Much as Nigeria has always been noted for extreme corruption, thus far in 2012, corruption has run amok, prompting Transparency International (TI) to state that “the political situation in Nigeria is more of criminality than governance.” Indeed, in a May 4 letter to President Jonathan, a group of lawyers representing TI decried “the rate and scale of scams and corruption probes coming out of Nigeria in 2012,” noting that “the scope and speed of corruption in [the] country this year is beyond anything our client has ever dealt with.”
TI is right. From January, Nigerians have witnessed a stream of corruption scams involving plenty of stolen state funds. Intriguingly, almost every scam has come with wild accusations and counter-accusations of malfeasance.
The first major corruption scandal in 2012 was that which saw the director of Nigeria’s sports commission, Patrick Ekeji, summoned by the House of Representatives for questioning over misappropriated funds, including ₦1.2mn to create a Facebook account! Closely following that, on February 14, the Senate appropriation committee chairman, Ahmed Maccido, said ₦1tn worth of projects had been smuggled into the 2012 budget by some ministries and departments.
Both cases above were nothing compared to the big three corruption scandals that were soon to roll. These are the capital market scam, the police pension scam and the jumbo fuel subsidy scam.
Firstly, during a March 23 public hearing on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the body charged with regulating Nigeria’s capital market, SEC director, Arunma Oteh, accused Herman Hembe, the house committee chairman, of demanding a ₦44mn bribe from the institution. Oteh also said that Hembe had not returned the estacode he collected for an abortive SEC-sponsored trip. Hembe countered that SEC generated an internal memorandum to “support” the public hearing with a donation of ₦30mn. Hembe since resigned as chairman of the committee on account of the allegations.
When the dust on those bribery allegations settled, on May 7, Oteh said that the former director of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Ndidi Okereke-Onyiuke, spent a whopping ₦1.3bn on business travels during her tenure. She also said a report handed over to her when she assumed office showed that “the NSE spent ₦186mn on 165 Rolex wristwatches as gifts for awardees,” out of which only “73 were presented to the awardees while the outstanding 92 watches valued at ₦99.5mn remain unaccounted for.” A day later, Okereke-Onyuike refuted Oteh’s allegations, rather blaming the capital market’s crash on poor regulation by the SEC and Nigeria’s Central Bank.
Enter the Police Pension Scam. On February 14, former permanent secretary at the Police Pension Fund, Atiku Kigo, admitted to investigators that ₦32.8bn was pilfered from the fund by public officials under his watch. He acknowledged that they deliberately ignored the mechanism put in place to prevent the looting of government funds. On April 2, the senate committee probing the management of the pension fund announced another illegal police pension account with ₦3bn.
Next to surface was the former governor of Nigeria’s Delta State, James Ibori, who pleaded guilty in a British court on February 27, to stealing $250mn of state funds, $50mn more than what China exclusively spent on constructing the new and ultra-modern AU headquarters! Ibori, a sybarite, who had been mysteriously exonerated of similar charges in Nigeria, was sentenced on April 17, to 13 years in prison and is still making money through his companies in Delta State as he either owns or has a major share in a leading construction firm handling several juicy government projects in the state such as that of the new governor’s office and a demolition contract at the Asaba International Airport awarded at ₦7.4bn.
Then came the biggest one – the Fuel Subsidy Scam! Following the widespread public protests that greeted the removal of the fuel subsidy in January, Nigeria’s House of Reps set up a committee to probe the management of the subsidy regime. The committee submitted its report on April 18, with startling revelations of gargantuan fraud of more than ₦1tn between 2009 and December 2011. The report laid much of the blame for the subsidy absurdities on Nigeria’s national oil company, the NNPC, whose board is chaired by Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, and other top former and current federal officers, as well as related agencies like the PPPRA. On the whole, the committee found that ₦2.6tn was spent on the subsidy in 2011 – 900% more than the appropriated sum of ₦245bn! Also, evidence garnered suggests that a huge chunk of the 2011 subsidy funds was paid to select oil marketers during the period immediately preceding and following the April 2011 presidential elections [February to April 2011 and April to August 2011]. Even prima-facie, the sudden quantum-leap in the fuel subsidy payments was not a mistake. Fake submissions for the payments were approved and disbursements were made – and used to finance President Jonathan’s 2011 election. This begs the question about what Jonathan knew concerning the fraudulent subsidy payments and credits allegations that Jonathan put pressure on the Lawan subsidy probe committee to water down its report in the “interest of the nation”. It also supposes that Jonathan perfunctorily removed the fuel subsidy in January to keep his friends off the hook.
It is very shameful, still, that Jonathan, whose government maintains a 72% recurrent expenditure for 2012 as against a paltry 28% for capital, allocated ₦857mn to feed himself in one year. This, in itself, is corruption!
Reacting to the mind-boggling proportions of corruption, Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka said: “One can no longer use words like disdain and contempt. We are being dehumanized. Just as we thought we had recovered from the pension scam, along came a humongous, material assault on the resources of the ordinary people.”
Lamenting that “The fuel subsidy [probe] revealed an organised banditry which, in the words of Farouk Lawan, “can hardly be rivalled in the history of a warped budget management of any nation anywhere in the world,” Pastor Tunde Bakare, a paladin for justice, and his Save Nigeria Group, on May 14, instituted a legal action against Nigeria’s government for disbursing ₦2.5tn for subsidy payments instead of the approved ₦245bn, promising that it would not allow the probe reports to be swept under the carpet like others in the past, and calling on Nigerians to be vigilant.
In all, a situation in which the Petroleum Minister claimed that “the NNPC no longer imports petrol” and the Customs countered that “the NNPC still does; they imported petrol in December,” as well as where Nigeria’s Central Bank on January 24 put the “actual” total subsidy payments on fuel imports in 2011 at ₦1.7tn, an excess of ₦300bn above the ₦1.4tn figure given a week before by the Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaks volumes of the systemic laxity that makes frugality to be farfetched, and aids and abets corruption, to the benefit of Nigeria’s putrid and ignoble oligarchs.
