One of the greatest human traits, especially when confronted with unsavoury circumstances, is the irresistible desire to look back into the annuls of their history for comparisons – possibly, as a form of strength, comfort, direction, or guidance.

I am not exactly sure why we do it, but all I know is that, all of us – as human beings – are drawn to such comparisons, at some point in our lives – it is simply unavoidable.  How many times have we complained over the poor standards of today’s products and goods, as compared to those of yesteryear? …or, how today’s youth are so disrespectful and undisciplined, as opposed to past generations?

This is human nature at its best…or worst! However, there are times when the comparisons become a bit more tricky and complex, as the situations being compared both seem unenviable – as this may end up being reduced to a case of ‘the better evil’. One may have to compare two catastrophic situations that they had to endure, for instance, a traumatic and terrifying accident, and the death of a loved one.

Both these scenarios are horrific, but if one is faced with the death of a loved one, then the horrid accident – which, probably, left them terribly paralysed, and traumatized – would suddenly, not appear so bad afterall. This is the sinister and paradoxical predicament that the ever-suffering people of Zimbabwe find themselves in this day and age.

After braving decades of horrendous oppression and subjugation at the hands of the brutal Rhodesia government, the country’s majority would be excused for thinking that things could not possibly get any worse, and that independent Zimbabwe would usher in the well-deserved respite.

What else were they to expect after facing years and years of racially skewed political, economic, and social policies – having their land expropriated, denied equal access to quality education and health, awarded racially-prejudiced salaries, being restricted to certain residential areas, denied their right to vote, and basically treated as second class citizens in their own country?

The only sane recource for such injustices was the liberation struggle, which led to the country’s independence, and huge expectations for the majority to be finally freed from the overbearing shackles of oppression. Nonetheless, years down the ‘independence road’, that same majority could sense that their joy had been misplaced, and their ‘liberators’ were no better that their erstwhile enslavers.

The land of milk and honey that they had been promised, turned out to be nothing more than a land of ‘pee and pooh’, a sad country where the same brutal repression and oppression persisted, with lack of any meaningful source of livelihood, where university graduates were reduced to street vendors, and hospitals and schools degraded to dying places and rooms where our children were turned into zombies. As is the norm, as human nature dictates, when confronted with such dire circumstances, the people can not help, but look back into the past for comparisons.

This is obviously such a painful task, as it is a journey that can be very traumatic, since the only other situation most, especially older Zimbabweans, can relate to is with Rhodesia.  Again, it is akin to comparing a debilitating and traumatic accident, and the death of a loved one – but, it can not be avoided. Immediately after independence, Zimbabwe, led by then Prime Minister, and subsequently first executive president Robert Gabriel Mugabe – in a government that he was with current president Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, as security minister – embarked on a destructive policy of annihilating a whole tribe of the country’s population, by launching what observers regard as brazen ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of mostly Ndebele-speakers of the Midlands and Matebeleland provinces.

When compared to Rhodesia, as much as there was systematic racial segregation, and a tribally-based ‘divide and rule’ tactic, there was hardly any ethnic cleansing of such a magnitude, outside of a war zone. In fact, the most notable acts of tribal violence in Rhodesia were at the instigation of Mugabe’s party ZANU, after its break away from ZAPU.

Any other deliberate mass killing of the people of this country during Rhodesia was during war time – however, the Mugabe and Mnangagwa dispensation’s decision to massacre people enmass was during ‘peace time’ – save for one of two isolates cases of insurgence, which could never be rightly termed as acts of war.

Another major comparison that Zimbabweans find themselves making is with economic prosperity, or lack of, especially during alleged or real sanctions.  After the Ian Douglas Smith Rhodesian regime decided on a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), in 1965, the United Nations (UN), at the instigation of the colonial power Britain, imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on the country.

Vital products, trade, and services were cut off from and to Rhodesia, and it was virtually reduced to an island of isolation – its only friend, albeit, cautiously, was apartheid South Africa. As Rhodesia became more and more isolated, and blocked – especially, after the independence of its neighbours – it had to come up with innovative and ingenious ways to survive.

