The relentless march towards democratic credibility for the governments of the West African region has unveiled a number of dramatic signposts over the last few years. The first ever democratic defeat of an incumbent President in Nigeria in 2015 heralded a changing era for the entire continent even though it was not the first time that an incumbent party had lost a presidential election in the region. Sierra Leone’s venerable Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) had achieved that dubious distinction in 2007. However, at that time, the SLPP’s President Tejan Kabbah was outgoing and the defeat of the party’s candidate, who was seeking to succeed him, by Ernest Bai Koroma of the All Peoples Congress (APC) had been widely predicted. President Koroma has served the full constitutional tenure of two terms and managed to avoid the fate of either Goodluck Jonathan in Nigeria or John Mahama in Ghana, both of whom were denied their second term bids by the voters in their nations. However, the presidential election that took place in Sierra Leone on March 7 has resulted in a stalemate that is replete with symptoms of what could be the makings of an even more dramatic electoral upset. This is because the front-runner in the outcome as announced by the National Elections Commission  (NEC), albeit by a narrow margin, is a former military head of state, the SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio.

The inability of any one of the 16 candidates who stood in the election to achieve a majority of not less than 55 per cent as stipulated by the country’s electoral law means that the top two candidates will  contest a run-off in less than a week. Julius Maada Bio, who has been attempting to take the mantle of leadership for the last decade or more, has performed even beyond expectations this time around by emerging as the most popular contestant in the crowded field, and if he does not eventually emerge as the overall victor, that in itself would be a dramatic upset. The APC leadership and their followers have been extremely militant in their campaigning and regimented in their organising. After the polls, they displayed a potential for violent behaviour that led members of the illustrious observer team, including the aforementioned Jonathan and Mahama, to step in to smooth over a dangerous face-off between them and Maada Bio’s supporters during the counting of ballots.

What these symptoms indicate is that in Sierra Leone, where two of the oldest political parties in West Africa still hold sway, the potential for obstacles to be placed on the pathway to democratic change has not been completely expunged. However, the conduct of the election and the stature of the regional observers also indicate that the process has become the concern of a much broader constituency than the confines of the ambitions of local or domestic aspirants to power. The importance of holding successful elections where genuinely popular leaders eventually emerge as the triumphant contestants has now become the concern of regional rather than national audiences. It is not just the electorate of Sierra Leone that is concerned about what the eventual outcome will be, but citizens of the entire West African community feel that they have a stake in Sierra Leone’s ability to choose a leader that is genuinely elected by the majority of its people. To this end, the emergence of Maada Bio as front-runner in the first round is a consequence that many West Africans are curious to understand in the most profound and analytic terms in order to comprehend the true state of affairs in that small but very important nation.

For Nigerians in particular, the emergence of a former military leader will echo with recognisable familiarity but the circumstances surrounding the resurgence of the Sierra Leonean leader are totally unlike those that brought President Muhammadu Buhari to his present occupancy of the presidential saddle. Maada Bio did not overthrow an elected government when he took the reins of power as a military leader. Instead, he replaced a military leader that he had served under when it seemed that a commitment to return power to civilian authority was about to be reneged upon and he duly managed a voluntary handover. He remained discreetly incognito for many years as he changed his career and profile from that of a former military officer to that of a social activist, scholar and private businessman. When he returned to public life he did so by joining the party that formed Sierra Leone’s first independent government and portrayed himself as a nationalist seeking to unify a fundamentally divided polity. His frontrunner status in the latest poll has essentially vindicated his years of struggling to rebuild bridges of communality, especially between Sierra Leone’s south-eastern and northern provinces. In the run-off, his success in achieving this will be put to its most dire test yet.

So far, it appears that even though the race is likely to be a close one, the signals sent by the voters in the first round are indicative of the mood of the Sierra Leonean public at large. The need for change and the restoration of the values that the SLPP’s candidate kept emphasizing throughout his campaign has apparently caught the imagination of a new generation of supporters. It is also clear that a majority of members of the long list of fellow travellers who formed the first roll call of aspirants were flag-bearers of similar sentiments of disenchantment with the incumbent. If these former aspirants now prove to be genuinely committed to the sentiments they expressed in the first round, then the SLPP’s frontrunner status can hardly be overturned. As we have noted before, if such an overturn occurs, it will be an upset of monumental proportions for the expressed wishes of a large proportion of the voters who have already given him a victory. However, if the opposite happens and Maada Bio eventually wins, that, too, would seal one of West Africa’s most historic and dramatic democratic upsets so far.

…the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government… –Chapter II, Section 14 (2b) of the 1999 Constitution.

This is sadly the situation that should warrant the optimal attention of President Muhammadu Buhari as the commander-in-chief.