Follow me on Twitter, @Raymond_Eyo
President Goodluck Jonathan visited France in November 2011 to meet with some French investors. He also secured a French loan to the tune of $100 million after he met his counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy. Jonathan used the Sarkozy audience to, among other things, solicit France’s assistance to tackle the Boko Haram menace.
Beyond that, however, and whilst not justifying the French loan Jonathan took, Nigeria must now appreciate the unsolicited ‘gift’ of France’s exemplary political culture that was once again on sublime display at her just ended 2012 presidential elections. Nigeria has plenty of lessons to learn from this latest amiable chapter of French politics! Such of these lessons include the following…
First and foremost, French politics is particularly unique for its solid ideological blueprint. Fair enough, extreme ideological persuasions could sometimes lead to democratic stalemate as the recent case with the US Congress shows. But, almost all the time, a politics of ideology where fine distinctions could be made between the candidates and their various parties’ platforms and manifestos, such as is in vogue in France, is a joker for the strengthening of democracy in that it makes it easy for the electorate to rationally decipher where to pitch their tent.
Secondly, Nigeria must copy from French politics the practice that denies a governing party the selfish, divisive perception that it can remain in power for as long it desires. Nigeria’s ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) likes to think of itself as politically disposed to governing Nigeria for generations. A former national chairman of the party once said the PDP will be in power for at least the next 60 years! When politicians make such silly comments, it simply shows that their interest is not in governing aright but in wielding power at any cost for their own selfish interests. Harvard Professor of International Development, Calestous Juma, says: “Political parties [are] tools of democracy, not delivery vehicles for political leaders.” When asked what would happen if he lost the elections, defeated French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, simply and unhesitatingly said, “There will be a handover of power. The nation is stronger than the destinies of the men who serve it!”
Yet another lesson Nigeria should endeavour to learn from France is that of a politics that guarantees an incumbent’s defeat if he doesn’t deliver irrespective of whether he created prevailing problems or not! I have encountered a handful of Nigerians who attempt to excuse the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, on the premise that many of the problems Nigeria is faced with today didn’t begin with him! No one denies that. But then, when someone puts himself up to be president, he is accepting responsibility for all that the country is facing. We must evolve a system wherein, like the French, if a president or any other elected official cannot deliver, even in his first term, he or she should be fired! For all his merits, especially on the international scene, Sarkozy understood this fact. Indeed, he fully accepted responsibility for his defeat at the polls! The presidency is not a platform for on-the-job training. The welfare, and in some cases, the survival, of many people depends on the policies and actions that the president makes and takes. There is no room for mediocrity!
In addition, the overall civility and tolerance of the French political establishment throughout this hotly contested campaign should further remind us that politics is not a do-or-die affair! It is only in an atmosphere of maturity, civility and tolerance such as the French have shown, that an incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, lost an election by 48.33% to his opponent’s 51.67% and yet we don’t hear of any civil uprising or threats of violence by his supporters.
Above all, one pertinent lesson Nigerians must themselves learn from the sterling example of the latest episode of France’s inspiring democratic practice is that sovereignty lies with the people and they must not fail to use it at every given opportunity in determining those who should govern them. Turnout was very high in both the first and second rounds of the 2012 French presidential elections. Whilst the first round was pegged at above 80%, the second round was said to hover around 75%! Indeed, the high turnout was majorly influenced by prevailing economic hardships. This explains what Prof. Juma meant when he said: “French voters have made it clear that economies serve people and not the other way round.”
In life, we excel when we emulate the positive examples of those who have gone ahead of us. From the French Revolution in 1789 till date, France has evolved a sound political-cum-democratic culture worthy to be emulated by a nation with a nascent democracy like Nigeria.
NB: The French President-Elect, Francois Hollande, told his friends at age 15 that his dream was to become president someday! Today, at age 57, he has fulfilled that dream! Hopefully, Hollande’s motivation, rooted in his psyche, will urge him to do his utmost best for his country. For Nigeria, this is a lesson that indicts our system which has produced mostly unwilling and accidental folks as our president – with unsurprisingly below par leadership performances.
GOD bless Nigeria!
Follow me on Twitter @Raymond_Eyo
Ordinarily, Liberia’s President, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, 73, would not be the subject of a blog article of mine. But after reading her feature article attempting to justify President Goodluck Jonathan’s inclusion in TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people rankings for 2012 on April 18, I cannot help but seek to clarify some of the disingenuous facts in it.
Johnson-Sirleaf embarrassingly said Jonathan “possesses the qualities needed at this moment of great challenges.” She added that “In two short years, President Jonathan has shown… the dexterity to find the remedies to [Nigeria’s] many complexities.” As if that was not enough, Sirleaf outrageously claimed that “[Nigeria] has grown out of its past of corruption, mismanagement and brutality…”
Any honest and objective observer of the Nigerian political scenario would disagree with Sirleaf’s obviously flawed postulations above. Time without number, Jonathan has demonstrated that he sorely lacks the qualities of a good leader, not to talk about the kind of leader Nigeria needs. Jonathan has been very insensitive to the plight of Nigerians. To cite examples as proof of that would take a full article. Also, it is such a big deception for Sirleaf to profess that Nigeria has grown out of corruption and mismanagement. Indeed, less than 24 hours after her article was made public, the House of Representatives panel on the management of the fuel subsidy funds revealed large-scale fraud of more than ₦1 trillion between 2009 and December 2011. Recently, Nigeria has been awash with news of huge pension funds stolen by senior state officials as well as accusations and counter-accusations of bribery in almost every sector or agency probe as for instance in that which involved Arunma Oteh, the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Indeed, the jumbo salaries of legislators and the ₦1bn 2012 feeding allowance of the presidency themselves comprise a form of official corruption by greed!
