass a motion to ensure women are dressed ‘decently’ and our upright policemen are given enforcement powers, the executive would have to execute. With their well-deserved reputation, earned with their utterances, shenanigans and antecedents, do we feel safe letting our legislators wield these types of powers? Apparently the reason behind this particular insertion is to counter the problem created by the fact that the executive often ignores motions from the legislators. For instance, the National Assembly says its motion regarding a landslide in Kwande Local Council of Benue State was ignored until some of the communities in the area were affected by a volcanic eruption. So there is a legitimate sense of frustration that their initiatives are ignored…but our legislators and indeed all arms of government should realize that the checks and balances in our system of government are meant to ‘slow’ certain things down and ensure that policy, directives, regulations are well thought out before they are implemented.

So the question for us regarding our legislators is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ‘Who will guard the guardians’? A key purpose of the presidential system of governance, with three separate arms of government, is to get all three to check each other and balance out the powers that they have. However, as legislators grant themselves all sorts of powers – who will check them? This is no idle question because in addition to these amendments and insertions the legislators have again, devoid of the drums and whistles which usually accompany their work, recently increased their powers by giving themselves a direct line in the budget so that they no longer have to go through the executive arm for funds…even the judiciary –whose independence should be the most fiercely protected as the last hope for the common man, does not have this privilege. What have our legislators done to deserve this?

Like many Nigerians, I am tired of the excruciatingly snail-like pace at which we are developing positively especially when we leapfrog into sophistication when it comes to detrimental actions such as kidnapping, smuggling and corruption, however I would rather institutions and processes are designed properly to provide the necessary restraint than have our legislators take on so much power. They are barely controllable as they are. Where is civil society when you need them? Where are those who have sworn to act as guardians of the guardians when powers are being concentrated in one place? We need to call attention to this silent, deadly coup on democracy being waged by our not so honorable legislators.

Read more...

Poor little Muslim girls and the lawmakers from Zamfara

Zamafara is in the news again as another lawmaker; Senator Sahabi Ya'u tries to marry a young girl without her consent. Why is this news? Because it is wrong to force someone into marriage with another person and we would like to presume that lawmakers know this. Because the High Court to which the reluctant bride took her case refused to hear the case on the grounds that hers was a matrimonial case for an Islamic court. Because, yet again the courts are refusing to look into the subjugation of a Muslim woman despite the protections given to all Nigerians under the 1999 Constitution. Considering the uproar that followed Senator Ahmed Yerima’s marriage to a thirteen year old earlier this year, it is tragic that there is still no sense of urgency about protecting the basic personal freedoms of Muslim women and girls in the north of Nigeria.

Unfortunately, the infringement of the basic personal rights of the female in the name of Islam or custom, is nothing new. According to UN statistics, in 2005 there were at least 60 million women in forced marriages across the developing countries. I think law and society are culprits in the continued refusal to be fair in the application of Islamic personal law to women and girls.

The problem with the law is manifold. The first is ignorance. Islam is a way of life and Muslims are steered by several authorities the most important ones being the Holy Quran, the Hadith, which are the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Sunnah which is the way of life prescribed for Muslims based on the teachings and practice of Prophet Muhammad. Maybe not enough people know that when it comes to the question of the consent of a female to marriage, the Quran says, “Don’t prevent them from marrying their husbands when they agree between themselves in a lawful manner.” (Q2:32) And there are many Hadiths authenticated by renowned collectors of hadith such as Sahih Buhari and Ibn Majah which indicate that Prophet Muhammad sanctioned the dissolution of any marriage which was contracted without the consent of the bride. Therefore, it is contrary to Islam to marry off any female without her consent and in this case, the reluctant bride’s father was wrong to marry her off to the Senator. On the issue of human rights, the court said “her human rights had not been violated…” But the United Nations views forced marriage as a form of human rights abuse because it violates the principle of the freedom and autonomy of individuals. So where does this leave us?

