The director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, Sam Amadi, has said the Supreme Court determined the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.

Amadi blamed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, for failing to prosecute the 2023 presidential election.

Amadi said the National Assembly should probe INEC’s expenditures during the 2023 general election.

He also charged INEC to explain why its server failed during the 2023 presidential election.

The public affairs analyst also noted that the electoral umpire should be able to explain to Nigerians why its results were not collated and declared electronically as provided in the INEC electoral Act as amended.

He spoke at an event organised by the Labour Party to mark this year’s Democracy Day and was contained in a statement by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh.

According to Amadi: “Nigerians and indeed the National Assembly should be courageous enough to probe INEC expenditure during the 2023 general elections.

“The failure of the INEC server during the presidential election with all the money given to them. It is appalling that no one spoke about the huge amount of money given Mahmood Yakubu and all the INEC commissioners to prosecute a failed election, failed because the Supreme Court has to step in to determine the result of elections.”

He noted that the ongoing electoral reform must reject the inconsistency of allowing the presidency to appoint the INEC chairman.

Amadi stressed that this gives room for election rigging before the votes are cast.

[DailyPost]

Each time a country goes through minimum wage negotiation, you can take it for granted that the argument to put politicians on that same salary scale will come up. It is a common argument, one that the Victorian Socialists Party in Australia included in their campaign promises. Granted, they were an upcoming party—the equivalent of the many political parties in Nigeria that exist through their press releases until elections are around the corner—and were unlikely to win anyway. Still, asking politicians to feel what they dish out is a universally resonant sentiment. In 1816, when the United States Congressmen voted to increase their salaries to $1500 a year (from the cumulative $900), a significant number of them were promptly voted out! Such reactions show how much people have always resented their delegates living above the majority of the people they are supposed to represent.

In Nigeria, we have repeatedly heard versions of the argument as the Nigeria Labour Congress slugs it out with the Federal Government on calibrating the pay scale. The NLC started out with N615,000, a rather outrageous sum even for a negotiation starting point. They revised their offer to 495,000 and are now down to N250,000. The Federal Government, meanwhile, is offering them N62,000. In bargaining, the union leaders justify their figures by comparing the sum with politicians’ income. To enhance the moral legitimacy of their stance, the breakdown of lawmakers’ income has been circulated in the media along with the payslip of a prominent media aide. If they could earn that much, the workers too should be able to up their demands. While we know it is highly improbable that our politicians would ever legalise such a proposal, it is a discussion still worth having. The Nigerian political class earns a high income. If placed on a minimum wage, will it make a difference?

Arguments in favour of the proposal assert that politicians are public representatives and their realities should not be distant from the society they purportedly administer. Besides, politics is not a profession one should embark on for the salaries but for the prospect of making a social impact. This line of argument is not entirely without provenance. Until the 20th century, lawmakers in Britain (the country that colonised/modernised half of the world) were unpaid. In those times, it was not a full-time job but a partial vocation for propertied men who could afford to take some time off to deliberate for society.

Several analysts suggest a correlation between the income we pay politicians and the quality of governance. They argue that better salaries induce better people into politics, which is good for the system. The standard reference point for those who take this position is Singapore. Their lawmakers are officially the highest paid in the world earning about $900,000 per year (for comparison, US congressmen earn about $178,000). Singaporean ministers earn around $1.1m, while their president earns about $1.7m (the US president earns $400,000). Other countries, especially in the Middle East (like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait) and Europe (Monaco, Norway, and Sweden), also have leaders earning humongous salaries. What do these countries have in common? Good governance, high quality of life, minimal corruption, and leaders who demonstrate public accountability.

Now, as even an elementary analyst knows, correlation is not causation. The fact that higher salaries have something to do with better governance elsewhere does not necessarily make it the defining reason those countries enjoy good leadership. Nigeria is a fantastic example of higher salaries not making any difference in leadership quality. In fact, all the arguments advanced for paying politicians higher salaries fall apart in Nigeria. They say politics is an elite enterprise and if you want to draw the best minds in your society, you must pay them well above—or at least the equivalent of—what they would have earned if they worked for wealthy private corporations. People who get into power should enjoy a high quality of life to free them from pursuing other enterprises that will expectedly bring them money. That idea does not quite hold up here because the meritocracy that selects people in those societies is still largely alien to us. People frequently get into power in spite of—not because of—merit.

That explains why, except for a handful, Nigerian politics is mostly populated by a category that does not even represent the quality of minds that freely litter its landscape. Looking at those who represent us in power, you would never quite know that Nigerians are brilliant people who excel in parts of the world where they are allowed to thrive. Our politics is skewed in such a way that the worst of us mostly tends to represent the best of us. Ironically, some analysts use African countries such as Nigeria as an exemplar of the low-quality governance you get when you underpay your public administrators.

Nigerian lawmakers earn as much as their US counterparts, but they do not compare favourably. Listen to our lawmakers debate an issue, and you will understand that they themselves are a problem that higher salaries simply cannot fix. For instance, the quality of their “debate” over the re-introduced national anthem was beneath the level of what you will get at a newspaper stand where the Free Readers Association members converge to argue everything from world politics to sports. The discussants did not come across as if they did any homework on the subject; their contributions were mostly extempore and hardly insightful. I have witnessed agboolé meetings where the old men who mediate conflicts demonstrate far better rhetorical and oratorical skills. So where exactly is the elitism that is supposed to distinguish them from the rest of us and justify their pay?

They also confound the idea that if politicians earned enough, they would look away from bribes. Nigeria serially defies abstract postulations in this respect. Someone like Orji Uzor Kalu was not a pauper before he got into politics, yet he once went to jail on allegations of corruption. His story is not even unique. Governors steal and steal while they are in office, and when they are leaving, they will still get the lawmakers to sign them unconscionably fat pensions. Then they will go to the Senate where they will continue to steal. Nothing is ever enough for them, no matter how much they manage to amass.

To be fair to them, the nature of public office in Nigeria induces stealing, especially if you already lack a strong moral core. The average politician is always hustled by the mass of beggars who throng their abode in search of kobo tokens of survival. Such demands on public leaders push them to steal to augment their earnings. Still, that does not change the argument that in our society, our politicians are the same breed of hustlers whether rich or poor. There are hardly any distinctions between them when it comes to corruption. Paying people who have no such self-awareness higher salaries will not raise their standards. It will only widen their already wide mouths.

If more money has not allowed them to create the space necessary to develop themselves intellectually and ideologically, paying them less (by putting them on a minimum wage) will not make much difference either. No reasonable person thinks there is any path to that proposal ever getting actualised, but we bring it up because it is a good argument that at least reminds our out-of-touch politicians to stay level-headed. In the ongoing context of wage negotiation in Nigeria, it is funny seeing people pointlessly arguing against the idea. There is no path to ever paying politicians minimum wage, but bringing it up is also not an entirely futile exercise. Leaders who determine our lives need such occasional reminders to be—hopefully—empathic.

• MOSOP: it’s time to immortalise Saro-Wiwa

The family of the Founder of Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Dr. Frederick Isiotan Fasehun, has protested the omission of their late patriarch from the list of June 12 heroes contained in yesterday’s Democracy Day broadcast by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The Movement for The Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) also said the late environmentalist and writer Ken Sar-Wiwa ought to have been immortalised the way Chief MKO Abiola has been honoured.

In a statement in Lagos by the late OPC Founder’s son, Mr. Remi Fasehun, the family described the omission of Dr. Fasehun as uncharitable, ungrateful, and unpardonable.

“The President was a direct beneficiary of our father’s activism and sacrifice for democracy.

“Not only were they in the trenches together, (the late) Fasehun helped Tinubu to escape into exile.

“Several people, who escaped from the country into exile and joined NADECO-Abroad, including Pa Anthony Enahoro, were personally taken by boat and bush paths, through the NADECO Route, by Dr. Fasehun. He was at a point the link between Pa Enahoro-NADECO and NUPENG, the union that played a pivotal role in that struggle.

“He was thrown into prison several times by the General Sani Abacha junta, in Kirikiri, Ilorin, and Kuje. At the infamous Inter-Centre in Ikoyi Cemetery, he was held incommunicado for several months, an experience that inflicted immense damage on him, physically and psychologically, to the extent of leaving his vision impaired for life,” the family said.

