Super User

Thursday, 08 March 2018 07:36

The Bill on Hate speech before the National Assembly is an embarrassment. We seem to revel in taking decisions in moments of emotional flourishes and consequently often fail to soberly reflect on possible unintended consequences of our actions.

Last year we saw how the country made itself a laughing stock when IPOB, as despicable and unacceptable as its activities were, was hastily labelled a terrorist organization when it hardly met any of the four key criteria used by terrorism researchers in classifying an organization as a terrorist group. No country or credible researcher on terrorism was willing to support the government’s position. So how exactly did that hasty pronouncement help the country – except to trigger competitive calls for troublesome organisations and rural bandits to be similarly pronounced as terrorist groups? We must not lose sight of the lesson from that mistake.

I have written severally on hate speech and how it interplays with free speech and other speech forms. My reflections on the Hate Speech Bill will therefore draw from some of my articles on the subject over the years.

The first challenge the Hate Speech Bill will face is determining what constitutes hate speech. One definition of hate speech is that it is any speech that employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize others on the bases of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. The problem here is that offensive speech is also similarly defined.

Another definition of hate speech is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. Here the key word is ‘Incite’. However defining hate speech in this manner creates its own problem because even the opinions we hold could be construed as an incitement.  As Justice Holmes put it in a landmark case in the USA, (Gitlow v New York [1925]), “Every idea is an incitement... The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result.” 

Several scholars have tried to more precisely delineate when offensive speech crosses that fine line and becomes hate speech.  Susan Benesch, Director  of the Dangerous Speech Project and a Faculty Associate of the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard University identified five key variables for determining  the ‘dangerousness’ of speech or when speech transmutes from offensive to hate speech: (1)The level of a speaker’s influence  (2)the grievances or fears of the audience (3) whether or not the speech act is understood as a call to violence, (4) the social and historical context, and  (5) the way in which the speech is disseminated. 

Even Professor Benesch’s delineations are fraught with relativities. The point is that delineating hate speech from offensive speech is extremely difficult. The definition of ‘hate speech’ adopted by the Hate Speech Bill is not rigorous enough. And any plea of ‘Nigerian exceptionalism’ is unlikely to persuade the international community when the country tries to implement its provisions and runs into inevitable difficulties. Some people believe that the term ‘hate speech’ should only be used for extreme cases such as speeches that explicitly call for the physical injury or extermination of certain people. I will define hate speech as speech that has ‘clear and imminent danger’ of triggering violence.

The second challenge which the Hate Speech Bill faces is the effectiveness of using the law to curb hate speech. Hate speech is prohibited by law in several jurisdictions such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom and South Africa. In the United Kingdom, among the panoply of the country’s hate speech laws, is Section 5 of the Public Order Act (POA), which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.”  Under this section of the POA, Harry Taylor, an atheist who placed drawings satirizing Christianity and Islam in an airport prayer room, was convicted in April 2010 and given a six-month prison sentence. In Nigeria under the Hate Speech Bill he would be condemned to death!

In  The Netherlands, which is  long considered a bastion for the freedom of thought and expression, Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the country’s Criminal Code prohibits making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions.  In The Netherlands, the most prominent hate speech case to date is that of politician Geert Wilders, who was indicted by the public prosecutor in 2009 for his public comments about Muslims and Islam, and his release of a short film documenting what he called ‘inflammatory passages’ in the Qur’an.
In France, Section 24 of the country’s Press Law of 1881 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one’s origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 presidential election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made to Le Monde in 2003 about the consequences of Muslim immigration in France. In South Africa, Julius Malema, the former ANC’s Youth League leader was in 2011 convicted of hate speech for promoting the song, “Kill the Boer”.

In contrast to the above countries, laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States as most often fail legal challenges based on the First Amendment of the Country’s Constitution which prohibits the restriction of free speech. In the US law courts, even ‘fighting words’ (those that pass the ‘clear and imminent danger’ test which are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment) are not that easy to separate from hate speech, which is a protected speech.

An insight into how the American jurisprudence protects hate speech is in the   way the law treats the Ku Klux Klan – one of the worst purveyors of racial hatred in that country. In a landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned by the country’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment, Justice William Brennan argued that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Is hate speech less in countries that use the law to fight it?