Shocked by the reported killings of about 48 people by herdsmen in Ukpabi Nimbo in Uzo-Uwani Local Government Area of Enugu State two years ago, this reporter observed on this page on April 27, 2016 as follows: “One of the principal reasons why Buhari was a preferred candidate was that many voters saw in him the capacity to be a fitting commander-in-chief for a country facing such a huge challenge of security. What is more, security was one of the areas Buhari promised to make the focus of his administration. Specifically, Buhari promised to lead the nation to put an end to the Boko Haram war.” That piece was entitled “The Urgency of the Security Question.” Two years later, can the officialdom honestly claim that the security question has been treated with the urgency the situation deserves?

As matter of fact, the reaction to the killings in Ukpabi Nimbo was in the context of the sense of emergency in the first quarter of 2016. Reports from various parts of the country would seem to suggest that the country was increasingly descending into a massive killing field. Reported killings by herdsmen dominated the headlines. A month before Ukpabi Nimbo, television screens were awash with horrifying footages of killings in the Agatu areas of Benue State. It was the topic of this column on March 23, 2016 in which it was said inter alia:

“The question of security is urgent. It is highly distressing that communities could be so cheaply invaded by armed attackers for days. Were there any intelligence reports that such violence was about to erupt? The helplessness of those so brutally attacked cannot be rationalised under any guise by the officialdom. In some reports it is even alleged that many of the attackers are foreigners, thereby further complicating the matter. Whatever happened to the security at the nation’s borders? It is scary to contemplate that the violence could not be prevented.

“And when killings and destruction begin in communities, it is expected that there would be a swift response to protect the people. It is also important to make an example of perpetrators of violence. You are not going to curb killings when killers go unpunished. It would be interesting for the police to give a comprehensive report on those involved in similar clashes, for instance, in the last one decade. How many of the suspected killers have been successfully prosecuted and punished?

“The episodic killings around the country constitute a categorical challenge not only to the police, but the whole of the justice sector. Whatever the motive of killings, a credible system should be able to account for every life lost and ensure that justice is done. It is the least expected from a social order with integrity. It would be useful for the various security agencies to draw lessons from the recent round of violence.”

Incidentally, two years later in the first quarter of 2018, there have been reported killings in parts of the country that could warrant a similar column. Nothing, perhaps, demonstrates that not much has changed for the better in the circumstance more than this soul-depressing trend.

And that is the tragedy of the moment.

A bit of reminder might be necessary here to draw the attention of Abuja to the enormity of the problem. In the build-up to the 2015 election, security was a big issue. In that respect, many of those who supported President Muhammadu Buhari (as a candidate) saw in him a better commander-in-chief to tackle the security question. His background as a general of the Nigerian army amply recommended him for that part of his job as President. He won the election and took oath to uphold the 1999 Constitution, which declares, “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” It is highly instructive that in the constitution “security” is mentioned before “welfare” of the people because logically a government can only implement any programme to enhance people’s welfare only in a secure socio-political environment. In other words, you cannot seriously talk of all-round development of the people in an unstable environment. About a year to another election, security remains poignantly a central question of the Nigerian condition.

Take a sample. About a year to the 2015 presidential election, over 200 school girls were abducted by Boko Haram in Chibok, Borno State; a year to the 2019 election over 100 school girls were taken away by the same Boko Haram in Dapchi, Yobe State. The military and other security agencies were assumed to be in control of the situation at the moments these abductions took place. The Dapchi abduction took place months after the administration claimed to have “degraded” Boko Haram and that the terrorists no more constituted a fighting force. If Chibok remains a national tragedy, Dapchi is now a national disgrace. That is not a story of progress in the war efforts; it is a “national disaster” as Buhari himself rightly put it.

The point at issue is that Borno and Yobe states are listed as crisis-ridden states where military and security operations are assumed to be taking place. Yet, terrorists could invade a school and take away girls in trucks! This brings sharply into focus the lack of public accountability on the part of the Buhari security team. The output doesn’t justify the enormous resources and hope invested in the security of those areas. Tragedies happen that put the team’s competence into question; yet some members of the team carry on as if they owe nobody any explanation. Critics have focussed (with constitutional justification, by the way,) on the lack of the reflection of federal character in Buhari’s security appointments. Not even the President has disputed the point.

But, that is not the primary problem with the composition of the team. Maybe, it would not matter much to many patriots even if all the heads of military and security forces and agencies come from the same village provided the country is secure. If a citizen goes about his daily business and lives peacefully with others, he may not pay much attention to the ethnic or religious identity of those who call the shots in the security sector. After all, a man in danger doesn’t ask for the ethnic or regional origin of a policeman before calling for help. The primary issue is that of incompetence. Things are further worsened by the factor of the reported lack of synchrony of purpose within the security team. The tinge of irony in this is often lost on the critics who rightly point to the fact of lopsided security appointments. The security appointees seem to work at cross- purposes even though they are mainly from the same region of the country. It is only Buhari who appointed them that could untie the knots.

For example, the measure of competence of the security team is in preventing such a national disgrace that happened in Dapchi and stopping the killings in Benue. Security chiefs cannot claim competence when villagers are helplessly killed by some mass murderers. While farmers have been scared away from their farms by killers, highways often remain unsafe because kidnappers and armed robbers inflict untold violence on travellers.

