Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Battle for supremacy: Indigenes v Settlers

Am I a Nigerian first or am I from my state of origin/local government first? As a Nigerian am I free to settle and develop where I like or am I forced to ‘belong’ to the place my father is from even if he has never lived there? What does it mean to be from a place and why is it so important to our identity?

In Jos, Plateau State, it has been nine years since the issues around these questions have been begging, with the blood of innocents, for a resolution but neither the State nor the Federal Government have the will to do anything to improve the situation.

According to political historian, Dr. Abimbola Adesoji in his paper, Indigeneship and Citizenship in Nigeria: Myth and Reality, one of the underlying reasons for the conflict which refuses to go away in Jos is the belief that no matter how many years a person lives in a place where he ‘does not come’ from; that person remains a ‘settler’ and not an indigene. And there lies the crux of the problem between the Hausa-Fulani settlers and the indigenes of Plateau, the Birom, Amo, Buji etc. who incidentally or coincidentally happen to be Muslim and Christian respectively. One story is that the Hausa Fulani have dominated politics and seek to have their own leadership within the communities where they have lived as far back as 1902; another story is that the indigenes want to protect their interests against the intrusion of ‘settlers’ who threaten the indigenous institutions. The real position lies somewhere in between but while we get distracted with pinning down the elusive truth, people are dying, loosing their entire identity, along with all their property while we the onlookers worry about the ‘problem’ spreading to where we live because no one is safe from this issue.

Unfortunately, the 1999 Constitution is silent on this issue and as usual our legislators are busy with important issues. If they were not too busy, maybe the constitutional revisions might have included something to resolve – at least within the law – the issues around settlers, indigenes, residents and citizenship.

The roots as always go back to our ‘federal character’ principle which makes it really important to define where we are from because as politicians and civil servants, our access to wealth and juicy positions is based mostly on what state we represent. Now if a Yourba man from Ogbomosho has lived and worked in Sokoto for over twenty years and married a woman from Sokoto and had all his children from Sokoto , when it comes to political appointment…he cannot be from Sokoto. And further down the timeline, the same ‘rule’ applies to his children even if the only home they have ever known is Sokoto. Does this make sense? Many might say yes it does. But let’s look at it from another perspective.

If a Lebanese man settled in Kano in 1980, according to Section 27(2)(g)(i) of the 1999 Constitution, by 1995 after fifteen years of living in Nigeria, he would be eligible to become a citizen of Nigeria and very likely he will choose Kano as his state of origin when he needs to apply for a passport, driver’s license etc. So does the situation of the Yoruba settler in Sokoto still make sense?

In the United States of America, President Obama, half Kenyan, half America was born and raised in Hawaii. As an adult he moved to Chicago, Illinois where neither of his parents or grandparents were from and decided to run for congress to represent the people of Illinois…and he could because of the constitutional provisions which made this possible.

We need to change our constitution to define what it means to be an indigene of a place and we need to do it immediately before we find ourselves in an even more ridiculous and tragic position. There are people who have had their homes – not rented property - in Jos burnt, not once but twice and yet they rebuild. Why? Because this is home to them. They have roots there, they have family buried there, they have invested their sweat and blood there…is it right to force them to leave because they are not ‘from Jos’? There are others who have had their houses burnt just once – they were asked what their names were and once it did not sound like a name which belonged to Jos, they were asked to turn their backs on their houses only with what was on their backs and leave with the heat of their burning belongings following them. They have left Jos and yes, they will probably never go back. And there are those who have not waited for the violence to reach them personally; they have abandoned their property or sold it for what they can, and left quietly. So what next? When they get to back to their states, should they chase out those from Jos who live there to make room for them? Where will it end? If as a Nigerian, I cannot live anywhere I want, develop roots and invest with a sense of belonging and security, then what hope is there of Nigeria ever truly becoming a united entity? What hope is there that as Nigerians we can complement our skills and talents and blend in the best of our cultures while blurring the lines of difference?