This is debatable.  What is clear is that laws can sometimes exacerbate the problem. A good example of this is what happened in the Australian state of Victoria where a law banning incitement to religious hatred led to Christians and Muslims accusing each other of inciting hatred and bringing legal actions against each other which only served to further inflame community relations. Besides, even if the law is effective in curbing hate speech in countries where the basis of statehood has long been settled, we cannot assume that the same will apply here where the country is extremely polarized and the basis of statehood remains contested. It is in fact tempting to speculate on what will happen if Junaid Mohammed, Edwin Clark, Prof Ben Nwabueze, Gani Adams, Prof Ango Abdullahi, Asari Dokubo and others who hold strong views that are sometimes unacceptable to sections of the country are condemned to death for speeches they uttered? Will that promote amity or widen the social distance among the different sections of the country?


How do we fight hate and offensive speeches?

A starting point is to recognize that the line between offensive and hate speech could be blurred. While proper hate speeches – those that pass the ‘clear and imminent danger’ test should be criminalized (certainly not with death penalty), my opinion is that we should use non-legal instruments to deal with offensive speeches. There may for instance be a need to develop, in conjunction with critical organs of the society such as media owners and practitioners, the taxonomy of what constitutes hate speech and offensive speeches. Media houses through their unions should incorporate these as part of good journalism practice and impose sanctions on erring members who publish or broadcast hate speech speeches. 

 Perhaps one of the most effective ways of combating hate speech is to ensure that purveyors of such speeches are marginalized. For instance in the UK, while the racist British National Party and the ideas it purveys are not banned, it will be political suicide for any politician to be seen to associate with  the party’s members. In Nigeria offensive and hate speech mongers are adopted as regional and ethnic heroes.

Nigerians should also learn to laugh at themselves. This is already happening in some ways with our comedians who dish out jokes based on ethnic and regional profiling. In fact it could be argued that since every region and ethnic group in the country is both a victim and a victimizer when it comes to hate speech, they countervail and cancel out one another

Published in Viewpoint
Thursday, 08 March 2018 06:29

A former Governor of Jigawa State and PDP presidential aspirant, Alhaji Sule Lamido, yesterday in Calabar, alleged that Nigeria has been hijacked and is being ruled by men who lack ideas.

Lamido said the ruling APC was only implementing what the former ruling party, the PDP, drew.

He stated this when he paid a consultative visit to Governor Ben Ayade on his presidential aspiration.

Lamido alleged that whereas PDP was accused of spending about N6tn on some national projects in 16 years, the APC had wasted more than N20tn in three years and had nothing to show for it.

He, therefore, wondered why only people in the opposition were being vilified and labelled as corrupt.

On security, Lamido said killing and destruction were no longer strange, but that the question now was, “How many have been killed today?”

Ayade on his part, described Lamido as “humane, people-friendly and man of depth and concern who turned Jigawa State into an Eldorado.”

 

DailyTrust 

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 06:10

Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, head of Election Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) Mission to Sierra Leone, has advised the National Electoral Commission (NEC) to ensure that election guidelines are followed in the collation of voting.

The former President of Nigeria gave the advice in an interview with newsmen while monitoring the voting process on Wednesday in Freetown.

Jonathan said it was important for NEC to ensure that the collation of the results followed due process and laid down rules and regulations.

He said recording peaceful voting was just one aspect of election, the process of collating the result was also critical.

“If you look at the problem that we have in Kenya, it is not the voting per say, it was the transmission of results that people challenged in the court and the election was nullified in Supreme Court,” he said.

He said once the guidelines were followed, the process and the results would be accepted by all.

Jonathan also called on the contestants of the general elections and their supporters to respect the results, when announced.

He expressed satisfaction with the turnout of voters and advised them to accept the results when declared.

“We plead that if there is no major incident, at the end of the day people should be able to accept the result of the elections.

“Where you feel aggrieved in one way or the other, people should follow the elections guidelines.

“People are impressed with the turnout and the commitment of the ordinary people to vote.

“Some of the voters came out as early as 12 midnight to vote, queue, wait patiently for the poll to start in the morning by 7 a.m.”

Jonathan said though there were about 15 to 30 minutes delay in some polling units, most polling stations commenced early.

“I have also monitored elections in other countries and I am beginning to see that the standard is high here (in Sierra Leone) and we have to commend the people of Sierra Leone.”

 

DailyPost 

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 06:01
Presidential spokesman, Mr Femi Adesina is a respected pastor of the Foursquare Gospel Church and that reflects in all his writings. His most popular, albeit controversial, piece to date is the one he wrote last year at a period his principal was in the United Kingdom on medical leave. Titled “President Muhammadu Buhari and the descendants of Shimei’’, Adesina likened the president to King David, easily one of the most important Bible characters; and his critics to “descendants of Shimei’’, a member of the family of the displaced King Saul who once publicly humiliated King David.

