Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, (MOB) was a member of the seventh House of representatives from Iyin- Ekiti,  in Ekiti central Senatorial district of Ekiti State. He is a lawyer of note and an ex- commissioner in Lagos State. 

The state was agog last Wednesday when he formally made known his intention to run for the governorship of the state. He told party executives of the All Progressives Congress ( APC) at the APC office in Ajilosun area  of the state capital, Ado Ekiti, that he would never let the party down should the party decides to support him.

This is even as he denied having any pact with a fellow aspirant, Senator Babafemi Ojudu, who is declared his intention to run for the Ekiti governorship last Friday. Bamidele also denied being under pressure to step down for anyone.

A huge crowd of supporters and admirers of the politician, many of whom had benefitted in cash and kind from his benevolence came out en mass out in his honour and shut down the state capital, causing heavy gridlock along the popular Ado Ikere road that linked the Ajilosun Secretariat of the APC from Okeyinmi roundabout.

All clad in white T-shirts that bore Bamidele’s bold image, the excited crowd walked for nearly two kilometres from the Okeyinmi roundabout to the APC office.

They sang many love songs for Bamidele who looked resplendent in elaborate white Agbada lace. He also wore the  “Awo famed cap” to reveal his identity as a progressive member of the late sage, Obafemi Awolowo’s political family.

Earlier in the day, the supporters had chartered 18-seater buses from all the 16 Local Government Areas of the state and filling up each of the buses to its brim. They bombarded the Ajilosun office of the APC and took over all restaurants and motor parks in the capital city as early as 7:30am to await the arrival of their man.

When Bamidele stormed Ado Ekiti from his Iyin country home, broom wielding supporters came out in their hundreds to the to join him on his way to the party secretariat.

Security operatives and party officials had a difficult time controlling the crowd that had taken over the available spaces at the secretariat by the time Bamidele got there.

Just before he went to declare his intention to the party executives, Bamidele had a brief chat with the newsmen at the office of the party’s state deputy chairman, Mrs. Kemi Olaleye, where he revealed the purpose behind his grand entry into the secretariat.

He said: “To the glory of God, I’m here at the state secretariat of my party, the APC to declare my intention to run for governorship of Ekiti State in the coming primary of our party. I’m looking forward to be the next governor of Ekiti State and it is mandatory for every aspirant to so declare to the party. I have done a similar thing at the ward level three weeks ago and I have also conducted a tour of all the 16 local government in Ekiti.

Today I’m rounding up at the state secretariat of the party, to declare my intention and by implication we had also done that through the streets of Ado-Ekiti and the rest is for me to address the state exco.”

 Bamidele who also explained his recent rapport with Senator Babafemi Ojudu and former governor of Ekiti State, Kayode Fayemi respectively, further said, “it is interesting and I think this are signs of good development,  these are also things that should send signal to Ekiti people that it is not going to be the same old story, the party is coming back together and stronger and there is no doubting the fact that it is no longer a war time for us in APC, this is an election that will be conducted and done during a peace time, everybody is speaking with everybody”

He also denied the rumour that he was being pressurised by some other aspirants to step down for them, saying:” yes, Senator Ojudu wrote a letter of goodwill to me and I have been in touch with him and I believe it’s a kind of letter that should go from every aspirant to the other aspirant. What is important is that we all remain sincere about what we profess, so it is a welcome development. But that does not mean we have any pact, he’s also on this race and I’m happy the party is at home with that.

“It is also true that Dr Kayode Fayemi visited my office, when I went to my ward for the declaration three weeks ago and during my tour of the 16 councils, I made it clear that Dr Kayode Fayemi and I was bond together as friends on a personal note and we both remained as stakeholders in APC. He is definitely a frontline leader of the party in Ekiti State and there is no doubting the fact that we all need to work together. I’m in this race and by the grace of God I will work with every aspirant, the fact that Dr Fayemi also came to my office should not give room to any speculation, just like a letter written to me by Senator Ojudu shouldn’t give room to any speculation.

Sun

 “Dr Kayode Fayemi came to my office two weeks ago but before his visit, Senator Ojudu had visited that office twice, and many leaders of our great party had visited that office. People had reason to visit, either on personal or official to discuss the affairs of the party, it has nothing to do with anyone’s aspiration. It also show relevance both on my part and by God’s grace on the part of the people who are visiting, for me it is a welcome development 

 “It might interest you to also know that I have as well visited Dr. Fayemi and his family after he visited my office. For us in APC, it is not going to be the same old story. The party is getting ready to take over the state and all of us are working together to achieve this end” he added.

 Asked if he would, like it happened in 2014, opt for an option B, if the election did not favour him, Bamidele’s said: “A point of clarification, I never dumped the APC, I was a member of ACN and I was a member of ACN till the last day , and as part of the team of ACN that took the certificate of registration back to INEC, to say we were done with ACN, because it was a condition that the party must discontinue, to enter into negotiation with other political parties, CPC did the same things, ANPP did the same thing, as well as other small parties.

  “It was after we were done with ACN, but before the registration of APC, owing to disagreement within the leadership of the party in Ekiti State that I had to go and join Labour Party, I did not dump the APC. 