Lawlessness reigns supreme in the land. Human lives have been reduced to mere statistics. There are headlines about casualties, but there is hardly any report of those arrested and prosecuted for the mass murders. Not even the evidence of proper investigation is made public. Public accountability requires that the police should explain to the nation what is being done about mass killings. The true nature of the crisis has hardly been unravelled. Some well informed persons have suggested that the killings might not all be activities of herdsmen as some foreign terrorists might have invaded Nigeria. Who are these invaders? How are they armed? What is their mission? These are questions for which the public expects answers from those in charge of security in the spirit of democratic accountability. Such strategic discussions should not be mystified as operational matters that are not suitable for the public sphere.

The Abuja response is, of course, that this administration is doing its best in the circumstance. Yet the administration’s best is certainly not good enough when mass burials are routinely reported in places where bandits are on the prowl and unchecked. Glaring incompetence is on display, yet nobody accepts responsibility for the state of things. The matter is made worse by the seeming arrogance and insensitivity in a complex country such as Nigeria with highly inflammable fault lines of ethnicity and religion. No patriot can afford to pretend to be unaware of the brewing bitterness in Benue, Taraba and Southern Kaduna. The feeling of helplessness in Zamfara and threats in Edo and Delta cannot be ignored by any one who wishes Nigeria well.

In the circumstance, all eyes would rightly be on the commander-in-chief. Yes, universally military and security chiefs do not openly discuss their operations for obvious tactical reasons. However, the strategic direction and goals of a nation (especially one that is bedevilled with insecurity of Nigeria’s magnitude) should be a matter of public discourse. The national parliament and indeed the public sphere should put the security team to greater task. Even in countries that are military powers and in which the security questions have a huge external components, the strategic direction and reviews are matters of public interest. This would help in determining whether the national purpose is being served.

Invariably, security is going to be major issue in the next year’s election. That should provide an avenue for informed discussions of the various aspects of the problem. Meanwhile, Buhari as the commander-in-chief should rethink the administration’s response to the growing insecurity in the land. At no time must the Nigerian state be portrayed as being helpless before bandits and mass murderers.

A former governor of Anambra State, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, has urged those he called myopic opponents of restructuring to have a rethink.

He also said those opposed to restructuring were laying the foundation for Nigeria’s disintegration.

The former governor explained that his position was motivated by comments made by Prof. Ango Abdullahi in a recent media interview.

Abdullahi had in the interview with a national newspaper declared, “We have all personalised restructuring with a view to targeting a section of the country and this is the area that we feel very sensitive about and we will resist it. Even if we don’t resist it objectively, we can resist it politically.”

In response, Ezeife told his audience at the summit that Abdullahi’s position was contrary to the position of the Governor Nasir El-Rufai-led All Progressives Congress panel on True Federalism and was paving the way for Nigeria’s dismemberment if allowed to hold sway.

He said, “I should appeal to the myopic opponents of restructuring to think again, they should consider the long-term interest of the nation.

“If the North-West follows the prescription of Ango Abdullahi, (Gideon) Orkar’s Nigeria becomes inevitable but all nationalists must keep the doors open for those who break away to come back. It is infinitely better to think constructively to avoid the early exit.

“Opposition to restructuring is opposition to ending what led to the civil war. Such opposition is mainly from the North whose sons were the military leaders of Nigeria who ruled and ruined post-1966 Nigeria. “

He added, “Opposition to restructuring is to prefer what does not work over what works. The World Bank had confirmed that Nigeria’s agreed structure worked thus opposition to restructuring is calling for a permanence of gross unfairness.”

Ezeife also said, “In substance, restructuring calls for going back to the agreed Nigeria, that Nigeria agreed by our founding fathers.”

Earlier, elder statesman and National Chairman of the Northern Elders’ Council, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, had blamed the involvement of Nigeria’s military in governance and politics for the damage done to Nigeria’s political culture.

In his remarks, a representative of Chief Edwin Clark, Chief Mike Emakpere, said the people of the South-South were of the opinion that the current system had failed hence the need to revisit it in other for equity and justice to prevail.

He said, “We are saying that anybody who says what is going on (in the country today) is okay, that person is not okay.”

Punch

Being a journalist in Nigeria is becoming too risky, no thanks to the rising onslaught against media practitioners by overzealous security agents. In a crackdown reminiscent of the brutal era of military dictatorship, the Nigeria Police Force and State Security Service agents have resorted to the harassment of journalists on flimsy grounds. There is no justification for these draconian measures by the security agents. Without a free press, democracy is doomed. The Inspector-General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, and the SSS Director-General, Lawal Daura, should take action against officers who overstep their bounds in the line of duty.

Recently, Daily Independent and Daily Trust journalists have tasted the bitter pill of repression in the hands of the SSS and police officers. Tony Ezimakor, the Abuja bureau chief of the Independent, was the first to experience the crackdown when he was detained by the SSS for about a week in February without charges. According to the newspaper, Ezimakor honoured an invitation from the SSS over a story he wrote about the missing Chibok girls, but he ended up in detention. This is arbitrary, a clear abuse of the intelligence agency’s powers.