Although, it was very difficult, they managed to make record-breaking and impressive achievements – even by international standards – such as, the construction of a new railway line to South African ports, in order to avoid the now closed-off Mozambique.

Rhodesia continued to make magnificent inroads in massive domestic industrial and agricultural investments – in spite of, the UN sanctions – resulting in the country becoming a global leader in those areas. In 1979, Rhodesia had some of the biggest industries in the world, and was a leader in agricultural production.  As much as the country was also secluded in the areas of sport and culture, its continued global prowess was exhibited when, soon after independence, the women’s hockey team landed a gold medal at the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

However, in the Mugabe and Mnangagwa dispensation, amidst dubious sanctions – which at most, were nothing but targeted at certain individuals and regime-aligned companies – Zimbabwe become the laughing stock of the world, as it dismally failed at every corner.Zimbabwe became well-known for whining and whinging, being the cry-baby of the world – blaming its pathetic failures on flimsy sanctions.

Zimbabwe  could not even sustain the economy that it had inherited, resulting in massive company closures, with multitudes fleeing the country in search of sustenance, those still in employment not being paid their salaries. …let alone, winning any significant sporting accolades at any international grandstage – save for Kirstey Coventry, and the Black siblings, whose achievements had nothing to do with Zimbabwe’s sporting policies.

In fact, in Rhodesia, a Standard Six (possibly, the equivalent of today’s Grade 7), as could easily access tertiary education, for
instance, my mother who trained as a general nurse – however, the same could not be said for independent Zimbabwe. For someone to be enrolled in nursing school today, they would need at least 5 Ordinary Level passes – and even armed with that certificate, their acceptance is not guaranteed, leading to some despicable acts, as bribery.

By the way, the increase in enrollment qualifications had nothing to do with any sort of improvement in the quality of the training, as my mother – who still works today on locum tenens basis – is highly regarded over the younger Zimbabwean-trained nurses.

Soon after graduation, employment was readily available in Rhodesia, as even my mother was immediately scooped up by the then giant Rhodesia Iron and Steel Company (Risco), which paid her well and regularly – a company that the independent Zimbabwe regime destroyed after nationalizing it, and then running it into the ground through mismanagement and rampant corruption.

Rhodesia companies not only paid their workers on time every time, but also provided them with varied social amenities, such as sports clubs – which have since been turned into jungles under the Mugabe and Mnangagwa dispensation.  Zimbabwe can not even construct a high standard road and rail network – actually, in all my life, I have never witnessed the construction of
a railway line in this country.

All the major sporting facilities, except two or three, were constructed under Rhodesian rule – most of which are now laying in
ruin. As much as Rhodesia was under UN devastating sanctions, hospitals and schools, even in those segregated Black areas were well-stocked with the most essential medication, equipment, textbooks, and all the necessary stationary.

In stark contrast to the Mugabe and Mnangagwa dispensation, whereby, even the most vulnerable in our society, such as the elderly, poor,and disabled, are still required to purchase expensive medication from private pharmacies – as government health institutions lack the very basics. As the two presidents of  Zimbabwe, Mugabe and Mnangagwa – the latter having always being in government since independence in 1980, and being an integral part of the decision making – should equally be held
responsible and answerable for the divisions, atrocities, and meltdown that Zimbabwe has been subjected to.

Thus,  Mugabe and Mnangagwa can never be separated as the two men are the most responsible for the chaos and demise of Zimbabwe – and, for the latter to attempt to dissociate himself from that dispensation is futile and deceptive.

The two walked together, agreed together, destroyed together, and no coup d’etat, or any other shenanigans can ever manage to pull wool over the eyes of Zimbabweans.

*Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist, writer, author, and speaker. He is the Programmes Director with the Zimbabwe Network for Social Justice (ZimJustice).