“APC was not even registered as at the time I joined the Labour Party and in any case, these are things of the past, we have moved beyond that, everybody is back in this party, a lot of people who left this party a long time ago are back in the fold. We started as Alliance for Democracy, we became Action Congress and later Action Congress of Nigeria, and today we are APC. During the cause of the journey, as everybody tried to approach his own destination, there have been several bus stops for different people. Before we brought Dr. Fayemi in 2006, after the primaries , a lot of people left us, Senator Ayo Arise left the party for another party, today we are happy that he’s back from PDP into APC and we are all happy together, Yinka Akerele left, today he’s back, Engineer Segun Oni left for PDP, today we are happy he’s back, I left for Labour Party at some point , even though I didn’t not dump the party like I said , neither did I cross carpet, because I was in parliament as I didn’t have to cross carpet and today I’m also in APC. So, everybody will have his own story but what is important centrally is the fact that we are all back to build a united and strong party,” he declared.

  Bamidele also spoke on the aspirants’ agitation for zoning to enable a southern Ekiti person take the plum job, saying: “I want to say that zoning is a legitimate issue. It is also legitimate for every district of the state to aspire in line with the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria.

 “The constitution of our party didn’t respect zoning and even the constitution, so we are free to contest irrespective of the legitimacy of the agitations” he admonished.

While India has sacred cows, Nigeria has sacred cow owners. That’s why, despite the atrocities being perpetrated by cows and their herders across the country, the ownership of the estimated 19.5 million cows in Nigeria remains shrouded in secrecy. Surely, the herdsmen we see carrying AK-47 rifles and following the cows through the highways, villages, and farmlands are not the owners of the cows they tend. Rather, they are hired by the cattle owners to ensure that the cattle are fed and defended against rustling and other dangers.

We also know that the herdsmen are organised into an association known as the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria. Speaking at the General Assembly of the Interfaith Dialogue Forum for Peace on January 18, 2018, the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III, revealed that MACBAN was established over 32 years ago to cater for the welfare of its members and advance the growth of the Fulani business. By the Fulani business here is meant cattle rearing. MACBAN has a branch in each of the six zones of the country, which often promptly intervenes on matters concerning the herdsmen within its zone.

Beyond the leadership of MACBAN, the first suspects are the patrons of the association. The list consists of the echelons of Fulani oligarchs. Here’s the list as recounted recently by one of them, the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II: “The first grand patron was Sultan Abubakar III; and he was replaced by successive sultans-Dasuki, Maccido and Saad Abubakar now. Other patrons were the Lamido of Adamawa, and emirs of Zazzau and Katsina. So, my predecessor was a patron and on my ascension to the throne, I became a patron” (The PUNCH, January 14, 2018).

My investigation reveals that the vast majority of the Fulani elite each owns hundreds or thousands of heads of cattle. It will be recalled, for example, that President Muhammadu Buhari revealed in his assets declaration in 2015 that he owned “farms, an orchard, and a ranch … 270 heads of cattle, 25 sheep, five horses, a variety of birds and a number of economic trees” (Vanguard, September 3, 2015). In view of the ongoing controversy over cattle colonies, it is interesting to note that Buhari owns a ranch in which, it must be assumed, his animals are kept.

Informal enquiries within the last three months further reveal that the ownership of cattle goes well beyond the Fulani. Many Northern politicians of various ethnicities, especially governors, senators, and members of the House of Representatives as well as their predecessors in office, also own cattle. So do businessmen and thousands of livestock farmers. It is also true of military and ex-military officers from the North.

Interestingly, the ownership of cattle in Nigeria is not limited to Northerners. There is no state in the federation in which cattle owners do not reside with their cattle. And not all of such owners are Northerners. In every state, there are indigenes who own cattle. For example, the rumour is very rife that Senator David Mark, an Idoma from Benue State, owns several hundreds of heads of cattle.

What seems to be common to all cattle owners in the country is the hiring of Fulani herdsmen to tend their cattle, often through the local MACBAN branch. This is in recognition of pastoralism as their traditional occupation. The implication is that there are Fulani herdsmen resident in virtually every state in the federation. This is why, for example, many Benue residents claimed that they knew some of the herdsmen who plundered their villages and killed residents.

So far, the people’s anger has been directed at these herdsmen, who are being blamed for the serial conflicts with local farmers, whose farmlands and entire villages are being plundered by the cattle. It is high time the owners of the cattle were brought into the equation. There are several reasons to do so, and urgently too.

First, if my neighbour’s gateman drives the neighbour’s goat into my compound and the goat eats up the bunch of plantain in my backyard, I will not stop at blaming the gateman. Rather, I will report both the gateman and the goat to my neighbour and demand that the goat be gated within his compound. If the incident goes on repeatedly, I may double my demand — cage the goat and also pay reparation. If that fails, I will sue him. This rule should apply to cow owners. The problem is that we do not know them.

Third, it is necessary to know the source of the AK-47 rifles carried by the herdsmen in full public glare. Where do the arms come from and who is arming them? The other day, I saw four herdsmen march about 200 heads of cattle past an army checkpoint and a police checkpoint within 200 metres of each other. I wondered why they were not arrested and disarmed in keeping with the President’s order to do so.

Why do security officers appear complicit in the herdsmen’s crime? Why is the Federal Government always ready to appease the herdsmen instead of blaming them for their crime, while delaying, if not denying, the necessary attention to the victims? Why is the focus more on building cattle colonies than in rebuilding plundered villages and compensating the victims? These questions are being raised because many believe that there are powerful interests behind the herdsmen’s atrocities.

Fourth, it is necessary to know the cattle owners so that the Federal Inland Revenue Service could collect the appropriate tax from them. Millions of people must be raking in profit from the sale of cows, beef, milk, cowherd, and so on. The Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, and the FIRS should be keenly interested in them.