The disturbing trend had earlier gained currency on the eve of Kirshi’s arrest. Major newspapers, including The PUNCH, The Nation, ThisDay, Tribune and Vanguard, were arbitrarily barred from covering President Muhammadu Buhari’s belated condolence visit to Benue State on March 12. The state had been under siege from herdsmen attacks, which have painted the Buhari administration in a bad light.

Such abridgement of constitutionally guaranteed rights is uncalled for under a democratic government. The real concern, however, is that these cases are not isolated. In January 2017, Nigerian Army operatives stormed the Premium Times and arrested the publisher of the online newspaper, Dapo Olorunyomi, and the judiciary correspondent, Evelyn Okakwu. The arrests followed a story about the counter-insurgency operations in the North-East, where the military are battling Boko Haram miscreants.

In a bizarre case in Ikotun, Lagos, in February, the police arrested the online editor of Vanguard newspaper, Aliyu Adekunle, for taking the photograph of police officers bullying commercial motorcycle operators. “When they accosted me and ordered me to enter their van, I insisted and asked them to tell me the crime I committed. They remained mum and pushed me inside their Black Maria,” he said. This is demeaning. Police officers who are not conversant with Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which enshrines the freedom of the mass media, are a danger to democracy.

On the pretext of preventing security breaches, the military hijacked newspaper delivery vans in June 2014 during the Goodluck Jonathan administration. Soldiers ransacked and seized newspaper copies, leading to serious financial losses to the media outfits. In the process, they brutalised vendors who protested the repression. To the chagrin of the discerning public, Jonathan justified the action by claiming that newspaper vans were a threat to security because they were being used to transport guns. It seems he (Jonathan) too, did not understand the role of the media in a democracy. Yet, in April 2017, President Muhammadu Buhari’s Chief Security Officer, Bashir Abubakar, audaciously expelled Lekan Adetayo, State House correspondent of The PUNCH, from the seat of government over a story on the President’s health. It took a national outcry for him to be recalled.

The Buhari government has to take a long, hard look at the operations of the security agencies. As the main opposition before 2015, his party, the All Progressives Congress, stridently condemned the then Jonathan government over the repression of human rights, particularly when police attacked some governors who visited in solidarity with the then Rivers State governor, Rotimi Amaechi. Therefore, it should not tolerate the current sweeping abuse of journalists. Police officers who do so should face the music.

In the case of defamation, libel and other infractions by the media, there is only one way permissible — seeking redress in court. In July 2015, Governor Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State dragged The Union to court over a publication in the newspaper about his asset declaration. Clearly, this is the pragmatic or enlightened way to handle the case.

Although the justice system is frustratingly slow, journalists and media organisations who are abused by security agents should also learn to litigate. They should not abort the judicial process midstream. Perhaps, by claiming damages against their oppressors, security agencies will then imbibe global best practices. For all of President Donald Trump’s tirades against the United States media over the so-called “fake news,” journalists are not being hauled into jail by the police or the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers. Conversely, his wife, Melania, in April 2017, was awarded damages by a British tabloid, Daily Mail, after she sued the newspaper for libel over her modelling career.

It is only three months into the year 2018, and the number of Nigerians murdered in their villages and homes by gunmen masquerading as Fulani herdsmen is approaching the 500 mark.

From the New Year Day massacres in Benue State which prompted a mass burial televised live, more fronts of barbaric atrocities have been opened in Taraba, Plateau, Zamfara, Kogi, Ebonyi, Kaduna and most of the states in the Central and Southern parts of the country. The killers appeared to “welcome” President Muhammadu Buhari in his belated condolence visit to Benue with the slaughtering of two policemen sent to restore the peace in the state.

Shortly after the President returned from his condolence visit to Dapchi in Yobe State where he met with state government officials and the families of the 110 schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram on 19th February 2018, another 52 innocent souls were wiped out in Borno, Kogi and Plateau States.

It is high time that we, as nation, sat down to identify exactly what is happening to us. Who really are these people we glibly refer as “armed Fulani herdsmen?” Exactly what is their agenda or mission in Nigeria? These questions are pertinent because shortly after the mass burials in Benue in January, the Directorate of State Services (DSS) claimed in a report to President Buhari that a terror group, the Islamic Stat in West Africa (ISWA), was behind the Benue killings.

This report did not draw much traction in the public space because Nigerians have grown skeptical over the body language of the Federal Government and its security agencies which prefer to style these attacks on indigenous communities as “farmers/herders clashes”. It is time to ask ourselves what manner of “herdsmen” would continue to attack and murder our citizens so relentlessly and remorselessly and yet our police and military contingents sent to arrest the situation appear unable to cope? Exactly what has the Army’s Operation Cat Race (Ayem Akpatuma) achieved so far?