A famous quote from the piece reads: “President Buhari has tolerated people who have called him all sorts of names in the past two years. If he didn’t move against them directly, he could have allowed many Abishais to move against them, ‘and take off their heads.’ But not our President, a reformed democrat, a pious man, who has resolved to leave the people suffused by hatred unto God.’’

While many were critical of the ‘take off their heads’ allusion which spoke to intolerance, there were also Christians whose exceptions were anchored on the comparison between President Buhari and King David. But examined from a scholarly point of view, I also believe, like Adesina, that there are parallels to draw between the two.

 

One, before ascending power, both had followers who were ready to kill and die for them. For instance, while still in the wilderness, David expressed a longing for a drink from the ‘good water from the well by the gate in Bethlehem’ and three of his foot soldiers took it upon themselves to risk all to get him his wish. Of course David would not drink the water he knew was obtained at the cost of the blood of others so he poured it out in worship to his God. Coming back home, we can also remember the several lives that were lost in the course of the violent protest that followed Buhari’s defeat at the 2011 presidential poll. Two, and most crucially, both King David and President Buhari also displaced incumbents. The former replaced King Saul while the latter defeated President Goodluck Jonathan. Three, both also became indulgent the moment they came to power.

However, that is where the similarities end because President Buhari, to his supporters, is a god who can do no wrong. Meanwhile, King David had people who could call him to order and I am not talking about Shimei. There was Prophet Nathan. And then there was Joab, his no-nonsense military commander. The Biblical account relevant to this intervention is in 2 Samuel Chapter 19 when, following the war with King David’s rebellious son, Absalom, the victorious troops returned home to be confronted by a Commander-in-Chief who was only concerned about the death of his son. I crave the indulgence of my non-Christian readers to take the text of what happened next from the Scriptures:

…Then Joab went into the house to the king and said, “Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines. You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you. I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead. Now go out and encourage your men. I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall. This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come on you from your youth till now.”

The pertinent question here is: Was it wrong for a father to grieve over a deceased son? Certainly not! So, the problem was not the mourning but rather that, as the leader, King David was expected to be sensitive to the mood of his people, even in his moment of loss. As one Bible commentator put it, “David’s immoderate grief for his rebellious son was imprudent and Joab’s firm and sensible reproof was necessary to arouse him to a sense of his duty to his people”. The converse is the same. A leader should not be seen rejoicing when his people are in grief.

The message Joab was sending to King David is that good leadership entails a keen awareness of the operating environment and the subtle but often unsaid shifts in perception to which those who occupy positions of trust must be sensitive. With that in mind, sending out a picture of a joyous President Buhari receiving his son (returning to the country after medical abroad) at a period more than a hundred parents were going through the trauma of having their own children abducted from school was most inappropriate. It becomes even more indefensible when someone also added the gratuitous insult that some ministers were on hand at the airport, apparently to carry Yusuf’s bags for him!

To compound the problem, a president who would not visit any part of the country where tragedies occur had the presence of mind to join a crowd of 22 Governors—described by former Governor (now Senator) Rabiu Kwankwaso as “less busy” people who “abandoned their duties”—to attend a wedding in Kano. Like most Nigerians, Pastor Tunde Bakare of Latter Rain Assembly, a friend of the president, could not understand such display of obscenity. “If any of them had lost a daughter in that captivity, would they celebrate that way? I know the Bible says rejoice with them that rejoice, but I do not know what the president of Nigeria was doing there,” said Bakare.

Following public pressure, President Buhari on Monday visited Taraba State in what is said to be a first stop in his tour of selected states where there has been violence in recent months. That is a positive development which shows that the man can still listen. Unfortunately, the president missed the point when he said in Taraba that he needed not visit any troubled state to prove that he was taking action. While it is true that such visits do not change the circumstances of those who lost loved ones, his mere presence in such communities can lift the spirits of people who are still hurting.

At the heart of what has eroded the credibility of this administration is a certain crisis of mission. Nigerians elected a president to lead them in a republic but Buhari and his handlers have manipulated the presidency into a monarchy. Ordinarily, the president of a republic sees himself in the least citizen; their joy is his upliftment; their sorrow is his personal anguish. In times of travail, he goes to places where people are hurting and empathises with them. His visit is not ceremonial; it is in the line of active duty. In a monarchy, the leader is king. He is above the people and sees gestures of empathy even in dire circumstances as condescension. Since, as rightly observed by Pastor Bakare, Nigeria is now at “a stage where our president has become a king and a monarch”, the fracture in the polity is somehow traceable to this very disconnect.