Finally, it is high time reliable statistics were generated that would provide necessary data for planners and researchers interested in livestock farming in Nigeria. Such data should be able to tell us who owns what breed of cattle and where? If such data are not available now, where does the figure of 19.5 million heads of cattle come from? On what basis is the government planning its intervention in the ongoing conflicts between herdsmen and farmers? Appropriate data are needed and necessary taxes should be collected, if livestock farming were to make a dent on Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product.

Russia on Monday named a deaf white cat who lives in Saint Petersburg's historic Hermitage Museum as its official prognosticator for the World Cup.

Achilles the Cat will hope to repeat the fabled exploits of Paul the Octopus and other "psychic" animals tasked with predicting winners of football's showpiece event.

"We will hold a special press conference and hand Achilles a Fan ID card," the Hermitage Museum's cat press secretary Mary Khaltunen told the R-Sport news agency.

The fact that Russia's most fabled collection of art has a spokeswoman for cats may be news to some.

But R-Sport says Hermitage Museum cats are legion — and apparently football experts.

The cats were first brought to the Hermitage when Peter the Great made its Winter Palace into the new imperial home in the 17th century.

Empress Elizabeth of Russia eventually issued a decree demanding "the shipment of cats to the court".

The Hermitage was turned into a private art collection after Catherine the Great's death in 1796.

The Hermitage's Cat Museum founder Anna Kondratyeva said Achilles went on sabbatical and "put on a belly" after also picking winners in last year's Confederations Cup in Russia.

It was not immediately clear how well he did.

But the 4.7-kilogramme (10.4-pound) feline would have to be in top form to repeat Paul the Octopus's correct prediction of all seven German wins at the 2010 World Cup.

The octopus also correctly picked final winner Spain by settling its tentacles over the Spanish flag when it was lowered into Paul's tank.

Achilles's selection process will be less dramatic: the cat will simply stick his snout into the winning bowl of food.

"Achilles was born deaf, which may explain his heightened intuition," R-Sport wrote.

AFP

Nigeria’s recent downgrade in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has understandably generated great furore, with the government faulting the basis for the grading. But for those who have been living in a fool’s paradise, thinking that, by mere force of government pronouncement, corruption could suddenly be put to flight, this is the time to wake up and face the stark reality of pervasive corruption in Nigeria.

No doubt, this is a development that has dealt a stunning blow to the Federal Government’s anti-corruption posturing, which is why many aides of President Muhammadu Buhari have decided to kick against the rating. This, they have claimed, is not a fair reflection of the efforts of the government to stamp out endemic corruption from public life. From a lowly position of 136th out of the 176 countries surveyed in 2016, and a miserable 28 points out of a possible 100, the country crashed 12 steps down the ladder to 148th in 2017, with a score of 27 points from a possible 100, out of the 180 countries surveyed.

The latest CPI is even more damaging because it came after the President was recently made the champion for the anti-corruption campaign by the African Union. What it amounts to is that Buhari’s anti-corruption fight has made no dent in the level of corruption in the country, especially in the eyes of the experts and business community whose opinions form the basis for the assessment. With the next round of elections just a year away, it will be very difficult for the government to justify its performance, especially as the All Progressives Congress was voted into power on the strength of its anti-graft credentials.

Fighting corruption is not just about collecting the loot and asking the looter to go and sin no more; it is about bringing them to book to serve as a deterrent to others. In the absence of this, many obvious corrupt acts are coming out even among the President’s close circle of aides. Such is the situation that people are beginning to believe that becoming an APC member is all that is needed to shield them from scrutiny by government’s anti-corruption machinery.

To be fair, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the government anti-graft watchdog, has done creditably. But even its little efforts are being hobbled by a cabal within the Presidency and the other agencies with which it was supposed to work closely to achieve the desired results. It is surprising that, up till now, no heads have rolled after the failed confirmation bid of Ibrahim Magu as the EFCC Chairman, following contradictory reports that emanated from the Presidency, which stalled that confirmation.

Perhaps, more surprising is the President’s response to the smuggling of Abdulrasheed Maina, a fugitive from justice, back into the civil service. Although he ordered the swift sacking of the man who was on the wanted list of the EFCC for allegedly stealing pension funds, he suddenly got cold feet when it was time to punish those who were responsible for his reinstatement and double promotion. Buhari’s handling of the Maina case, coupled with his slow response to allegations of corruption brought against the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has done great damage to the government’s anti-corruption credentials.

Despite gaining worldwide notoriety as a very corrupt country — with the immediate past British Prime Minister, David Cameron, describing the country as “fantastically corrupt” two years ago — Nigeria had actually recorded some incremental advances in her bid to curtail the malaise in the past, as acknowledged by TI itself. In 1996, 1997 and 2000, Nigeria came last in the TI rankings, and second to the last in 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2003. But the country was able to rise to 121 in the 2008 perceptions index, out of the 180 countries under consideration.

Since then, it has been a downward trend for Africa’s largest economy, which has negatively affected the quality of life of the citizens. Today, 80 per cent of Nigerians are poor and living on $2 a day, according to the African Development Bank, while the level of infrastructure has been deplorable. A former Executive Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Tim Okon, said Nigeria reaped over $300 billion from oil sales between 2010 and 2014. Yet, much of the money disappeared into private pockets, leaving the country largely impoverished.

Instead of dissipating energy on questioning the CPI, which had been warmly embraced in the past, this is the time to sit up and take the war against corruption more seriously, knowing that the rest of the world is watching. Just as the TI founder, Peter Eigen, once said, the CPI should be seen as “a wake-up call to political leaders and to the public at large to confront abundant corruption that pervades so many countries.”