We wish to draw President Buhari’s attention to the fact that Nigerians are holding him firmly to his campaign promise to secure the nation. This was top of his three-point agenda which persuaded Nigerians to vote for a change of ruling party and government in 2015. Unfortunately, instead of insecurity and insurgency reducing in scale, we are seeing a widening and an escalation of it. That the Dapchi schoolgirls were abducted while the Chibok abductions have not been solved is a pointer to the fact that we have lost more ground to insecurity under Buhari’s watch.

Condolence visits are not enough. Nigerians are getting tired of them. We want a firm and decisive step taken to secure all Nigerians irrespective of their ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds or political affiliations.

We want action taken NOW!

Vanguard

From Monday, June 4, 2018 new tariffs for alcoholic beverages and tobacco products will come into effect in Nigeria. President Muhammadu Buhari, who approved the tariffs, stated that the upward review of the excise duty rates for alcoholic beverages and tobacco is to achieve a dual benefit of raising government’s fiscal revenues and reducing the health hazards associated with tobacco-related diseases and alcohol abuse.

Under the newly approved excise duty rates for tobacco in addition to the 20 per cent ad-valorem rate, each stick of cigarette will attract N1 specific rate [N20 per pack of 20 sticks] in 2018, N2 specific rate per stick [N40 per pack of 20 sticks] in 2019 and N2.90k specific rate per stick [N58 per pack of 20 sticks] in 2020.

Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, who announced the President’s approval, said the new specific excise duty rate for alcoholic beverages cuts across beer and stout, wines and spirits for the three years covering 2018 to 2020. Under the new regime, beer and stout will attract N0.30k per centilitre in 2018 and N0.35k per centilitre in 2019 and 2020. Wines will attract N1.25k per centilitre in 2018 and N1.50k per centilitre in 2019 and 2020, while N1.50k per centilitre has been approved for spirits in 2018, N1.75k per centilitre in 2019 and N2.00k per centilitre in 2020.

The federal government said the new tariff regime followed all-inclusive stakeholder engagements by the Tariff Technical Committee of the Federal Ministry of Finance with key industry stakeholders and is in line with the Economic Community of West African States’ directive on the harmonisation of member-states’ legislation on excise duties.

We commend the effort of the federal government for the concern on the health hazard of cigarette smoking which increases risk for death from all causes in men and women and causes about 80% (or 8 out of 10) of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cigarette smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general. Thus, quitting smoking lowers the risk for smoke-related diseases and can add years to life. Alcohol on the other hand, when consumed excessively, can take a serious toll on health as it interferes with the brain’s communication pathways and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can damage the heart, causing problems including stretching and drooping of heart muscle, irregular heartbeat, stroke, and high blood pressure.  

Though the labour unions have kicked against government’s move saying the new tariff would impact on the cost of production, thereby creating job losses and an increase on the part of consumers who would have to pay more for cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and others, we urge that regulation must continue because it is government’s social responsibility. Any savings made in harmful products’ prices will be more than offset by rising healthcare costs.

Government should therefore collaborate with industry stakeholders such as National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), food, beverage and tobacco employees, and Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) on the issue of a proper tax regime for tobacco and alcohol.

Daily Trust

Evil lovers destroy leaders who should be great. I think of this whenever I see sycophants around presidents who should be heroes. Sometimes they mix sycophancy with cynicism and call the brew loyalty. Evil advisers and disciples always gut kings of all goodness. There was the red carpet reception in Yobe for our mourning leader. Red carpet represents power, glitz and glamour. But it has a history of blood and betrayal. That is why leaders need to be careful where they put their feet.

When you are in power, every palm massages your ego. Some do it with subtlety. Some don’t care if they are called sycophants. Then it is always very difficult to know who truly loves you.

The first red carpet event is recorded in Greek literature. It ended in fatal betrayal. King Agamemnon went to the Trojan war and came back victorious. An elaborate reception showed his wife laying a red carpet for him as a befitting canvass for a gallant husband. The victorious king knew his limits as a mortal. Only the gods walk on gracious grounds. He would not have anything to do with the red cloth before him. That was a treatment befitting only the gods: “Such state becomes the gods,” he tells his wife, “and none beside. I am a mortal, a man; I cannot trample upon these tinted splendors without fear thrown in my path.” But his wife taunted him with a rebuke of cowardice: “Come on, step on it,” she tells him. “If your opponent had won, he would have walked on purple.” Then the strong king melted. He stepped on the carpet, fearfully praying that: “no god’s eyes of hatred strike me from afar.” His prayer soon failed. His death, that very day, did not come from afar. It came from that same dear wife who gave him the red carpet reception. Throne-seeking Elephant in folklore sat on one. He ended up in the bowel of Tortoise’s craftiness. So, why won’t all who are in power beware of all carpets – red, green, black, whatever?