The Zimbabwean

In late 1978, or early 1979, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, one of Nigeria’s frontline political leaders and the leader of the newly-proclaimed Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), came to Calabar in continuation of his presidential campaign tour. The ban on political activities imposed after the military coup of January 15, 1966 had been lifted four months earlier and Chief Awolowo had announced the formation of the party the same day the ban was lifted.

Through the agency of Odia Ofeimun, Awolowo’s private secretary, two young members of the Calabar Group of Socialists (CGS) – Bassey Ekpo Bassey and myself – met the visiting presidential candidate of UPN as he was having his dinner (of bread and Lucozade drink) late at night, at about 1.00 am.

After the pleasantries, we told Chief Awolowo that we liked his party’s four cardinal programmes (free education at all levels NOW; integrated rural development; free medical care; and full employment of all labours) and would like to campaign for him freely, that is, without compensation – but would not like to be card-carrying members of his party. After appreciating our choice, Chief Awolowo insisted that we should formally and openly join the party. We thanked him for granting us audience, withdrew from his presence and left the venue as quietly – or rather, as secretly – as we came.

My review of this story – and indeed the rest of this piece – will be built around four questions: Why did we make this trip? Why was it secret, or rather, doubly secret? What was our feeling about Awolowo’s response to our request? And what do I feel about the event now, more than 39 years later?

To answer these questions we may have to move 17 months back from December 1978, that is, back to July 1977. Between the end of that month and the beginning of the following month, August, 1977, Nigerian socialists held a conference at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. That conference, with the name All-Nigeria Socialist Conference, is a landmark in the history of the Nigerian Left. All shades of radical consciousness – from social democracy to Bakuninist anarchism – were present. The list of invited participants became useless, because the majority were uninvited. Fela Anikulapo Kuti came with the full contingent of his band and dancers. They insisted on sitting on the floor! At the end of the four-day riotous conference, a particular decision came out as a consensus: Whenever General Obasanjo and his military gang lifted the ban on open political activities socialists should form a single party to confront the exploiters and oppressors.

With the benefit of hindsight it may now be seen that such a single party-accommodating all Leftwing tendencies - could only be a “mass” socialist party, near to social democracy, and not a “cadre” or “vanguard” socialist party. But this was not spelt out at the conference, nor could the difference have been appreciated by most of the participants who were just angry, but politically progressive young Nigerians. I am now convinced that older comrades like Eskor Toyo, S. G. Ikoku, Ola Oni, Ikenna Nzimiro, Tunyi Otegbeye, Wahab Goodluck, Dapo Fatogun, Baba Omojola, etc, must have known that major differences would emerge at the point of execution of this landmark decision. And so it happened!

By the time Bassey and I met Chief Awolowo in Calabar 17 months later, not less than five Left parties had emerged – each claiming to a realization of the Zaria decision. But that was not all.

Leftists who went into the two leading progressive mainstream parties: the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and the People’s Redemption Party (PRP) claimed to have gone there to realize the Zaria Conference mandate. Even comrades who went into the leading conservative parties – the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP) and the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP) - claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the Zaria Consensus since they went there to take over the parties and transform them! The comrades who were “left behind”, that is, those that did not form or had not formed parties or had formed parties and quickly came out – seeing that it was a joke – were very angry.

This last group included Bassey and I. And we were angrier because General Obasanjo had just dismissed us and some other Leftists from our jobs over “Ali must go” protests. We did not accept that we should just go and “siddon look” as vampires and predators were preparing to take over power from the military after 13 years. We looked at the situation and decided to meet with Chief Obafemi Awolowo. This answers the first of the four questions: Why did we make the trip to meet with Chief Awolowo?

Now to the second question: Why was the trip secret and doubly secret? It was secret because we did not want the meeting to be known to the public, since we did not have sufficient time to consider the implications and consequences. And the trip was doubly secret because it was not approved either by the Nigerian Left in general or the Calabar Group of Socialists in particular. On the face of it, the trip, whether “successful” or not, would have been considered by the two entities not only as undisciplined, but also as dangerously “voluntaristic” and “adventuristic”, if not “counter- revolutionary”. We were, however, ready to justify it on highly revolutionary grounds before the Left – had it leaked. But the trip was unsuccessful and did not leak. The matter was therefore buried.