In a statement in Port Harcourt by its Publicity Secretary, Saviour Oscar, MOSOP said the President did not recognise the sacrifices of the late Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni patriots who fought for democracy while recognising the late winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election, Basorun Moshood Abiola.

The statement reads: “We thank Mr. President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, for addressing Nigerians on her 25th Democracy Day. However, it is very sad that Mr. President did not recognise or make mention of the struggle of the Ogoni heroes, led by Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others, who laid down their lives for the rights of the indigenous people.

“We, the Ogoni, have been very much supportive and have contributed so much to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP); so, it’s unfortunate that Mr. President recognised the struggle of MKO Abiola while failing to acknowledge that of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogonis who paid the supreme sacrifice for what we enjoy today as a nation.

“It is still a painful experience for the people of Ogoni that we lost a generation of industrious sons who contributed immensely to the development of Rivers State and Nigeria at large and today, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, just like former President Muhammadu Buhari, recognised Abiola and the incident that led to his election bid and death while ignoring Ken Saro-Wiwa and others. It is painful and very worrisome…”

[TheNation]

The Federal Government on Wednesday admonished organised Labour to consider the broader economic implications of its push for an unrealistic higher national minimum wage.

The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, who handed down the admonition, hinted that the N250,000 minimum wage demanded by labour could undermine the economy, lead to mass retrenchment of workers and jeopardise the welfare of Nigerians.

However, the labour unions refuted President Bola Tinubu’s claims during his Democracy Day broadcast on Wednesday that an agreement had been reached on the new national minimum wage.

Acting President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Prince Adewale Adeyanju, said as of the time negotiations ended on June 7,  no agreement had been reached by the Tripartite Committee on the National Minimum Wage.

Adeyanju is acting on behalf of the NLC president, Joe Ajaero,  who is attending an International Labour Organisation conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

Tinubu drew the ire of the unions after stating that his administration would soon submit an executive bill to the National Assembly to codify the agreements reached in the minimum wage negotiations between Labour, the private sector, the states and the Federal Government.

The parties had engaged in prolonged talks for weeks with the unions insisting on N250,000 minimum wage while the Federal Government and the Organised Private Sector offered N62,000.

However, the state governors said they would not be able to sustain any minimum wage higher than N60,000.

Dismissing the offers made by the Federal Government and the OPS, the labour unions said they would not negotiate what they described as ‘starvation wage.’

N62,000 not acceptable

The Assistant General Secretary of the NLC, Chris Onyeka, said Labour would not accept the latest offer of N62,000 and the N100,000 proposal made by some individuals and economists.

This was as the NLC President, Joe Ajaero, said the unionists were waiting on the President to consider Labour’s proposal.

But speaking at the opening of the 2024 Synod of the Charismatic Bishops Conference of Nigeria in Abuja on Wednesday, the information minister emphasised the imperative of a realistic wage system that safeguards against mass retrenchment while addressing workers’ needs.

Idris restated the government’s dedication to reassessing the minimum wage but cautioned against demands that could disrupt the economy.

 He stated, “As I have repeatedly said, the Federal Government is not opposed to the increase of wages for Nigerian workers but we keep on advocating for a realistic and sustainable wage system for the workers – a wage system that will not undermine the economy, lead to mass retrenchment of workers and jeopardise the welfare of about 200 million Nigerians.

“We want the labour unions to understand that the relief that Nigerians are expecting, and that they fully deserve, will not come only in the form of an increase in wages.”

 He highlighted the ongoing efforts to alleviate the cost of living, citing initiatives like the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas programme aimed at reducing transportation expenses by 50 per cent.

 While advocating wage increases, Idris stressed the importance of holistic relief measures beyond salary adjustments, urging Labour to recognise the significance of programmes like the CNG initiative in enhancing citizens’ purchasing power.

 “It will also come as an effort to reduce the cost of living and to ensure that more money stays in the pockets of Nigerians. And this is where programmes like the Presidential CNG initiative come in.

“By replacing or complementing petrol usage with CNG, that programme alone will cut transportation costs by as much as 50 per cent,” he claimed.

 The minister called on religious leaders to assist in raising public awareness about government initiatives and efforts.

Religious leaders

He stressed the crucial role of the clergy in disseminating information about available opportunities and the government’s ongoing efforts.

 “As a government, we need your support, advice, and feedback,” Idris stated.

“Very importantly, we need you to be aware of the efforts being made and the challenges being faced so that you can help us communicate these to your congregations and the general public,” he added.

The minister highlighted the influential platforms of religious leaders, noting their potential to enlighten Nigerians on their rights, responsibilities, and the economic opportunities provided by the policies under the President’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

The agenda, he noted, aimed to promote economic rebirth, strengthen national security, boost agriculture and food security, and transform infrastructure and transportation.

“Information and awareness are critical, and this is where our religious leaders come in. You have very influential platforms that can enlighten Nigerians on their rights, responsibilities, and the abundance of economic opportunities being thrown up by the policies and programmes being implemented under the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Tinubu,” he explained.

 In his remarks, the National President of the Charismatic Bishop Conference, Archbishop Leonard Kawas, reaffirmed the organisation’s unwavering support for Tinubu’s administration, emphasising their commitment to collaborative efforts to realise the nation’s collective aspirations.

‘No agreement yet’

In their reaction to the President’s national broadcast, Adeyanju disagreed with Tinubu’s statement that his administration negotiated in good faith and with open arms with Organised Labour on the new national minimum wage.

Tinubu during his broadcast stated, “In this spirit, we have negotiated in good faith and with open arms with organised Labour on a new national minimum wage. We shall soon send an executive bill to the National Assembly to enshrine what has been agreed upon as part of our law for the next five years or less.

“In the face of labour’s call for a national strike, we did not seek to oppress or crack down on the workers as a dictatorial government would have done. We chose the path of cooperation over conflict.

 “No one was arrested or threatened. Instead, the labour leadership was invited to break bread and negotiate toward a good-faith resolution.

“Reasoned discussion and principled compromise are hallmarks of democracy. These themes shall continue to animate my policies and interaction with the constituent parts of our political economy.”

But Adeyanju in a statement dismissed the President’s assertion, insisting that he might have been misled by his advisers, noting that two figures- N250,000 from Organised Labour and N62,000 from the government and the OPS- were arrived at and ought to have been submitted to Tinubu.

According to the NLC official, anything to the contrary is not only doctored but won’t be accepted by Labour.

The congress maintained its stance on the N250,000 minimum wage, rejecting the government’s offer of N62,000 as grossly inadequate.

The statement read in part, “The NLC would have expected that the advisers of the President would have told him that we neither reached any agreement with the Federal Government and the employers on the base figure for a National Minimum Wage nor on its other components.

“Our demand still remains N250,000 only and we have not been given any compelling reasons to change this position which we consider a great concession by Nigerian workers during the tripartite negotiation process.

 “We are therefore surprised at the submission of Mr President over a supposed agreement. We believe that he may have been misled into believing that there was an agreement with the NLC and TUC.

“There was none and it is important that we let the President, Nigerians and other national stakeholders understand this immediately to avoid a mix-up in the ongoing conversation around the national minimum wage.”

Adeyanju alleged that the labour leaders were intimidated by security agencies during the minimum wage talks.

“Fully armed soldiers surrounded us while we were in a negotiation with the government and despite denials; recent statements by senior officials of the government reaffirmed our fears contrary to the assurances by the government.

“However, we remain assured that the President’s democratic credentials will come to the fore in favour of Nigerian workers and masses,’’ he expressed optimism.

According to the union, the Democracy Day celebration was an opportunity for the President to demonstrate his love for Nigerian workers and the masses by shunning the advice that may be coming from ‘’those whose intentions were continuously focused on hurting Nigeria’s poor and struggling workers.’’

He appealed,  “Mr President should not allow these individuals and groups to sabotage his promise of lifting Nigerian workers out of poverty.

“The President’s advisers obviously did not tell him the truth that the leaders of the trade unions were intimidated and harassed. It is therefore important that Mr President understands that we were threatened severally by his operatives perhaps without his consent.

“Series of media propaganda calculated to intimidate and harass us were, and, are still being waged against the trade unions by senior officials of this government."