If Nigeria wants to make progress in the war against corruption, she can find good lessons from Eigen’s advice. It is even heartening that Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo is thinking along that line, going by his recent response to the TI rating. He saw it as “an opportunity to continue building on the many successes that have already been recorded by this government in all key sectors.” Confronting the monster is the only way to succeed in this war against graft; not by living in denial.

Punch

Serena Williams’ return to the WTA Tour came to an abrupt end Monday as she crashed out of Indian Wells with a 6-3, 6-4 loss to her sister Venus.

Venus closed out the 29th career meeting between the two on her second match point as Serena sailed a forehand long to end the third- round showdown.

It was the first meeting between the sisters since they clashed in the final of the 2017 Australian Open, which Serena won before taking a 15-month hiatus due to her pregnancy.

Serena said she is still easing her way back into match fitness.

“It wasn’t very easy, obviously,” she said. “It was good to play and try to get in the rhythm and get into the swing again.

“I can’t really replicate the situation no matter how much I do in practice. I make those shots 10 times out of 10 in practice.

“It’s just the nerves, the anticipation you feel naturally. It’s a little bit of everything that comes in a match that just doesn’t normally happen.”

The 10th seeded Venus moves on to the round of 16 where she will face Anastasija Sevastova, who defeated 12th seeded Julia Georges 6-3, 6-3.

It is rare for the Williams sisters to play this early in a tournament and the earliest they have faced each other since their first encounter at the Australian Open in 1998.

They arrived outside the stadium together on a golf cart then walked through the tunnel with Serena entering the court first, as many in the crowd stood and cheered.

Serena is still shaking off the rust after the long layoff as she hit four aces but had her serve broken four times.

“I just have a long way to go,” Serena said.

Despite the loss Serena still leads their career series 17-12.

This was their first encounter with Venus as an aunt and Serena as a new mother after giving birth to her baby daughter, Alexis Olympia, on September 1.

Venus’s victory also comes 17 years after an ugly booing incident led to a 14-year boycott of the tournament by the sisters.

It brought closure to the once testy relationship between Indian Wells and the sisters who hail from the Los Angeles suburb of Compton. Serena returned to the tournament in 2015 and Venus a year later.

Asked about the incident finally being put to rest, Venus said, “It never crossed my mind.”

Serena said she is trying not to look too far into the season.

“I have a lot to improve on,” she said.

Elsewhere, Australian Open champ Caroline Wozniacki benefited from a challenge call in the final game en route to defeating Aliaksandra Sasnovich 6-4, 2-6, 6-3.

– First major –

Wozniacki silenced the critics earlier this year when she claimed her first Grand Slam title at the Australian Open, becoming the first Danish woman to win a major.

The 27-year-old world No. 2 Wozniacki moves on to the fourth round where she will face 20th seeded Russian Daria Kasatkina, who surprised reigning US Open champion Sloane Stephens 6-4, 6-3.

“I managed to get my feet going more, and to start playing more steady, and that paid off today,” said Wozniacki.

Wozniacki challenged a call in the final game when the line judge ruled that Sasnovich’s shot caught the line. Wozniacki asked for a second look and the review showed that the line judge mistakenly called the ball in.

Wozniacki said the court conditions were difficult but she managed to make adjustments.

“These courts are really difficult to play on. That’s also why you see a lot of upsets,” she said. “The ball bounces really high and it goes extremely slow.”

In other women’s third round matches on Monday, French seventh seed Caroline Garcia defeated Australia’s Daria Gavrilova 7-5, 6-4.

Danielle Collins also won her third round match, defeating Sofya Zhuk of Russia 6-4, 6-4.

AFP

The visit fits into the US long standing policy of containing trouble and trouble makers in faraway places

For an administration that has had scant regard for and interest in the continent, the visit by the United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to a handful of African countries acquires some significance. Despite cutting short the number of days, Tillerson nevertheless visited Ethiopia, Djibouti and Kenya before arriving Nigeria yesterday for several hours before heading back home last night.

Ordinarily, the global gravity of the US dictates that the engagements of its chief diplomat attract attention and headlines. Predictably, and quite expectedly, the choice of countries on this visit was dictated more by the interests of the US than some globalist illusions. This was not a trip about the usual issues that usually dominate such visit in the past: AIDS pandemic, massive poverty or indeed about how to uplift African economies from the jaws of a new debt burden. This was an exercise in undisguised marketing of ‘America First’.

It is within the foregoing context that we should view Tillerson’s whistle stop visit to Abuja yesterday. President Muhammadu Buhari is therefore better placed if he does not raise any expectations from this flying visit beyond the symbolism of diplomatic handshakes and rehash of banalities. The military cooperation between Nigeria and the US has not made much progress aside the fact that a few combat aircraft were sold to our military. In spite of the basing of US drones and service personnel in Chad, Boko Haram has continued to operate freely as evidenced in the recent mass abduction of school girls from Dapchi. The normal expectation would be that with active cooperation of countries like the US, Britain and France, incidents like the Dapchi abductions would be near impossible.

Beyond the predictable counsels on terrorism, it is expected that Tillerson and his Nigerian hosts would have found time to exchange frank views on the need for the administration to improve on its human rights record which, according to Amnesty International and local Nigerian independent observers, remains dismal. The increasing use of the military to contain security threats should also be of concern to all interested observers of the Nigerian scene.