Which brings us to the second problem with law – patriarchal impunity which results in disregard for the law. Here society also plays a role because it permits men to think they are above the law and can do whatever they like regardless of what the law, any law provides. The third problem with the law is ambiguity or interpretation. Where fundamental human rights and the jurisdiction of courts are in question, the 1999 Constitution is a good place to start. The 1999 Constitution is not ambiguous about fundamental human rights and who they are applicable to and neither is it worded in anyway to suggest that the religion of a Nigerian may preclude that person from such fundamental human rights. Yet, the interpreters of law are starting a trend when they say to Muslim women – “if you marry in accordance with your religion, then we cannot guarantee your fundamental human rights”. There are two problems here. One, if a Muslim woman is trying to enforce her rights either under Islam or under the Constitution, research carried out byWomen's Right Advancement & Protection Alternative (WRAPA) indicates that the last place she would want to go is the Sharia courts because of the patriarchal impunity problem. So where else can she go? The high courts. But the high courts have refused jurisdiction on the ground that they are constitutionally prevented from hearing cases involving Islamic personal law.

Some believe that Section 262 of the 1999 Constitution which provides the Sharia Court of Appeal with jurisdiction over Islamic personal law matters, is the reason why state high courts and the federal high court will not accept any cases on Islamic personal law. However, it is not clear why the provisions of Section 262 are being interpreted so narrowly especially when there is nothing in the wordings to suggest that this jurisdiction is excusive and cannot be exercised by any other court. In fact the word used is ‘competent’ i.e., The Sharia Court of Appeal shall…be competent to decide. If, according to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, “The Constitution shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protections intended by them” then why are sharia and common law courts refusing to interpret forced marriage as an infringement of fundamental human rights?

As for society, its mildest sin is complacency. By staring mutely into our tea cups whilst Muslim men marry children or marry off their daughters without their consent or marry and divorce ten, twelve or seventeen times, we are all culpable.

There are several things those concerned can do. One, encourage Muslim women forced into marriage as adults or children to challenge this by going to court even at personal risk to themselves because the future and well being of our daughters, sisters and nieces is dependent on our action. Two, lawyers should take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and get the judicial pronouncement we need on aspects of customary/Islamic law which touch on fundamental human rights and the so called exclusivity which sharia/customary courts have over personal law matters to the detriment of justice and equity. Three, a major education campaign on Islamic personal law needs to be launched for the benefit of academia, the judiciary, and religious instructors. Finally, women need to make the regulation of marriage and the protection of personal rights a campaign issue for the 2011 elections. Muslim women in Nigeria need marriage contracts the same way Muslim sisters in Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and other Muslim countries do. In the United Arab Emirates where our lawmakers and elite love to go on holiday, the law is that a man with more than one wife must provide separate houses for each wife. In Nigeria a man can keep two wives in a two-bedroom house with one bathroom and kitchen between them.

All the fancy goals and pronouncements about female empowerment, women participating in politics and even girl child education projects are meaningless as long as the most basic and fundamental rights of women remain unprotected and personal laws are at the very heart of a woman’s fundamental human rights.

Read more...

Voter Beware

INEC’s request to extend the timetable for the 2011 elections from January to April has turned up the heat underneath our already simmering political environment. As right as INEC was to disclose that it is already 6 weeks behind schedule, it should also get pummeled for giving us a time line 3 weeks ago which it must have known it could not keep. Now in addition to the endless discussions and sniping about zoning, we have to add amendments to the 2010 electoral act (the Act) and another attempt at amending the 1999 constitution.

If the newspapers are anything to go by, the focus of attention is on the electoral provisions dealing with the ‘election of governor’ and ‘election of the president’ which provide that elections for governors and the president should take place not earlier than 150 days and no later than 90 days before ‘the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office’. This means that elections have to be slated at the latest for February 28 – if we presume that the expiration of term is May 27 (since May 29 is a Sunday).

However as the National Assembly rushes to amend these particular provisions in order to give INEC more time to hold credible elections; they might want to look at other provisions in the Act which are sure to frustrate the plans for credible elections.

One: when is INEC going to tell us where the registration centers are and why isn’t there a statutory time frame within which INEC must do this? The issue here is that while all the energy is focused on the election timetable – the major component of credible elections – the voters’ register has been given scant attention apart from the issue of finance and suppliers. If INEC does not give us enough notice about where, when and how we are to register, then it is unlikely that the registration process will be as successful as we all want it to be.

Two, it is not clear from the Act if the place where we register is the place where we also vote. From experience elections are usually on a Saturday and movement is restricted, which means if we register where we work and election happens to be on a Saturday and there is ‘no movement’ – how do we get to our polling stations?