The third question: What was our immediate reaction to Chief Awolowo’s response? We were, of course, very disappointed. But later, over beer and cigarettes, we rationalized that, perhaps, we were lucky! I thought of the possible reactions of Comrades Bene, BJ and Eskor Toyo in particular.

The answer to the fourth and final question – what I now think of the 1978 visit to Chief Awolowo – is the “meat” of this piece. That answer is this: The thing that Bassey and I did that night in Calabar should be taken as a prototype of what the Left should openly begin to do now. But it should be done collectively (as against individually) and consciously and deliberately (as against idealistically and romantically). It should not be a “free gift” like what Bassey and I offered 40 years ago. It should rather be a hard political bargain of mutual benefits.

The offer to the other side could begin like this: “Although our destinations are not the same, it appears we can pass through the same routes for a considerable distance. Let us then move together and hope that before we get to the “parting of ways” we would have convinced you or you would have convinced us or a mutually – acceptable third destination would have appeared. But in the meantime the masses would have achieved irreversible successes and victories.”

Finally, this bargain, which may result in an alliance, should not exhaust the strategy or programme of the Left. There should be ancillary and “fall back” positions – just as the other side will have theirs.

This conclusion brings us to the 2019 general elections. The alliance talks implicitly proposed here for the Nigerian Left could be with small political parties/groups or large political parties/groups or small/large political parties/groups which satisfy some obvious conditions – in terms of programmes, antecedents and public image of leaderships - provided, of course, that at least one of the allying entities is registered and that they are not all paupers or juveniles.

Let it not be like the alliance of 20 parties in Kenya in the early 1980s which President Arap Moi ridiculed as an alliance of 20 monkies against a lion!

There are lots to be read into the recent report by the Fiscal Responsibility Commission on the debt profile of various state governments in 2016. According to the Punch of March 20 2018, which reported extensively on the report, the debt profiles of about 18 states exceeded their gross and net revenues by more than 200 per cent. The paper quoted the FRC as saying that the debt may have increased by 2017 since “there was no effort by the states to clear them”. It also quoted the FRC as saying that the development was contrary to the guidelines of the Debt Management Office on debt sustainability, which recommends that the debt status of each state should not exceed 50 per cent of the statutory revenue in the previous 12 months.  “In the light of the DMO’s guidelines on the Debt Management Framework, specifically, sections 222 to 273 of the Investment and Securities Act, 2007 pertaining to debt sustainability, according to the guidelines, the debt to income ratio of states should not exceed 50 per cent of the statutory revenue for the preceding 12 months,” the FRC was quoted as saying.

Analysis of the FRC report (which was based on the debt profile of the states as of December 31, 2016) showed that most of the states of the federation flouted the regulation as they exceeded their debt to revenue ratio by more than 100 per cent. According to the report, the worst offenders were Lagos (670.42 per cent), Osun (539.25 per cent), Cross River (486.49 per cent), Plateau (342.01 per cent), Oyo (339.56 per cent), Ekiti (339.34 per cent), Ogun (329.47 per cent), Kaduna (297.26 per cent) and Imo (292.82 per cent). Others were Edo (270.8 per cent), Adamawa (261.96 per cent), Delta (259.63 per cent), Bauchi (250.75 per cent), Nasarawa (250.36 per cent), Kogi (221.92 per cent), Enugu (207.49 per cent), Zamfara (204.91 per cent), and Kano (202.61 per cent).

The report found that the only states whose debts did not exceed the recommended 50 per cent ratio by more than 100 per cent were Anambra, Borno, Jigawa, Kebbi, Sokoto, Yobe and the Federal Capital Territory.