The NLC noted that there was no agreement as regards the duration of the Minimum Wage Act.

“It is also important that Mr President should know that most of his officers are working round-the-clock to set up the leadership of congress and the trade unions.

“We never agreed on a five-year duration of the Minimum Wage Act, though we acknowledge that the President mentioned five years or less.

“We also agreed that inflation should be pegged at a level for a certain amount to be agreed as minimum wage. This is to bring clarity to what the report should contain.

“Once again, we reiterate that it will be extremely difficult for Nigerian workers to accept any national minimum wage figure that approximates a starvation wage. We cannot be working and yet remain in abject poverty.

“We seek justice, equity, and fairness for all Nigerians, and this we hope would also drive the actions of Mr President who promised a Living Wage to Nigerian workers. This is an opportunity to show that he listens to Nigerians as he promised,” the labour movement said.

OPS speaks

Also commenting on the presidential broadcast, the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture, stated that no consensus had been reached on the national minimum wage.

The NACCIMA President, Dele Oye, who is part of the 37-member tripartite committee, said the panel was still in the middle of negotiation, faulting the contradictory statements being made on the talks.

“No agreement has been reached with Labour; however, it is wrong to make a press statement in the middle of negotiations apart from appealing to all parties involved to work harder to resolve outstanding issues, as the impasse is already creating uncertainty in the ability of businesses to make decisions,” he admonished.

In January, the government inaugurated the tripartite committee on the national minimum wage.

The committee was tasked with the responsibility of recommending a new national minimum wage for Nigerian workers.

Over the past few months, the federal and state governments, organised labour, and representatives of the private sector have been deliberating on a new minimum wage for workers.

However, the demand by organised labour regarding the minimum wage has yet to be met.

On June 3, the Nigeria Labour Congress and Trade Union Congress embarked on an indefinite nationwide strike to protest against the government’s inability to meet their minimum wage demand.

Twenty-four hours later, the labour unions “relaxed” the strike by one week.

[Punch]

THE Organised Labour has rejected President Bola Tinubu’s claims that an agreement had been reached on new national minimum wages in his nationwide broadcast to mark Democracy Day.

According to labour, as at the time negotiations ended on June 7, there was no agreement reached by the Tripartite Committee on the National Minimum Wage.

Rather, two figures such as N250, 000 from labour and N62,000 from government and Organised Private Sector, OPS, were arrived at and ought to have been submitted to the President.
Meanwhile, the Federal Government has urged labour, to be realistic in their demand for a new minimum wage for workers, saying that the relief Nigerians were expecting would not come only in the form of an increase in wages but from other packages lined up by the government.

In a statement by Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, acting President, Prince Adewale Adeyanju, labour noted that anything to the contrary was not only doctored but won’t be accepted by labour.

Reacting to the President’s speech, Adeyanju, said: “The NLC attentively listened to the Democracy Day presidential address delivered by Senator Bola Tinubu, especially concerning the ongoing National Minimum Wage negotiations. While the President may have accurately recounted parts of our democratic journey’s history, it is evident that he has been misinformed regarding the outcome of the wage negotiation process.

“We appreciate the President’s commitment to those fine democratic ideals, which allowed the work of the Tripartite National Minimum Wage Negotiation Committee to proceed unhindered despite some hiccups. However, we had expected Mr President to have used this understanding as one of those who were in the vanguard of the struggle with us around the nation to rescue Nigeria from the hands of the military to harmonise the two figures submitted to him by the Tripartite Committee in favour of workers and masses. It would have been a fitting Democracy Day gift.

“The NLC would have expected that the advisers of the President would have told him that we neither reached any agreement with the Federal Government and the employers on the base figure for a National Minimum Wage nor on its other components. Our demand remains N250,000 and we have not been given any compelling reasons to change this position, which we consider a great concession by Nigerian workers during the tripartite negotiation process.

“We are, therefore, surprised at the submission of Mr. President over a supposed agreement. We believe that he may have been misled into believing that there was an agreement with the NLC and the Trade Union Congress, TUC. There was none and we must let the President, Nigerians and other national stakeholders understand this immediately to avoid a mix-up in the ongoing conversation around the national minimum wage. We have also not seen a copy of the document submitted to him and will not accept any doctored document.

“However, we want to reaffirm our belief that the President on whose table the Tripartite Committee’s report presently resides would prepare an Executive Bill, which content will reflect the true demand of Nigerian workers. We think that this is an opportunity for him to demonstrate his love for Nigerian workers and the masses by shunning the pieces of advice that may be coming from those whose intentions are continuously focused on hurting the poor and struggling workers of Nigeria. Mr President should not allow these individuals and groups to sabotage his promise of lifting Nigerian workers out of poverty.

“President’s advisers did not tell him the truth that the leaders of the trade unions were intimidated and harassed. It is, therefore, important that Mr President understands that we were threatened severally by his operatives perhaps without his consent.

“Series of media propaganda calculated to intimidate and harass us were, and, are still being waged against the trade unions by senior officials of this government. Fully armed soldiers surrounded us while we were in a negotiation with the government and despite denials, recent statements by senior officials of the government reaffirmed our fears contrary to the assurances by the government. “However, we remain assured that the President’s democratic credentials will come to the fore in favour of Nigerian workers and masses.

“It is also important that Mr. President should know that most of his officers are working round the clock to set up the leadership of Congress and the trade unions. We never agreed on a 5-year duration of the minimum wage Act though we acknowledge that the President mentioned 5 years or less.

“We also agreed that inflation should be pegged at a level for a certain amount to be agreed as minimum wage. This is to bring clarity to what the report should contain.”

FG to labour: Relief will not come only from an increase in wages

Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, who spoke at the opening of the 2024 Synod of the Charismatic Bishops Conference of Nigeria held in Abuja, said: “On the matter of the new minimum wage, which the FG is very committed to reviewing, realistically and sustainably.

“As I have repeatedly said, FG is not opposed to the increase of wages for Nigerian workers but we keep on advocating a realistic and sustainable wage system for the workers a wage system that
will not undermine the economy, lead to mass retrenchment of workers and jeopardize the welfare of about 200 million Nigerians.

“We want labour to understand that the relief that Nigerians are expecting, and that they fully deserve, will not come only in the form of an increase in wages.

“It will also come as efforts to reduce the cost of living and to ensure that more money stays in the pockets of Nigerians. And this is where programmes like the Presidential CNG initiative come in,” adding that the CNG programme alone, by replacing or complementing petrol usage with CNG, will cut transportation costs by as much as 50 per cent.

 [Vanguard]

Back in 2005 or thereabouts, a good friend of mine shared with me the challenge his wife was encountering in her place of work in one of the uniform-wearing security services. His wife, he informed me, was being harassed by one of her bosses. According to him, the more senior officer was in the habit of extending invitations to his wife requesting that they meet in the “officers’ mess” of the organisation, or some hotel.

The lady in question resorted to making jokes about every invite by her potential predator. She would diplomatically retort by reminding the officer that his faith allowed him the latitude to take four wives. In her case, however, her husband had only her as wife and was stuck with her. I would later be told that a signal was spontaneously generated from the headquarters of the organisation where she worked, kicking her to Keffi in Nasarawa state.

This was a nursing mother happily resident in Abuja with her family, who had responsibility for getting her children set for school every day, dropping them off before heading to work. She had to redesign her routine which included waking up much earlier to get the kids set. Her husband hired a driver who took the young ones to school every day and brought them back, while his wife headed to Keffi every day, returning in the evening. As if that was not enough, the oga at the top in question ensured she was officially queried for “misconduct” and the document filed in her records at the headquarters. She subsequently lost seniority in her place of work, a development which can be most harrowing for workers in the uniform-donning services.

Banks, investment concerns and financial institutions have been known to impose unattainable credit targets on their employees, particularly females, as part of their official responsibilities. They are compelled to cultivate plastic relationships with their customers, typically of the masculine gender. They are prodded to don provocative attires, and see-through clothing which leaves nothing to the imagination, in their officially demanded seduction plot. Elsewhere, statutory entitlements are denied to subordinates, typically the ladies, by their superiors. Promotions are clamped upon, and training opportunities for professional enhancement are denied. Except of course if such employees subscribe to being part of the luggage of the guys in the “VIP” cubicle on their local and foreign binges and rendezvous.