It is worth noting that Johnson-Sirleaf has often been enmeshed in controversy. In 2010, Sirleaf announced that she was going to run for a second term, backtracking on an earlier commitment she made in 2005, before she became president. Also, Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission which she created in 2006, included her in a list of fifty persons that it wanted barred from holding public office, for her role in Liberia’s first civil war.
Recently, in what has become her nepotic trait, Johnson-Sirleaf made one of her sons, Charles Sirleaf, the Deputy Governor of Liberia’s Central Bank and another, Robert Sirleaf, the board chair of Liberia’s national oil company (NOCOL). Robert is concurrently serving as a senior advisor to his mother. It should be recalled that Sirleaf’s brother, Ambulai Johnson, served as Liberia’s Interior Minister in her first term.
Ostensibly, it would not be out of place to think that Sirleaf’s article on Jonathan is akin to the sweet-talk that is characteristic of a typical African sycophant especially when there are lucrative deals at stake as indeed, they are, in the case between Nigeria and Liberia, with the latter receiving over 30,000 barrels of oil per day from the former. With her son chairing NOCOL’s board, the script is made even more inviting.
For some like me who passionately support women’s foray into politics, especially in Africa, Sirleaf has become a huge disappointment. Thankfully, a second African female president has just emerged in Malawi’s Joyce Banda.
Banda has officially stated that she doesn’t want to be addressed as “Madam President” but rather, simply as “Mrs Joyce Banda.” It remains to be seen, though, if that symbolic but inconsequential gesture will translate into Banda not abusing the privileges of her high office, and concentrating on doing the right things to prove that women can make a positive difference – a thing that is fast eluding Liberia’s Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf!
Follow me on Twitter @Raymond_Eyo
On March 24, 2012, at its national convention, Nigeria’s governing People’s Democratic Party descended to a new low on youth empowerment when it chose a sexagenarian, Umar Chiza, as its National Youth Leader for the next four years. By the way, the United Nations considers a youth as someone between 15 and 24!
It is not surprising that the PDP can afford such a categorical unorthodoxy to squarely undervalue the youth. For its 12+ years at the helm of affairs in Nigeria, the PDP has almost nothing tangible to show regarding youth empowerment.
While many high-ranking PDP members have carped against criticism of the Chiza choice as National Youth Leader, it remains a fact that the PDP uses its national offices to provide ‘jobs for its boys,’ as it has often done with most government appointments.
My core beef with having a 60-year old man as a ruling party’s national youth leader is premised on the fact that such a person lacks the agility and natural disposition to resonate with the young people he is supposed to lead and when there is such a disconnect, leadership can never be effective. The PDP’s Constitution states that “the National Youth Leader shall [mobilise] the [party’s] youth” and “[initiate and implement] strategic programmes and policies aimed at endearing the party to the Nigerian youth.” Having Chiza, a sexagenarian, as National Youth Leader just does not reflect the letter and spirit of that extant constitutional prescription as the youth leader’s advanced age would ordinarily scare away rather than endear Nigerian youths to the party.
My friend, Offiong Eyo, decried the scenario occasioned by Chiza’s emergence when he said, “Please Nigerians, can someone help tell me what age range qualifies as youth? I just watched PDP national youth vanguard and after seeing the participants, I’m not sure anymore of who is a youth. Seriously I’m confused.”
It is ironical that Nigeria, a country which has recently produced two student union presidents for prominent British universities, Oxford and Cambridge, has a ruling party whose youth leader is 60! That Nigerians, Lewis Iwu and Tom Chigbo, became the first black president of the Oxford University Students’ Union in 2008, and the first black president of the Cambridge University Students’ Union in 2009, respectively, are feats that depict the ingenuity that the Nigerian youth possesses, and which must be given the policy and political enablement to thrive.
Admittedly, all is not well with many segments of Nigeria’s youth. Time and again, we hear of fake youth corpers and youth who will go to any extent to be tools for political violence and thuggery. Educational standards are also not helping matters for the youth. Without jobs and sufficient electric power to drive the growth of small businesses, the average Nigerian youth faces the temptation to indulge in many unhealthy practices. This in itself is one reason why important platforms that can significantly influence pro-youth empowerment policies should not be entrusted into the hands of someone who, in the first place, is not a youth!
Also, there’s a high chance a sexagenarian would lose out on platforms that border on youth interests. The ideal modern youth leader should, for example, be active on social media to take the pulse of youth concerns from some of our country’s most informed and conscious young men and women. I may disagree with him many at times, but Ohimai Ahaize, 27, the special assistant on advocacy to the Minister of Youth Development, is attempting to do just that. There are many like him within the PDP who would have qualified as National Youth Leader.
A party that is futuristic and genuinely cares to empower the youth in its ranks will use the portfolio of its National Youth Leader to groom potential future leaders. My friend, Chinedu Ekeke, recently wrote that “There must be a certain level of grooming, earlier-on in life, for whoever wants to be a public servant. The mindset of leadership is cultivated over time.” In Norway, for example, Eskil Pedersen, 28, is the leader of the ruling Labour Party’s Youth League. In South Africa, the ruling ANC’s Youth League states in its constitution that, “Membership of the ANCYL shall be open to all South African youth between the ages of 14 and 35…” This unequivocally means that the ANCYL’s leaders are always in their youth peak of late 20s and early 30s and can brace up for national duties thereafter.
When youth are given the chance in politics, there is a tendency that national leaders would emerge in their prime. It is precisely this reality that made Tony Blair and David Cameron British Prime Ministers at 44 and 43, respectively. On his part, Ed Miliband was elected Leader of the opposition Labour Party at the age of 41 and may well be on his way to soon succeeding Cameron!