Bucks get easily passed here. One day we may hear that the president warned against a red carpet treatment in that Yobe village of mourning. If he did, who then disobeyed him? Where I come from, the one called Hawk has no excuse for not depriving the hen of its chicks. A king must never be heard complaining that his word is not law. It is like the president saying in Benue he didn’t know his police boss trashed his orders to take charge personally in that state. So, why would a president ask a police chief to go somewhere and the man would send himself a different errand?  We hear of a query for the police chief. We also read the police charging back that there was no query. We read police spokesperson saying: “Anyone that said the IGP was queried by the president should bring the copy of the query, let us display it.” Then we should ask what is happening here? The Yoruba word for president is Aare. If he sends for you, it is needless and useless consulting the oracle. He is the master-oracle. In Yoruba history, no Aare ever allowed a woman look his leopard eyeball to eyeball without consequences. It was either the insolent takes his exit or the leader bows out. It happened to Aare Latoosa in Kiriji one bloody afternoon in 1885.

What happened? Any leader who rewards personal loyalty with indulgence will soon come to sorrow. Latoosa indulged his children. He indulged even his slaves. They had licences to misbehave. And they did to the discomfiture of all war chiefs around the big boss. A top war chief, Seriki, longed for food from his mother’s kitchen. He then sent a messenger home in Ibadan asking his mother to send him his favourite meal. The old woman put extra efforts into preparing the food for his son who may die soon at the war front. The delicacy left Ibadan but did not get to the Seriki at the war camp. A spoilt slave of Aare Latoosa waylaid the messenger a few kilometers to the war camp and did the unthinkable.

The audacious slave seized and ate this General’s meal. ‘Fear God, fear General’ is a popular warning in contemporary military barracks. If this slave feared any General, it was only his master, the Aare. Any other General could go eat his dog’s excreta while he took his meal. But such an impudence must have consequences. And it did. Samuel Johnson reports what followed: “Unfortunately the Aare took the matter lightly: instead of dealing out sharp punishment to the slave, he left him to dispute the matter with the Seriki. He even attempted to shield him, before the culprit was forcibly brought forward. The Seriki then asked him, “Did not the messenger tell you the things were mine?” He answered, “Yes, he did, but how am I to know that he was speaking the truth when he said, ‘It is the Seriki’s’? I thought he was deceiving me.” There was no apology made, his master looked on amused.

The Seriki thereupon arose, unsheathed his sword, and with one sweep severed the slave’s head from his shoulders in the very presence of his master! All the war chiefs present neither moved nor said a word.”

That was a reaction from a General who would not brook insolence from any quarter. And again, what was the reaction of the Aare, master of the beheaded slave? He saw the action as what it really was: an affront? Not really, but a declaration of war. It was a direct challenge to his position and power; he read it correctly. He had options: he could move against that chief who killed his servant in his very presence. He did not take that option because he could not. He could lament and whine that his appointee dared him. Some lesser others could whine but he was the Aare. He didn’t do that. The Aare was the Commander-in-Chief who must not lose any battle, including in his very homestead. There were personal consequences for a General losing any fight. What did Aare Latosa do? He decided it was time to become an ancestor who could not be challenged again. Samuel Johnson captures that last moment: “Just before the end, he sent for Sanusi, his eldest son, and gave him his last charge. Sanusi left him smoking his pipe, his courtiers sitting all around him. He was heard to cough gently as if suffocated by the fumes of his pipe, and putting down the pipe he lay quietly on his mat and adjusted his cloth over himself – and thus passed away gently. Those sitting about him and looking on scarcely believed he was dead!”

That was a reaction from a General. And it was clear: a king must never be heard bemoaning his impotence. Impotence is not a palace affliction. Or maybe I should say that a feeble king can shout his loss of command; when he does that, the town tells him he can’t make his title trending again. And he won’t ever be allowed to make his failure contagious. Failure becomes deregulated when we hear of killings in Benue today; abductions tomorrow in Yobe. And camps spring up everywhere for the displaced in their own country. And the Commander-in-Chief blames fellows he hired.

When impotence becomes as contagious as polio, the land loses its stability. It gets crippled.

There is a marked distinction between celebrating and grieving. Not even under the weight and influence of status, gender, religion or ethnicity does an equilibrium exist between these two dispositions. They are mutually exclusive. And any attempt, by way of omission or commission, to make both moods look equal, as was the case during President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent condolence visit to Dapchi, Yobe State,  calls into question the sense of rationality and sensitivity. The people of Dapchi and indeed the entire country are still saddened by the avoidable abduction of 110 girls from the School of Science and Technology, Dapchi, by Boko Haram terrorists.

Yes, President Buhari may not have asked for or known that he would be given a red carpet treatment in Dapchi but his aides who arranged the visit should have known and prevented it. They should not have missed out on such an important detail because of its sensitivity. The presidential advance party to Dapchi too could have averted the embarrassing spectacle hours or even minutes before the president’s arrival by removing the red rug that tended to turn an event that strictly called for sobriety into one of fanfare and merrymaking. It was uncalled for. Even President Buhari had options:  he could have taken a different route just outside the red carpet to his seat or the podium to underscore his aversion to a red carpet in the circumstances.