What President Buhari must therefore understand is that leaders whose first instinct is to ignore their own people in moments of grief cannot be said to care. And without empathy, it is difficult for a leader to build trust in his followers because, as Colleen Kettenhofen argued, “When you’re an empathetic leader, you are aware of how these feelings (whether you agree with them or can relate to them or not) impact the other person’s perception.”

It is gratifying that President Buhari finally got the message that Nigerians desire him to be their consoler in times of grief. But that is not enough and he should take a cue from the United States. One week after the recent deadly shooting at a Florida school, President Donald Trump held a “listening session” and, although it was not meant for camera, one could clearly see the talking points in the notepad he held. That means President Trump was prepared on what to say which is what serious leadership demands. So, going to Taraba to say the fatalities there were more than that of some other states, for me, was a wrong message and I hope the president would not commit the same gaffe when he visits other states.

Meanwhile, I am in agreement with Adesina that there are indeed many Shimeis who daily taunt his principal for no reason other than that he defeated their man at the 2015 poll. To those people, there is nothing the president can do that will be right. But there are also many Nigerians, including those who voted for Buhari in that same election, who now see a certain arrogance of power that is in conflict with what they saw of the man before he got to Aso Rock; that is aside feeling embarrassed by the president’s endless own-goals and serial bungling of basic tasks. That exactly is what the sharp rebuke by Pastor Bakare represents.

In case the president and his handlers have forgotten, let me remind them. Despite the fact that he proposed no set of values beyond a ‘body language’ that, on the face of recent developments, might have been wrongly interpreted by many Nigerians, Buhari was elected president to serve as a moral compass—a leader who would need no prompting before choosing between right and wrong in the conduct of public affairs. Unfortunately, that is not what has transpired in the past three years under his stewardship. And since moral authority, according to Ken Robinson, is intertwined with legitimacy, “once the confidence and trust in a leader’s moral authority is seriously questioned, once it becomes obvious that their moral compass is off, their ability to lead is undermined and challenged.”

Let me conclude by returning to the story with which I started this piece. While King David may have occasionally dropped the ball as any leader would at some points (a clear example being his wailing over Absalom for which he was harshly reprimanded by an insolent aide), he also had the humility to accept his mistakes and atone for them. And as powerful as he was, King David never considered himself infallible or put himself above the people. Can anybody, in all honesty, say the same of President Buhari today?

A word, as the common saying goes, is enough for the wise!

From 2013 Offerings

In continuation of my series on picks from a particular year, I have uploaded on my web portal, olusegunadeniyi.com, eight selected Verdicts from the columns published on this page in 2013. In ‘I never encountered Mandela’, following the death of the much revered former South African President, I wrote on how every smile, every wink, every gesture and every word (spoken or unspoken) by the late Madiba became subject of interesting tales, including by those who only saw him from distance while ‘The Illusion of Budget Performance’ speaks to the perversion of what we call budget in Nigeria, borrowing from my experience in government. ‘The Olu of Warri and His God’ was a response to the royal proclamation by the Atuwase II, after decreeing a stop to some ancient customs in conformity with his Christian faith but in the ‘Endgame in Massachusetts’, I recounted my experience in the United States on the day the entire city of Boston and surrounding towns like Cambridge, Watertown etc. were on lockdown by the security agencies in the bid to apprehend the criminal suspect in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. ‘Chinua Achebe’s Parting Shot’ is an obituary tribute to the late celebrated writer while in ‘The Politics of Certificate’, I waded in on the politically motivated revocation of the degree certificate awarded by the Abia State University to former Governor Orji Uzor Kalu. ‘Oil Theft and Criminal Cartels’ is an x-ray of the oil and gas sector in Nigeria while in ‘The Craze of Dubai Weddings’ I spoke to the corruption of values in our society. I believe readers will enjoy them.

Meanwhile, this is a reminder that my coming book on irregular migration, scheduled for release in June this year, will detail the human tragedies as well as expose the actors that enable many of the desperate migrants in their perilous adventures across both the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea. It will also explore the narratives that continue to drive our young men and women to undertake these treacherous journeys that most often end in sorrow and death for majority of them. Just watch out!

 

Published in Viewpoint
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:58

Chairman of the Senate Committee on the FCT, Dino Melaye (APC, Kogi), yesterday, told the senate that the APC administration borrowed N11 trillion against N 6trillion borrowed during the 16 years reign of the PDP.