Over thirty years ago, Group Captain Dan Sulaiman, as military administrator for Plateau State, “proposed that any Nigerian born in Plateau State or from any other state who has lived in Plateau state for twenty years should enjoy all the rights and privileges of a native of Plateau State” (Adesoji 2009). Of course this was not adopted or considered on any government level and now we are suffering from our inability to project into the future or take long-term decisions.

If Lagos State, which continues to lead as the most progressive state in Nigeria not only in terms of development but inclusion, decides it wants to pass a state law granting ‘unrestricted indigeneship rights’ to Nigerians who have lived and paid taxes to Lagos state for twenty years or more, can it do that or will the Federal Government play big brother and prevent it from doing so? These are the federalism issues the public and polity should spend time debating not zoning and the forced membership of political party executive committees.

For indigenes of Plateau State and other states dealing with indigene versus settler issues don’t get lulled into thinking you are safe. Once the predominantly Berom indigenes of Jos town get rid of the easily recognizable settlers, they will come for you non-indigenes of Jos and push you back to Pankshin, Wase, Shandam etc. where according to them, you belong. As we begin 2011, think of offshoots of the Golden Rule which are applicable to all of us; ‘ Do not do to others that which you do not want them to do to you. ’ (Confucius) ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.’ (Matthew 7:12). ‘Woe to those…who when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due. (Qur’an 83:1-4)

(Published in ThisDay's The Lawyer on January 4 2011)

Read more...

Fighting Words (2)

The 2010 Electoral Act explicitly provides that political campaigns or slogans must not be ‘tainted with abusive language directly or indirectly likely to injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings’ and asks politicians not to use ‘abusive, intemperate, slanderous or base language or insinuations’ which can ‘provoke violent reaction or emotions’. We are four months away from the 2011 elections and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the self-acclaimed biggest party in Africa, is leading the way in the use of threats to mobilize.

Lately much has been made of the allegedly inflammatory rhetoric of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, President Goodluck Jonathan’s rival for the PDP nomination as presidential candidate. At a National Stakeholders Conference in Abuja a few weeks ago, Alhaji Abubakar reportedly said to the audience in the context of a message to the leadership of the country and his political party, that ‘those who make peaceful changeimpossible make violent change inevitable.’ This rephrased popular quote of President John F Kennedy immediately raised the temperature of an all too receptive atmosphere by several degrees and President Jonathan responded by warning Alhaji Abubakar about straying into the realms of treason. Now considering that many, including me, have used this phrase in varying contexts, do these words constitute treason?

According to Sections 37 and 38 of the Nigerian Criminal Code, treason is when a person wages war against Nigeria in order to intimidate or overawe the President or Governor; or conspires with citizens and/or non-citizens inside or outside Nigeria to wage war against the State; or does anything which is considered treason in England.

Since it would be a stretch to hold that Alhaji Atiku’s words, which he concluded with ‘violent change is not what we want for Nigeria’ (still arguably a veiled threat) can be considered as waging war, maybe we need to look to English law to see what their definition of treason is. The English still use the foundations of the Treason Act of 1351 as the basis of their treason laws and treason so far has not extended to public utterances. The crime of treason in England is almost exclusively linked to the Crown and includes plotting to murder the Queen, having sex with the Queen’s consort or her eldest unmarried daughter or the wife to the heir to the throne or levying war against the Sovereign etc.

So unless we have some other law –customary or otherwise, it seems unlikely that Alhaji Abubakar’s words constitute a treasonable offence. But this is where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) comes in. INEC has the powers to enforce the provision which forbids incitement around election campaigns and the Chairman, Prof. Jega should be the one to speak against Alhaji Abubakar’s utterances. The problem is one of inconsistency and double standards and also maybe one of reach. If Alhaji Abubakar’s words are deemed treasonous, what of the constant spew of fighting words from Chief Edwin Clark? What of the priests, pastors and imams who scatter hatred and intolerance from right within ‘God’s house’? Can they too be charged for election related campaign violence if their messages are relayed in the context of who to vote for and why?