That the PDP has a sexagenarian as its National Youth Leader is sufficient reason to awaken all conscious Nigerian youth to resolutely and pragmatically engage in recovering our country from the plutocratic oligarchy and semi-gerontocracy that it presently is. Adeeko Gbaja has already declared that “To the youths, [GOD] has given the power to change this nation.” We have what it takes to chart a new course for our beloved country, Nigeria.
Talking strategy for example, my good friend, Opemipo Adebanjo, urges that, “The marvellous new militancy which has engulfed the youth community on Twitter and other platforms will be our weapon of change.”
If Nigerian youth would become more politically-conscious and involved, a disdainful situation where any party would have a sexagenarian as youth leader would certainly be forestalled!
GOD bless Nigeria!
Follow me on Twitter @Raymond_Eyo
The machinery of government is supposed to be designed to expeditiously deliver on the formulation and implementation of government policies, programs and projects. Sadly, in the case of Nigeria, this has been the rare exception rather than the rule. However, in a feigned effort to be perceived as making pragmatic effort to fast-track its deliverable obligations, Nigeria’s federal government – especially under Umaru Yar’Adua, and more prominently under Goodluck Jonathan, has resorted to creating committees on virtually every Dick, Tom and Harry issue of national concern.
Ordinarily, committees should add further depth to the government’s performance since a committee is special group delegated to consider some pressing matter. Not in Nigeria’s case, though! By all intents and purposes, most committees under President Jonathan have just not been necessary and where necessary, they have not been effective enough. What’s more? Where they have been even minimally effective, their modest and sometimes honest recommendations have often been ignored.
It must be this sad scenario that prompted prominent satirist, Stanley Azuakola to write that, “The presidential spokesman has explained government’s decision to set up committees for every issue under the sun. He said: “Firstly, it is for pride and innovation sake. Just as ancient Greeks brought about democracy, who says modern Nigeria can’t invent committeocracy – the government of the committees, by the committees and for the committees.”
The number of committees Jonathan has created is simply overwhelming. No reasonable government devolves so much of its direct responsibilities to any group of people whether they are qualified or not. At best, it amounts to the absence of diligence on that government’s part.
Most of the committees the Jonathan administration has created have simply not made sense. Consider the following two examples of the Committee to Review the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) Report on Environmental Degradation in Ogoni and the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force.
Following the publication of that UNEP report on the destruction of the environment in Ogoni in particular and elsewhere in the Niger Delta, caused by massive oil spills, Jonathan created a committee to “advise the government on how to respond to [it].” The committee was yet to meet as at February 2012, six months after the report was published, and its membership did not include any representative of Ogoniland – the immediate affected community. Even so, what really is the usefulness of such a committee? UNEP released a comprehensive report with clear recommendations needing urgent, decisive implementation. There absolutely was no point creating a committee on the report.
Another crazy committee which Jonathan created and gave it an impossible task is the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force – created on February 28, 2012 and charged to probe and clean up the entire oil industry – in sixty working days! Headed by Nuhu Ribadu, the committee/task-force has essentially been created to perform the duties of the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to whom it is intriguingly directly accountable. While inaugurating the task force, Alison-Madueke said several attempts to reform the oil industry had failed because of vested interests. How could she then expect a sixty-day attempt by anyone to succeed at that? Indeed, in a similar fashion, the federal government created another taskforce and assigned it to revive Nigeria’s refineries in sixty days! An obsession with very likely failure, you would say! My friend, Adenike Adebayo, reacted to it this way: “They wake up in the morning and they don’t know what to do so they put committees together to perform magic.”
Such obvious lapses and blatant disregard for purposefulness in the creation of committees is what US businessman and politician, Henry Ross Perot, meant when he wisely said, “If you see a snake, just kill it. Don’t appoint a committee on snakes.”
Another problem with the committees Jonathan has created is the number of the members they comprise. On August 19, 2011, for example, President Jonathan expanded the Presidential Economic Management Team (EMT) comprising government and private sector personalities. He also set up a fifteen-member Economic Implementation Team which he charged with overseeing the effective implementation of the decisions of the EMT, whatever that means, and to help ensure that the goals of the federal government are attained. Ironically, some of the selfsame members of the cabal responsible for the plundering of funds meant for the fuel subsidy like Femi Otedola are members of the EMT which has done little to alleviate the burgeoning poverty in the land. A better example Jonathan would do well to emulate is that in 1993, wherein then US President Bill Clinton formed a council of only three pragmatic economic advisers to provide sound economic advice, and it worked like magic and boosted America’s economic growth throughout his tenure.
Yet another problem with Jonathan’s committees besides the lack of substance in their creation or the number of members they have is that the government scarcely implements their recommendations. Proving this claim, on February 12, 2012, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on the 2011 Election Violence and Civil Disturbances (formed in August 2011), Sheikh Ahmad Lemu, expressed disappointment on how the federal government rejected the committee’s spot-on recommendations, while constituting a white paper drafting committee on their report which was presented on October 10, 2011. Lemu expressed dismay that the government was reluctant to include any member of the investigation panel as a member of the white paper committee, in order to make them truly understand the basic recommendations of the report.
Courtesy of this gloomy ‘committeeocratic’ caricature of governance under Jonathan, activist and blogger, Oluwaseun Fakuade wrote that “The only thing visibly working [in Nigeria today], asides corruption, is [the] setting up of committees…” Complementing this view, another prominent blogger and activist, Japheth Omojuwa said, “One success you cannot deny [President Jonathan] is that he has created more committees than Nigeria will ever need. Committees don’t solve national problems. If they did Nigeria would be a haven today. The tragedy of a presidential single story: set up a committee for every problem.” Indeed, even Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Jonathan’s Central Bank Governor, said on March 22, 2012 that “We have all sorts of committees and panels set up right now. NEITI is supposed to do exactly what Ribadu is billed to do.”