Melaye, who spoke when he raised a point of order to protest the rejection of the Peace Corps bill by President Muhammadu Buhari, said the present administration had  no specific programme to empower the youths.

 

He said the complaint by the president that there was no fund to cater for the Peace Corps was not tenable.

“The same thing happened when the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) was to be established; there was also the same complain that there was no money and all of that.

“But today, we can see the advantages of the civil defence and how they have helped in safeguarding government’s infrastructure,” he said.

 

DailyTrust 

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:36

The Senate on Wednesday said it would be forced to withhold budgetary approvals for any government agency and parastatal
which failed to submit at least two previous years’ audited reports to the Auditor-General of the Federation (AGF).

The decision followed the adoption of a report of the Senate Public Accounts Committee (PAC) presented to the chamber by its Chairman, Sen. Matthew Uroghide during plenary.

The report indicated that at least 85 agencies of government including the Bank of Agriculture (BOA) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had never submitted audited reports since their creation.

In adopting the report, the Senate issued a May 2018 deadline to all parastatals to submit audited reports in line with Section 85 of the 1999 Constitution.

According to Urhoghide, out of 447 agencies and parastatals, only 40 have complied with the submission of the 2017 audit reports.

He said that the constitution mandated the AGF to receive audited reports from the agencies and submit the same to the National Assembly.

The lawmaker added that the agencies and parastatals should ensure that their accounts were audited by making use of the recommended auditors from the AGF.

He said: “EFCC is of the opinion that once they come for budget defence, it amounts to submitting their audited reports. The EFCC Act 
itself says they have to submit their audited reports six months into the financial year.”

In his remarks, the President of the Senate Dr Bukola Saraki condemned the development saying that the situation was unhelpful to the war against corruption.

He said: “Imagine that out of 447 parastatals, only 40 have complied with the 2017 audited reports. When they say we are not making much progress in the anti-corruption fight it is because of the fundamental issues, they are right, the foundation is still very weak.

“If we have 447 parastatals and only 40 have sent their audited reports, there is a serious problem. Now, we find out that the agencies that are even meant to supervise are part of those who have not sent in their audit reports.

“Now, we have taken a resolution here today to say that unless the remaining agencies do that their budgets for 2018 is withheld.

“Therefore, let us remember that when we are passing the 2018 budget, the committees that are presenting the reports of the parastatals should please confirm to us whether they have complied with the auditor’s report.

“In the meantime, we will make sure that we also communicate to the Secretary of the Government of the Federation (SGF) to ensure that all these parastatals get their accounts audited and submitted,” Saraki said.

 

NAN

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:28

The Senator representing Kaduna Central, Shehu Sani, has revealed that he and his colleagues receive N13.5 million monthly as “running cost.”

In an interview with TheNews, Mr. Sani said that the running cost does not include a N700,000 monthly consolidated salary and allowances which they also receive.

Details of the interview were published by SaharaReporters on Wednesday.

“I think what we can say is that the running cost of a senator is N13.5 million every month,” the senator said.

He explained that though there is no specification on what the funds was meant for, each lawmaker is mandated to provide receipts to back up their expenses.

Mr. Sani explains, “But what I am saying is that that money (N13.5 million per month) must be receipted for what you do with it. But what you are given to go and spend without any accountability is N750,000.”

The lawmaker also spoke on the controversial constituency projects for federal lawmakers.

“The constituency project itself is given on a zonal basis and almost every senator will go with a constituency fund of about N200 million, but it is not the cash that is given to you.

“You will be told that you have N200 million with an agency of government for which you will now submit projects equivalent to that amount. And it is that agency of government that will go and do those projects for you.”

Mr. Sani said the process of executing the projects was fraught with fraud.

“Now, the corruption comes when the projects are not done and the money is taken. But right now, it is difficult to do that because NGOs and transparency groups have come into it. They track every allocation made to you and where they are being used.

“So, it’s becoming difficult for what used to happen in the past to happen now.

“But I can tell you that I would love a situation where we do away with running costs, constituency projects and leaves senators and members of House of Reps with salaries.

The senator stated that members of the National Assembly ideally shouldn’t be involved in constituency projects. He had earlier favoured this position while speaking at the launch of fact-checking and constituency projects tracking websites organised by the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (PTCIJ).

“There are issues that we need to understand. First, I don’t believe that members of the National or even state assemblies should be involved in carrying out what is called constituency projects,” he said in the interview.