Whatever the context, we should not let politicians and influencers, bent on securing their relevancy or twisting facts to suit their plans, off the hook. When people in the position of influence and leadership use certain rhetoric, then we should be able to hold them accountable if their words are capable of galvanizing the public to disorder. There are even mediums such as the radio where those inciting hatred are not recognized as influencers, but because they have the means of broadcast and an audience which might be all too ready to receive such messages, they too should not be left out of the reach of INEC. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 and indeed many other wars, have proven that the radio can be a power medium for propaganda and inciting violence – who says what where and how matters especially during elections.

Considering our history of civil war and the constant inter-ethnic and religious warfare, Nigeria really should take fighting words more seriously. The entire hypocritical premise of zoning is supposedly to maintain a balance but this has not changed anything; people are still dying because of their religion and their ethnicity 30 odd years after the war. We think we are so complex, yet countries much more complex than ours have managed to navigate multi ethnicity and religion and be democratic and develop their nation. In India, a country with a population almost 9 times ours; with 14 official languages, 4 major religions and 700constitutionally recognized tribes – they take fighting words seriously. If the Indian Director General of Police, K Aravind Rao had his way saying things like ‘waging a civil war” or “State will become a battle field” will be banned on the basis of being inflammatory. We need to get serious too.

It is encouraging that the State Security Services have come out to condemn the ‘unguarded, reckless and divisive utterances of some prominent politicians’ but as pointed out above – they need to be consistent about their reprimands and not speak out only when the President’s opponents are being inflammatory.Maybe our Criminal Code cannot support criminalization of hate inciting speech as treason but the Electoral Act provides an avenue to do so. INEC needs to take control of the powers it has been given and it will have the backing of the public and the government security agencies. We sympathise with the logistical and security nightmare of getting DDC machines where they belong on time but if things go up in smoke, no one will be registering or even voting. INEC can use its legal or communications departments and the Police Force (thus helping us reduce the number of police tax check points on our roads) to monitor and report fighting words. And the rest of us…we can do our bit too. Let’s tell off those in our circles of influence: chiefs, professors, imams, pastors etc.; we do not want violence mongering rhetoric – our weapons are our ballots. Let’s use them strategically.


(Published in ThisDay's 'The Lawyer' on 28th December 2010)

Read more...

Stop: no human rights here

I am never quite sure if my thoughts are the magnets for the stories or if the stories that find me fuel my thoughts – but human rights has definitely been a recent theme. I am sure the predominance of human rights violation stories is not unconnected to Human Rights Day (December 10 2010) but the connection between power and the contempt with which man treats man is scary. A few days before, as if to welcome human rights day, a police officer shot and killed Oluwafemi Olaiywola (Femi Best) in cold blood, in front of witnesses. That seemed to open the flood gates of human rights abuse stories and sadly, two out of the three stories I heard thereafter involved the police. And even though the police had no active role in one of the cases, if the police really were our friends then they would have a stronger role to play as protectors of our rights.

The first case is filled with comic irony worthy of a television show. According to the woman who was traumatized, her entire ordeal started because she dared to say ‘human rights’ within the walls of a police station. The woman was having a not-so-private conversation with a constable and when she said those words a policeman standing close by, told her off for being foolish enough to mention those words. ‘Don’t you know policemen do not like hearing ‘human rights’? he admonished and when she was fool hardy enough to respond, the issue escalated until she was chased out of the police station in a volley of abuse and scorn for her bad leg. She limped out as fast as she could leaving behind some items and taking along scars from the encounter.

The second story, involved the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of an employee by her foreign employer. Not once in her ordeal and her search for intervention did she mention a discussion with the police to come to her aid. As she sobbed out the facts of the case, the radio presenter kept telling her how God was enough for her and she should not worry. Feeling saddened by this stories, I wondered I am sure like many who listened in, what I would do under these circumstances. Would I take the passive route of crying and trust that the future wrath and punishment of God was enough or would I try to exercise my right as a person and as a citizen of Nigeria to see that those who abused me would be held accountable for their actions so that the risks of someone else suffering like me would be reduced? The thought of going through the judicial process is daunting for any Nigerian especially when there is no certainty that after years of litigation, money and time, one would get justice. How do people who are not formally educated and who have little means even begin to navigate the system?