Tillersons may have had general observations to make to his Nigerian counterparts on the need to deepen democratic culture in the country as the ultimate guarantee of peace and security. Yet, he could only have had an audience on such matters for the simple reason that he was flying the US flag. As the number one ambassador of the Donald Trump Washington, Tillerson must have had quite a burden retaining attention given the fact that the administration he represents is presided over by a man whose actions and words are a travesty of the finest traditions of American democracy as the world has come to know it.

While we wish Tillerson safe journey back to America, we must nonetheless stress for the benefit of our authorities that such diplomatic stopover are meaningful only if the Nigerian state conducts itself with the dignity and sense of purpose that would compel leaders of more advanced societies to show greater respect for African countries and their governments.

Thisday

As the anti-corruption war grinds on slowly, daily revelations of mass treasury looting continue keep the populace entertained. All these revelations are geared towards explaining why the Nigeria is in such dire economic straits.

The nation is heavily in debt, and yet has so little to show for it. This is because so much was borrowed and simply shared, or put in to projects which failed due to corrupt practices.

A large part of the money that the nation owes can be traced to private bank accounts held abroad.  Powerless to do anything about it in the face of selective prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the ineffectiveness of the snail paced legal system, citizens look on helplessly.

As if that isn’t bad enough, government at all levels believes that the best means of dealing with their poor finances is to further to tax citizens even though the stolen money was theirs in the first place!  Reprehensibly the people are being asked to pay more taxes at a time when notorious treasury looters are deified, flaunt their wealth and continue to hold top positions. 

In a nation where the leader of the major opposition party Uche Secondus described a self-confessed thief of public funds as a “great leader who must be celebrated”, it comes as no surprise that there is little enthusiasm for paying taxes.

When former US President Harry Truman left office, he walked out of the White House and took a bus home. He said “you can’t get rich in politics unless you are a crook”. In Nigeria all political office holders are rich because public funds are used to subsidize their opulent life styles. 

For example despite the nation’s dire financial predicament, there are several Ministers and 21 Senators who in addition to their salary also collect pensions as former Governors or Deputy Governors. Shehu Sani, the Senator representing Kaduna Central recently let the cat out of the bag over the obscene amounts paid to all Senators when he informed the nation that in addition to their legitimate salary and allowances of N700,000 per month, members of the upper legislative chamber approved for themselves an additional N13.5 million monthly in illegal allowances. 

The revelation has incited widespread anger amongst Nigerians who are increasingly pressurized to pay taxes in spite of the fact that there is no standard infrastructure, health service or educational system that justifies paying taxes for.

Nigerians know that their taxes are mainly used to pay for the extravagances of the political class. It’s important to debunk the myth that taxes are necessary for the operation of good governance. There are 10 countries in the world where no income taxes are paid by anybody, and over 70 countries where the minimum income tax rate 0% so that those citizens living below the poverty line aren’t required to pay tax. 

These nations which choose not to collect income taxes still have other methods of generating revenue and the most common denominator amongst them is that they are oil-producing nations whose national political philosophy has inculcated compassion for the underprivileged.

Although Nigeria has oil, the money either stolen, misappropriated or shared, and no such niceties exist. The super-rich pay virtually no taxes while those struggling to survive on a daily or monthly basis are hounded as a means of increasing internally generated revenue. Paradoxically the same government that claims not to have enough money, gives away billions of Naira annually in form of import duty waivers and tax breaks.  Naturally the beneficiaries are their acolytes. The public believe that it is unfair for certain well known “big men” to continuously benefit from duty waivers, and still get tax breaks for fixing roads used by their business, while struggling businessmen who provide their own electricity and water, as well as patch the roads in their areas are hounded for taxes. 

Bearing in mind the prevailing level of poverty and lack of infrastructure, the case for zero income tax in Nigeria is very strong.

This “out of the box” thinking is way beyond the capabilities of our leaders. It’s the sort of bold move that only progressive compassionate governments consider.

It would mean that those in power would have to severely moderate their lifestyles and citizens would be free to spend their money providing for themselves rather than for their leaders. Instead of looking inwards to save billions and make governance cheaper, political leaders expect long suffering Nigerians to continue paying for the inefficiency, incompetence and high-life. The revelations concerning the ridiculous amounts of money our Senators are playing with certainly do not inspire patriotic. It is fallacious to compare tax rates of different nations. 

Taxes should as far as possible be levied equitably according to ability to pay. In a situation where 75% of the population live below the international poverty line, why should they pay taxes?

Especially at a time that the nation cannot account for its oil revenues!  If truly Nigerians were exempted from paying income tax, it would make the massive theft of government money slightly more palatable. Very few people can be expected to be enamoured with paying taxes when the money will not be accounted for and nothing can be done about it. This is the reason why despite all the hype, VAIDS (Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme is a half-baked idea.

It is conceptualised by those who have used public money to insulate themselves from economic hardship, and have no idea of the contempt in which the general public holds political leaders. Taxation is the means by which government is supposed to raise money to provide standard services, and not money to subsidize their hedonism.

In a situation where these standard services have never been provided, budgets never adhered to, and misappropriation of funds is an on-going problem it’s sheer hypocrisy to expect long suffering citizens to voluntary agree to pay taxes which will be stolen or misapplied.

Greece’s Superleague has been suspended indefinitely and the country threatened to be banned from world football as the government scrambled to contain fallout from the extraordinary scenes witnessed on Sunday when the gun-toting oligarch owner of Paok Salonika stormed on to the pitch in a fit of fury to challenge a goal.