And assuming that the protocol and security teams confined him to a pre-planned route, they could not have stopped him from making an off-the-cuff remark that would have alluded to the impropriety of a red carpet in the circumstances. He could have assured that he would have felt well received, honored and respected even without the red carpet, given the prevailing situation. Such a statement, whether terse or profound, would have reined in the plethora of besmirches that have attended the otherwise well-intended condolence visit.  It would, in addition, have portrayed the president as having a perfect understanding of the seriousness and enormity of the matter at issue and his supposed empathy with the victims and their parents would have been more believable. Sadly, the president and his handlers failed to advert their mind to this important and sensitive precaution or simply did not think that it mattered.

Regrettably, the manner of reception ostensibly permitted by the president at Dapchi, coming on the heels of his appearance and participation in an elaborate wedding party in Kano State a few days earlier, gave the impression that he was lackadaisical about the grave incident of the abduction of the girls. This negative public perception may not necessarily impact on the critical issue of rescuing the abducted girls as quickly as possible but it does have effects on the psyche of the parents of the abducted girls. It would be recalled that some parents of the abducted Chibok girls died before their children were rescued because they went into depression as a result of poor handling of the post-incident management of the disaster, especially in the areas of negative official disposition and careless utterances that failed to inspire hope.

To be sure, we do not suggest that the entire country should grind to a halt or that those who have reasons to celebrate should not do so because of this collective misfortune. The point being made, however, is that the president as the head of the family should not be overly celebratory at a time when some members of his family are grieving. He should learn to apply the balancing act, in which case moderation would be key. In whatever way it is viewed, going to Dapchi with a red carpet is patently in bad taste and the symbolism is simply awful. It did not show empathy with the distraught parents of the kidnapped girls. President Buhari would appear to have a need for better advisers and/or learn to take good advice. Whatever is the cases, it is time he began making necessary adjustments to obviate the spate of unforced errors that have continued to expose the underbelly of his government.

Tribune

The decision, correct decision in my view, by the National Assembly that the presidential election should always be held last is generating a lot of heat. It has not ended there. The President, Muhammadu Buhari, has vetoed the decision of the National Assembly. Now the sparks are flying.

First the facts: In the election sequence earlier released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the election manager wanted the presidential and National Assembly elections held first and the governorship and state assembly elections held last. I fail to see the logic in holding the most important election first and the less important ones last. By our experience from past elections there are always hiccups and hitches in the first set of elections, which INEC officials always manage to correct in subsequent elections.

That commonsensical approach would recommend that it is better to take an uninsured risk early with the lower grade elections than with the most important election, the presidential. In the light of the possible error reduction at the presidential election level when held last, I think the National Assembly’s approved election sequence is the best option. It approved a three stanza arrangement: National Assembly first governorship and state houses of assembly next and presidential last.

The National Assembly’s arrangement is meritorious on two counts when compared with INEC’s format. As earlier stated, it puts the big league election, presidential, last, thus ensuring the resolution of administrative, security and equipment malfunctioning problems before the big masquerade comes out. By INEC’s arrangement, the presidential and National Assembly elections are held on the same day. In the National Assembly’s schedule the presidential election stands alone. This allows INEC to pay its full and undivided attention to this often hazardous election.

The presidential election is the only election that often poses a danger to the unity and survival of the country. It was the reason for the December 1983 coup. It brought about riots and killings in 2011. That is how important our presidential elections are.

Let us examine the sequence of past elections. The 1979 elections conducted by the Obasanjo military government, over a five week period, came in this order: Senate, House of Representatives; state houses of assembly; governorship and the Presidency last. In 1983, when Shehu Shagari’s NPN government was in power, the order was changed to presidential, governorship, Senate, House of Representatives and state houses of assembly.

In 1992, the Babangida government, in a mystifying staggered arrangement, held the governorship and House of Assembly elections on December 14, 1991, Senate and House of Representatives elections on July 4, 1992, and the presidential election on June 12, 1993. We had a chance to profit from the hiccups of the earlier elections before we conducted what was reputed to be the fairest and freest election in Nigeria’s history, the June 12, 1993, presidential election.

In 1999, the elections conducted by the General Abdulsalami Abubakar government came in this order: governorship and state houses of assembly, National Assembly and presidential elections last. In 2003, INEC retained the 1999 sequence and held the presidential election last. In 2011, INEC tried a new experiment and made the presidential election the meat in the sandwich between the National Assembly and the governorship and state houses of assembly elections in a three-stanza election. In 2015, there were two tranches with the presidential and National Assembly elections being the opener while the governorship and state houses of assembly brought up the rear.

Those who think that putting the presidential election first would have given President Muhammadu Buhari, an incumbent, an advantage, have not proven it. The presidential election came first in 2015 under the leadership of President Goodluck Jonathan, an incumbent. He lost it.

All those who claim that holding the presidential election first can produce a bandwagon effect in favour of the incumbent are just engaging in idle talk not backed by any empirical evidence. Why did Jonathan lose in 2015? It is the issues of economy, corruption, insecurity, especially the kidnap of the Chibok girls and his tepid response to it. My views here are also guesswork, no empirical evidence.

In 2014, the governorship election in Osun was won by the APC, when the PDP was in power at the centre. Last year, the Anambra State governorship election was won by APGA and the Anambra voters knew that there was an APC government at the centre. The truth is that the so-called bandwagon effect is a myth. Elections in the states are often lost or won based on local issues.