Sexual harassment has been particularly prevalent in our tertiary institutions over time. Pluri-dimensional instances have been recorded in our colleges of education, schools of nursing and midwifery, polytechnics, monotechnics and universities. It seems to feature more in public institutions than in private citadels; many of which are physically overseen by their proprietors. The trend of solicitation for sex in exchange for good grades has been most worryingly dominant over time. It has provoked as much puzzlement as it has indeed triggered academic inquisitions, intent on unearthing the root causes of the affliction, especially within our context. The media in recent weeks has highlighted multiple incidents of sexual harassment. You would imagine that with the advent of telephony and its infinite potential, this trend would be on the downward slide. But no. Indeed, it seems to be on the ascendancy. Universities have been specifically notorious for perpetrating this unwholesome trend.

In March this year, a professor of law at the University of Calabar (Unical) Cyril Ndifon, was arraigned at the Federal High Court in Abuja. There were complaints of sexual harassment against him by students of his institution. He reportedly requested a diploma student in his class to send pornographic images of herself to his telephone. The case was brought against Ndifon by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). Last April, Mfonobong David Udoudum, a lecturer in the general studies department of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, (UNN), was captured in a video clip, allegedly harassing a female student. In this specific instance, Udoudom was videotaped in his underwear, implying that he was most probably on the cusp of amorous entanglement with the said student. Ndifon and Udoudom have been summarily suspended by their employers who restated their total abhorrence for sexual misconduct.

Back in 2018, a female student of philosophy at the University of Benin (Uniben), alleged that one of her lecturers, Anthony Asekhauno, raped her. In her narrative, Asekhauno reportedly ensured she failed a course he taught, Logic. three times. He allegedly took advantage of her on one of her visits to his office to discuss her serial failure of Asekhauno’s course. Three years later in the same university, a final-year student accused a senior lecturer in the department of English of raping her. She posited that she went to submit her final year essay when the lecturer locked his office and ran through her severally. A 2022 survey suggested that 14 very senior academics including four professors, were fired by the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) and the University of Abuja (UniAbuja). Such is the grand and global scale sexual carnivores prey upon the innocent in the university system.

A correspondence dated May 27, 2024, and signed by Yusuf Mallama Tuggar, Nigeria’s foreign affairs minister has been trending for a few days now. I’ve had cause in the past to interrogate the naivety and carelessness of the post-2015 leadership of Nigeria in managing official documents. Beginning from the Muhammadu Buhari era in 2015, before a sneeze exits the nostrils, its sound would be reverberating the streets. The Olusegun Obasanjo administration which I served, had much more tighter control of official communications which could not be found on the trays of Akara sellers.

Tuggar’s letter is addressed to the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, (HCSF), Folashade Yemi-Esan. It is headed: Re: Official Complaint Regarding Sexual Harassment of Mrs Simisola Fajemirokun-Ajayi by Ambassador Ibrahim Adamu Lamuwa, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The one-page, three-paragraph mail conveys the official letter forwarded to him by Mrs Ajayi, alleging she is being hunted by Lamuwa, a very senior government official and diplomat to wit. Tuggar notes in his letter that given the gravity of the allegation, he is constrained to request the intervention of the HCSF in the matter. The foreign minister assures that he will be available to assist the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation in the processing of the complaint if his attention is required.

Tuggar wrote in response to a letter from Falana and Falana’s Chambers, which has the renowned attorney, Femi Falana, as principal partner. The correspondence from Falana’s chambers was signed by Adebayo Oniyelu and it detailed and dated several instances when Lamuwa attempted to take advantage of Fajemirokun-Ajayi. Specifically, she cited October 7, 2023, and November 10, 2023, as occasions Lamuwa made lurid overtures to her. In the course of the second incident, Fajemirokun-Ajayi stated that the foreign affairs permanent secretary baited her with a “life-changing getaway with him to Hong Kong.” Lamuwa it is alleged, had previously threatened, harassed and intimidated female officers in the foreign affairs system, dropping the names of “stubborn” people from trips and postings. Falana and Falana Chambers prayed Tuggar to investigate Lamuwa for serial unethical conduct inconsistent with the expectations of a bureaucrat at his level.

There has not been, in my view, an incident of sexual indiscretion in the supposedly hallowed corridors of political authority so publicly and embarrassingly ventilated in recent times. That this is coming from the foreign ministry, Nigeria’s primary mirror to the whole wide world makes it all the more disturbing. Lamuwa’s profile presents him as a well-heeled diplomat. He studied economics at the University of Maiduguri (UniMaid) and joined the foreign service in 1993. He has had broad-based diplomatic training and experience through a 31-year career traversing Senegal, India, Hong Kong, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mauritania, among others. On paper, the diplomat who hails from Gombe State, is a gentleman. By some coincidence, he comes from a state which is next door to Tuggar’s in Bauchi State.

Minister Tuggar has followed due process in escalating Mrs Ajayi’s complaint to the Head of Service, the Numero Uno civil servant. It is worth remarking that Tuggar has not played a parapo or na mu, na mu tune here by shielding his “countryman” from the northeast from the investigation. One is hoping here that there are no undercurrents in the relationship between the minister and the permanent secretary. Nigerians expect a very dispassionate and forensically thorough inquisition into this incident. This is very critical to ascertaining the crux of the matter.

It is too early to be judgemental at this point while the incident is being examined. The system, however, must develop safeguards for our women across the board. The molestation of our mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and nieces must be reined in. Bloodhounds must be themselves bloodied to protect the innocent. We look forward to the airing of findings into the Ibrahim Adamu Lamuwa’s inquest hoping that this begins a new era in the manner our women are treated.

Olusunle (PhD), is a Fellow of the Association of Nigerian Authors (FANA).

Christopher Musa, the chief of defence staff (CDS), says Simon Ekpa, a self-acclaimed disciple of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), must be arrested and prosecuted.

Musa spoke on Wednesday during a Channels Television special broadcast to mark Nigeria’s 2024 Democracy Day.

Ekpa is based in Finland and has continued to issue the sit-at-home order in IPOB’s and Kanu’s names.

Musa accused the government of Finland of shielding Simon Ekpa, a self-proclaimed prime minister of the IPOB.

In February 2023,  Helsingin Sanomat (HS), a newspaper in Finland, reported that Ekpa was arrested by police at his residence located in Lahti but was released after hours of questioning.

In December 2021, TheCable profiled Ekpa as someone who uses disinformation to fight for the secession of the south-east from Nigeria.

In September 2021, the Biafra agitator denounced Nigeria and vowed to return the medal he won for the country at the 2003 African Junior Athletics Championships.

Musa called on the federal government to take decisive action, including exploring diplomatic options to curb the menace of the factional leader of the IPOB.

“We have repeatedly complained about the issue of Simon Ekpa. He is in Finland, and the Finnish government is giving him all the support, and he is doing what he is doing,” the CDS said.

“The comments he is making mean people are being killed and nothing is being done. This is democracy.

“If the European Union is supporting democracy and this is happening and they are not taking action, then they don’t mean well for Nigeria.

“We have said that in clear terms. We need to diplomatically find means of getting him out of whatever it is that he is doing. He must be arrested, and he must be prosecuted.

“Look at it from the other way, assuming he is in Nigeria, he is doing that to the Finnish government. Do you think the European Union will allow that to happen? They definitely will not.”

[TheCable]

(The 2024 edition of the Pastor Poju Oyemade-inspired ‘Platform Nigeria’ conversation held yesterday in Lagos with the theme, ‘Democracy and the Free Market Economy’. Speakers included Governor Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, a former Lagos State Governor, Bishop Matthew Kukah of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto, Mr Kola Oyeneyin, CEO of Opportunik Global Fund, Mrs Titi Oshodi, Special Advisor on Climate Change and Circular Economy to the Lagos Governor and Mr. Oluseun Onigbinde, co-founder and Director of BudgIT. I was also a speaker. Below is the text of my presentation.)

A phrase popularized by politicians in the last 25 years is ‘democracy dividends.’ But whatever it means, it is evident that most Nigerians have not been availed their fair share. For all its human and material resources, Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) remains among the lowest in the world. Food inflation, currently above 40 percent, is not only frightening but breeds the risk of social, economic and security turbulence. So, while periodic elections are important, when most of our citizens find it difficult to put food on their table, we have a problem. In any case, a country’s democratic election is only as good as the country itself.