In her captivating #PublicPolicy101 tweet series, former Education Minister and outgoing World Bank Vice-President for Africa, Oby Ezekwesili, pointed out that “It will take a menu of structural changes to [Nigeria’s] political economy to tackle dysfunction.” Ezekwesili added that, “The quest for quick solutions in the face of grievous dysfunction… seldom delivers.” As we have seen above, committees are often formed to proffer quick solutions whereas a structural overhaul, for instance, that should see the 72% worth of wasteful recurrent spending interchanged with the outrageously minuscule 28% capital spending is what is truly desirable and germane for Nigeria. This is even more so when we realise that creating committees further adds to our already immense recurrent spending.
Nigeria cannot afford to continue this costly and dysfunctional government by committeeocracy! Jonathan, beware!
For further reading:
Jonathan’s government by committees: http://www.punchng.com/editorial/jonathans-government-by-committees/
Jonathan and the excessive use of committees: http://www.punchng.com/viewpoint/jonathan-and-the-excessive-use-of-committees/
A rash of committees: http://www.punchng.com/viewpoint/a-rash-of-committees/
Following Robert Zoellick’s indication to step down as President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), at the end of his 5-year term in June 2012, on March 2, prominent development economist, Special Advisor on MDGs to the UN Secretary-General, and Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, 58, threw his hat into the ring. I believe his candidature has plenty of merit both for Nigeria in particular, and for the world at large.
However, given the exclusivity with which Americans have occupied that crucial global development management office since the institution was created in 1945, it is relevant to hear calls to now allow a non-American, and preferably someone from the emerging economies to be given a shot. I agree with this reform-driven desire. But then, at the same time, another major reform aspect which has often been undermined is that those who have been appointed World Bank President in the past have mostly been Wall Street bankers or Washington bureaucrats and politicians with very little expertness on actual development challenges and issues.
Professor Jeff Sachs’ candidature is a paradigm shift from that coterie. He possesses the requisite professional capacity and wide-ranging international experience needed to lead the World Bank at this point in time. Besides, he is a Washington outsider and a technocratic maverick.
As a student of Development Studies and a concerned Nigerian and African, I have scrutinised and believe strongly that Prof. Sachs’ World Bank presidency will be good for Nigeria. During the recent nationwide crisis that greeted the removal of the fuel subsidy for instance, on separate occasions, he spent valuable time tweet-chatting with a few Nigerian activists and making his views known on the issue. I was privileged to be one such Nigerian. In my January 8, 2012 chat with him, he pointedly said: “I believe the [Nigerian] government didn’t prepare [the fuel subsidy removal policy] well… I support OccupyNigeria’s fight for clean and honest government.” Sachs added: “I am a fan of Nigeria’s civil society and no friend of corruption… Keep up your efforts for good governance.” You can see the full chat here: http://raymondeyo.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/my-tweet-chat-with-prof-sachs-un-sgs-special-advisor-on-the-fuel-subsidy-removal/
The venerated economics professor’s views were as straightforward as his openness and candour were remarkable. Despite his very busy schedule, Prof. Sachs devoted that much time with me to make those sterling points on issues in Nigeria. Very few Nigerians in such high positions of authority will so humble themselves and speak with the forthrightness that Sachs did.
While I am not an advocate of dependency on aid, it is important to underscore that the World Bank has gone beyond just being an instrument for it. Indeed, Prof. Sachs is himself opposed to increases in foreign aid. He prefers a judicious and systematic management of the Bank’s existing resources. Meantime, the Bank’s highly technical assistance to boosting Nigeria’s agriculture, for instance, is something to cherish particularly given how much great benefit our economy can reap from that vital sector. Also, the Bank is leading many climate-change mitigation initiatives across the globe which we will do well to be part of. To sustain and multiply these positive efforts, the World Bank needs someone with the hands-on experience like Jeffrey Sachs!
Pending much-needed broader reforms of the global governance system, I reckon that US President Barack Obama, who has the prerogative to nominate the World Bank President before an election by the Bank’s Board of Directors, had pledged during his 2008 campaign to undertake a multilateral approach to global affairs as against his predecessor’s ruthless unilateralism. In that light, whilst Obama has welcomed the emerging nations, admired their rise and supported the G20 as a major decision-making forum for global economic affairs, he should use his lone World Bank presidency nomination to further reflect that dynamic multilateralism by nominating Sachs – a man who is more a citizen of the world than otherwise.
Prof. Sachs, one of the world’s leading experts on sustainable development, has got an international reckoning and reputation unmatched by his peers whether in the West or in the emerging nations and President Obama will do both himself and the world a favour by nominating Sachs. Sachs has made Obama’s job even easier by embarking on what the BBC describes as “an unusually public campaign [for the job].” Sachs is not resting on his laurels. He is pragmatically reaching out to nations and other World Bank stakeholders – literally campaigning for them to back his bid – and they are responding positively.
The world has reached a point where we cannot allow mediocrity in the governance of institutions that have a huge bearing on, especially, the survival of many of the world’s poor. We must give leadership to those who truly have the heart and the head to make the difference. For this present World Bank presidency purpose, it is Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs who fittingly and unequivocally squares up!
NB
To further appreciate why Prof. Sachs deserves to be the next World Bank President, I invite you to read these:
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/jeffrey-sachs-world-bank_b_1314363.html
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/04/jeffrey-sachs-beat-world-poverty
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs
I have great respect for Bishop David Oyedepo both as an outstanding Christian minister and as a man who has contributed to boosting Nigeria’s modest progress. As is well-known, Oyedepo has given Nigeria two private universities so far and remains a major moral voice in the country.