Several extrapolations could be made from the above set of frightening figures:

One, the amount of revenue accruing to a state has no relationship with its debt profile.  For instance Lagos State which has the highest debt to gross revenue ratio of 670.42 per cent (and  debt to net revenue of 930.96 per cent),   is one of the highest receivers of  funds from the Federation Account. It has also one of the best internally generated revenue profiles (thanks in part to the location of prime businesses there). In September 2017 for instance, it received from the Federation Account N8.8bn, compared to say Borno and Anambra which received less than half of what it got from the Federation Account alone during the period and yet stayed within the recommended 50 per cent to revenue ratio. Remarkably none of the top receivers of funds from the Federation Account - Akwa Ibom, Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa, Kano and Kaduna States - made it in the ‘honours’ list.

In fact the states whose debt did not exceed the recommended 50 per cent ratio by more than 100 per cent according to FRC received the following sums in September 2017 from the Federation Account (I am using a random month and year for which data on what was received by all the states are available): Anambra (N4.3bn), Borno (N4.9bn), Jigawa, (N4.67) Kebbi (N4.26), Sokoto (N4.1bn), Yobe (N4.15bn). In contrast, the top receivers of funds, which did not make the ‘honours’ list received the following sums during the period: Delta (N14.2), Akwa Ibom (N12.94bn), Rivers (N12.45bn), Kano (N6.8bn) and Kaduna (N5.4bn). In the same vein, Osun, which is the poorest state in the country in terms of sums received from the Federation Account, (it got only N1.6bn during the period) was not listed among the states with the highest debt to gross revenue ratios. One of the conclusions from this would be the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the USA: “Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of filling a vacuum, it makes one.”

Two,  a survey published in May 2017 by BudGIT, (a civic organisation founded in 2011 to simplify the budget and matters of public spending for citizens), found that most states, including some top receivers of funds from the Federation Account and many heavily indebted states, owed workers arrears in salary and pension payments.

Among the States which it found were not owing salaries were Anambra, Borno, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi, Lagos, Plateau, Sokoto and Yobe.  Remarkably while rich Delta State and Bayelsa States owed upwards of six months salaries, Yobe, Kebbi and Anambra which receive less than half of what they get from the Federation Account did not owe any salary arrears.  The above raises the question of whether revenues accruing to states are good indicators of the viability of states. It will seem from the above that the capacity for governance and managing resources may be better indicators of state viability than the quantum of money that flows to states. 

Three, while oil money controlled by the federal government has made it the central site of the intra elite struggles for power and privileges, a commensurate attention is not paid at what happens at the state levels. In fact while the country’s democracy is in a transition mode at the federal level, it appears to be suffering from arrested development at the state levels. Just consider these: In Imo state, which was found by BudGIT to owe primary school teachers two months arrears of salary and pensioners 24 months arrears in May 2017, the government strangely found enough resources to build statutes of personalities that caught his fancy, including that of Jacob Xuma, former President of South Africa, who is now facing corruption charges in his country. The same Governor gave the ministerial slot for his state to his father-in-law and is now pushing for his son in-law to succeed him. In Kaduna state, an otherwise smart governor had to pull down a house belonging to his political opponent. In virtually all the States, the Governors behave like monarchs rather than elected executives that are accountable to the electorate.  Is there any State in the country where the State House of Assembly is not a rubber stamp of the Governor? Is it possible for a State Governor to lose a court case in the State’s High Court? Can the party of a state Governor lose Local Government elections in the State? Compared to what is happening at the state level, the federal government seems to be doing well. 

Four, what the different ethnic and regional factions of the political class demand from the federal government, they often negate when it comes to their own states. For instance, while we all extol the unwritten power rotation agreement between the Northern and Southern parts of the country, will it be a crime for the politicians to respect the same principle in their states? Will it for instance be a crime for a power rotation arrangement in Benue, Kaduna, Taraba and several other states in the country so that all the key constituents of a State will have a good opportunity of producing the Governor of the State? Several states in the country need restructuring, not just the federal government.