From the United States to Europe and Asia, the rise of Donald Trump and fellow travellers has led to a consensus that liberal democracy is under threat. But the real challenge in Nigeria and most countries across Africa, is existential as people worry about where their next meal will come from. In Abuja a few weeks ago to speak at a programme organized by the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, Afrobarometer co-founder, Prof Gyimah Boadi said that in survey after survey, people on the continent have been consistent in their pro-democratic aspirations. But he also warned that lack of accountable governance relative to citizen expectations is driving many to lose faith in democracy. “Policy actors and advocates must focus on accountable governance, in order to sustain and deepen citizens’ faith in democracy,” Boadi admonished.

In his 2022 piece, ‘Democracy on a ventilator?’ Andrew Sheng, a former chair of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, argued that “electoral promises are meaningless if there are no deliverables in an accountable manner.” In the case of Nigeria, a democracy that can neither advance the welfare of the people nor protect them from dying cheaply and needlessly in the hands of a cocktail of violent vagrants is endangered. 

This morning, I am borrowing from my coming book on 25 issues that have defined the last 25 years of the current democratic dispensation. I started the book early last year but despite my best efforts, it’s still in the works. Hopefully, it will be ready by December. I am looking at the salient issues that have most impacted our polity since 1999: The good, the bad and the ugly. I am also exploring potential pathways for addressing some of them with a view to strengthening our democracy. One of the issues interrogated in the book is the futility of godfatherism. That should be no surprise. It is an issue I believe we need to deal with if our democracy is to deliver the public good. I have therefore titled my presentation, ‘Democracy on Ventilator: The Role of Godfather.’

Godfatherism comes in different variants. The common variant today is that by outgoing political office holders foisting on the people their handpicked successors. There are of course other variants. But there is no substantial difference between the power merchants of old who sought no office themselves and the current ones who seek to plant surrogates after their terms have ended. Stripped of all pretensions, godfatherism is the pursuit of private interest at public expense and it is not about the good of the people as we have seen over the years in our country. Effective state capacity ensures that institutions function optimally. But we cannot develop such capacity if all we have to offer is godfatherism which hinders genuine democratic representation. Meanwhile, a ventilator is a life-support machine that provides oxygen to the lungs for those who can no longer breathe on their own. During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, it was a life-or-death situation for many who were placed on a ventilator. That precisely is where we are with our democracy in Nigeria today.

It may be important to state here that godfatherism is not peculiar to Nigeria. It is a global challenge in varying degrees. The Philippines has a history of political dynasties and godfathers. Powerful families control local politics, perpetuating their influence across generations. Italian politics has also seen its fair share of godfathers, particularly in regions such as Sicily where the influence of Mafia families in elections has been well-documented. The politics of Kenya is also replete with influential figures who shape electoral outcomes. These ‘kingpins’ control party nominations and funding. The consequences, of course, include compromised governance and limited accountability.

In 2007, Human Rights Watch, an international non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City, United States, produced an in-depth report titled, ‘Corruption, Godfatherism and the Funding of Political Violence,’ with a focus on Nigeria. “These godfathers are not mere financiers of political campaigns. Rather they are individuals whose power stems not just from wealth but from their ability to deploy violence and corruption to manipulate national, state or local political systems in support of the politicians they sponsor,” the HRW wrote. “In return, they demand a substantial degree of control over the governments they help bring into being—not to shape government policy, but to exact direct financial ‘returns’ …”

In my coming book, the chapter on godfatherism is detailed and I am exploring the different variants. We see them on full display even today. There are many examples to cite, from Port Harcourt to Kano. But this morning, I want to illustrate my point with just one variant of godfatherism from which I draw two examples: The first in Oyo State and the second in Anambra State. I have deliberately chosen this variant and the two case studies because we live in a country where collective amnesia has become a common disease. Besides, in both instances, critical institutions including the legislature and judiciary that should serve as bulwarks of democracy became willing tools in the hands of godfatherism, to the detriment of the people. The godfathers in question also publicly acknowledged their role.

Let’s start with Oyo State. In 2003, Alhaji Rasheed Ladoja of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defeated then incumbent Governor, the late Lam Adesina who contested on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). But Ladoja relied heavily on the instrumentality of the late Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu. It didn’t take long before things fell apart between the two. Adedibu of course minced no words regarding his grouse with the former whom he claimed was “collecting N65 million as security vote every month,” without giving him (Adedibu) what he considered his fair share. “You know that governors don’t account for security vote. He (Ladoja) was to give me N15 million of that every month. He reneged. Later it was reduced to N10 million. Yet he still did not give me.”

Since Adedibu was not a politician to slight without consequence, what followed was predictable. On 12 January 2006 in Ibadan, 18 of the 32 members of the Oyo State House of Assembly sat in a hotel room and pronounced that the Governor had been impeached. This was despite a case filed in court by three members of the same House who argued, quite correctly, that the pro impeachment members did not have the requisite numbers. With federal might on their side, Ladoja’s deputy, the late Alao Akala was immediately sworn in as Oyo State Governor. It took ten months before Ladoja could regain his seat. On 1 November 2006, the Appeal Court, sitting in Ibadan and presided over by Justice J.O. Ogebe, threw out the purported impeachment. The court held that it violated Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution which contains the correct processes of impeaching a governor.

After returning to office, Ladoja provided insights on the nature of his relationship with Adedibu and the various manifestations of godfatherism: “One, he (Adedibu) asked me, ‘Do you know how to abuse people?’ I said no. Then he asked, ‘Can you take away your clothes in public and fight?’ I said no. Thirdly, he asked, ‘Can you tell lies against somebody and swear on the Qur’an and again call witnesses?’ Again, I said impossible. Then he said, ‘Those are the things we always use in politics.”

Ladoja of course refused to speak on the purported financial agreement he had with his then estranged godfather. But his Special Adviser on Security and Protocol, Chief Bola Alphonso, inadvertently corroborated Adedibu’s claim. “Let’s put the record straight, I am a living witness to the promise that a certain amount of money will be given Adedibu every month…if any arrangement had been agreed upon, I want to say it would have just been a token,” said Alphonsus. “Because I am sure local government chairmen would go there to pay their dues. There is no way Commissioners would not go to him. There is no Special Adviser who will not go to him and even, I am sure, civil servants will be going underneath to see Baba.”

Because he intrigued me, I visited the late Adedibu a couple of times at his Malete, Ibadan residence. And I wrote a few columns on him while he was still alive. Adedibu himself once provided insights on the reward of a godfather. In a 1992 interview with ‘African Concord’ magazine (now rested), Adedibu was asked about the expectation of a godfather. “Let me put it this way,” he replied, “Imagine you lead five of your boys for an assignment and you were given N50 after you had supervised them to do the work. You as the leader, if you are wise, will give each of your boys N10 at the end of which you would be left with nothing. You now tell them to give you whatever pleases them. At the very least, each would give you N2. That gives you N10 while they will each be left with N8. Meanwhile, they would still be grateful to you. That is the reward of a kingmaker”.

 
The implication here is that the godfather is not promoting candidates based on platforms, issues or programmes.  Concerns about the welfare of the people have nothing to do with what is clearly a mercantile arrangement. By Adedibu’s logic, the kingmaker is entitled to ‘eat’ more than the king. This arrangement is a recipe for trouble as we have seen in countless theatres across the country in the past 25 years. We witnessed that two decades ago in the Chris Ngige-Chris Uba imbroglio in Anambra State which led to massive desctrution that in turn made the late Professor Chinua Achebe reject the national honour offered him by President Olusegun Obasanjo.

The story can be traced back to 1999 when the late Dr Chinwoke Mbadinuju became the first governor of Anambra State under the new democratic dispensation. Four years later, Mbadinuju could not secure a second term ticket from the PDP following his inability to keep faith with the agreement he allegedly entered with his godfather, Chief Chris Uba. In his stead, Uba adopted Dr Chris Ngige for whom he deployed his political machine both at the PDP primaries and in the 2003 election. A few days after Ngige was sworn in, Uba boasted about his power. “It is not just the governor and his deputy that I sponsored, there are also three senators, 10 members of the House of Representatives and 30 members of the House of Assembly… I sponsored them,” Uba claimed in a newspaper interview before he added for emphasis: “This is the first time in the history of Anambra State that one single individual would be putting every public officer in the state in power.”