As I carried these heavy thoughts around in my head, I came upon a post on Facebook where someone shared a report by Daily Trust about a teenage girl in Kano who was forcibly held for weeks by policemen and repeatedly gang raped. This was the final straw for me, I had to find out what support is available for people who don’t just want to cry when their rights, dignity and person have been smashed, stomped on and spat on.

Legal Aid Council of Nigeria has been in existence since 1976 and this is where most Nigerians who cannot afford the services of a lawyer would go for legal services. This is where the serial rape victim went because thankfully there are Legal Aid offices in all the 36 states. However, after thirty-four years of existence, it is not clear how effective the legal aid council is. We do not know their success rate in getting justice for their clients and how well they act as a fierce deterrent for people who commit crimes or cheat others. It is great that there are legal aid offices all over the country, but what is their exact location in each state? This information is not on the website and even if it was, how accessible is the Internet for most Nigerians? Are they open twenty-four hours? Are there hotline numbers which a victim can call at no cost in order to seek advice or help? What are they doing about publicizing their work and highlighting successes?

The Nigerian Human Rights Commission is younger, more active and more visible – maybe because its mandate is unambiguous, unlike the legal aid council whose reach is wider and encompasses all wrongs including human rights. But all the questions asked of the Legal Aid Council can be asked of the NHRC and its website too provides few answers. The NHRC has sponsored awareness campaigns on gender violence, rights of children etc. but has it prosecuted any cases successfully? Has it made an example of anyone? That is what is completely and utterly lacking in Nigeria today and that is why the police and anyone with power over another person can abuse that power with impunity; because no one has been made to pay.

On December 10, the NHRC called on all Nigerians to ‘be defenders’ of human rights. But what does it mean in Nigeria to have human rights when the police seek to prevent you from even verbalizing the words? What does it mean, when the rape victim in the case above is being pressured to ‘drop’ the case instead of being encouraged to punish those who violated her? These questions are even more poignant in the context of the 2011 elections and the call on all Nigerians to protect their votes. History books are peppered with mortals who have struggled to uphold the rights of others; Gandhi, Mandela and most recently Liu Xiabo who is challenging, China the boogey monster of international diplomacy and economic power for the right of Chinese people to elect their leaders. Will any Nigerian(s) keep company with such exalted people?

Yes, we are thankful for the NHRC, Legal Aid Council and human rights crusaders who fight big cases involving the federal and state governments but who is fighting the small cases; the ones which have immediate impact and which make people feel they belong and are cared for by the communities in which they live?

We have to get creative. There is enough donor aid going around to increase the strategic support for the protection of humans rights. Can we get bold about supporting the work of the Legal Aid Council and the NHRC? Will the media donate ‘free’ airtime and pages to the cause just like Kiss FM in Abuja are highlighting issues? Can NYSC make it mandatory for lawyers to spend at least 6 months of their one-year service with the Legal Aid Council? And, can we stop leaving injustice up to God alone? We need to do our part on earth to protect the meek, the weak and the disadvantaged – God has given us all the tools we need – let’s use them instead of watching idly and waiting on the Lord.

If the words ‘human rights’ are banned by our police and we cannot protect our most basic and fundamental right to dignity as human beings then all the talk about protecting our votes, maternal mortality, free education is just that: talk.


(Published in ThisDay's 'The Lawyer' on December 21 2010)

Read more...

3 laws we need right away

There is an intensely exciting phenomenon going on – our political campaigns are becoming more sophisticated - politicians are being held accountable for their utterances. No longer the easy pass which politicians had to say one thing today and a totally different and opposing thing the next day. The pronouncements of General IBB and President Jonathan on June 12 and MEND’s involvement in the October 1st bomb blasts respectively, have been used against them over and over again. And lately, since he emerged as the PDP consensus candidate for the north, Presidential aspirant Atiku is getting a good dose of this medicine. Last week there was a full page advert in one of the daily newspapers reminding us of Atiku’s lacerating words in 2006 when he shredded PDP for being a lawless party. Now four years later, those words are following him around like bees on honey and he will have to account for them.