INEC will respond by asking us to look at another provision which says we can apply to the resident electoral commissioner in the state where we reside and get him/her to transfer our names to the Transferred Voters List. This is not a practical solution. Apart from the expected bureaucracy which eats up time, anyone who wants to transfer his or her name has to provide proof of residency. Which means, millions of people who have no written leases with their names on it, or who don’t get billed for water and/or electricity and who subscribe to pay as you go telephone services might find it hard to prove where they live. (This might be a good opportunity for the NCC to show us how efficiently they have ‘captured’ the data they have forced us to provide). It is advisable that we avoid relying on this provision. In a nutshell: register where you mean to vote. In other words, ‘employers please do your share for democracy and allow for countless hours where we will away from work because of the registration process.’

Three, after we avoid the mines associated with where we register, we still have to qualify to register. There are different requirements but particularly interesting is that the registration officer has a right to demand any information necessary to ascertain if you are qualified to vote. Since one of the qualifications is that voters must not be legally incapacitated to vote, good luck proving that you are qualified to vote if the registration officer decides you ‘look’ like someone legally incapacitated.

Four, Section 18 says if we lose or damage our voter’s card we can request for a duplicate but only if the elections are more that 30 days away. However…if we lose or damage the voter’s card the day before elections…it seems INEC has no solution for us.

Five, we should also be worried about INEC’s discretion to publish notice of the elections ‘in such manner as it may deem fit’. Why? Because if INEC decides to publish the day, time and location of the polling units on its website only and it crashes because everyone is trying to get on at the same time, INEC is acting within the law. Besides, if INEC decides to publish only in Mandarin, it seems this is also fine.

Six, the Act makes it a punishable offence if the day before elections anyone uses “print or electronic medium” to “broadcast, publish, advertise or circulate any material for the purpose of promoting or opposing a particular political party or the election of a particular candidate”. Does this mean that if my Facebook status update says “hey remember IBB was not nicknamed Maradona for nothing” or “say no to ‘army arrangement’ PDP” I will be guilty of a crime? Why? Isn’t this in conflict with my right to freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution? As long as I am not inciting hatred against any group or promoting violence why should a reminder to help people select their candidates wisely be considered a threat to peace and stability?

The Electoral Act is littered with many more ambiguous & mischievous provisions, ripe for abuse. As CSOs rev up to mobilize Nigerians’ to register and vote, they need to keep their eyes on those provisions in the Act which can be used to disenfranchise or discourage voter participation. Since INEC and the National Assembly are not paying any attention to these provisions – we need to guard against abuse by putting a spotlight on tricky provisions. If we cannot get these provisions revised before the elections, we should be able to get INEC to clarify the provisions to prevent that the abuse which will come from arbitrary interpretation. It is only Professor Jega’s integrity that has been applauded – INEC still has most of the employees which managed the 2003 and 2007 elections – we need to help him ensure the 2011 elections have a fighting chance of actually being credible.

Read more...

Zoning for mediocrity

Nigeria can no longer afford to keep sacrificing good governance for ethnic considerations.

For months Nigerians have been distracted by the entertainment provided by the zoning issue – the same way the early Romans were dulled by the spectacle of gladiators fighting to the death. The Nigerian polity is fragile, held hostage to Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution and the supremacy of ethnic considerations.

Our Federal Character policy – the constitutional backing for ‘zoning’, is breaking us. Its roots tear into our chances for unity and keep us divided and this is the heart of our problems. Our Constitution insists that the Federal Government and its agencies are composed of all ethnic groups in order to “reflect the federal character of Nigeria.” Unwittingly this guarantees that we see ourselves as Nigerians only for visa application purposes and football even though Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution explains that the objective of the policy is to “promote national unity and command national loyalty”.

The debate for and against PDP’s zoning rules has been fierce. Most recently Olisa Agbakoba SAN advised us to take care to hold on to the essence of zoning i.e., federal character as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution while Minister of Foreign Affairs, Odein Ajumogobia advised that we ‘outgrow’ zoning. I agree with Mr. Ajumogobia and not because I want President Jonathan as a candidate for President.

We mark our fiftieth year of independence with ethnic strife, constant supposed religious insurgence, terrorism and near anarchy in the Niger Delta. Our history is ravaged with a civil war fought along ethnic lines; five coups and chronic corruption which has left the country crippled by the lack of investment in infrastructure and human development.

As we lead from the bottom on all development indicators, we need to ask ourselves: ‘how did we get here?’

I recognize the need for balance and representation. When we consider the civil war and the strong feelings of marginalization claimed by all 250 ethnic groups, it is easy to appreciate the sentiments behind federal character - it is one way to appease and ensure representation.