Less than two months in office, Ngige (a sitting governor) was abducted from the government house and moved to a hideout in a made-for-Nollywood drama of infamy that demonstrates the level of decadence in our politics. By Ngige’s account, the bone of contention “was the demand of Chris Uba for N3 billion for his alleged campaign expenses on my behalf which I turned down”. Yet, it was not as if the governor completely shunned his godfather. As Ngige explained at the time, he had already compelled the state accountant general to pay Chief Uba N960 million upfront to defray the cost of a contract awarded in 1996 during the military era. But that was apparently not enough for Uba.

On 10 July 2003 at the State House of Assembly, then Speaker, Mrs. Eucharia Azodo, read a letter purportedly written by the governor that he (Ngige) had resigned from office on personal grounds. Within minutes, the House of Assembly accepted the ‘resignation’ and directed the chief judge of the state to swear in the deputy governor, Okey Udeh as the new governor. Immediately after the House proceedings, a contingent of policemen arrived the Government House in three trucks and whisked away Governor Ngige who was later sighted at his temporary residence at Choice Hotel in Awka, the state capital.

Shortly after, Udeh addressed the state, claiming to have assumed office to avoid a vacuum “and in allegiance to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” But across Nigeria, it was evident that a sordid drama was playing out in the state. The whereabouts of the governor was yet to be ascertained when his Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Fred Chukwulobe, announced that Ngige had not resigned. He said: “The Governor, Dr. Chris Ngige, has not resigned. The letter purportedly written to the lawmakers is false and not written by him. Dr. Chris Ngige is still the executive governor of Anambra State.”

Meanwhile, at the hotel where he had been taken, something fortuitous happened to change the course of events. A traditional ruler, Igwe Anugwu of Mbaukwu, was passing by when he heard the altercations between Ngige and the security agents who held him captive. The Igwe sought to know from the governor what was going on. “I told him these people said I have resigned when I have not resigned,” Ngige said in his recollection of what transpired that day. Apparently shocked, the royal father reportedly retorted, “But we heard on the radio that you have resigned.” When Ngige narrated his story, the Igwe made a call to Second Republic Vice President, the late Dr Alex Ekwueme and handed his mobile phone to Ngige. That elicited another drama. The security agents attempted to snatch the phone from Ngige. The traditional ruler brought out a pistol. The call with Ekwueme did not yield much result. Assisted by the traditional ruler, Ngige made another call, this time to then PDP National Secretary, the late Chief Vincent Ogbulafor. Fortunately for Ngige, Ogbulafor was with other PDP National Working Committee members at the time. And they were all concerned about developments in Anambra State.

Ngige shared his harrowing experience in the hands of his godfather. Ogbulafor put his phone on speaker mode so others could join in. The interesting conversation detailed in my coming book is quite revealing of the situation in Anambra at the time. But a sampler from what Ngige told his party’s NWC members: “For the past two weeks, Chris Uba who said he wanted to appoint all 11 commissioners, special advisers, ADC, Chief Detail, Secretary to the State Government even rejected the appointment of my personal staff. He said they are not acceptable to him. I do not know why. I told him that I only appointed those we had agreed upon earlier, so, I am surprised. Last week, he redeployed a Permanent Secretary in my office without my approval.” Before the conversation ended, Ngige pleaded with Ogbulafor and the listening NWC members to “keep in touch with me; you know I am not free as I am talking with you.”

After regaining his freedom, Ngige decided to be his own man. Public opinion was on his side. In revenge, Uba weaponised the Peter Obi case at the tribunal. His supporters testified in court as to how they rigged the election. The case went as far as the Supreme Court but Obi ultimately prevailed and Ngige lost out. The rest, as they say, is history. Now, what can we learn from the foregoing?

Godfatherism may not be unique to Nigeria. It exists in various forms worldwide. But our experience in the last 25 years should serve as a cautionary tale, urging us to critically examine power dynamics in politics and seek more inclusive alternatives. As we have seen with the primaries of the major political parties, godfatherism restricts the emergence of credible candidates who can genuinely serve the public. It has also enthroned people who have no business in governance. This is why every hand must be on deck to put a stop to the politics of manipulation and imposition that godfatherism fosters.

No matter how we look at it, godfatherism stifles democratic growth. When elected officials owe their political success to godfathers, it is no surprise that they get entangled in a constant tug-of-war between serving the public interest and appeasing their benefactors. This compromises policy decisions, allocation of resources, and the appointment of key officials—all done with the implicit approval of the godfather. If our democracy is to survive and thrive, the task before the present crop of political leaders is to mobilise and collectively fight poverty, ignorance and underdevelopment. That cannot be done in a milieu where some invest in politics not to promote the public good but as a transactional enterprise for which they must reap bountifully. 

The ultimate test of the value of a political system, as Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of modern Singapore, reminded us “is whether it helps to improve the standard of living for the majority of its people.” It is perhaps for that reason that Nigerians have embraced democracy with the belief that they would be better governed and enjoy shared prosperity. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. With the wave of disenchantment fueled largely by the harsh socio-economic environment that has been compounded by general insecurity, it is important for the authorities at all levels to feel the pulse of the people.

As stated earlier, my coming book is not all gloom and doom. It highlights some of the major strides of the last 25 years. But I believe we should not be in denial about some of the issues we also need to deal with to ensure our democracy survives and thrives. One of them of course is godfatherism which, according to HRW, is both a symptom and a cause of the violence and corruption that together permeate the political process in the country. That is because “Public officials who owe their position to the efforts of a political godfather incur a debt that they are expected to repay without end throughout their tenure in office.”

Godfatherism is distorting our democracy. It limits the choice of the electorate to favoured candidates, allowing some to use the resources of the state to sponsor surrogates and advance the preference and interest of the incumbent over and above those of the majority. To change the narrative, political parties have a role to play. Their leadership selection processes must be freer, fairer and less transactional.

I am aware that the central theme of today’s conversation is the relationship between democracy and free market economy. But this is a complex issue. Human flourishing, according to David C. Rose, a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, United States, requires the prosperity that comes from a free-market system which depends upon democratic institutions. But he also pointed out the dilemma. “The democratic system facilitates redistributive and regulatory favouritism that undermines trust in the system,” Rose argued. “This, in turn, weakens many trust-dependent institutions upon which the free-market system and democracy depend.” Since I don’t have the competence to interrogate why that is the case or how we can navigate such complexity in Nigeria, I leave it for experts like Professor Chukwuma Soludo who are also here today and can help us in that regard. Besides, we live in a country where people mouth free market yet still demand subsidy on petroleum, education, electricity, forex and for pilgrimage. But as I said, I leave the Anambra State Governor and others to deal with those contradictions.

Let me now conclude with this story about a traveler who visited a Greek monastery perched high on a steep mountain. The only way to reach the monastery was in a rope basket. With a sense of adventure, the traveler climbed into the basket, but just as he was about to be taken up the steep cliff wall, he noticed that the rope lifting the basket was frayed. He asked the monk. “How often do you replace the rope?” Apparently taken aback by the question, the monk responded: “Every time it breaks”.

Unfortunately, that has been our attitude to democracy in Nigeria. I listened to President Bola Tinubu’s Democracy Day speech this morning. He delivered a very powerful message. I like this particular line: “The real test (of our democracy) is whether we shall lower our guards as the shadow of despotism and its evident physical danger fade.” That is a very important point although it must also be noted that lowering the guards can manifest in so many ways.

Our first democratic experiment lasted just six years. The second attempt was even shorter: Four years and three months. Meanwhile, the third attempt was still born. It is remarkable that the current democratic dispensation in our country has lasted a quarter of a century. But we should not wait for the rope to break. I agree with the president that despite all the challenges of recent years, we have kept the military at bay and our democracy offers windows to freedom of expression and other civil liberties. But in the interest of our country, we must find ways to balance political patronage with genuine representation.