Senator Shehu Sani

 

“When people are elected into the National Assembly, they should just be involved in law making, raising motions, bills and also performing oversight functions. But we live in a society where people cannot differentiate between the legislators and the executive.

“When the people come to you, they want you to build roads, dig boreholes, build hospitals, schools, give money, pay school fees for them. Now, if we have a society in which people will stop asking legislators to do those things, then there is no need (for the allowances) But funny enough, if you are very active in the National Assembly in making laws and you don’t embark on projects in your constituency, you cannot in any way be appreciated by the people you are there to serve because the electorates in United States are different from the electorates in the United States and Africa.”

Mr. Sani’s revelation is the first by a lawmaker from the Senate since the clamour by Nigerians for transparency of lawmaker’s earnings. His revelation also puts a doubt to the National Assembly budget for 2017 released last year after public pressure. That budget had no subhead for office running cost, indicating the funds are hidden under a separate subhead.

 

PT

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:21
Former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Chief Olisa Agbakoba SAN, is the leader of the National Intervention Movement, which is aimed at working towards using the 2019 elections to produce a new crop of leaders for the country. In a phone interview, he spoke on a wide-range of issues and harped on the need for Nigeria to be rescued from its “worst” state under the President Muhammadu Buhari government using the forthcoming 2019 elections. Sylvester Ugwuanyi brings you excerpts…

Is there any relationship between the National Intervention Movement and the Coalition for Nigeria Movement, CNM, being promoted by former president, Olusegun Obasanjo?

 

There’s no relation between both (NIM and CNM). The Obasanjo own came much later. Obasanjo’s group came over maybe six months after ours had been established. We are not the same organization. The whole idea is that we should all be able to form a strong political movement that will make the 2019 elections viable, credible and fair and produce new set of political actors. There are so many movements, there is the NIM, the Tunde Bakare movement, there is the Obasanjo movement, there is Oby Ezekwesili movement; there is that of Charlyboy.

Is there a possibility that all these movements will merge into a political front in the build up to 2019?

“What is important is to work towards a common agenda. Whether we merge or not, is not the issue. The issue is that do we all agree that our political and economic condition is in a terrible state. And if so, what can we do about it, particularly for 2019. That is the main issue.

Would you say you have the same agenda with that of Obasanjo’s group?

 

Of course!

Some persons allege that Obasanjo is merely trying to install one of his loyalists as president come 2019, what’s your reaction to that?

I’m not interested in allegations. I’m interest in facts. The fact is that Nigeria is not in good shape today and the second fact is how can we make Nigeria a better place? Whoever is on the same page with me to stop Nigeria’s descent into anarchy is my friend. I am not interested in whether the person was a bad man in the past or whatever. My eye is focused on the goal of making Nigeria a better place by 2019 which means we have a great interest in the way the election will turn out, and we have a great interest in who becomes the Nigerian president.

A lot of people have stated that the time before 2019 is practically too short… (Cuts in)

 

For me, the answer to that is that it is better to do something than to sit down at home and complain. I hope you’re not suggesting that because the time is short and things are getting bad, nobody should talk. That would not be a viable alternative. So it’s best to do something, it’s best to do something. It’s best not to complain about what people are doing. It’s better to encourage them. Here is something new. Let us see how it will play out because we are all Nigerians. We all know that we have had a rough time at the hands of APC so-called change party. So, it is not whether we are merging with Obasanjo’s group or whether the time is too short. What is important is that can we achieve our goals towards 2019 successfully. And if so, how? Those are the important questions.

What really is your strategy towards making an impact in the 2019 elections?

Part of what we are doing is the fact that you are interviewing me on the issue. This goes to show that there is something different that people are looking. There is a momentum and national anger that we can really-really tap into. We have canvassed very heavily for people to make sure they have their voter card because without their voter card, they can complain all they like and remember that there are potential things we can do. The first is to make sure Nigeria gets new political actors in 2019 and for me, that is enough achievement. The icing on the cake is that we would be part of those actors to make sure that there is no derailment. So either of the two, what is needed is a mass conscientization. I can assure you that as the date (for the elections) become closer; the intensity to do things in a more radical way will emerge. You will find many presidential candidates emerging.

From what you are saying, is it that NIM wouldn’t be welcoming any of the traditional politicians we know?