Athens’ leftist-led administration, facing widespread criticism of the lawlessness into which the country’s league has sunk, announced that all top-flight games would be brought to an immediate halt. “We have decided to suspend the championship indefinitely,” the deputy sports minister Giorgos Vassiliadis told reporters after holding emergency two-hour talks with the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras.
“The most important thing is that rules apply to everyone. We are in communication with Uefa and the championship will not resume unless there is a new and clear framework, agreed by all, to move forward with rules and regulations.”

Speaking hours after the announcement of an arrest warrant for Paok’s proprietor, Ivan Savvidis, the politician insisted the government would not renege on its decision whatever the “political cost”.

“We are not going back, we will continue the fight for transparency and a better football,” he said.

Fifa said that Greece could be suspended from world football if its national governing body fails to take “proper actions by the competent bodies to eradicate all sorts of violence in order to guarantee the smooth running of the national competitions”.

The silver-haired Savvidis twice charged on to the field, holstered handgun clearly visible, during the derby against AEK Athens. In the 89thminute when the referee, Giorgos Kominos, appeared to signal a goal for Paok but then disallowed it for offside, the oligarch lost his cool storming on to the pitch, bodyguards desperately trying to stop him, to confront Kominos. The oligarch – one of Greece’s most controversial figures – is believed to have then threatened the referee saying: “You’re over.”

Up until then, the game had been goalless. In the ensuing tumult AEK’s players walked off the pitch, citing security concerns, and the match was abandoned.

The incident has been acutely embarrassing for Tsipras. His government not only pledged three years ago, when it came to power, to crack down on tycoons and their notorious sway over the Greek economy but has repeatedly vowed to clean up professional leagues, like much of Greek football scarred by hooliganism and spectator violence. To make matters worse Savvidis, born in Georgia of Greek heritage and reputed to be one of Russia’s wealthiest men, has close ties to politicians that have helped him not only infiltrate football but facilitate acquisition of assets ranging from the strategic port of Thessaloniki, in the country’s north, to tobacco and media companies.

A former member of the Russian parliament, Savvidis is also said to be close to president Vladimir Putin. His ever-extending reach in Greece has been cause for growing alarm among western diplomats in Athens.

The government’s decision to act with such alacrity was directly linked to the fierce criticism it has faced in the wake of the incident. Commentators likened the oligarch’s behavior to the slow descent of Greece into “a post-Soviet democracy” under the leftists who, increasingly, have come under fire for tactics perceived to have eviscerated the rule of law.

By late Monday Savvidis was still being sought by police. A statement on Paok’s website said: “Ivan Savvidis is preparing to take all necessary steps to protect the club and all his executors and associates from the threats and attacks they are suffering.”

The tycoon’s press office announced that he was licensed to carry a gun. Under current Greek legislation, however, police are not allowed to enter soccer stadiums with firearms.

The Guardian

After the end of the Cold War, there was an in increase in the number of African leaders who embraced constitutional democracy. The importance of the ballot box as a democratic tool for electing leaders was appreciated as power was seen to reside in the electorate. However, the beauty of constitutional democracy began to fade after sit-tight leaders made a mockery of the system, unilaterally elongating heir tenure, thus turning post-Cold War Africa to a breeding ground for dictators and political charlatans. This development has since made some countries the theatre of civil wars fuelled by the struggle for power.

In recent years, the use of massive pressure by the people to remove their leaders from office started with the Arab Spring, engineered by the revolt in Tunisia that sent President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali into exile on January 20, 2011. Since then, other leaders removed from office by popular pressure include former Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore, former Liberian President Charles Taylor, former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, as well as South African ex-leaders, Thambo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. And with more countries asking their leaders to resign, is Africa moving from constitutional democracy to majoritarian democracy, where the ballot box may no longer be needed to hire and fire political leaders? This was the question Diplomatic Circuit asked the former director-general of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, now president and director-general of Bolytag Centre for International Diplomacy and Strategic Studies (BOCIDASS), Prof. Bola Akinterinwa, to answer, with particular reference to the cases of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Akinterinwa says an understanding of the political system of a country is a prerequisite to understanding the forces at play. He observed that South Africa and Zimbabwe are two democracies that operate party system and pointed to the role of political parties in a democracy, particularly in campaigns and election of candidates.

“Electoral contest is not between candidates per se, but between and among political parties. Candidates emerge on the basis of the sponsoring political party,” he said.

Drawing attention to South Africa in particular, he said the ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), first nominated Zuma as its candidate, who competed with the candidates of other political parties. In other words, “Zuma was an ANC nominee, appointee and electee.”

He argued that it is the responsibility of a political party to not only protect its image and interests but to ensure that its electoral fortunes are not jeopardised ahead of the next election.

“Over 900 allegations were made against Zuma, allegations of miss-governance including corruption, indiscipline, etc. They were serious allegations that were impacting negatively on the sponsoring ANC that nominated him and got him elected. Note that ANC has majority in the National Assembly, so its action was an attempt to address the challenges of the future, to avoid losing the next round of elections. So, the message was: let Zuma lose and not the party.”

Would it not have been more appropriate if Zuma had been allowed to face party primaries and indeed the electorate in the next election to determine his fate?

Apparently, Akinterinwa believes that ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’

“The ANC did not want a situation where, perhaps, the fate of Zuma would be used to the detriment of its success at the next election. Therefore, the question of allowing a falling President Zuma to go for another contest, be it at the level of party primaries or the presidential election, does not arise. Already, the people have delegated the power to the party. And the party exercised the power to compel Zuma to resign.”