The only enduring legacy in any democracy is meeting the needs and aspirations of the people, not just that of a privileged few. It is understandable that those who ‘work’ must ‘eat’, but the long-term benefits of building strong institutions far outweighs short-term individual interests. When institutions function effectively, they facilitate investment, innovation, and productivity that benefit all. Conversely, weak or corrupt institutions hinder economic progress. To secure our democracy, critical stakeholders must begin to think beyond themselves by placing the people and their welfare as top priority.

The Essential Ferdinand Agu

Last Saturday, my wife and I went to condole the family of Mr Ferdinand Agu who had died 24 hours earlier. Seated beside his distraught widow, I stared blankly at family portraits on the walI, lost in my own little world.  Until my wife’s elbow roused me to consciousness. “What are you looking at?” For the sake of other visitors in the room who witnessed the drama, I had to explain what appeared a moment of insanity. It was reassuring that despite her anguish, Mrs Vivian Agu understood what fired my interest in the portraits.

A few weeks earlier, I had been in the same house while her late husband rearranged those same photographs on the wall. Agu and his wife have four adult children (all male) who reside abroad and are successful in their own right. But it turned out that the frame of one of the photographs was smaller than that of others. In placing the photographs, the architect in Agu sought to balance the aesthetics of the space with family positioning. Typically, he sought my view. Such was the attention to detail reflected in the life of one of the most profound thinkers I ever encountered.

When the news of Agu’s passing broke last Friday morning, I embarrassed not a few young ladies at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre who saw me break down in tears. But that is because they had no idea of my relationship with the late Agu and what he meant to my wife and I: A reliable brother and friend. In the case of my wife, a mentor too. Ever since I introduced her to Agu in 2004, he took on the role of professional counsellor. When the Not Forgotten Initiative (NFI) School started six years ago, Agu shared with my wife his own story to illustrate the importance of the idea, having attended the Starehe Boys Centre and School, Nairobi, Kenya on a scholarship from the Nigerian government. The famous school, which started in 1959 to assist children displaced during the ‘Mau Mau Uprising’ in colonial Kenya, offers education to “children from diverse backgrounds, many of whom are poor.” 

A profound mind, Agu and I enjoyed numerous conversations about Nigeria spanning more than two decades. On several occasions in recent years, he would call and come over to my office just to chat. But our last conversation occurred two weeks ago, and it was virtual. Precisely on Thursday, 30 May. It began with a response to my column of that day, ‘Fixing Nigeria with an Anthem’. At 7.46am, the late Agu sent me a message which I now consider a fitting epitaph to a genuine patriot and an extraordinary man. After the usual greetings, he wrote this as a response to my take on the re-introduction of the old national anthem:

“Permit me to share with you my views as expressed in a family forum. As children, my generation sang this old anthem with much fondness and plenty of gusto. Then, in 1978, the (General Olusegun) Obasanjo-led army regime discarded it for the current anthem, which wordings were more reflective of their triumphalist sense of mission after the preceding and terribly sanguinary decade of 1966 -76. The beat and musical arrangement of the new anthem lacked the sombre solemnity of the old. Some described the sound of the new as ‘disco’ which was then becoming the trend. But the regime brushed all that aside. After all, the musical score was closer to the martial background of the decision-makers of the day – the Supreme Military Council. For them, solemnity could wait for other things, times, and climes.

“Indeed, about a year earlier, the same government introduced the Pledge. It was to be recited every morning in schools, etc. and to proceed or conclude every official event. That, too, was supposed to symbolise national consciousness and patriotic commitment. Critics warned of a predilection for pseudo-nationalism and signs of neo-fascism. But the regime was breezy. They were the avatars, the incarnations of new ideas, manifestation of fresh idealism, and heroes of the new Nigeria. They knew what was best.

“I often ponder this period. I often reflect on our two anthems – the new and the old. I find both the times and anthems to be equally aspirational and inspirational. In a good society, either should conjure deep feelings of national pride and pathos and set us on the course of things right and noble. Alas, what I find worrisome, and why I make this intervention, is that the younger generation – without the benefits of history – must juxtapose the lofty visions and claims of either anthem, side by side with the realities of today’s Nigeria. Then, the words lose weight. They almost pale into insignificance. With every passing day, the anthems seem superficial, naive, and almost immature; farcical and jejune.

“Yet, the challenge of authentic national leadership – for this generation and all time – is to give substance and meaning to whichever of these two anthems we sing. I trust that from this group, in the years ahead, such leaders abound and will emerge.”

May God comfort the family the late Ferdinand Agu left behind.

We, the undersigned civil society organisations in Nigeria, received with serious concern the decision by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remove the Chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC), Dr. Solomon Arase. We note that the State House Press Release dated June 10, 2024 through which the removal was announced did not disclose any reason for the said removal. We are also concerned that this removal appears to have violated the established legal procedure for the removal of the PSC Chairman. Section 5, subsection 1 of the PSC Act provides:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, the Chairman and any other member, may at any time be removed from office by the President acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be removed for inability to discharge the functions of the Office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause of misconduct).”

We are worried that such a decision by the president further undermines the independence, effectiveness, and confidence of the Commission to discharge its mandate without undue interference as stipulated by the Police Service Commission Act.

Civil society is saddened that this is coming at a time when we are investing a lot of resources in support of the Federal Government towards police reform, which can be seen through various trainings supported by local and international partners and the recent recruitment of 10,000 police personnel.

While we welcome this recruitment, we are worried about the renewed and needless controversy associated with the power games around police recruitment, despite the Supreme Court‘s judgment of July 11, 2023, which affirmed the power of the commission under the Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act, 2001 to handle police recruitment functions.

We also note that Section 6 (2) of the PSC Act stipulates that

“The Commission shall not be subject to the direction, control or supervision of any other authority or person in the performance of its functions other than as is prescribed in this Act”.

We believe that this controversy does not serve the interest of the NPF as an institution or the interest of the country.

Today, Nigerians are celebrating Democracy Day. One of the fundamental attributes of a democratic system is respect for the rule of law and due process, thus Mr President should holistically address this issue. We therefore call on the President to reverse this purported removal of the Chairman of the PSC and fully constitute the Board of the Commission. We also call for a conclusion of the police recruitment process, including training and deployment, considering that even the IGP stated recently that more than 20,000 police personnel needed to be recruited annually to boost police manpower requirements. The numbers for recruitment can also be boosted through the Cadet ASP short course.

We will use this opportunity to also call on the National Assembly to maximise its powers of checks and balances over actions by the Executive. The total disregard for the rule of law in this instance further fuels the fears of the Nigerian people about the vulnerability of the operations of the Nigeria Police by the political class. This is not good for our democracy and standing in the comity of nations.

We are looking forward to a quick and positive resolution of the situation for the good of a thriving democracy and the good of the country.


Signed:

1. Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Center (RULAAC)
2. NOPRIN Foundation
3. Open Society on Justice Reform Project
4. Confluence of Rights, Nigeria
5. Criminal Justice Network of Nigeria
6. Justice for Peace and Development Initiative
7. Legal Resources Consortium
8. Centre for Community Empowerment in Conflict and Peacebuiding - Kaduna
9. Rural and Urban Development Initiative
10. Dataphyte Foundation
11. Equity International Initiative (EII)
12. Centre For Youth Participation Dialogue and Advocacy (CYPA), Africa
13. Advocacy Hub International.
14. Initiative for Research, Innovation and Advocacy in Development IRIAD
15. Human Right Advocacy and Monitoring Group (HURAMG)
16. Creative Minds Center for Youth and Community Development (CM-CYCD)
17. Centre for Human Rights Advocacy and Wholesome Society (CEHRAWS)
18. Kuyimiki Development Initiative (KDI)
19. Centre for the Advocacy of Justice and Rights
20. Centre for Transparency Advocacy
21. Koyenum Immalah Foundation
22. Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)

Last week, I published here the first part of “One year later, what value has Tinubu added to our lives?” with a promise to publish part two here today. In the midst of that came a critical dimension to the lingering strike by Labour. With Labour still flexing muscles and the Government appearing reluctant to play ball; another nationwide strike looms. What the nation experienced the last time, especially with the shutting down of the national grid by the striking workers, must be avoided at all costs because the costs were staggering.