We are trying to define who and who we can accept to work with, so that we don’t get to look exactly like the old people. I cannot say yes or no to your question, except that it is an interesting possibility. But if associating with any politician will put us in bad public light, then we would clearly not work with such. Because if the public feels that is another group being sponsored by the old politicians then we would lose our credibility. So I’d rather keep my credibility because if you lose your credibility you’d have no respect. But generally, I see no reason why in principle, one cannot work with the old politicians provided that they are not tarred or being recognized by corrupt practices or bad behavior. So, someone like Atiku Abubakar may or may not be a partner we can work with.

May or may not? Can you please categorically state whether you can work with the former vice president?

It is about national perception. If the perception is that working with him will not assist us, then we would not, but if the perception is that working with him is something that the Nigerian voters accept to overlook, then we will. So, it is not something I can say yes or no.

But what is your perception of Atiku?

My perception is that his political battle with Obasanjo has tended to put him in a light that Nigerians may see him as not a sort of person that can rule Nigeria in 2019. There is a perception on that. The other is that Atiku has got old but young enough with enough energy and detribalization to bring about the Nigerian dream. So it’s about perception. For instance, when we go into town hall meetings, suppose that we invited him to come and talk to us and we discovered that from the national random opinion, the public identified him as one of the potentially good leaders Nigeria has and if he is identified as someone we can work with, then we can work with him.

Would this happen regardless of Obasanjo’s position on Atiku’s ambition?

Obasanjo is not the Nigerian voting public. He only got one vote. If a sample of the Nigerian voting public supports Atiku, then it makes him a good candidate. Because, at the end of the day, it is the voting public that you need… Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but she lost to Donald Trump who is the president. So, no matter what you say the national trend about how elections are conducted is what matters. Trump understood what the white voting American public wants and he played to it. So, in politics, you must amplify the voice of the voter, not your own voice. I might not like Atiku as a person but if the voting public wants him to be give a chance, then it is something we can look at but we have not reached that stage.

Has Atiku reached out to NIM?

“No, he has not”.

Given the role of money in elections, how do you intend to prevail over moneybags at the polls and where would you pull the resources needed to prosecute an election in Nigeria?

I’m not sure that money is all that it takes to win a presidential election. If money was to be what it takes, Jonathan would have defeated Buhari in 2015. Yes, money plays a very strong role. Buhari won the election largely on account of the disenchantment of the voting public against Jonathan. Yea, money is very very useful but I don’t think money is something that cannot be located at the appropriate time. But, I’d rather have credibility than money. Particularly now that President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC has become one of the worst governments in Nigeria is the main reason to expect the over 30 million registered voters to vote the way they want money or no money. There is a radical departure from money politics. Today, we have social media politics. There is something close to about two million registered members of NIM.

Does this membership reflect national spread or from a particular section of the country?

The calculations we’ve been working on the past two weeks say we have about two million members. We are national, we are at the six zones; we are at 34 states and about 350 local government areas. That’s the spread of NIM. We are in the Diaspora: Canada, India, New York etc. In fact, we have a very wide spread whenever I look at the statistics I get shocked on how NIM has blossomed across the world.

Is NIM going to register itself as a political party?

NIM is simply a movement. Now what does a movement do? If you followed the Italian election on Sunday, some political parties created the Five Star movement, this movement did not field candidates but they campaigned on anti-European issues. And as a result of their campaigns, there is no winner in the Italian election. So, the work of NIM is to energise 2019. Though we have two million people today by the next four or five months we may have five million members. These five million people can do a lot of electoral work.

“There are two levels of work. NIM as a movement is mainly about conscientizing, advocacy, talking, pushing the agenda. It had no electoral objective. Then the second objective is that we endorse a person to be president and we turn our energy and support the person. So, we don’t need to have a political party to achieve any of this. All we need to do is to have an alliance. We can find a good guy in APC and support him; we can also find a very good guy in PDP and support him because he meets our standard. But we have set a standard of what we want in 2019… extremely credible, fresh, innovative, technology driven type of candidate who works hard. And you won’t find that in only one party. At the end of the day, NIM can support candidates from across the parties. And I think, this is why NIM has been successful because if we had become partisan, we would have all kinds of squabbles. In fact, we have about thirty political parties within NIM but we don’t support any of them. It is for them to show us they deserve our votes not because they are carrying money. That is why I said money politics may not be as important as it used to be. Every election presents its own trend. I feel that the social media has broken down the barriers of money. So money becomes only important for administrative and logistics purposes. We are talking about highly undermined, unemployed, angry, discontented youths who have been pushed to the streets. If you have about 30,000 unemployed graduates in Lagos, you think they would go to the ward to collect money? They will go to vote based on what they are seeing on the social media and other advocacy issues. So the money would not be as important.