Nonetheless, I was taken aback when, in the midst of the myriad of challenges Nigeria is currently faced with, he recently said if Nigeria were to split between North and South, so be it! Oyedepo said, “If the nation will break, let it break. Marriage is not by force.”
Instructively, in a 2003 prophetic statement, Bishop Oyedepo had said Nigeria was going to be a great country by 2013 in Africa and beyond. Admittedly, he has taught that prophecies don’t fulfil themselves – that people take responsibility to fulfil prophecies. Which is why I’m worried that coming on the backdrop of numerous challenges that Nigeria is facing, it is not the most appropriate responsibility to make potentially divisive or tension-inducing statements like the one he made above. If Oyedepo really believes Nigeria is going to be great as he had prophesied, he should know better that, like Job in the Bible, challenges ought not to make him speak less of that belief. Indeed, challenges ought not to make us speak less of our faith in Nigeria’s great destiny!
Bishop Oyedepo and other Christian ministers who hold similar pseudo-divisive opinions about Nigeria should borrow a leaf from Pastor Chris Oyakhilome whose passion for Nigeria is explained by his many passionate public comments in her favour as well as his ministry’s special publications on Nigeria such as the 50th Independence Anniversary Rhapsody. Prophet T. B. Joshua is another minister whose efforts for Nigeria’s good should be emulated. His recent gesture to deliver truck loads of food aid to some Borno State communities, and his regular scholarship grants and other forms of assistance to poor and helpless Nigerians are some of the many pragmatic ways in which Christian leaders can contribute to Nigeria’s progress.
In times of challenges, the last thing leaders of conscience can do is to say things that are prevaricate or that could further spell uncertainty. This particular comment by Oyedepo doesn’t add any value to stakeholder efforts to make Nigeria better. It just shouldn’t have been said!
Bishop Oyedepo will rather efficiently spend his energies on speaking up against the astronomical and increasing rates of social injustice in Nigeria as Ahmed Sule has invited him and a select few of other leading Christian ministers to do so here: http://saharareporters.com/article/plea-seven-ministers-god-we-need-nigerian-christian-leadership-conference.
It is true that marriage is not by force but it is better, especially from a core Christian perspective to seek to mend, than to discard, a frosty marriage. Oyedepo should know this better as his wife is a great marriage counsellor and teacher in her own right.
Those calling for Nigeria’s split should learn a lesson from oil-rich South-Sudan: The predominantly Christian population of Southern Sudan has had quite some deadly conflicts less than a year after independence from their mainly Muslim brothers in the North. In late December 2011, for instance, more than 3,000 people were brutally massacred in the new country in a bloody ethnic violence over cattle ownership. This confirms that beyond the issues of discord with Northern Sudan, access to resources has been problematic in South Sudan as it can be anywhere else – including in a ‘Southern Nigerian Republic’.
Nigeria’s core problem is clearly not the diversity of her people. Rather, it is corruption that has eaten deep into the fabric of our commonality, depriving Nigerians from both the North and the South of the country the needed opportunities to lead a good life. This proofs that denied access to resources is at the base of Nigeria’s problems just like in South Sudan’s case and shouldn’t be construed to be a North-South fractious dichotomy.
In this globalisation era, countries, the world over, are embracing cultural diversity and are still cohabiting peacefully. Diversity and population strengths are a plus in this age and Nigeria cannot afford to take that lightly. It would be wrong for any Nigerian to therefore undermine our country’s multicultural character and attempt to premise its present hardships on that, with the mistaken calculation that those hardships will melt away if the country was split. Beyond cultural diversity, there are a lot more gains for a united than for a divided Nigeria: Higher economic growth potentials, a huge blend of agrarian and mining capacity, a much larger domestic market, a greater and more respected voice in the comity of nations, etc. My friend, Adenike Adebayo, says of our country’s pristine physical endowments: “[Nigeria is a] land of infinite diversity! From lowlands to grasslands to the sahel and back to lush rainforests.” Another friend, Mahmood Badaru, says, “Our cultural differences [comprise] a colourful heritage [and] should be our binding force…” We must safeguard Nigeria’s unity for posterity’s good!
Let me make a Biblical allusion to why I really fault the mostly venerated Bishop Oyedepo’s comment: The Bible teaches that the Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ. For a very long time, Jesus’ bride, the Church, has been an unfaithful partner with many inconsistencies, discordances, and malpractices but Jesus has not called for a split! Jesus continues to believe in His marriage to His bride and continues to encourage her to do the right things. The lesson here is that whilst there may presently be issues of strain between Nigeria’s North and South, imaginary or real, it does not suffice to split Nigeria in two, along those lines – with the naive excuse that marriage is not by force.
When Gaddafi pointedly called for Nigeria to be split in two in 2009 following the crisis sparked by late President Yar’Adua’s long absence, many a Nigerian cleric from both Christian and Muslim sides fervidly condemned him. Oyedepo would surely not want to be cited in Gaddafi’s class as one who made a statement suggestive of not being opposed to such a dissentious call.
Bishop Oyedepo’s ministry will certainly continue to grow – in Africa and beyond but Nigeria will always remain its base. Consequently, Oyedepo will do well to rather pray for peace in Nigeria just as Psalms 122:6 says; as well as to work for Nigeria to remain one – Psalm 122:3 paraphrased says, “[Nigeria] is built as a [country] that is compact together [united].”
Out of their sinister motives, an American agency, some years back, said Nigeria will split in 2015. In fact, in 2008, the US Army began war games, test-prospecting its response to Nigeria’s projected break-up. Out of his supposedly divinely inspired prophetic utterance, Oyedepo, in 2003, said Nigeria would be a great country from 2013 onwards. It would be telling if Oyedepo were to now lend credence to the American projection rather than to what should be a revelation from GOD to him regarding Nigeria’s coming greatness.