What you are about to read, “Workers’ strike and the disruption of critical national infrastructure: Matters arising” is an intervention by a retired Kogi State high court judge, and a visiting professor of Law at Baze University, Abuja - Andrew Alaba Omowaye-Ajileye. Justice Ajileye is Nigeria’s leading authority on electronic evidence.

Hear him: “On Monday, June 3, 2024, Nigerian workers embarked on a nationwide strike action, leading to the shutdown of the national grid. Power supply across the country was disrupted, resulting in a nationwide blackout. The strike action was called by the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) to demand a higher minimum wage for workers.

A respected national newspaper’s admirable reporting of the relevant aspect of the event is captured hereunder: ‘From aviation to power supply, seaport, and public healthcare, Nigeria’s bleeding economy was brought to its knees… as organized Labour embarked on a nationwide industrial action to force the government to an acceptable compromise on the ongoing minimum wage negotiation. The economy lost an estimated N113 billion to the shutdown of the national grid alone… Nigerians were plunged into darkness… as the national grid crashed to zero generation following the enforcement of industrial action by the Nigerian Union of Electricity Employees (NUEE)…

" Industry stakeholders have expressed their dismay over the shutdown and emphasized the detrimental effects on the economy and public welfare, highlighting the critical role of stable power supply in driving economic growth and development. They mentioned that the grid shutdown has caused unprecedented disruptions, impacting not just businesses but also essential services such as healthcare…

"The Executive Director, PowerUp Nigeria, Adetayo Adegbemle, said the deliberate shutdown of the grid should be a treasonable offence, noting that the Labour leadership needs to grow up and devise other means and strategies of engaging with the government instead of shutting down the national grid… What has happened to the national grid is a national security issue, he said, and (shutting it down) is disproportional and not appropriate. Whatever Labour does should be within the law; no one is above the law. (Labour) has the right to protest but other citizens should have the right to live ’

“From available updates, the Tripartite Committee set up by the federal government to address the National Minimum Wage issue reached a recommendation of N62,000 as the new monthly minimum wage for civil servants. While both the federal government and the organized private sector (OPS) have agreed to the proposed N62,000, organized Labour rejected this offer, threatening to resume the suspended strike action. The situation remains tense.

" The right of workers to embark on strikes is recognized and is hereby unquestionably conceded. It is a constitutional right. Workers have the right to strike and protest, but that right must be balanced against the need to protect the public interest and prevent harm to critical national infrastructure. The leadership of organized Labour should be sufficiently informed that using strike actions to disrupt national infrastructure is criminal. It endangers public safety, causes widespread economic harm, violates the rights of other citizens, and undermines the rule of law. Workers’ rights must be exercised responsibly, and strike actions should not be used to harm the public or disrupt critical services. By distinguishing between legitimate strike actions and criminal disruption of national infrastructure, the rights of both workers and the public interest can be protected.

“In many countries, laws and regulations prohibit strikes that disrupt essential services such as power generation, water supply, and healthcare. Workers in these critical sectors often have alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms to address their grievances without resorting to strikes that harm the public interest. In Nigeria, the Cybercrimes Act, 2015 (as amended), section 5(1) thereof, criminalizes disruption to critical national infrastructure. The law prescribes a punishment of a term of not more than 10 years without an option of a fine. The relevant provision states as follows: 5(1) Any person who with intent, commits any offence punishable under this Act against any critical national information infrastructure, designated pursuant to section 3 of this Act, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years without an option of fine.

“As a threshold point, it is expedient to remark here that one of the core objectives of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015, as stated under Section 1(b) of the Act, is to protect critical national information infrastructure (CNII). Towards this end, the President under Section 3(1) of the Act, empowered the Order published in the Federal Gazette, and on the recommendation of the National Security Adviser, to designate certain systems, and/or networks, whether physical or virtual, considered vital to this country that the incapacity or destruction or interference with such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national or economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of those matters as constituting Critical National Information Infrastructure.

" It is on record that the President of the Federal Republic is yet to take advantage of the provision of Section 3(1) in designating any essential system or asset as critical national infrastructure. Last week’s disruption to Nigeria’s critical infrastructure underscores the urgency for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to take decisive action under Section 3 of the Cybercrimes Act to designate essential systems as critical infrastructure to prevent future disruptions and ensure national security in the Nation’s interests.

" Although the President has not designated critical infrastructure, the National Security Adviser has proactively identified 13 sectors as Critical Information Infrastructure sectors in the National Cybersecurity Policy 2021, effectively recognizing their importance to national security and economic resilience. In the said policy, 13 sectors have been identified as Critical Information Infrastructure Sectors. They are Power and Energy; Water; Information; Communication; Science and Technology; Banking/Finance and Insurance; Health; Public Administration; Education; Defence and Security; Transport; Food and Agriculture; Safety and Emergency Services; Industrial and Manufacturing; and Mines and Steel. There is no doubt that these critical sectors constitute a virtual life support system requiring protection.

“Let it be known that there is no universal classification or definition of what constitutes “critical infrastructure” or “critical national information infrastructure (CNII).” The meaning is elastic. It varies from one country to another. Each country defines the concept based on national needs, resources, level of development, exigencies, and priorities, among others. Accordingly, there can be as many definitions of critical national information infrastructure (CNII) as there are countries of the world, although, in substance and character, the definitions are similar.

"In general terms, critical infrastructure is understood as consisting of facilities and services that are vital to the operation of a society. They are so essential that their continued operation is required to ensure the security of a given nation, its economy, public health, and safety. They are considered “critical” because their 'destruction would have an impact on the security, national economic security, national public health and safety of the country'.

"Going by the provision of Section 3(1) of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015 (as stated above), the type of impact contemplated under Section 58 of the Act is a debilitating one. The word ‘debilitating’ in the context of Section 58 of the Act should be understood in its ordinary grammatical sense as an act capable of causing serious impairment of strength or ability to function. Destruction of a system or asset necessarily involves annihilation, demolition, or causing havoc on such a system or asset. The destruction can be due to natural causes (earthquakes, lightning strikes, etc.) or physical destruction attributed to intentional human actions, theft, arson, or terrorist attacks).

"‘Incapacity’ of critical infrastructure, on the other hand, may not necessarily involve physical destruction. For instance, an action that changes the functionality of a given information artifact may have a devastating impact on an infrastructure. The notion of ‘interference’ with critical infrastructure is all-embracing. It refers to any unauthorized or malicious activity that disrupts, damages, or destroys critical infrastructure. It may involve physical attacks. It generally encompasses any activity that compromises the integrity, reliability, or availability of critical infrastructure. Mere disruption of operations, for instance through denial of services, will also pass as interference. Interference with critical infrastructure can have significant consequences, as the nation experienced last week.

The United States of America President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) describes “critical infrastructure” as being “combinations of physical and cyber assets vital to the national economic well-being and security. The US PATRIOT Act 2011 defines critical infrastructure as “systems and assets, physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health and safety or any combination of those matters. Canada’s definition of what is critical involves “serious impact on the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians or the effective functioning of governments in Canada” Germany refers to “significant disruptions to public order or other dramatic consequences”The Netherland’s critical infrastructure policy refers to “infrastructure whose disruption would cause “major social disturbance”, “tremendous loss of life” and “economic damage”

In light of the foregoing, an asset or a system does not need to be destroyed to have a debilitating impact on the security, economy, public health, and safety of the country… Interference necessarily entails disruption. The strike action of last week that led to the shutdown of the national grid witnessed a mass disruption of economic and social activities. There was also the shutting down of banks, schools, hospitals, railways, aviation, and other essential services. Although no act of physical destruction was attributed to the striking workers against any critical infrastructure, it can rightly be said that the disruptive acts of organized Labour brought about a debilitating impact on critical infrastructure in Nigeria.

With the advent of technology, nations all over the world are now known to depend on power and telecommunication systems for many things like communications, transportation, manufacturing as well as education, financial aviation services, and national defence, among others. Power and communication systems have, therefore, become very critical to humanity and should be adequately protected. Take away electric power for a few days, the whole nation would be paralyzed; tasks and objectives may be impossible to achieve and the security of the nation may be compromised. Therefore, organized labour should never again contemplate shutting down the national grid.

Together, we can build a brighter future for ourselves and future generations. In any event, the fear of the Cybercrimes Act should, henceforth, be the beginning of wisdom for organized Labour!