But Akinterinwa agreed that electoral balloting remains a major dynamic instrument for electing and also rejecting political leaders: “The difference in the examples we are now considering, particularly that of South Africa, is that it involved collective voting, collective bargaining, as against individuals queuing to vote in polling stations. It is the majority within the ANC that took the decision to remove Zuma.”

He wants the public to know that “the strength, the power of the political party is basically a reflection of the institution . . . a political party is more of an institution that is playing its active role, nothing more than that. So, the good of the party, which is the general interest, overrides the interests of the individuals.”

It is the opinion of Akinterinwa that the leadership of a political party that knows its responsibility would not allow an influential but corrupt candidate to smear its public image.

“Zuma had large followership within the party. Whatever be the allegations made against him, some people within the party were benefiting from him. So, there would always be the tendency to support him.

“The mere fact that corruption allegations were made against him, the mere fact that he had been taken to court and in some of the cases, he won, but, more interestingly, the mere fact that Zuma could not see any good reason for being pressured to resign, there was no reason for the party to consider going to the polling station to vote and count how many ballot papers to determine how many people are there in support of him,” he said. 

But how did he place the case of Mugabe? Akinterinwa did not see any difference, noting that Mugabe was also forced to resign. He considered Mugabe’s offence serious, saying he attempted to crown his wife as his successor: “He wanted to sidetrack former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who is now the president. Unfortunately for Mrs. Grace Mugabe, she did not have good rapport with the army. Rather, it was the vice president who had powerful links with army generals. He was in regular consultation with the army. So, the ruling party, ZANU-PF, and the army supported him and chose to show Mugabe the red card.”

Akinterinwa explained that the army acted in line with the yearnings of the people, who had wanted Mugabe to retire before now. But was it right for the Zimbabwean army to have pressurized Mugabe to resign? Akinterinwa was cautious in his reaction. He said, “Going by the African Union standard, any method used to compel or set up a new government that is not through the ballot box is unacceptable; the Union said under no circumstance should there be any change of government without the democratic process being followed. But now there is a new dimension beyond that of the union.”

According to him, in Zimbabwe and South Africa, it is only the originating instrument that is different, and that is the political party in the context of South Africa and the military in the context of Zimbabwe. But “the ultimate objective in both cases is to remove the two leaders from office.”

Akinterinwa would analyze the term coup d’état in order to arrive at his opinion. “Must coup d’état be considered as including violence?

For the AU, there could not be anything like coup d’état” But what is coup d’état? Akinterinwa said, “coup d’état means coup against the state,” adding that “a coup against the state would require another definition: was it forceful attack on government? was there any use of force? . . . That is the challenge.”

“In a nutshell, I would say, in Africa, compelling political leaders to resign is beginning to gain ground. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the people are asking President Joseph Kabila to resign. And the pressure is mounting. In Rwanda, the people attempted it.”

What is semi-presidential system of government?

Hear him: “Semi-presidential system of government means 50 per cent is parliamentary and 50 per cent is presidential. When you operate like a parliament, the system is that the political party that wins election necessarily will provide the leader. He will also be the leader of the National Assembly. So, it is because of the character of semi-presidential system that allows for political parties to be the head in the National Assembly.”

Akinterinwa admits that the semi-presidential system of government and the use of popular pressure to force political leaders from office have negative implications for Africa: “There is no way we wouldn’t have some negativity. Certainly, there are merits but the demerits are also there. For example, I have drawn attention to the AU’s collectively decided policy that under no circumstance would there be forceful change of government in Africa.

“Please, are the cases of Mugabe and Zuma not forceful removal of political leaders from office? Are we saying that it is only when there is violent pressure that it is forceful? Is it forceful only by the use of force?

No, the issue is that Zuma, for example, has not completed his tenure. And he was asked him to go.”

Even as Akinterinwa said the use of pressure to sack political leaders is becoming the trend in Africa because the ballot box seems to have failed the people, he strongly berated the AU for failing to implement its policy as it concerns good governance and the electoral process.

“AU is eating its own words. I think the AU has failed but with much caution in interpreting the failure. It is a failure because it said there should be no use of force in changing a government but it doesn’t have control over the implementation of the policy.

“And if the use of force is interpreted to mean coup d’état, what about coup?

There is difference between the term ‘coup’ and ‘coup d’état.’ Coup is just a change in government but when we say coup d’état, it means violence was engaged.”

He observed that the essence of the AU’s policy is “to promote democracy, to ensure that there is a change of government through electoral balloting. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is not sufficient to argue that the army did not use violence to remove Mugabe.

Was Mugabe not put under house arrest?

“The only difference from the normal norm we know is that they made life more comfortable for him and his family. So, it is a coup par excellence.

So, what has AU done?

I would argue that to that extent, AU has failed.

“But, on the other hand, we may not say AU has totally failed. This is because AU has the policy of subsidiarity. Under the principle of subsidiarity, AU allows each of the five regions of Africa to monitor, to govern, to administer its affairs, particularly in terms of regional security and integration.

“The point I’m making is that, if the regions of Africa have wide powers to, first of all, look at their domestic problems, for AU, problems in each region becomes domestic. It is only when the regions are unable to resolve their problems that they can be brought to the continental level for consideration or advice.

“Therefore, if people are pressurizing their leaders to resign, it cannot be the responsibility of AU to be the first to intervene. So, the role of AU may depend on the issue in question.”