I have made public this well-intentioned disagreement with Bishop Oyedepo on this subject because Nigeria is bigger than all of us and, as great a man of GOD as he is, Bishop Oyedepo is also fallible. It is my prayer that Nigeria soon overcomes her present challenges and that Bishop Oyedepo makes amends for this unfortunate gaffe by continuing to be the blessing he is to our beloved country!
GOD bless Nigeria!
Former Delta State governor, James Ibori, pleaded guilty in a British court on February 27, 2012, to stealing $250 million of Nigerian state funds which he spent sordidly on luxury houses, cars and a private jet.
Ibori, the governor of Nigeria’s oil-rich Delta State from 1999 to 2007, admitted the money-laundering charges after a six-year chase by Britain’s Department for International Development which funds the London Metropolitan Police’s proceeds of corruption unit (POCU), which investigated the case.
Pending his sentencing on April 16 and 17, 2012, it suffices to examine how significant Ibori’s guilty plea is to Nigeria. The very first significance of it is that it will greatly rekindle nationwide and international calls for a more pragmatic and aggressive fight against corruption in Africa’s most populous nation. Indeed, the Ibori guilty plea comes at a time when popular discontent with corruption and waste in government circles is at an all-time high and tempers are flaring amidst rumours that the Jonathan administration, which has made very little headway against what is clearly Nigeria’s biggest problem, will go for full deregulation as from April 1, 2012, and further plunge the masses to more suffering whilst condoning the monsters and looters.
Secondly, it is interesting that Ibori had been exonerated of similar charges by a Nigerian court in 2009 after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed a case against him in December 2007. This turn of events is therefore a fitting indictment of our judicial system which is quite guilty of corruption itself as the recent Salami/Katsina-Alu saga showed. It is a shame that Ibori pleaded guilty in a British court after a Nigerian court had declared him free. It is an indication that the judges who set Ibori free should themselves be put on trial for abetting corruption! The independence and integrity of the judiciary remains an indispensable prerequisite for a serious fight against corruption.
Also, on February 4, 2011, WikiLeaks documents stated that the Yar’Adua administration, with its Justice Minister, Michael Aondoakaa, had demanded that the United Kingdom dropped corruption charges against James Ibori. A diplomatic cable from the US embassy in London claimed that Aondoakaa attempted to blackmail British officials into abandoning the corruption case. It is not unthinkable that this actually happened because Ibori bankrolled the PDP’s 2007 presidential campaigns which produced Yar’Adua.
Another important significance of the Ibori guilty plea is that the British authorities began investigating Ibori in 2005 and didn’t give up until now whereas in Nigeria, charges are hastily dropped after corrupt politicians are rushed to the EFCC and their party and other bureaucratic barons intervene to stop cases against them. With that in mind, it won’t be too much to ask for the EFCC, in the interest of justice, to now revisit other graft cases against former politicians after Ibori’s eventual guilty plea. For instance, former governors Joshua Dariye (Plateau) and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha (Bayelsa) are both still wanted in the UK for corruption. Perhaps, the EFCC should collaborate with foreign anti-crime agencies like the UK’s and check the past records of all our former office holders especially from 1999. There are many bigger Iboris in the system – some are even still in office as governors, senators, ministers and so on.
Furthermore, Ibori’s case has greatly exposed the weaknesses in the internal structure of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP); a party which had maintained power at the centre since 1999 and also controls more than two-thirds of Nigeria’s states. For one, Ibori, a former convict, ought never to have become governor. The PDP’s selection process that allowed his candidature was heavily flawed as is the case till this day. Also, the PDP accepted a great deal of funds from Ibori for its 2007 presidential bid without properly investigating the source of his wealth. What’s more? Ibori was touted as a likely running mate to late President Yar’Adua in 2011! For a party that prides itself as Africa’s largest, vicious developments like these only go to confirm how corrupt it is.
On the whole, the Ibori $250m theft only goes to emphasise how much corruption is Nigeria’s greatest bane. For President Jonathan, who on October 14, 2011, naively argued that infrastructure, not corruption, was Nigeria’s biggest problem, he should be schooled as to how many rural roads, health centres and schools $250m can fetch!
GOD help Nigeria!
I have many issues with the West and especially with the United Kingdom and the United States, but you can’t take it from them at times. Have you ever visited the official website of the British Prime Minister’s residence at www.number10.gov.uk or that of the US Presidency at www.whitehouse.gov? These websites depict organisational brilliance and professional sublimeness at their very best! They are awe-inspiring fountains of knowledge on the histories and operations of these world-renown edifices.
Even our own African brother-giant, South Africa, better appreciates the importance of giving its presidency a befitting and eye-catching website. At www.thepresidency.gov.za, the South African presidency is officially treated to a website of the classic standard of the Western countries mentioned above. The Ghanaian presidency’s website, at www.presidency.gov.gh, is equally very organised and attractive.
By contrast, the official website of the Aso Rock Villa, the Nigerian President’s official residence at www.nigeriafirst.org is an utter disgrace, providing very little information about the Villa itself or of past presidents/heads of state. In addition, pictures on this website are shaped improperly and information provided there is scarcely detailed and comprehensive. In fact, the computer graphics alone are no better than what obtains in some recycled blogs! Added to that, it is an insult that in the information age, updates from the presidency’s official website are often behind time.
Rather than spend billions of Naira each year refurbishing the furniture or the dome in the Aso Villa or N1billion on food, why not spend a negligible token to bring the Villa’s official website up to speed with a truly modern outlook? Indeed, rather than buy more aircraft to add to an already saturated presidential fleet, why not invest funds in things that add value to the State House and boost tourists’ and investors’ interest in the system the more? Moreover, rather than appoint political cronies of senior PDP party stalwarts or some other lacklustre or pseudo-professionals who evidently don’t possess the technical know-how to man this vital national image-making website, why not get the best brains in the land to do the job?