But it is not working and this is why.

Government participation based on ethnicity not qualification guarantees that it will always be more beneficial to hammer on our differences instead of our similarities. This is why we have 35 economically dependent states, with Lagos as the exception, and the clamor for more grows louder. It is also why we have 36 federal ministers we cannot afford – most of who are not qualified to handle their jobs. Our representatives are corrupt and numb to our interests – but they are safe in the knowledge that we will remain loyal to ethnic considerations. Does it stop only when we have 250 States and 250 federal ministers?

Federal character is blind to educational qualifications or experience, which means there is little incentive to be educated or to improve education. Instead, we accuse each other of being beneficiaries of the ‘quota system’ – and continue to promote mediocrity at all levels.

It gets worse. Who is representing Nigeria when each person is there for someplace else? Everyone is so concerned with their slice of the country that no one notices that the cake is getting smaller and smaller. The false unity promoted by ‘federal character zoning’ prevents us from realizing that no one is making long-term plans for Nigeria. Thus we are unable to invest in a future which grows more complicated and competitive with globalization.

Nigeria is not alone in its desire to address marginalization. America’s affirmative action policy has evolved from just racial discrimination to other types of discrimination. This change did not happen overnight. For 48 years, America, in a battle involving all arms of government, has revised, reviewed, and reframed affirmative action because they recognize that circumstances change and the policy must adjust.

Federal Character needs reform. The first step is to implement a 15-year strategic plan to improve access to and quality of education in every state. This will allow states considered educationally disadvantaged to catch up. Next, we must expand the definition of federal character to include women and other historically marginalized groups and we must restrict the application of the policy to specific areas such as education and defense, no longer politics or the civil service. Finally, we need a sustained national unification program to build a unique Nigerian identity and help foster real unity. And this is where I really disagree with Mr. Agbakoba in his ‘Misconceptions about zoning, power rotation’ in Thisday last week. He seems to think it is a fait accompli that we will never be united and that being a ‘divided federation’ can somehow benefit us. If we have practiced this version of diversity under ‘quota system’, ‘federal character’, and now ‘zoning’ and fifty years later we are still where we are (a Newsweek study shows Nigeria as being the second worst in the world on quality of living, below even Zimbabwe) then should we not change our practice?

National loyalty as envisioned in the Constitution means we see ourselves first as Nigerians before we see Ijaw, Kanuri or Nupe. However, the spirit behind this ideal has been mangled by Section 14; we cannot continue to sacrifice performance and progress for a dysfunctional diversity; we are all Nigerians and the best and most qualified of us should be allowed to lead regardless of where we are from.

Read more...

Seeing things in north and south

Many years ago as an undergraduate, I got the first of many tastes of the depth of the Nigerian north south divide. The plans to move the Nigerian Law School to Abuja were in motion and my set, the 1997 graduates of law would be the first to be called in Abuja. My letter to the editor of the Guardian questioned the rational. I spoke for tradition, consistency and the prudent use of resources in defense of maintaining Lagos as the site of the venerable Nigerian Law School; some who read it saw that I spoke for the south as opposed to the north. The rest is history – the site was moved to Abuja, people say quality has fallen and billions have been spent on five sub-standard law schools (one geo political zone is being ‘cheated’) when we could have one glorious well funded Nigerian Law School.

Since then I have used my writing to try to understand, like other Nigerians, the utility of federal character in our constitution and I continue to attract comments relating to our suffocating mind set on maintaining the north south dichotomy. Now there is a word we throw around when we talk of maintaining a balance but ‘dichotomy’ also means ‘to divide into two mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities’. Seeing things in north and south is the direct root for the zoning formula being championed by the Peoples’ Democratic Party and to be fair – maybe any other party in power would use this ruse too.

Yes, this is yet another article on zoning because as we do what we do best (dinner table analysis and sitting down and looking) our politicians and wise men drum up the specter of war with fighting words.

Last week as Nigerians dealt with the pain of sacrificed innocents and the humiliation of very publicly staking our claim to selfishness and instability on the same day we capped a frenzy of meaningless celebration of 50 years of independence, the Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF) lead by Adamu Ciroma called for the resignation of President Goodluck. In a statement peppered with prayers, NPLF said they were not satisfied with how the President was handling the bomb blasts which they believed to be politically motivated. According to NPLF “he is desperate enough to want to hang mass murder around the neck of unnamed Northerners to achieve his second term”. They plan to ask the National Assembly to impeach him because “as Northerners and as citizens of this country, we no longer feel safe and secure under his leadership”.