Wonderful. How can we maintain this momentum and ensure that we continue along this track to keep politicians and those in positions of authority on the tips of their Italian made shoes? I think we should legislate. There must be a few laws which our National Assembly can enact which will help regulate the behaviour of office holders as well as the behaviour of the public as we act as ‘accountability officers’. However, these laws have to start as bills before they become laws and since there are hundreds of bills in the National Assembly, to make life even easier for our overworked legislators maybe we can replace some of the existing bills with new bills which will help foster accountability.

One of the very first laws we need in order to hold the politicians accountable is the Bill to Ensure that Nigerians Remind Politicians of Past Promises. This can safely replace the Witness Protection Programme Bill of 2008 because with the track record of our police and law enforcement agencies, I doubt if any Nigerian would want to risk being part of this programme. This new bill which will make it compulsory for all Nigerians to carefully record the utterances of politicians and use it against them at the right time. This is something the public can easily participate in and it would be fun too. Just think: sometime in 2014 when politicians remember that they are supposed to owe their positions to their constituencies and they hop onto the media wagon, we can call into a program and remind them of their failures and repeat to them verbatim what they said in the past. Then we can sit back and watch or listen to them as they squirm and try to wriggle their way out of their words.

Next I think we should replace the Transportation of Animals (Prohibition of Undue Pain and Suffering) Bill, 2008 with the Receipt of Money, Food, Assistance or Favours from Politicians (Prohibition) Bill. This replacement does not mean that I do not care about animals, on the contrary. It is just that as long as the major means of transportation in Nigeria remains ‘okada/achaba’ and buses built for 20 but packed with 40; then it is hypocritical for the suffering of humans to be ignored for the suffering of animals. This bill would make it a grievous offence for any Nigerian to collect money, food, assistance or any favours from politicians; this way we will never owe them and we can hold them accountable for what rightfully belongs to us without feeling bad. This will mean that we change our orientation from one where we go to them expecting them to solve our financial or procedural problems to one where we expect them to build institutions and processes where we do not need them to personally deal with our issues. The current practice is that when the unexpected happens e.g., we cannot meet financial obligations, we run to the government officials we know and beg them for money. The question we should ask is ‘how are these civil servants able to carry our unexpected costs as well as theirs and everybody else that they know?’ When we get into trouble in the office and our employment is threatened and someone we know in a position of authority ‘sorts it out’ for us, we should ask ‘have they abused their position in working out this deal for us?’ Because every time we ask those in power to compromise themselves to meet needs which should be met not just for us, but for all Nigerians, then we compromise ourselves too. There are hidden costs to expecting our brothers, aunts, grandmothers, fathers, in-laws or friends to use their office for our benefit. One such cost is that when they start we cannot ask them to stop and then the system breaks down and suddenly we can no longer look our friends or family in positions of authority in the face and say ‘you are cheating us’.

Another bill that might be controversial but which all well meaning Nigerians should support is the Prohibition of Politicians, Ministers, Civil Servants and other Officers of Government (including those who have retired) from Acting as Chairpersons of Weddings, Burials and other Ceremonies Bill. Just think of it – this would be a heavy blow and would serve three purposes. The first purpose is that this Bill will help us to become accountable to ourselves and then we become more effective accountability officers. Once we no longer owe these chairpersons for gracing our occasions and giving us expensive gifts such as cars and houses, then we have freed ourselves from the hypocrisy of always defending ‘our own’ government officials from the stain of corruption and mismanagement but constantly pointing at others. In the end every single government official has someone who will defend him/her until the bitter end – so who is guilty of corruption? The second purpose of this bill will be to deflate the egos of these office holders and thus reduce their desire to take so much from government coffers. Face it; what would be the point of that new bulletproof jeep or those five million dollar diamonds if you cannot show off at a party? And the third purpose of the bill would be to replace the National Automotive Design and Development Council Bill, 2008…because if we are still importing toothpicks, then a bill to force people to design a car is simply, pointless.


(Published in ThisDay's 'The Lawyer' December 7 2010)

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP