It is noteworthy that this year’s International Women’s Day, March 8, that is today, will be marked against the background of  blatant misogyny and retrogressive patriarchy at the 9^th National Assembly of Nigeria. The theme for this year’s celebration is “Gender Equality for a Sustainable Tomorrow: Time to Break the Bias.  Women play a significant role in every part of our lives – the family, climate change, agriculture, the economy and basic human relationships. In Nigeria, women constitute about 50% of the population, any form of discrimination against that substantial part of the population would amount to a reduction of the country’s capacity and an act of bias. Nigeria is a signatory to major international conventions and treaties on the Empowerment of women, including protocols to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women, or the Gender Equality Strategy 2022 – 2025. It is a fact that Nigeria publicly endorses these protocols, but without understanding the import of the same commitments.     

The other week, during the National Assembly’s review of clauses relating to women empowerment in Nigeria, the lawmakers rejected the bills that are meant to further promote inclusion with regard to gender rights. These include the right of women to have their foreign spouses become Nigerian citizen; a proposal for women to claim their husband’s states of origin as theirs after five years of marriage, 35 % affirmative action for women in political parties and in appointive positions in government.  The original Bill proposed by Hon. Nkiruka Onyejocha representing Isikwuato/Umuaneochi Federal Constituency also asked that additional seats should be created for women at the National Assembly – 37 in the Senate and 74 in the House of Representatives and one additional seat exclusively for women in the State House of Assembly. The lawmakers didn’t think these were important proposals. Rather, they voted for the re-affirmation of patriarchy. Currently the National Assembly has 5% female representation. Out of the 109 members in the Senate, only seven are women. In the House of Representatives, there are 12 women out of 360 members. Nigeria has never had a female Governor except Mrs Virgy Etiaba who became Governor briefly only because the incumbent Governor, Peter Obi was once impeached in Anambra State.

Should anyone be surprised?  This is the same National Assembly where a lawmaker once paraded his four wives, and introduced them to the Assembly one after the other, to prove the point that he is a very capable man. The same lawmaker would return later to announce the birth of his child No. 28 and how fertile and prolific his wives are. He demanded that his house should be declared a polling booth because by 2023, if he so wishes, he would have produced up to 30 children! Indeed, this is the same National Assembly where the lawmakers have consistently rejected any Bill that is against child marriages and the rights of the girl-child.  In February, the wife of the President, Mrs Aisha Buhari and a retinue of women including the Minister of Women Affairs, Pauline Tallen, visited the National Assembly to lobby for a productive and progressive amendment in support of gender equality. The wife of the Vice President, Mrs Dolapo Osinbajo also followed suit, a day after. But the lawmakers could not be swayed. They do not think that there is a need to break any bias against women.  Ironically, Nigerian women are often blamed for their own woes.

On March 2, Nigerian women stormed the National Assembly carrying placards in protest. Today, in commemoration of the International Women’s Day, they have further organized a one million women march in protest. They want to “Break the Constitutional Bias, and Break the Political Bias”. They have my support. 

For Nigerians, the crisis in Ukraine is not far away at all. It is next door, in fact it may be said that the war is having a major effect in many Nigerian homes and families. This is not about crude oil, the spot price of which has gone beyond $100 per barrel, and the same government that relies on crude oil receipts is now saying this is tragic for the country. This is not even about the geo-politics of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict. Russia does not want the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) setting up a military base at its door step – in Ukraine, Sweden or Finland, or anywhere near Russia. The more urgent concern and this is our departure point, is the humanitarian crisis that the failure of diplomacy and the inequity in international relations has generated in the Eastern border of Europe. Since the crisis began, I have listened with great concern to the anguish of friends, former colleagues and their family relations calling, sending messages, to report how they are affected by the war in Ukraine. A former colleague during my tour of duty at the Presidential Villa has three children in Ukraine. His sister’s son is also there. They are all hunkered down in a shelter.

My friend says he and his wife and sister are permanently on the phone trying to monitor the welfare of their children. All four – my friend’s 3 and his sister’s only son- are all studying Medicine in Ukraine. Many Nigerian families send their children to Ukraine to study Medicine, Computer Engineering, and the Sciences. Out of the 10, 000 medical doctors produced by Ukraine annually, about a third are Nigerians.  The fees are affordable compared to the arm and a leg that Western Universities demand. Ukraine is also developed with strong education, science, agriculture, and engineering sectors. Historically, it was the strongest of the units that made up the Soviet Union. In contemporary times, it remains a very resourceful country with enormous strength in minerals, agriculture and science. Apart from the medical students from Nigeria, there are others studying in other fields. There is even a Nigerian church in Kiev, led by Pastor Sunday Adelaja. In total, there is probably close to 20, 000 Nigerians or more in Ukraine. Pastor Sunday Adelaja has managed to abandon the congregation and escape (he says Putin is looking for him as a target!), but the majority of Nigerians, and other Africans, are stranded. Their agony and the frustration of their families should constitute an important part of the review.

In the age of globalization, democracy and free choice, it would make no sense to query why some people leave their countries and travel to other places to find meaning and fulfilment. The history of humanity is based on migrations across geography and seasons. Nigerians in particular are extremely peripatetic. In the most remote places of the world, you are bound to find a Nigerian, studying, teaching, driving a cab, doing security work, serving in an international capacity, running a corner shop, playing football, or comfortably married with a family. But in the case of Ukraine, most of the Nigerian nationals out there are students or religious workers. Whereas it is a status symbol for an average Nigerian family to send their children abroad for studies, it is also the truth  that despite the fact that Nigeria has over 100 universities, many families send their children abroad because it is easier to get admissions into foreign universities if you can afford the fees, and you are at least sure that the university calendar will not be disrupted by teachers and other university staff who are perpetually on strike here in Nigeria, over unpaid salaries and allowances.

University students in Nigeria are also forever subjected to all forms of harassment: dirty halls of residence, the menace of oppressive lecturers who sell handouts, and torment female students for sex, and a general community outside the campus that inflicts mental torture on everyone. Parents therefore try to insulate their children from the psychosis in the land, at least for a period in their lives. To keep their children in good schools, many parents sell property, take loans, or save towards the same investment and if that option is not achievable, they look for other means. I doubt if any Nigerian parent would ever imagine that with all that, their child or children would end up in a war zone. But that is what has happened in Ukraine. Many Nigerian parents took their cue from the 12 countries, including the UK, Egypt, Morocco, US, and India, that issued early travel advisories and asked their nationals to leave Ukraine immediately because it would only be a matter of days before Vladimir Putin would invade Ukraine, and hence, they pulled their children and families out. But then, it is not every family that is equally circumstanced. Air fares shot through the roof. And it is natural for a largely religious community to think that a miracle would happen. Ironically, one of the men preaching such miracles was the first to flee to safety! Fact: thousands of Nigerians are stranded in Ukraine.

They are victims not just of the confusion that the war has brought, but also racism, which worsens their plight. In the wake of the Russian invasion, the people of Ukraine began to flee towards safer neighbouring countries, especially Poland, Romania, Hungary and Moldova. Persons trooped to the train stations hoping to get a place on one of the vacation trains ferrying people to safety. Nobody knows when or for how long the trains would come. But when a train then shows up, there is gross discrimination. The co-ordinators of the flight from the turbulence insist that Ukrainians must board first, then children and women in that order! But the arrangement is not colour-blind. Africans are told to wait, and so there are many of them, sheltered in nearby buildings who do not know when it would be their turn. I saw a video showing a Nigerian whose pregnant wife managed to get onto the train, and he was disallowed from getting on board. It was painful watching him screaming: “Give me my wife! Give me my wife!” 

War may be the legacy that past ages bequeath to us, as Wole Soyinka points out in A Dance of the Forests, humanity being in a perpetual state of conflict across the ages, but as we have seen in the writings of Sun-Tzu (The Art Of War), Carl von Clausewitz (About War) and Raymond Aron (Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations) on the subject, and as the experience of previous wars show (World War I, II, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Nigerian Civil War etc), there is simply nothing good about war. Nobody wins, everyone loses; it is only the degree that differs.  The crisis in Ukraine has thus thrown up all the key divisions in international relations at both the person to person levels and at the bilateral, multilateral, geo-political levels to remind us all that whereas there is a body called the United Nations, created after World War II to bind the world together, the world remains divided, the people in it do not like each other and that international relations based on the principles of jus cogens, including the sovereign equality of states, enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter (1945), is at best a myth in reality.

There has been so much talk about human equality, a societa humana in this regard, but even human beings within the international order, do not regard themselves as equals. International law practitioners have tried to provide a linkage in terms of the alignment of sovereign equality with human equality through the UN Resolution on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P, 2005). In the situation that we are currently witnessing in Ukraine, the host community is struggling to defend itself in an unequal match against Russia. It cannot even protect its own citizens. A humanitarian crisis is afoot, with Poland, Moldova, Hungary, much smaller countries dragged into an extremely difficult situation. The Polish Ambassador to Nigeria has had to deny that Poland does not want to help stranded Nigerians. Where host communities fail to discharge their responsibilities to protect foreign nationals in their country, in the event of war and chaos, what should the home countries of the affected persons do? They are bound by the same principle. 

The Nigerian Government has been criticized heavily for its failures in terms of citizen diplomacy in the face of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the fact that many Nigerians are trapped in the crossfire. From Kiev to Abuja, the Nigeria foreign policy machinery behaved as if its carburetor had issues. It failed to fire the engine correctly.  The machinery abandoned the Nigerians in Ukraine even while other countries openly helped theirs and gave specific travel advisories. When the blow-out occurred, the Nigerian Embassy in Kiev issued a statement in which the officials told Nigerians in Ukraine, that if they find the situation “morally disturbing”, they should make private arrangements to keep safe, make sure they have their consular documents in place and should they wish to return, the Embassy would be available to assist with consular duties. What kind of talk was that? Is it possible not to find a war situation “emotionally disturbing?”

This caused some outrage and in the face of that, the Embassy in Kiev immediately circulated another statement it had issued on January 26, to the Nigerian community in Ukraine, but really there is no difference between the first and the second intervention. Nigerians in Ukraine were simply told that “they are on their own”  in the following exact words: “Nigerians are hereby further advised to take their individual and collective safety and security very seriously, avoid unnecessary travels within the country, especially to identified hotspots in Eastern Ukraine; and ensure that they carry requisite identification at all times”. The Embassy says it would make periodic announcements and offer consular services available where necessary. Both the National Association of Nigerian Students in Ukraine (NANS-Ukraine) and Nigerians students in distress have spoken up (including Anjola-Oluwa Ero-Phillips) to declare that every effort to get the Nigerian Embassy to help them failed. Ms Eunice Eleaka, President of NANS-Ukraine, whose parents managed to evacuate before the blow-out had to send an urgent SOS message to President Muhammadu Buhari. The outrage that has greeted the mishandling of the Ukrainian crisis by the Nigerian Government is in order.

It has now resulted in a flurry of last minute activities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs after expressing surprise that there was an issue in Ukraine (apparently the only government agency in the world that is surprised, even with the Western allies raising the alarm, weeks earlier, that an invasion was imminent), decided to summon G7 ambassadors in Nigeria, and the Ambassadors of Poland, Russia and Ukraine. The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission also woke up and started offering advice, backed by phone numbers and escape routes out of Ukraine into Poland. Nigeria also put up the equivalent of “small yansh diplomacy”, telling Russia to pull out of Ukraine and respect the international order. The best that African countries can do in this matter is spineless diplomatic twerking, to use a more decent phrase, so they should not deceive themselves, but they can do more in terms of helping their stranded citizens who are trapped in the crossfire. Nigeria’s House of Representatives did well by making the crisis a matter of urgent public importance, and resolving to send to Ukraine forthwith, the House Majority Leader and the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to bring home stranded Nigerians in Ukraine. We would like a feedback on that. Did they travel? Are they back? How did the intervention of the House help?          

It is perhaps selfish, to express concern more about the plight of our compatriots in Ukraine. Indeed, it is the whole of humanity that faces a problem. And the people of Ukraine will bear the brunt of their country being turned into the battle ground for the politics between Russia and NATO and the balance of power in the world. It would be a while before Ukraine recovers from the storm that has fallen on its roof. Its people have been displaced. The country has been thrown into turmoil. Age-old animosities between the Russian speaking Eastern parts and other groups have been re-ignited setting fire to the Minsk Agreement in Belarus, 2014. Vladimir Putin may be accused of all kinds of atrocities, and he is probably guilty, but the US and the allies are not particularly innocent either. NATO says it welcomes all countries that are interested in joining it. Putin’s Russia insists that there was a promise by NATO not to expand East-wards but since then it has added 14 new members. Putin hates the Alliance and does not want it anywhere near Russia. Those who know the story argue that the agreement of September 1990 referred to East Germany and not the whole of the East, but isn’t Putin right to argue that any further enlargement is a threat to the sovereignty of Russia? He is aggrieved because he knows that the intentions of the Allies are not necessarily holy. Has anyone thought of the Monroe Doctrine, and the 1962 US Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, the Gulf War, the attack on Libya, and the cross-current details?

The Allies have imposed sanctions, from sports to SWIFT, making Putin and Russia look like they have just walked into a trap. What is the end-game then? Could it be to cripple Russia and create rebellion inside the Kremlin and get Putin out of the way?  The Russians probably have that figured out. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov says: “The Western sanctions on Russia are hard, but our country has the necessary potential to compensate the damage”. It is the world that will suffer in the end, and as the agony of Nigerians connected with Ukraine has shown, there is a lot more beyond gas prices, higher inflationary rates, the clout of a divided UN Security Council and economic sanctions, with greater cost better measured in human terms. 

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 12:00pm

Guests: Kayode Ajulo (Principal Partner of Kayode Ajulo & co. Castle of law) &
Samson Itodo (Executive Director, YIAGA AFRICA)

Topic: Electoral Act 2022

Date: Saturday, February 26, 2022

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206

Hopefully, by the time this commentary is in print, on February 22, 2022, President Muhammadu Buhari should have given his assent to the re-amended Electoral Act Amendment Bill which was transmitted to him on January 31, 2022. If so, the President would have laid to rest all speculations and conspiracy theories as to why he does not want to sign the Bill or the possibility of what happened ahead of the 2019 elections repeating itself. If the President does not sign the Bill into law, however, he would raise concerns about his commitment to leaving a legacy of credible elections behind and would deepen tension and uncertainties within the polity. The President does not need the stress. It is in everyone’s best interest for him to grant his assent. He can subsequently send further amendments to the National Assembly as he did with the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) and the Appropriation Act 2022. In 2018, President Buhari rejected the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act 2010, four times, citing as justification - all kinds of irregularities, including drafting issues, sequence of elections, and even the phrasing of words in parts of the then proposed Bill.

In the end, no amendments took place and Nigerians went into the 2019 general election with the same old electoral framework that stakeholders wanted the legislature to amend. The final excuse given by the government in 2019 was that there would be no time to effect the amendments before the general elections whereas it was the back-and-forth over the granting of assent that was the problem. After the 2019 elections, the process of amending the Electoral Act began afresh under the 9^th National Assembly. In November last year, an amended Electoral Act Bill was forwarded to the President for his assent. Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides for a window of 30 days within which the President can grant assent or withhold it, and in the event of the latter he can be vetoed by the National Assembly.

The President exhausted the entire 30-day window only to object to the National Assembly’s restriction of political parties to direct primary as the mode of selecting candidates for elections by political parties. He cited insecurity, the cost of conducting direct primaries and infringement on the rights of Nigerians to participate in governance as reasons. He promised that if this could be reviewed to allow for both direct and indirect primaries, he would grant his assent. The National Assembly threatened to veto the President, but it did no such thing. Instead the National Assembly reviewed the contentious Clause 84 of the Electoral Bill (originally Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010), and replaced direct primaries, with an option of direct primaries, indirect primaries and consensus candidacy with a strict definition of what constitutes consensus and the other two options. The Committee of the Whole of the National Assembly then decided to insert in Clause 84, a provision that any one holding a political office  - Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers and others - must relinquish such a position before he or she can be eligible to participate in the Electoral process either as a candidate or as a delegate. Previously, government appointees and political office holders could serve as delegates, go into elections, lose and then return to their jobs.  In other words, the National Assembly modified and went beyond the President’s request.

The newspapers reported yesterday that the President wants this Clause removed before he can grant his assent. He reportedly met with the leadership of the National Assembly over the weekend. Some APC Governors are also said to be uncomfortable with this, as well as the definition of consensus by the national legislature and they are purportedly putting pressure on the President not to grant his assent. This is the main source of agitation and concern among Nigerians who think that an old, familiar script is about to be played out again. If the President does not grant assent, the Bill goes back to the National Assembly, the lawmakers would huff and puff, then they would re-amend the law again and add new things for effect, transmit the new twice re-amended Bill to the President, he or the Governors would again pick issues with some Clauses, wait till the last minute to register objections and then the process would begin again until time and resources would have been wasted.

This is the mischief that concerned Nigerians do not want. The objection to Clause 84 as phrased is that it automatically infringes upon the fundamental rights of political office holders to participate in the electoral process and it is to that extent illegal.  What has not been pointed out is that the same Clause 84 allows any aggrieved person under that Section to approach the Federal High Courts to seek redress. Whereas Clause 84 may not derive directly from the public hearings conducted ahead of the Electoral Act Amendment process, it stands to reason that the express objective is to create a level playing field for everyone who takes part in the party nomination or candidate selection process. Hitherto, political office holders use government resources and access to state privileges to dominate party primaries within the ruling party. They are also ready tools in the hands of their principals, especially the Governors. They are expected to do the masters’ bidding since in any case they need the opportunity to return to where they came from if they fail in their bid. I see no problem with Clause 84, as it provides a recourse to the courts, and ensures a level playing field for all parties involved.

The other issue is the fear that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would be left with no option than to change the dates for the 2023 elections if the President does not sign the Electoral Bill as proposed by February 22, 2022. For now, INEC is yet to issue guidelines for the conduct of the 2023 general elections on the grounds that it is waiting for a new Electoral Act. According to Section 28(1) of the proposed Electoral Act 2022, INEC is required to issue a notice of election not later than 360 days before the appointed date for an election. INEC has since scheduled the 2023 Presidential and National Assembly Elections for February 18, 2023. To meet up with that provision and date, the deadline is February 22, 2022. So, whereas the President still has up till March 2, by virtue of Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution to sign the Electoral Amendment Bill, if he fails to do so, by today, February 22, INEC would be forced to reschedule the 2023 elections, or at best, use the extant law, which is the Electoral Act 2010.  Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) object to such a possibility. It is not only the 2023 general elections that would be affected. Off-cycle elections in Ekiti and Osun states too. The investment in coming up with an Electoral Act Amendment Bill would have been wasted and all the more positive sides of the Bill would have been discarded needlessly.

Hence, about 26 civil society organizations have threatened to embark on a protest today. They insist that President Buhari must sign the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 as a “matter of urgent national importance.” I can’t immediately think of any other piece of legislation that has generated this level of intentionality in recent memory. Civil Society Partners on Electoral Reform, the umbrella group of the CSOs argue that Clause 84 is not a problem, it can be amended at any time but there are more important provisions in the Bill that must not be thrown away. Enough is Enough (EiE) one of the CSOs, identified these critical provisions in an advertorial titled “Top Provisions in the Electoral Bill, 2022” at page 53 of ThisDay newspaper on Sunday, February 20, 2022.  EiE argues that “Granting Presidential assent to the Electoral Bill 2022 on or before February 22, 2022 is in the best interest of our electoral democracy. Any amendments can be sent to the National Assembly later.”

According to Enough is Enough (EiE), we should not throw away the baby with the bath water, for the following reason that we need to be reminded of: 1. Clause 3(3) – early release of election funds to INEC. Indeed if all funds required for a general election are released a year ahead, INEC would be more financially independent. 2. Clause 50: Electronic transmission of results. This again is in order. Nigerians have always asked for electronic transmission of results to prevent fraud and manipulation. 3. Clause 65: Power to Review Election Results Declared Under Duress. This particular clause truly empowers the INEC. There are persons who became Governors in this country simply because there was no clause such as this in the extant Electoral Act, thus subjecting the electorate to the excruciating impact of a stolen mandate. 4. Clause 8(5): Political Neutrality of INEC Personnel. Here, it is proposed that any INEC official who is affiliated to a political party if caught, is liable on conviction to a fine of N5m or imprisonment for two years or both. This is a very essential provision. Too many electoral officials, including INEC, security personnel and ad hoc staff are embedded partisan gladiators. They help to thumb-print ballot papers. For a fee, they switch results. This particular provision puts them on notice that there are consequences for bad conduct. For far too long they have been getting away with sheer impunity. 5. Clause 47:  Legalizing Electronic Accreditation of Voters. Nigerians have been clamouring for this: how technology can be used to upgrade the Nigerian electoral system. INEC may have introduced some technology in form of Smart Card Readers and Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) in previous elections but because these are not provided for in the extant Electoral Act, they have been declared inadmissible by the courts in a number of cases.   

Otherwise, Alex Otti of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) would have been Governor of Abia State in 2015. He won at the Court of Appeal when he challenged the 2015 Abia State Gubernatorial election victory awarded to Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Ikpeazu was removed. But Alex Otti later lost at the Supreme Court in part, because there was no provision for electronic accreditation or the use of smart card readers in the enabling law. The ruling of the Court of Appeal was accordingly set aside on technical grounds. Clause 47 in the proposed Bill would make electronic accreditation admissible as evidence, and help check fraud and manipulation.  6. Clause 54 (2) - Inclusion of Persons with Disability. If nothing else moves President Buhari to sign the Electoral Bill 2022, into law, this should. This is about the rights of persons living with Disability and it is a matter of public record that it was President Buhari that signed the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons Living With Disabilities into Law in 2019. He should be seen to be more interested in their inclusion, not the rights of political office holders pursuing selfish interests and their own stomachs. 7. Clause 51: Redefined Over-voting – Great provision. Only the total number of accredited voters at a polling unit will determine the validity of the voters. Hitherto, nobody paid enough attention to this. Nigeria is a country where ghosts show up on election day, including ghosts from other countries as far away as Brazil and they vote and their votes are made to count. 8. Clause 29 (1): early conduct of party primaries and submission of list of candidates. The thing speaks for itself here and it is better to quote the EiE statement: “Every political party shall, not later than 180 days (-6 months) prior to election day, submit the list of its candidates, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party, to INEC”.

Nigeria must be one of those strange countries where the electorate doesn’t even have the opportunity to know the candidates in an election. Some political parties boast that if they put up a goat as candidate, Nigerians would vote for that goat without knowing, because the extant law weighs more heavily on the mandate of political parties. It is important that Nigerians begin to know the candidates well in advance. 9: Clause 94 – Early Commencement of Campaigns. In this section, political parties now have more time for campaigns, from 90 days to 150 days before polling day and 24 hours before election day. This is likely to increase the cost of campaigns but on a positive note, it provides the electorate a better opportunity to know the aspirant or candidate. Finally, 10: Clause 34 – Substitution of Candidate in the event of Death in an election. This is to correct the debacle in Kogi State about succession under such circumstances, following the death of Alhaji Abubakar Audu of the APC, in 2015.

It may be argued that all things taken together, the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 is the most comprehensive and pragmatic effort that the National Assembly of Nigeria has embarked upon since it was resolved that having a credible electoral framework is crucial for the integrity of elections and the leadership recruitment process. The issues identified by EiE are practical responses to the realities of the Nigerian electoral experience, as distilled by stakeholders, processed by the legislature, and codified into legislation to raise the quality of Nigeria’s democracy. Whatever anyone may have said to President Buhari about Clause 84, relevant as it is to the interest of a self-seeking, alimental minority, the feelings of the larger majority, and the future of Nigeria’s democracy, should be more important to him. President Buhari should be more interested in keeping his promise that he intends to leave Nigeria’s electoral framework better than he met it. He has nothing to lose for doing so. He would be remembered for moving the needle forward in the direction of public good. The dilly-dallying notwithstanding, INEC also cannot give the excuse that it is waiting on the President. Irrespective of the extant law, arrangements should be made for the next elections. When the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 is eventually passed, necessary adjustments can be made. INEC, by conduct or inaction, passive or otherwise, must not give credence to the speculation that it may be part of a hidden agenda to compromise the democratic process. The President must be encouraged to leave a legacy of just and credible elections that he himself can be proud of.  Mr. President, sign the Bill. History should not repeat itself.  

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 11:45am

Guest: Joe Ajaero (Deputy President, Nigeria Labour Congress)

Topic: Fuel Scarcity: What happened?

Date: Saturday, February 19, 2022

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206

Donu Kogbara is a Veteran Newspaper columnist, who began her career with The Times of London and later she worked with the BBC, and the Economist. Ms. Kogbara writes a weekly column for the Vanguard newspaper in Nigeria. She is also a consultant who has worked with various government bodies and the Private Sector.

 Kogbara has been talking about leadership in Nigeria, where should leadership come from, what should we expect, what are the problems that we face and the catalyst for all of this is a  two-part essay she wrote recently  titled, “Igbophobia: What have Igbos done to other Nigerians?” Reuben Abati took her up on her submissions in his radio programme, CityTalks with Reuben Abati on City FM, 105.1 FM. Excerpts as follows:

Reuben Abati: [Laughter] Good to see you.

Donu Kogbara: It is an honour to be invited by you [laughter]

Reuben Abati: Last week you wrote you wrote a piece “Igbophobia: What have  Igbos done to other Nigerians?”

This week again you wrote a second part of the piece and you are making a case for Igbos to be the next President of Nigeria. You are saying, “An Igbo Candidate is electable and as well as good a quality candidate from elsewhere in Nigeria. Were you thinking that Nigerians are not ready for an Igbo President yet?

So, what is the offense that Igbos have committed in this Nigerian arrangement that you feel compelled to say it looks like other ethnic groups, four hundred ethnic nationalities plus that we are,  as Onogu Otite and Okwudiba Nnoli have pointed out, may not want an Igbo President. Why do you think that people are not happy with Igbos?

Donu Kogbara: Just empirical evidence! The evidence of my own ears, the comments I hear during private phone conversations or face-to-face conversations with people from other ethnic groups, because I have a Niger Delta name, people don’t know that my mother is Igbo.

So, they feel very safe about expressing anti-Igbo sentiments in my presence, especially since I have concentrated my activism on Niger Delta issues in the past, so they don’t know I have any interest in Igbo Land. And I have to say Reuben, even if my mother wasn’t Igbo, I will still be disturbed by the injustice that is being inflicted on the South East.

Reuben Abati: In your piece, the first installment of the piece, you talked about certain grounds, why other Nigerians seem to be very uncomfortable with Igbos. You said for instance that Igbos are considered materialistic, Igbos are accused of having waged a war against Nigeria and so If you make an Igbo man the next President, he may be playing the politics of separatism, you talked about Igbos being mercantilist and you also talked about Igbos not bowing to other people, they think they are superior to other people. Do you want to interrogate some of those points you raised last week?

Donu Kogbara: There is no doubt that Igbos are mercantilist, more so than any other single group in this country. Generally, their intrigues are obvious, but they also have business interest. Igbos are traders, Igbos are business people, they are more likely to be interested in the bottom line than people from other groups. That doesn’t mean that you don’t find business people in other groups of course, but Igbos are more on the whole oriented that way. So, I thought, that is not the reason to dislike people. Igbos are good at entrepreneurial activity and they are good at making money and they are willing to go to any part of this country with that objective in mind. Why is that bad?

Reuben Abati: Should Igbos be denied their right to be President of Nigeria? Or are there other issues?

Donu Kogbara:  The issue about Igbos being marginalized? Yes, they are marginalized! There is no doubt about that but I don’t think that is a crime. In fact, I think that they are drivers of the economy. It is good that they are good at trade and they are good at importing stuff and making stuff and that is productive economic activity.

It is good that they are less dependent on government than certain groups.

Why will you hate Igbos for being more financially independent than others for example who are totally dependent on government, except for Dangote and some of the others?

I don’t really need to be rude about the northerners, but you know they are not very productive on the whole and people don’t say, “you are very unproductive, you can never be President of Nigeria.” But Igbos are chastised for regenerating wealth.

Another point, look at all the controversy and ill-feeling over issues like herdsmen, or some of the things that northerners have done or shall I say Fulani specifically, people don’t say oh because of that and they are Fulani or Fulani herdsmen; that no Fulani should ever be President of Nigeria again.

What I find extraordinary about this whole “Igbo issue,” is that people seize on any excuse to say that they are more entitled to the Presidency. There are lots of reasons.  Prejudice is never an attractive quality in any of us. I think we all have some prejudices very deep in us. For some it is more overt than it is in others. But I just think that the dislike of Igbos is too widespread and too open. It is too close to the surface.

Reuben Abati: I know that you followed up on the column again this week, you wrote a part two, why did you feel compelled to write about that?

Donu Kogbara: Well because even after I have listed to all the criticisms people level against Igbos, and tried to provide rejoinders, people still came back at me saying, “what’s wrong with you?”

If Igbos are hated, there must be a good reason for it. So, when I asked them, what is the good reason for it, they couldn’t give me any answer. That’s the people I was able to engage with, personally. So, I just felt that I should follow up and say that I think we can all do better than this. I think that bigotry is beneath us all and I am particularly disappointed by young people who have been pocketed, because I expect them to be more progressive than the elders.

I am not even saying that Igbos must have the Presidency in 2023. I am saying that they should be entitled to it as anybody else and as politically viable as anybody else.

Actually, I have mixed feelings about the whole zoning issues anyway. So, you can’t deny that at the moment, the two that have never had the Presidency are North East and the South East.

So, if you want it to go round, those are the two zones that are entitled to it; with Igbos coming first, in my opinion.

Reuben Abati: If you looked at the papers today (12^th February, 2022), some of the papers are reporting that Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is saying that there is no such thing called zoning in the Nigerian Constitution.

I bring this up because you just mentioned the point about zoning and the whole South East agenda, or Southern agenda with regards to the Southern Governors Forum about zoning. But former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is saying that the Nigerian constitution does not recognize zoning and it is in order for anybody from any part of the country to aspire to become President in 2023.

What do you think?

Donu Kogbara: He would say that, wouldn’t he? Because like for the 20^th time he is running for President and he is a Northerner. So obviously he is being a bit facetious. This is probably his 4^th chance.

So, you can’t blame him, wanting to deny the relevance of Zoning. I supported Atiku in 2019 so you know I’m not against him. I just think well…to be honest with you Reuben, I don’t want to think about it.

It is an insane world, if one of the best candidates keeps coming from the same part of the country, but Nigeria is not like that and the truth is that you can find worthy candidates from every zone. So, let’s not pretend that Osinbajo and Tinubu are the only viable candidates in Nigeria, and Umahi and Orji Uzor Kalu are the only good ones.

In the North, there are one or two worth considering, but I haven’t decided yet who to vote for.

Reuben Abati: You have been writing articles back-to-back, supporting Igbo Presidency and here you say you have candidates from other parts of the country. That’s quite interesting.

Donu Kogbara: Let Igbos bring their best foot forward because when you start with one hand behind your back, you have to bring special people.

Reuben Abati: So, you are saying that some of the Igbos that have stepped forward; you don’t consider them “special people”.  Is that what you’re saying

Donu Kogbara: So far, the ones that have thrown their hats into the ring, let me be really blunt to say, that I have no regard whatsoever, but Rochas Okorocha, Orji Uzor Kalu; no, I don’t!

I’m waiting for better materials to come forward, sometimes when I say I have no regards for someone, it may not be that I dislike them personally. It might just be a belief that politically and in terms of governance capabilities, they do not impress me.

The ones from my own zone which is the South-South well, let me just keep quiet for now. None of them have yet formally thrown their hearts into the ring and I hope they do because I’m compelled to make some very nasty remarks.

Reuben Abati: [Laughter] Rochas responding to you may just say this is a case of Iberiberism. But there are others who have also thrown their hats into the ring. How about Peter Obi?

Peter the rock. He is a man that is well liked.

Donu Kogbara: Has he decleared?

Reuben Abati: Yes! He said that he is interested in this game and there is Orji Uzor Kalu, the Senatorial Chief Whip. He too has said that he is interested. There is Anyim Pius Anyim who has had significant experience as Senate President, as Secretary to the government of the Federation.

Are you throwing all those ones away also?

Donu Kogbara: They don’t set my heart aflame with inspiration.

Reuben Abati: Meaning maybe you don’t think they are good enough?

Donu Kogbara: Peter Obi seems like a very sort of super down-to-earth person. He’s got some good credentials. I’ve heard things about him, I don’t really know him and I’m yet to see anything about him that makes me think, oh wow yes that’s the one.

As for Pius Ayim. Nothing personal, but again, I am not excited by the prospect. Maybe as the campaign proceeds, some of these guys will warm up and start being passionate and saying the kind of things that we want to hear but so far nada.

Reuben Abati: But If we go outside of the South East zone, some other persons who have also shown interest, who are your  favourites and I know that you have mentioned Kayode Fayemi, you have mentioned someone else  but there also Northerners who want to be part of this and the northerners are saying through the Northern Elders Forum , through the Northern Leaders of Thought Forum, that look it will not be fair to say that  northerners cannot be part of this prospect because the constitution does not exclude anybody. What do you think?

Donu Kogbara: I’m a little bit tired of them. As of 2010 when we were celebrating our 50^th anniversary, since Independence. I think Goodluck Jonathan was President and then I remember a lot of Northerners agitating that if we could only do one term and because it will be their turn after him, because Yar’Adua didn’t survive to serve two terms. I remember checking and discovering that out of the 50 years that had elapsed since independence, Northerners have run this country for 36 out of the 50 and they have the audacity to talk about being marginalized. And they had the audacity to say that Goodluck should only serve one term.

 I later decided that I was not going to support Dr Jonathan’s second term aspiration but I stand by his right to run a second term. I stood by his rights around the second term.

So now that northerners are now saying eh… we should not be ruled out.

Come on, what is this born to rule mentality?! “This we must have a big slice mentality.” I have Northern friends who are interested.

I have friends who work for Bala Mohammed, Governor of Bauchi who is interested. They tell me very good things about him. If the guy wins, I don’t mind. If he is, as they tell me he is; I don’t mind.

Underneath all that is the willingness to give people a chance. But wherever they are from, I’m uncomfortable about their idea that the North should have the Presidency again.

Reuben Abati: Let us talk about women representation in the political process, decision making in Nigeria

In the last few weeks on the other platform AriseTv, I had the cause to talk to Khadijat Okunnu-Lamidi who wants to be President of Nigeria, she doesn’t even have a political party platform yet. Her example  raises that big issue about women representation.

We also spoke on Arise Tv with a young lady called Olatorera Majekodunmi-Oniru , she wants to go to the Senate. When you look at the entire field and you add Ekiti State, that is looking forward to gubernatorial elections on June 18, even the main female representative there Biodun Olujimi on the platform of the PDP had to withdraw because the Nigerian political environment is rigged against the Nigerian woman and people talk about it. People are just patronizing and not walking the talk. Even the Nigerian woman does not support the Nigerian woman.

How do you feel about that?

Donu Kogbara: I am a feminist somebody who wants to be outraged when women are undermined.

But I will say actually that my experience has been that the single biggest problem women have in Nigeria is sexual harassment.

What I mean by that is that, it’s actually really difficult, I have lived in Abuja now for 22 years. Only God know why, it is really difficult to get anything here without sleeping with somebody.

I say this openly and unequivocally. Nigerian men find it really hard to help or promote women who are not their girlfriends. What I am trying to say is that, that in itself is an obstacle, because it puts you at the mercy of all kinds of guys who will not give you a chance unless you are their girlfriend or their favourite girlfriend.

I salute women who have managed to get past that barrier and do well despite it.

Reuben Abati: President Buhari has been saying to the APC that young people should be allowed to take ownership of the party and of the political process. We know that we have the not too young to run bill which was also passed into law by the same administration, but are the young people in Nigeria ready?

These people are perpetually on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and many of them actually promote a lot of ignorance. Is the youth population in Nigeria ready? What do you think about this involvement of the youth who seem to have some sense of entitlement and do not have the capability as some people think to really rise up to the level.

What has happened to the youth population of Nigeria? This is not the same youth that formed those groups that moved Nigeria forward in the past. This new group is different. This is a yahoo-yahoo generation.

What are your thoughts?

Donu Kogbara: A generation, right? Regarding the old generation as problem and the younger generation as a problem, there is nothing new about the conflict of tension between our children, ourselves and our parent generation.

Every generation comes with advantages and disadvantages. I don’t think per say its automatically an advantage.  I have a 36-year-old son. Do I think he should be a senator? No, I don’t.

Does he think I’m an old cargo who needs to change her ways? Yes, he does.

So, I think it really just boils down to qualities of the individuals.

Some of the people whose been Heads of State in Nigerian or Governors were very young.

Alfred Diete-Spiff who is one of the best governors that Rivers state has ever had and that’s the old Rivers. That was Rivers and Bayelsa combined apparently.  He was only 25 years when he was our governor.

He did quite do well by the standards of the time. I just think that there is no such a thing as too old though.

I think there should be a cut of point maybe 70. Do I think that young people are so amazing? The answer is no!

Some of them are ok. Some of them are silly, frivolous, shallow and some of them are just as bad as we are. I’m sure they are our children. I mean a child of a corrupt governor, likely to have integrity is per se, a wonderful productive quality? No!

But I think we really need to have some kind of upper age limit on governance. And you need people who know what Zoom is and can set it up themselves.

Comments and Questions Segment:

[1^st Caller: Moses from Isolo]: She said that Igbos don’t have a case. Nobody is against the Igbo man, he is against himself. Nobody is stopping the Igbo man to contest for the office of the President. Emotions will not take us anywhere… there is nothing called Igbophobia. How can they play the politics of separatism and at the same time they will say nobody likes them?

Donu Kogbara: First of all, it really annoys me to hear that Igbos don’t have a case and they have no grounds on which to feel disliked or marginalized. Anybody who says that, the opposite is true and it is utterly delusional. It is obvious that Igbos have a problem in this country.

They feel it, I see it, many people who are not Igbos see it and express it. Maybe the gentleman who just spoke doesn’t dislike Igbos personally, so he doesn’t know that Igbos are disliked. Maybe he doesn’t socialize so he has never heard anybody expressing dislike for Igbos but let me just assure him that Igbophobia is very real.

On the issue of separatism, we are talking about IPOB right? The Indigenous People Of Biafra. It is an organization that is separatist, that is radical. 95% of the Igbos I know wants nothing to do with IPOB.

They think it is extreme and do not wish to leave the Nigeria federation.

[Via WhatApp Adegboyega Adedeji] Politics requires full participation, ability to engage the people, gain support, build bridges, create alliance and recognition, this is what the South East Igbo politicians lacked over the years with denials to the number one seat of power. They have now resorted to their fate, they are ready to accept whatever that is thrown at them, that is why the idea of zoning came up to absorb them and to win their trust but sincerely not with the intention of giving them the platform to have a shot at the centre.

Reuben Abati: The caller seems to be saying, no matter what you say, nobody is interested in making an Igboman a President.

[2^nd Caller: Ebi from Sango]: He said for the past 56 years nobody is talking about the Igbos

The economy of this nation is still run by the Igbos and the Igbos should be given a chance in the interest of national unity, justice, equity and fairness.

He said that we should listen to Igbos.

Donu Kogbara: I agree! Igbos should be given a chance. Let them bring a good candidate out and give the people the opportunity. The issue is not that an Igbo man must win; it is that a good candidate should not be discriminated against because he is Igbo.

Kingsley Moghalu is another one; I didn’t mention him earlier because he doesn’t belong to any of the two big parties. So, there is a tendency to believe that he doesn’t stand a chance.

This is not a country where an independent candidate can push forward like that. It has never happened before. When you have persons like Kingsley Moghalu, why shouldn’t he have a chance? Is Kingsley Moghalu inferior to the Yoruba guys or the Northerners who want to be President or who have been President in the past?

Kingsley has got what it takes… you mentioned Peter obi, I mentioned John Nwodo not that he is a candidate, but I don’t just understand this prejudice which says that somebody shouldn’t get it because they are Igbo.

If we are going to throw this thing open and become a mature country, where zoning doesn’t matter, let Igbos only have it once before we throw it open to everybody and ban zoning.

[Comments Via Zoom: Mrs. Iyamba] I don’t see why the Igbos cannot present themselves as President or Presidency. The Presidency is not given, it is earned and they should get their acts together, market their candidacy and go for it.

Nobody has stopped them from coming forth. What people say is not relevant.

[Comments Via Zoom: Yemisi Ayeni] saying that she agrees with her

[Comments Via Zoom: Mrs. Iyamba responds]: Yes, the next President needs qualities beyond being in government before.

Nigeria needs change agents! People who are ready to take hard decisions for the interest of the good of the masses.

[Comments Via Zoom: On Zulum of Borno State] - She says all the ones that that we should be looking for…all the English-speaking former governors can’t take us anywhere.

Reuben Abati: What’s your reaction to  the conversation between Mrs Iyamba and Mrs Ayeni on Zoom?

Donu Kogbara: I agree with them. I actually know them; they are brilliant professionals in their own right. Women of substance. The only thing I will take issue with, is the amount of political English-speaking…I think there is a lot to be said for people who are articulate and eloquent.

Zulum is a good candidate. This country is complicated.  No one zone is going to rescue this country. No one person is going to rescue this country.

What we really need is the first-eleven or first-hundreds of change agents.

[Caller: Obi Emmanuel from Ikorodu Lagos] It is actually insultive to say that there is no Igbophobia, it is glaring that it is everywhere.

To think the Igbos cannot produce the next President, it is actually an insult to the Igbo man.

We have capable people from Igbo Land.

[Via Zoom: Vora]: He doesn’t think the youths are necessarily better because they are product of the same system.

Reuben Abati: What do you think about these two issues?

Donu Kogbara: I agree with Vora. That was the point I was making earlier.  Why do we assume that young people are automatically better, when we brought them up?

 Are we good? Why should we think that the people we brought up will automatically be good?

He’s right! We are products of the same system and they are products of the same generation that has failed to rescue this country.

[Caller: Mohammed Ibrahim]: There is nothing like Igbophobia in this country, these Igbos should play their politics right and should not try to come into government through a backdoor and blackmailing other people that it should be us.

Power is not given; everybody should fight for it and get it.

Breaking News: Hold on, please. A group is calling on Godwin Emefiele to be President. We even hear he may address a press conference in Lagos today to declare his interest in the 2023 Presidential race. What do you think, Donu?

Donu Kogbara: I think Emefiele should resign from the Central Bank and concentrate on his political ambition. I hope this is not going to be an anything goes scenario where somebody is able to hold on to a political position that potentially, can illegally fund a political campaign.

I have nothing personal with Emefiele, I don’t know him but I do find that a little disturbing but it depends on how that is managed.

On what basis is he running… Is it on the basis of his sterling performance as Governor of  Nigeria’s premier bank?

[Via WhatsApp: Bright from Lagos]: Igbos have done nothing wrong; they should bring out good candidates and stop complaining about marginalization. Talking about zoning, North Central has not produced a candidate and nobody is talking about North Central. What is so special about the South East?

Donu Kogbara: I’m not saying that South East is uniquely special. Every group in this country has some advantages and disadvantages and assets. It is just that they have not had it before. So what is wrong in giving them a chance?

[Via WhatsApp] I like your guest. She should blast them all. Anyone who says there is no Igbophobia is highly delusional and hypocritical. I am not Igbo but I support them and the senseless sense of the Northerners that they own Nigeria is disgusting and lousy. The Northerners are the problem of Nigeria. I am partly from the North…

Donu Kogbara: [Cuts in]… Igbos are asked to justify their existence and their interest in political power to extend that, the Northerners should also be asked the same question. We should all be asked the same question. If we scrutinize the northern interest in power, the way we scrutinize the South East interest in power I think they will find it difficult to explain why they have ruled this country for so many years and it is in such a mess.

[Mrs Iyamba via zoom]: CBN governor on what grounds? Well… well… well… it is his fundamental human right.

 If Igbos had made a mess that others have made of this country we will never hear.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a split decision voted 6-1 to nullify Executive Order 10 through which the Federal Government of Nigeria had sought in 2019, to give effect to Section 81 (3) and Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered by the 4^th Alteration Act No. 4 of 2017, with regard to the financial autonomy of state judiciary and legislature which had been observed more in the breach by state governments and their Chief Executives. The Governors of the 36 states of the Federation had kicked against the Executive Order as an abbreviation of their rights under the 1999 Constitution. Collectively they elected to go to court, and hence asked the Court (a) to declare the Executive Order 10, unconstitutional and illegal; (b) compel the Federal Government to take up funding of capital projects for State High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal, and (c) refund to the 36 states a sum of N66 billion, being amount which they claimed to have spent on capital projects for the three courts in their respective states.  To resolve the matter, the Supreme Court in addition to its panel of seven Justices invited five Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) as amici curiae (friends of the Court). On Friday, the court ruled 6-1 that the Executive Order 10 is ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Their Lordships also resolved, 4-3 that the 1999 Constitution already expressly spells out the responsibility of the states and the Federal Government concerning the funding of the State High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and the Customary Court of Appeal, even if it is silent on capital projects. In sum, the Supreme Court rejected the request of the Attorney General of Abia State and 35 others with regard to the aforementioned (b) and (c) parts of their prayers.

Many commentators have so far tried to be diplomatic in their response to the ruling, but from the outcome as reported, it is not difficult to see that what the Supreme Court has done is to take a technical view of the matter and offer a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the powers of the President, the relationship between the states, and the limits of the Federal Government in the exercise of its powers as spelled out in the 1999 Constitution. Did the President of Nigeria actually act ultra vires? Justice Mohammed Dattijo, delivering the lead judgment declared that “This country is still a Federation and the 1999 Constitution it operates is a federal one. The Constitution provides a clear delineation of powers between the state and the Federal Government. The President has overstepped the limit of his constitutional powers by issuing the Executive Order 10. The country is run on the basis of the rule of law.” Okay. The law is what the judge says it is. The powers of the various tiers of government are defined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the 1999 Constitution pursuant to the doctrine of the separation of powers.  Executive powers are vested in the President in Sections 5, 130, 132, 148(1), 151 such that in general, the President of Nigeria is one of the most powerful executives in the world invested literally with the status of a constitutional monarch. In Section 130 (2), he is actually described as “the \Head of State, the Chief Executive of the Federation and Commander-in-chief of the Federation.” The strong effect of the ruling by the Supreme Court in A.G. Abia and 35 ors vs. AG Federation is that there are limits to these powers, nonetheless.

By seeking to enforce and extend Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the President, in other words, encroaches on the right of state governments to receive money from the Federation Account on behalf of the state judiciary and legislature and transmit their share to them. Thus, the Federal Executive overreaches itself when it assumes it has the powers to strengthen Section 121(3) through what amounts to additional legislation. It is the duty of the legislative arm of government to make or amend laws under Section 6. EO 10 further amounts to an interpretation of the law by the Federal Government and that Executive arm of government acting as adjudicator. The powers in that regard belong to the judiciary under Section 6. So, while the EO 10 would have protected the judiciary against the rascality of state Governors riding roughshod over the judiciary and the legislature at the sub-national level, and the judiciary would have been a beneficiary of the order, their Lordships looked beyond benefit to the judiciary and took a strictly purist and technocratic view of the law. It would be wrong to assume that the judiciary has ruled against itself. If the Federal Government is allowed to overreach itself and the President permitted to usurp the functions of the legislature and the judiciary, that would be a prescription for anarchy and an endorsement of dictatorship.

The lead judgment emphasizes the rule of law, separation of powers, the limits of powers and the federal principle. I would like to see the state legislatures begin to perform their oversight functions, to call over-bearing Governors to order. The judgment has also been described as victory for the Governors. It is most ironic that these same Governors are benefiting from a principle they themselves do not respect, an emphasis on the rule of law they have no regard for. In various states, Nigerian Governors are worse than tyrants. They seek to control judges, bribe them, humiliate them and violate their independence and integrity. It will be recalled that in one state, Cross Rivers State to be specific, magistrates not too long ago – January 2021- carried placards and organized protests because their salaries had not been paid for 24 months and nothing had been done to provide them good working conditions. State Governors also intervene unnecessarily in the appointment of judges, and seek to compromise them. As for the State legislatures, state Governors preside over them remotely. They behave like messiahs with the control of everything else. State legislatures in Nigeria are in any case pathetic. The members behave like the Governors’ houseboys, especially when the Governor’s party has the majority in the House. I argue that although the 36 State Governors may have secured partial victory in the matter of EO 10 with the Federal Government, but they lack the right to claim any moral high ground.

The judex may never at any time go to court to sue the state Executive arm of government,  that would be strange but the abuse of privilege by state Governors actually got so bad, that in 2015, the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) went on strike for two weeks. In 2020, they shut down the courts for 64 days. State Governments hurriedly signed a Memorandum of Action (MoA), the National Judicial Council also made an appeal before the strike was suspended. JUSUN asked for financial autonomy for the judiciary. The body insisted on compliance with the Constitutional provision which places the budgets of state judiciary as a first line charge on the Constitution. They have a point.. I would also like to see the state legislatures begin to perform their oversight functions, to call over-bearing Governors to order.

What the Governors do to Local governments is even worse. They rely on the powers of control conferred on the state government under Section 7 to render local councils totally ineffective. Governors decide on whether elections would hold at that level of government or not, and when they frustrate due process they appoint sole administrators or caretaker committees. They hide under the State-Local Government Joint Account and the associated committees to steal money meant for local councils. They get away with blue murder because nobody challenges them.  

To put the matter in perspective, the Federal Government in 2019 introduced Executive Order 10 to correct the wrong being committed by the State Governors. It also introduced through the Nigeria Financial Investigation Unit (NFIU) a set of guidelines to ensure that state Governors would no longer withdraw monies meant for local council operations from the Joint Account (Section 162 (8)). Daylight robbery of local council resources is one of the reasons the local level of government is virtually dead. The big obstacle against the attempt by the Federal Government to enforce the fiscal autonomy of the local councils was again, the law. This is relatable to the minority judgment by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji who maintained that the EO 10 was in order “because of the hanky-panky and subterfuge played by state Governors against the independence and financial autonomy of state judiciary…This is not unconstitutional.” There has been a tendency to play down this minority view.

On Sunday as anchor of ThisDay Live: The Sunday Talk Show, I had tried to bring up the matter with one of my guests, the legendary Chief Robert Clarke, SAN. Chief Clark had admonished me not to even mention the judge’s name not to talk of offering a summary of his position. But Justice Abba-Aji enjoys the support of Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, who deserves to be quoted at some length: “I just read the judgment” he said. “I was out of the country. I just want to say broadly that I agree with Justice Abba-Aji, the minority judgment. The reason is that the constitution makes it clear that the legislative and judicial branches of state government are to get specific sums of money from what goes to the state. And if the state governors are not making them to have it, all that the executive order has done is to facilitate the implementation of the Constitution. And that is what executive orders are supposed to do. So, the Federal Government was right and I agree with the minority judgment entirely.” What are we dealing with here: form vs substance, the law as it is vs. the law as it ought to be? What is the minority opinion based upon? Was Justice Abba-Aji offering an opinion rather than a strict construction of the law as it is? But whatever it is, the Supreme Court is the apex Court of the land, and the majority decision carries the day, more so as it is focused on the very substance of  EO 10.

The Nigerian President is empowered to give orders, and in this regard, there can be a recourse to Section 315(2) of the 1999 Constitution, but this particular section states clearly that the President can only act  “in conformity with the provisions of this Constitution”, certainly not in breach of it. The Buhari administration has adopted Executive Orders, the first administration to do so in Nigeria in a manner that looks like a copy-cat imitation of the American Donald Trump’s Presidency. Within the first five months of his assumption of office in 2017, Trump had signed 37 EOs!  But even in the US, Executive orders are administrative handmaidens to facilitate the execution of policies within the Executive arm of government, commands to Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) as instruments of management  or to prepare a framework for proposals to the legislature, but certainly not an attempt by the Executive to usurp legislative and judicial functions. To date, the Buhari administration has proclaimed more than 10 Executive Orders. A close scrutiny may reveal that most of them would pass the test. These would include EO 1:  on the promotion of transparency and efficiency in the Business Environment; EO 2: On Submission of Annual Budgetary Estimates by all Statutory and non-Statutory Agencies, including Incorporated Companies wholly owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria; EO 3: Support for Local Content in Public Procurement by the Federal Government; EO 4: On the Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme (VAIDS); EO 5: to promote local content in public procurement with science, engineering and technology components, and to prohibit the Ministry of Interior from issuing visas to foreign nationals whose skills are available in Nigeria; EO 6:  on assets connected with corruption and other related offences; EO 7: On Road Infrastructure Development and Refurbishment Investment Tax Credit Scheme; EO 8: On Voluntary Offshore Assets Regulatory Scheme, EO 9: On Companies Income Tax. The problem with EO 10 as appropriately pointed out by the Supreme Court is its breach of constitutional provisions.

It seems to me therefore that Executive Orders are not necessarily in themselves bad; they are good only to the extent that they are in conformity with the basic law,  that is the Constitution. Every affirmation of the supremacy of the rule of law is a good sign, but all parties concerned, including the apex court must be seen to be consistent accordingly, and prepared to embark on judicial activism, beyond narrow technicality, for public good, when required to do so. The ruling under review thus throws up more questions than answers: how do we truly ensure the independence of the co-equal parts of government? How do we prevent cynical elements from violating the laws of the land because it is expedient to do so? There are many Nigerians who believe that the 1999 Constitution is the biggest problem of Nigeria and that the Constitution needs to be replaced with a people’s Constitution forged and agreed upon under a democratic dispensation. They also think that for as long as Nigeria is unable to find the political will and the right political  leaders to promote unity and national loyalty, so long would the lawmakers and the judex continue to talk about the rule of law in vacuo. In that sense, the Supreme Court ruling under review has not solved any problem. It is instead, a strong reminder, of the inchoateness of the Nigerian essence.         

As the race toward 2023 polls hots up, a veteran journalist and columnist, Donu Kogbara, has said Southeast is capable of producing a quality candidate that can compete with candidates from other zones in the country.

Kogbara, who revealed this on Saturday while featuring as guest on a zoom meeting on CityFM programme, “City Talks with Reuben Abati”, said better candidates could emerge from the zone.

The journalist, who said she is disturbed by the injustice being meted out to the Southeast, stated: “I’m not saying Igbos must have presidency in 2023, what I’m saying is that they should be as political viable as anybody else.

“The country is complicated; No one zone is going to rescue this country.

“Anyone who feel the Igbos are not marginalized, is delusional. It is obvious the Igbos have a problem in this country, they feel it, I see it.

“Talking about IPOB, 95 percent of Igbos I know want nothing to do with IPOB and do not wish to leave the Nigeria republic.”

Persecondnews reports that in the build-up to 2023, about six aspirants from the region have indicated interest and expressed readiness to run.

They are Sam Ohuabunwa, Anyim Pius Anyim, David Umahi, Kingsley Moghalu, Rochas Okorocha and Orji Uzor Kalu.

Also speaking on her preferred presidential candidate from the zone, Kogbara said she is waiting for better candidates to come forward.

“I have no regards for Rochas Okorocha and Orji Uzor Kalu. I am waiting for better candidates from the South-East to come forward.

“When I say I don’t have regard for someone, it doesn’t mean I dislike the person, it might just be a belief that politically and in terms of governance capabilities, they do not impress me,” she said.

[Persecondnews]

Nigerian columnist, Donu Kogbara, has said It is unfair to speak ill of the Igbos and deny them the opportunity of being president of the Nigeria because of their entrepreneurial mindset.

While appearing on the City Talks With Reuben Abati on Saturday, Kogbara said she always got negative remarks whenever she discussed with non-Igbos about the possibility of an Igbo presidency in 2023.

Speaking on the topic “2023 elections and other matters arising”, the former BBC employee opined that Igbos are engaged in productive economic activity that Nigerians should embrace.

She said, “I think that its good that there are drivers of the economy , they are good at making and importing stuffs and that is productive economic activities.

“The comments I hear during conversations with people of other ethnic groups makes me disturbed about the injustice being inflected on the south east.”

According to her the fact that Igbos are good at making money and are willing to go to any part of the country with such objective should not be a reason to dislike them.

“Igbos are traders , business people and more likely to be interested in the bottom line than people from other groups, that doesn’t mean you won’t find business people from other groups but Igbos are more on the whole oriented that way.

“So why will you hate Igbos who are more financially independent than the northerners who are solely dependent on the government except for Dangote and one or two others.

“I don’t want to be rude about northerners but they are not productive as a whole and people never say, you are very unproductive you can never be the president of Nigeria. But Igbos ae chastised for generating wealth,” she stated.

Laying emphasis on how the Igbos have been marginalized, the Niger Delta born questioned why people have never raised same hatred towards the Fulanis, even after the issues arising from herdsmen attacks in the country.

“Despite the ill-feelings over the issue of herdsmen , you never hear people say no Fulani should be president of Nigeria again.

“What I find extraordinary about this whole Igbo issue is that people seize on any excuse just to make them not entitled for presidency.

“I’m not saying Igbos must be president in 2023 but I’m saying everyone should be politically viable like others.

[thewhistler]