It will continue to remain that way because the voters identify more with the issues in their localities, largely issues of appointments, siting of amenities, infrastructural development and issues of fairness and justice. I will be surprised if the teachers’ issue and the Southern Kaduna problem does not become a major talking point in the Kaduna governorship election next year. I can also bet my last kobo that the Fulani herdsmen and farmers’ crisis will be the staple conversation during the campaign in Benue State next year.

My view is that what will determine the outcome of next year’s elections, whether in the states or at the centre, will be largely issues, not bandwagon effect.

The truth is that the bandwagon effect has not been verified in Nigeria and to split hairs over it is baloney. The other truth is that those who wish the country well can easily admit that the presidential election, if held last, will benefit from pitfalls discovered in earlier elections. Also, the evidence is that all our past leaders who were not contestants in the elections preferred the presidential elections held last. In 1979, 1992 and 1999, Obasanjo, Babangida and Abubakar, respectively, were not contestants and they all preferred the presidential elections bringing up the rear. And even in 2003, when Obasanjo was in power, he still chose, wisely, to hold the presidential election last.

Only twice, 1983 and 2015, were presidential elections held first. On both occasions the country was close to the brink. In 1983, President Shagari won dubiously in a so-called landslide and then there was a gunslide later. In 2015, the President lost honourably and conceded victory.

We must all work hard to strengthen our institutions for us to even remotely expect our democracy to be sustainable. INEC is at present under the thumb of the executive arm. Its commissioners are appointed by the executive and confirmed by the Senate but there is no evidence of its touted independence. The National Assembly must do its best to make INEC independent so that it does not become the errand boy of the executive or of any other institution. INEC’s job is too important to be left open for manipulation by the whims and caprices of any partisan institution.

A permanent order of elections that ensures that the presidential contest comes last is best for the country. It is rational, it is commonsensical, it will ensure stability and INEC and everybody else involved in the elections can plan sensibly.

A great outcry rose in Nigeria since last week when it transpired that members of the National Assembly, the legislative branch of government, were pocketing huge sums of money as emoluments hitherto unknown to Nigerians. Senator Shehu Sani, representing Kaduna Central, had granted an interview to TheNews in which he disclosed that senators receive N13.5 million monthly as “running expenses,” beside their salary of N700,000. 

This is separate from 17 different allowances running into many millions paid to the legislators. The senators also receive yearly N200 million for constituency projects.

Most Nigerians have for years, noted that since the return of representative democracy in 1999, the two chambers of the National Assembly – the Senate and the House of Representatives — have been unduly reticent about their take home pay.  Credulous Nigerians presumed that as responsible representatives of the people, the members should be trusted on matters like that, especially when the Constitution has prescribed that the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) should fix the remuneration of public officials.

Occasionally, alarms had been raised by some eminent Nigerians who feared that the legislators may turn the power of the purse granted them by the 1999 Constitution into an avenue for self-enrichment.  Among those who spoke up were the former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and a former Minister of Education, Mrs. Oby Ezekwesili.  In each case, the members of the National Assembly drowned out their voices with denial, evasions and misinformation.   

It deserves mention that National Assembly members receive the regular, traditional allowances running into millions for accommodation, furniture, constituency, a vehicle loan, tour duty, severance and gratuity, and estacode.  But on top of these are other allowances for wardrobe, hardship, newspapers/periodicals, entertainment, utilities, personal assistant, domestic staff, vehicle maintenance, house maintenance allowances, in an environment in which the level of poverty is such that 70 per cent of the populace are unable to afford two square meals per day and more than 80 per cent try to survive with less than one dollar a day.

From the disclosures, it is now beyond dispute that our legislators are, by far, the highest paid in the world which seems to explain why the chambers have been opaque, members dodgy and evasive about their earnings.  For 18 years, they maintained a cult-like secrecy on how much they earned; not even the invocation of the Freedom of Information Act could make them reveal their earnings.

The Constitution is unequivocal that only the RMAFC should determine the earnings of public officials.  Section 84(1) states that “there shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.”  Any earnings outside the recommendations of the RMAFC would, on the face of it, therefore, appear illegal and should be stopped forthwith and the excess recovered.  The idea of a N13.5 million monthly running expense in Abuja is so absurd.  It is an insult on the intelligence of Nigerians. It is no more than a poorly disguised treasury-looting.  This is so painful because everywhere in the world, it is the legislature that watches the public treasury with eagle eyes to ensure there is neither waste nor abuse of national resources. 

We commend Senator Sani for his exemplary service in the Senate and for his unusual courage.  He today represents the conscience of the National Assembly, being also the only member who had the courage to declare his assets publicly. 

During the dark days of the Sani Abacha dictatorship, he represented the conscience of the nation.  Those roles he did not choose, were thrust upon him by history and he never shrank from them. Senator Sani should take solace in the truth that Nigeria never forgets those who serve her well.

Sun