Surely, it won’t be too much to ask for if I say Reno Omokri, the Special Assistant to President Jonathan on new media should play a more active role in seeking a much-needed upgrade of Aso Rock’s official website. This guy’s current duties seem to circulate around only posting tweets on statements or issues from the presidency and in the facebook page he created for the same purpose. Surely, Nigeria can get more value for the huge salary that Reno and his ilk earn at the State House.
Also, with his decade-long experience in top media circles in Nigeria, President Jonathan’s Senior Media Adviser/Assistant, Reuben Abati, should know better that in the modern world, an official website has a vital role to play in boosting the image and perception of an institution as important as a state house. Abati would do a better job working to upgrade the present sham Aso Rock has in an official website than engage in wasteful and unprofessional reactions to writings by opinion-leaders.
Nigeria is a great country. There’s absolutely no doubt about that; present challenges notwithstanding. Consequently, anything that can potentially and practically serve as a window to our government, especially the presidency, must be tailored to reflect that.
GOD bless Nigeria!
After observing a trend of major embarrassing and ridiculous foreign policy actions by President Goodluck Jonathan in the period leading up to January 2011, I wrote a damning piece entitled President Jonathan’s Foreign Policy Blunders which was published in the February 2011 issue of the prominent pan-African monthly, New African magazine. Vide http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/432/532/8283/2/4.
The blunders I cited, like for instance, when Jonathan naively announced, soon after the 2010 World Cup, that he was pulling Nigeria out of all FIFA engagements for two years, clearly violating an existing statute, only to disgracefully backtrack a few days later following a warning from FIFA, were so glaring that they didn’t need a rigorous political mind like mine to decipher.
For the benefit of the doubt, one would have said Jonathan was only a few months old in the presidency then and really was yet to master how to go about, especially, the tough domain of foreign policy.
Fast-forward to January 28, 2012. On this auspicious first day of the 18th Ordinary Session of the African Union assembly, credible news reports emerged from diverse local and international news agencies that President Goodluck Jonathan was going to bid for the one-year rotational African Union chairmanship – since the slot had been given to the West African region. Without thinking, I, like many other discerning Nigerians immediately picked holes with the idea and took turns to lambast Jonathan for it on twitter and otherwise. Jonathan must be a very clueless president indeed to have even given the idea a thought. Here’s why.
To begin with, Jonathan evidently has the most pressing domestic agenda in West Africa in 2012 if not beyond. From security to much-needed petroleum industry reforms, to combating extreme corruption to education, agriculture, infrastructure and others, Jonathan’s domestic plate is so full that only if he didn’t realise that it needs his total and squarely undivided attention, would he stupidly consider wanting to add some other post, especially one with foreign policy implications, even if it would be the largely ceremonial AU chairmanship.
Beyond that, only a naive President Jonathan would have thought that he was in the good books of his West African (ECOWAS) colleagues and had their support going into the contest. An Aso Villa source on Nigeria’s AU summit delegation said Jonathan made a last-minute thrust for the position but was ferociously opposed by Ghana and other West African leaders who preferred to queue behind Benin’s president and the eventual winner, Boni Yayi. “The president decided in the last minute to stand as a way of boosting our country’s profile but it turned out to be very damaging for our country’s reputation as tiny African countries rose against us. We felt ashamed,” the presidency source said.
Indeed, and as the presidency source also added, “The truth is that a lot of members believe President Jonathan’s chairmanship of ECOWAS has been anything but inspiring.” I fully concur. Recall that at the onset of Cote-d’Ivoire’s political stalemate, following the disputed 2010 presidential elections, Jonathan, as ECOWAS Chairman, singlehandedly and again naively committed himself to backing a military ousting of Gbagbo when African and even international bodies were still seeking diplomatic means to end the quandary. West Africa’s other powerhouse, Ghana, had notably opposed the military option.
Secondly, when the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, recently threatened to cut aid to African countries that do not support gay rights coming as it were, on the heels of the passage of an anti-gay bill by Nigeria’s Senate, it was surprisingly Ghana’s President, Atta Mills, who, showing great regional leadership, spoke openly and boldly against the British threat, emphasising his country’s and Africa’s overwhelming opposition to homosexuality. Jonathan has never personally spoken on the issue.
In addition, Nigeria presently holds the ECOWAS chairmanship and also has the current Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament in the person of the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu. It is only normal and fair that any other major regional responsibility should not be shouldered by yet another Nigerian. I just can’t fathom how President Jonathan and his advisers couldn’t see this.
Furthermore, on January 7, 2012, Jonathan, in an effort to commit his government to cut its hugely wasteful costs, announced that “overseas travels by all political office holders, including the President, should be reduced to the barest minimum…only trips that are absolutely necessary will be approved.” If Jonathan had won the AU chairmanship, he would have been forced to seriously act against that commitment and further strain an already capital-unfriendly budget as it would have required him to move around Africa more regularly than otherwise to preside over key AU functions. Mind you, the AU does not fund its ceremonial Chairman’s travels. This begs the question if Jonathan really knew what he was going into after all.
Thus, from the domestic, diplomatic, and moral standpoints, Jonathan was never going to qualify to earn West Africa’s 2012 AU Chairmanship slot. Not even an unconvincing reaction today by Jonathan’s spokesman, Reuben Abati, denying that Jonathan contested for the office can assuage the fact of the matter. Indeed, most of what this administration has treated Nigerians to in recent times, has comprised lies and counter-lies. In all, by being asked to back down by his fellow West African leaders after he uninstructedly indicated his interest in the AU Chairmanship, Jonathan and Nigeria became the subject of yet another diplomatic ridicule and deservingly suffered what would constitute good riddance to bad rubbish!