Do you have confidence that INEC will deliver a free, fair and credible election in 2019?

I don’t know but I just pray they do. I just pray that they understand that Nigeria expects them to deliver a reliable, credible and fair election but I can’t speculate as to how they would do it.

What sort of Nigeria do you expect your movement to bring about?

We want a Nigeria that is a prosperous, industrialized, innovative, technologically-driven country that has social security system for the vulnerable, the aged; A country full of ideas in the ministries, government is working, infrastructure is available, you can go from here to Benin at 8pm because it is safe. That’s the Nigeria of our dream; crime and poverty is at its lowest level, inflation rates are low, the interest rate is at a single digit, banks are lending money, small business are thriving. Nigeria is currently the laughing stock of Africa, a sleeping giant. So, we need to wake from our slumber and occupy our pride of place. Nigeria should one of the first ten of industrialists nations of the world because we have the population. Look at the kind of money MTN is making here. MTN is making more money than the banks and Dangote put together. Why because we are a hundred and fifty million people so how come we can’t take advantage of our huge population. We want the nation’s school system to work so the potentials of young Nigerians can be tapped.

So how would you rate the efforts of the Buhari administration in building a better Nigeria?

The Buhari administration is the worst government in Nigeria’s history. It has delivered absolutely nothing. All the economic indices are high. The interest rate is high, the unemployment rate is high, infrastructure is broken. The economy is dead. This is not the kind of country I dream of.

 

DailyPost 

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:17

No fewer than 32 women aspirants across the 23 local government areas of Kaduna State have indicated interest in seeking elective office in the May 12 local government poll.

Mrs Florence Aya, the President of Women Mentoring and Leadership Initiative (WOMFOI), disclosed this in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Kaduna on Wednesday.

Aya said the women are seeking councillorship and chairmanship positions in the election.

She also said some woman had indicated interest to occupy the chairmanship position of the ruling All Progressives Congress in the state.

Aya further said that dozens of women aspirants had began to show interest in the House of Assembly as well as the National Assembly seats in the 2019 general elections.

She described the development as “good omen,” saying that the number of women interested in elective office in the state is on the increase due largely to the leadership mentoring of women by WOMFOI.

“For some years now, WOMFOI has been mentoring women who want to go into politics.

“We mentor them on how to aspire for any political office; how to source for funds, how to mobilise support and all what they need to do to fulfill their dreams.

“We also train them on public speaking and how to use the media to create the needed publicity and awareness for constituency mobilisation,” she said.

Aya, a former legislator in the Kaduna State House of Assembly and the House of Representatives, said WOMFOI was established to equip women with knowledge of politics and leadership.

“When I was in active politic some years ago, I never had the opportunity of being enlightened on how to maximise opportunities for elective political positions.

“I just summoned courage with little or no idea on how things will turn out and surprisingly, I was able to make exploits.

“WOMFOI was established to fill the vacuum and teach women how best to participate in politics,”she said.

Aya said WOMFOI has more than 100 members cutting across political parties in the state.

She also said the group was working on how to get their male counterparts to support them.

“We will also make sure that we send the list of our aspirants to Gov. Nasir El-Rufa’i to enlist his support to ensure that three or more women emerge as local government chairpersons and councillors in the forthcoming poll,”she said.

Aya commended the Commissioner for Women Affairs and Social Development in the state,  Hajiya Hafsat Baba,  for supporting women to participate fully in politics. 

 

NAN

Published in News
Thursday, 08 March 2018 05:14

The Chairman House of Representatives Committee on Rural Development, Oladipupo Adebutu, says Nigerians are yearning for the return of the PDP in 2019.

He said this during his tour to Odeda Local Government Area of Ogun State, where he held meeting with the PDP party faithful and stakeholders in the area.

 

The governorship aspirant who noted that Nigerians had never had it so bad in terms of economic hardship, hike in the price of Premium Motor Spirit, and insecurity among others, added that the party had learnt from its past mistakes.

Adebutu said the party, both at the national and state levels, had begun a concerted effort to reconcile all party chieftains and stakeholders who had one grouse or the other against the party.

 

He said, “The leaders are already looking into the issues of aggrieved people. Once our leaders take care of that aspect of it, you will see everything sorted out.

“So, that’s basically the situation now. And even the people are crying out for us to come back and to reorganise, to restrategise and to deliver a better government.”

 

Punch 

Published in News
Page 153 of 184