The hullabaloo over Senators’ N13.5m monthly ‘running cost’

The recent revelation by Senator Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central) that each Senator receives the whopping sum of N13.5m as running cost - on top of N700,000 monthly consolidated salary and allowances  -  has led to justified anger in the land. I join in condemnation of bogus payments. But I will like also to put a caveat: several comparisons of what the Senators earn with what their counterparts earn in Europe, USA and elsewhere earn,  miss the context.  The truth is that the electorate in Nigeria (and virtually all parts of Africa) are manifestly different from their European and American counterparts. For instance while the constituents of a Nigerian Senator expect him or her to attend funerals, naming ceremonies and launchings of all hues and to be among the highest donors in such events, there are no such expectations on their American and European counterparts. Nigerian Senators, like political office holders,  are also expected to become cash cows and to donate handsomely wherever they go and their presence is acknowledged including in churches and mosques.

This is not a justification for any jumbo pay when most Nigerians are just trying to scrape by but to give a sense of proportion to the conversation.

Again, it is important for us to compare like-for-like. So if we are justifiably angry at what Senators take home every month, we must also know how much top members of the executive and the judiciary take home - in consolidated monthly salary and monthly ‘running cost’.  

Following public outcry over provisions of the 2018 Land Use Charge (LUC) in Lagos State, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode last week announced a downward review of the charges. While it is good that the government would respond to public opinion and make concessions, there are also those who argue that the state needs to address several other concerns which may necessitate repealing the law in its entirety. Incidentally, I foresaw this problem about 17 years ago but it would appear that the current administration in the state has refused to learn any lessons from the past.

In December 2001 when the law was first promulgated, my column on this page was titled “Tinubu Can’t Be Serious”. Then, like now, it was as if the people don’t matter, even though Governor Bola Tinubu eventually had to listen to voices of reason before reaching a compromise with critical stakeholders. I am reproducing that particular piece to remind Ambode of how the problem started, before I draw my conclusion.

===============================================================
About four weeks ago, three Lagos State Commissioners (Rauf Aregbesola, Oladele Alake and Olawale Edun) visited our Apapa office and they wasted no time before telling us their mission. First, the Information and Strategy Commissioner, Alake, went into a laborious explanation on how Lagos has become a mega city and the problems associated with over population. He was supported by his Works counterpart, Aregbesola before Edun, the Finance Commissioner, brought in one ‘Oyinbo’ consultant to give us a lecture with a projector.

Since none of the editors owns any property in Lagos, the visiting commissioners knew we would not be much problem. Even at that, many of us were actually receptive to the idea because members of the elite in Nigeria do not like paying taxes. So if the property owner class would be taxed to develop the state, it was not a bad move. The snag though is that in enacting such a law, the people should be adequately informed while the levies should be reasonable. Unfortunately, that is not what has transpired on this matter.

In a letter dated 10th September 2001, addressed to many landlords in Victoria Island, outrageous amounts of money were charged. A copy of one of such letters sent to a property owner on Oyin Jolayemi Street (who shared it with me in confidence) reads: “Notice is hereby given in respect of the land and buildings situated at the following location… The land and buildings have been assessed in accordance with the Land Use Charges Law, 2001 and have been found to have an assessed value as noted below: N180, 981, 000. 00. The Land and buildings are being used for commercial purposes and are therefore subject to Land Use Charges of 2.50% of the assessed value. The following Land Use Charges are payable: Land Use Charges set for the year 2001—N4, 524, 525.00.”

As if the letter was written by one of those lawyers who worked under the late General Sani Abacha, it continued: “The Lagos State Land Use Charges Law, 2001 provides for penalties for delayed payment and these are fully enforceable (and will be enforced) under the law. The amount, including the penalties which will be payable in the event of payment delayed after the 15-day grace period following the due date above, is as follows: For payment between Oct. 25, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2001—N5, 655, 656. 25; For payment made between Nov. 10, 2001 and Dec 2001—N6, 786, 787.50; For payment made between Dec 10, 2001 and Jan. 8, 2002—N9, 049, 050.00.”