Some of the arguments and sentiments expressed in the NPLF statement are understandable, but on so many levels they are misleading. There is no doubt that sentiments are frayed and we are worried about the stability of the country especially after the bombs and the missiles of counter accusations flying around.

However, it is hard to see how starting impeachment proceedings six months to the elections is the right thing to do for the country. Rightly so, it is not an easy task to impeach a president and Section 143 of the Constitution provides several steps and layers of obligations for the National Assembly and the Supreme Court to comply with. First, the allegation calling for impeachment must be signed by at least 156 Senators and Representatives. Then at least 312 out of our 469 legislators must agree to the allegation being investigated; then the Chief Justice will recommend a panel of 7 people of ‘unquestionable character’ (did I hear ‘good luck with that’) to investigate and write a report which must then be adopted by 312 legislators. And, the President has the right to defend himself at some stage. Is it likely that we can go through this process and still hold credible elections in April?

I think NPLF is making a mistake when it lays the blame of instability, grim political rivalry and quest for power solely on the President’s feet; all the PDP candidates, all of whom have been in power before are equally guilty. NPLF is culpable of taking advantage of the situation to whip up sentiments and make a bad situation worse by calling for the impeachment of the President. We do not need experienced political analysts to tell us that a handover could delay the electoral process and increase tensions across the country.

NPLF is right when it says the bombs were calculated to humiliate and to show the world that the Niger Delta militants have the ability “to influence political outcomes beyond their traditional area of influence”. But the question is, humiliate and influence whom? NPLF remind us of their warning to Nigerians to be vigilant about President Goodluck’s ‘desperate agenda to run’ and say they have been vindicated by the bombs. This means we can ask a few more questions: who benefits most from the chaos, fear and uncertainty being created and who loses more in the short and long term from the events of October 1? Maybe when we attempt to answer these questions, we can begin to analyze without the fog of sentiments.

True patriotism and leadership does not use the type of divisive rhetoric contained in NPLF’s statement nor the careless utterances coming from the Presidency, no matter how provoked both sides feel by the situation. We should be tired of being used by the political elite in strengthening the potency of this over 50 year old boogeyman of ethnic and religious marginalization and domination. It is a smokescreen to protect their real interests: themselves. There are probably members of the NPLF who have, in one capacity or another, served in every single government Nigeria has had since 1960 regardless of any ideological preferences for north, south, Muslim, Christian, dictatorship or democracy – so what exactly do they stand for and why do they want the rest of us to stand for north vs. south and Muslim vs. Christian?

There is no doubt that balancing the interests of perceived marginalization and ethnic and religious dominance is a delicate issue requiring extra creativity to manage especially since inexplicably, Nigerians seem to be more comfortable when ‘their own’ is representing them in government and PDP’s zoning formula was probably made, with the best of intentions, to manage this desire. But it is not working.

So no – impeachment is not the answer and we should all start writing to our legislators and telling them not to threaten the elections and waste our time and resources. I wish there was a provision of the Electoral Act to disqualify PDP from the presidential elections on the basis of overheating the polity and causing unrest. But there isn’t. There might be an out in Section 227 of the Constitution which might indirectly help us get rid of PDP – it says ‘No association shall retain, organise, train or equip any person or group of persons for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force or coercion in promoting any political objective or interest...” Isn’t PDP and the zoning formula guilty of this? That way the rest of the country can carry on and PDP can take the next four years to revise its constitution and come back to us when they have something better than ‘zoning’. Until then, we continue on our polarized march towards a firm north south dichotomy.

Read more...

US Supreme Court Says Money = Speech

Could things get any worse for the Obama administration? With all the atrocities which have taken place and continue to take place in the US Congress regarding the amount of money spent by lobbyists to influence policy - how can the Supreme Court make this decision? This is icing on the cake after Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the rickety Health Care Reform bill.

As expected, Harvard Law School Professor, Larry Lessig, founder of Change Congress is livid. He says:

"The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FECallows corporations and unions to pour unprecedented amounts of money into elections. From this moment on, when Congress acts, we won't be able to know whether it was because of reason or judgment... or only because of the need for campaign money. The system is broken, and we need to act."

For more on the implication of the decision click on the link attached.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=30&article_id=111149

Read more...