He however cautioned the AU that “in the long run, if Africans are not careful, democracy can be bastardised” because as he puts it “do not force out of government elected leaders. That is their fundamental right. Sooner or later any group of persons can always emerge and insist the president must resign."

Sun

Where the pendulum swings for the Igbo nation has been a burning issue of discourse across the land, as we approach another electoral exercise next year. This issue recently engaged our platform, Nsu Economic Council, NEC, the think tank of Nsu community in Ehime Mbano Local Government Area of Imo State. It comprises the elite of the bustling community and has done so much to reposition the community in its two years of existence under the pragmatic leadership of its initiator and pioneer president, Chief Pascal Egerue, an insurance impresario.

Part of the group’s mandate is to stoke economic and socio-political ideas to sensitise its people on the goings on in the polity and thereby map out strategies that will benefit them. It is not out of place, therefore, that the politics of 2019 has dominated much of NEC’s debate of late.

At the last forum,  Okey Williams had noted that the Igbo were not strategic thinkers but hyper critics.

Said he: “One thing I have come to realise about our people is that we are never strategic in thinking and talking. Open social media today the most criticism of government is from the Igbo while other tribes are busy looking for the opportunities inherent in the government to unlock for the interest of their zone. We play politics of brigandage and bear the cross for the development of other regions. Jonathan became president and the Igbo talked to hell in his defence while the North and the West were busy taking advantage. Now Muhammadu Buhari is the president the Igbo feel most wounded while the same West and South-South are busy building their economies. 

“We are from Nsu and have someone like Hon. Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, who is politically respected and adored across the divides of the nation. He should be our rallying point on issues of concerns to us as Ndi Nsu at this time when the next national cake is about to be shared. We should unite and ask him to go speak for us.

“Honestly, I await the survival of Igbo nation and this can come soon only if we change strategy. Let’s begin to see half glass of water as half full than half empty.” 

 However, the NEC president disagreed that the Igbo revelled in criticism and lacking in strategic thinking.

 According to Chief Egerue: “Certainly, the crop of Igbo that are not strategic thinkers are the Igbo in government. This did not even start today but right from history. The Igbo have been cursed by the most inferior and selfish representation, especially at the executive arm of the government. It is these Igbo in government, who, rather than think of how to locate strategic government assets in the East, take pittance as bribes and look the other way. 

“We have produced generation of ministers of aviation and yet we are struggling to have, at least, one international airport. We had Igbo in government when Dr. Basil Ukaegbu was denied the opportunity of owning the first private university in Nigeria. Today, the concept we lampooned is in every village in the South-West. We had the best chance under Goodluck Jonathan with very juicy ministries, yet nothing happened. The Second Niger Bridge is dragging because of our brainless representatives, who would rather dwell and waste time on technical analysis than play the necessary politics.

“We had opportunity to restructure Nigeria at the local government level with the Arthur Mbanefo Commission but at the end of his work, more LGAs were created in the North and the East remained the way it was. Our temperament as Igbo politicians is that as long as we are eating, nobody should make a noise.

“The truth is that apart from social media mute talks, the Igbo are not criticising this government enough. Governor Nasir El Rufai wrote a stinker to this present government, yet he is in power and well seated in Aso Rock than all Igbo politicians combined. Asiwaju BolaTinubu wrote stinkers and is always sending body language missiles, yet the Yoruba are busy gathering everything. No person in the senate has criticised this government more than Shehu Sani and yet his space is left for him. How many of these Igbo politicians even have the courage to speak Igbo? Check the pictures of banters at Federal Executive Council meetings and you will see our people either neck deep in files or meekly seeking for social acceptance. 

“Because of the docility, servility and sheer incompetence of our representatives, they will prefer to have a dumb acquiescent Igbo, who will either keep quiet in the face of frustration or clap for them stupidly whether they perform or not.

“So far, our people in government and in the corridors of power at federal and state levels are grossly deficient in strategic thinking. They all walk around as if they have impaired vision and can hardly see the impact of today’s government actions on the Igbo of tomorrow. We need to start thinking right. We need to start bringing out the Jew in us in everything that we do.”

Egerue reasoned that if Igbo presidency is not realisable yet, “we should get back to our mercantile life and use our industriousness to make Igbo land the best investment destination in Africa. This can happen if our elected leaders have this in their consciousness and begin to prioritise their development objectives. 

Chief Egerue’s thesis at Nsu Economic Council couldn’t have summed up the Igbo dilemma better. It is not just about criticising Buhari but having strategic alternatives. If truth must be told, the Igbo have learnt nothing from the debacle of 2015. It is even more stupid to be talking about Igbo president in 2019 when we should be pushing for restructuring. Igbo presidency will yield the same losses of the past.

I believe that the politics of 2019 is a jigsaw puzzle that the Igbo must get right. We have frittered away a lot of viable opportunities in times past when our timid leaders traded off our votes wholesale to Jonathan on gratis. 

Whatever must be done should be done expeditiously. The Nwajiuba idea is high flier any day. Even Okigwe South queuing behind its Rep aspirant, Hon. Frank Ibezim, is bankable idea. And, of course, regardless of  Rochas Okorocha’s limp endorsements, Imo State must do everything to exorcise his lurking ghost at all levels.

Nationally, yes, a lot of Nigerians agree that Buhari disappointed the nation… So what; what effectual alternatives are they offering apart from being diarrheic in the mouth? Politics is more than that and if things are not done properly, Buhari dey kampe for as long as his opponents remain emotional and continue to grope in the dark.