Now the clincher: “If payment in accordance with the foregoing is not received on or before Jan., 8, 2002, the property to which this notice relates shall be liable to receivership by the State or its appointed agent until all outstanding taxes, payments, penalties and administrative charges are paid under the law.”

While I commend Tinubu’s efforts in developing Lagos and one cannot fault his revenue generation drive, his latest decision makes no sense and he cannot win the support of the people on a patently flawed process. One, a ‘law’ that was just passed is now given retroactive powers as if we are under military regime. Two, even if a property is worth N181 million must a landlord pay N4.5 million in a year as charges when the rent on the property might just be only slightly above that? Three, is it sensible to base an annual assessment for the purpose of administering charges on the value rather than on the rent accruable on a property? Four, do the property owners not deserve to be consulted before this arbitrary law was enacted?

Even as a lay man in economic matters, I am fully aware that one of the cardinal principles of taxation is that it must be reasonable. Why is it that the authorities in Lagos want residents to pay some ridiculous annual charges that would further hike the already high rent on property in the state? Besides, when the Lagos State Government started this property assessment campaign, what they told us at the time was that it would only be for planning and not for taxes; does it mean they were deceiving the people?

It would appear that a common feature of governance in Lagos now is arbitrary regime of levies—from the council to the state. But Edun and his men in the Lagos State Finance Ministry had better put on their thinking caps and come up with a more realistic formula on their new ‘law’ otherwise Lagos property owners might be compelled to simply ignore them. Then we will see how many houses they will put under receivership in a democratic government. Even Abacha, as brutal as he was, would find it impossible implementing the ‘law’ Tinubu now wants to foist on Lagos property owners…

ENDNOTE:
The foregoing, as I said, was written 17 years ago and it is unfortunate that Ambode would follow the same old route of ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ that engendered a serious friction in the past. Besides, feigning ignorance on the fact that these same charges have been reviewed three times since 2001, as prescribed in the law, is, to put it mildly, rather shameful. If the governor had consulted widely, as he ought to, especially on a sensitive issue such as this, he would not run into the kind of problem he has now found himself.

In many ways, there is an underlying subterfuge and insincerity in the repeated use of ‘law’ to legitimize extortion as taxation in many states across the country today and Lagos is becoming the most notorious in this regard. Yet, hiding under law to foist on the people unpopular policies is counter-productive. In history, some of the greatest outrages against humanity have been committed under ‘laws’ passed by manipulated parliaments. But history is also replete with empires that crumbled under the weight of their own contradictions.

While I remain an admirer of the Lagos model of political succession that has engendered a measure of incremental development and I endorse taxation as a public policy, I am also aware that the arrogance of power that made the defunct National Republic Convention (NRC) to defeat the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the dramatic 4th December 1991 gubernatorial election in Lagos State may not be too far away, if care is not taken. The glaring abuse of the legislative process (with names of private companies even being written into laws) in a revenue-generating gambit that fails to take into account the prevailing economic situation in the country can only lead to one inevitable conclusion: Hubris!

Of Police and Dapchi

In what has become a familiar trick, the Inspector-General of Police, Mr Ibrahim Idris, on Monday ordered the withdrawal of all his officers and men attached to private individuals and companies. Not surprisingly, the directive was received with derision by most Nigerians who remembered that practically all his predecessors made similar pronouncement to no effect. Sadly, that in itself speaks to the rot in the police, a law enforcement institution that cannot enforce its own order!

While some ‘Nollywood Senators’ would want to retain their undue privileges, I subscribe to the idea that, in the light of the frequent invasion, by Boko Haram, of schools in the North-east to carry away female students, those policemen should be deployed to provide security. But my main concern is that Nigerian VIPs would not release the police personnel serving them, most of who have become embedded in their politics and businesses, while IGP Idris who is huffing and puffing in the media will do nothing.

It is noteworthy that on 21 August 2015, it was announced that President Muhammadu Buhari had directed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Sunday Arase to withdraw the over 130, 000 police personnel attached to unauthorized persons and VIPs in the country so they could be deployed to confront the serious security challenges afflicting the nation. Four days later, Chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC), Sir Mike Okiro, (himself a retired IGP) said a team had been constituted to enforce the presidential directive. “The monitoring team will have the powers to stop VIPs on the highways, airports etc, for confirmation of their status and that of the policemen attached to them” said Okiro who warned that “any erring VIP or policeman caught in such unauthorized beat, will be prosecuted”. He also said most memorably, “We cannot afford to have more than half of the population of the police in private hands.”

Three years down the line, Okiro is still singing from the same hymn book as he again lamented last month: “We cannot afford to have more than half of the population of the police in private hands”. Even a parrot cannot do better, although Okiro also explained by way of excuse: “We could not sustain the enforcement of the order on the withdrawal of policemen attached to unqualified persons in the country because of lack of fund.”

At an interactive session with Police Inspectors and other rank and file personnel selected from commands nationwide at the Force Headquarters in Abuja on 21 May 2015, then IGP, Solomon Arase spoke to the abuse of police personnel by the VIPs to which many of them are attached. “Those of you who are posted to VIPs, on no account should you carry their bags and on no account should you act as domestic servants to them. Your uniform must be respected. Anybody who wants to hire a domestic help should not use our policemen who are sent to protect them as domestic help” Arase warned but the misconduct continues without anybody ever brought to book.

In the light of the current precarious security situation in the country, it is no longer tenable that our policemen are only good at carrying handbags for spouses and concubines of ‘Big Men’ while our children are left at the mercy of sundry criminal cartels on their school campuses. Therefore, Idris must understand that it is not only his credibility that is on the line but also that of the president whose name he is invoking on the latest directive. To borrow the words of Okiro, “we cannot afford to have more than half the population of the police in private hands.”

The Amber Light is On…2

That brinksmanship is the name of the game in Nigeria today can be glimpsed from the giant billboards that now dot strategic places in Abuja with banner headlines: ‘Red Alert’. For those who pay attention, the message, targeted at the National Assembly by one Aminu Balel Kurfi (Dan Arewa), proclaims: “Frustrating the President will no longer be tolerated by the masses.”

Although the main concern of the Dan Arewa do-gooder is the delay in the passage of the 2018 budget, the underlying tension between the lawmakers and the presidency over the order of election and the orgy of killings which many politicians, across ethnic and religious divides, are capitalising upon, compound the situation as we inch gradually to another crucial general election. When you add into the mix a growing capacity of Boko Haram to cart away (and later return some) innocent school girls almost unchallenged, you get the picture of a nation under siege.

Meanwhile, as I said, squabbles over the Electoral Act are nothing new, only that we have never witnessed this sort of desperation and long-drawn power struggle. For instance, on 6th December 2001, then President Olusegun Obasanjo wrote the National Assembly, declining assent to the Electoral Bill sent to him the previous day because “…for the stability of the polity and the survival of our nascent democracy, it is imperative that only serious and creditable political parties should be allowed to participate in general elections…”

Following my intervention on this page at that period, I got a mail from Mr Sam Omatseye, the current Chairman of the editorial board of The Nation newspaper who was then a university lecturer in the United States. Reading Omatseye’s mail again yesterday, I find it amazing how not much has changed and I leave readers with his words: “I just read your column on the Electoral Act, which indicates that the political brew is beginning to take on the taste of old. Not that it didn’t before, only that its flavour lay hidden in synthetic garnishes. The frail ends are beginning to show but what I see is a sore that has encroached upon the bone. The marrow is next, and when that happens we may be faced with a Bosnia-like scenario of independent warlords. I am worried because what seems to hold the nation together is not law. Nigeria has never had respect for law, but for symbols, whether they represented absolute power or flattered an ethnic sentiment, or promised an illusory dawn. As Henry David Thoreau himself wrote, ‘The law never made anyone a whit more just’…”

NOTE: This series shall be long. Just look out for the continuation.