“For me, justice is the first condition of humanity” – Wole Soyinka

Eleven days after the October 7  horrific  attacks on Israel by Hamas, President Joe Biden of the United States was in Tel Aviv to express his solidarity with Israel and, in his words, for “the world to know where the United States stands.”

His host, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke about the significance of an American president visiting Israel at war. He expressed gratitude for America’s “unequivocal  support,” emphasising that  “the world sees that support in the moral clarity” of Biden’s statements since the attack on Israel. During the attack, the worst in Israel since 1948, at least 1,400 civilians (including children)  and soldiers were killed and no fewer than 200 hostages were taken by Hamas. 

Netanyahu acknowledged  Biden’s description of  Hamas as “sheer evil,” saying  that Biden had “drawn the line between the forces of civilization and the forces of barbarians.” Incidentally, Israeli defence minister, Yoav Gallant, had earlier called Hamas “human beast.”

On the day Biden was in Tel Aviv, Israel had in retaliation imposed a siege on Gaza, a strip that has been under the occupation of Israel for 56 years. The supply of water, food, fuel  and electricity had been cut as a result of the blockade imposed by Israel amidst bombing of targets. At least 4,000 Palestinians  been killed by Israeli  strikes as the time Biden spoke in Tel Aviv. In the  last 48 hours alone  more than 700 people have been killed   in Gaza, bringing the total to be more than 5, 000 people killed.

Although Biden asked the Israeli cabinet to ensure the delivery of  life-saving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza,”  he had no strong words against the situation  in Gaza in which innocent civilians including hundreds of children have  died in a collective punishment  inflicted by Israel  at the time he spoke. Rather, Biden  was quick to exonerate Israel of the blast that occurred in a Gaza hospital in which scores of Palestinians including children died  without any independent  investigation. Both Israel and Hamas are still  trading blames over the tragedy. 

Doubtless Hamas should be held responsible for the killings and hostage taking of October 7  and Biden said so clearly. Israel should also be held to account  for the killings of innocent civilians under siege  for 12 days now in Gaza; but America and its western allies are not saying so unequivocally as they rightly condemned Hamas. When Russia cut supplies to Ukraine the European  (EU) said so without ambiguity  that Russia committed war crimes. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attacks, the EU reportedly was  about to cut the aid to the Palestine Authority until reasonable counsel prevailed against this instinctive reaction. The  western double-standards are simply incredible. The West must take the rest of the world to be fools given the way they apply double- standards and invoke a  selective adherence to their values about equality of human lives.

Indeed, the voices from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and most of  western capitals  are symptomatic of the dearth of moral leadership in the world today. This makes the global political and diplomatic outlook dangerous. 

Palestinian lives  are equal to Israelis lives and none should be unjustly taken even in a state of war.  The Geneva Conventions are not in the books for nothing.

Only yesterday, the United Nations secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, seemed to have found his voice at last to condemn  the” clear violations of  international laws in Gaza” and that “protecting civilians cannot mean  using them as human shields.” 

When the West condemns Hamas, that is said  to be  moral clarity. But when the killings of civilians by of Israel are condemned, it is not seeing as moral clarity by the West. A criticism of Israel is often taken to be antisemitic or a glorification of terrorism. 

The phrase moral clarity is often used by western politicians especially Americans when they chose to make a distinction in  human affairs between “evil -and good.” Those who  are friendly to the West  are good while their enemies are evil.

The use of  the category moral clarity is one of the hangovers of the Cold War.  Hence Soviet Union was simply the “evil empire” to President Ronald Reagan of the United States.  Now, both the Left and Right of American politics appropriate “moral clarity”  whenever they claim  that they are saying it as it is from their own perspective while clearly ignoring the other side of the argument.  Their moral clarity is often about one side of reality. Whose moral clarity is it, anyway?  

In particular, moral clarity has been used as a shibboleth  by American leaders to justify or at least rationalise oppression, injustice and violence perpetrated  in the course of the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In fact, Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, wrote a book entitled “The Case for Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.”   As Barack Obama was elected American president in 2008, an American moral philosopher, Susan Neiman,  wrote her own book entitled “Moral Clarity:  A Guide for Grown -Up Idealists.”  Neiman  explains the use of  the much abused category as follows: “Moral clarity, however, is about looking at each  particular case, looking at all the facts, looking at the context and working your answers.” Politicians and public intellectuals take that to mean labelling what they observe without being politically correct or employing euphemisms. So it is moral clarity to label Hamas “terrorist.” But the moral clarity doesn’t extend  to telling  Israel that it is violating international laws with impunity or calling  the situation in Gaza “apartheid.”   Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence  aided Hamas in the early stages to weaken  the  Palestinian solidarity. Israel once used Hamas against the Fatah faction based in the West Bank. It is reminiscent of how America once helped in the   breeding  of  elements of Osama Bin Laden’s  al Qaeda against the defunct Soviet Union. The group later turned against America in a most tragic manner. Western politicians hardly  mention these sordid facts of history in their exercise of  moral clarity.

The Question of Palestine is rooted in a bloody history. It is the oldest land dispute on earth. Violence from both sides has failed to solve the problem. The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben -Gurion,   said in 1919  of the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “There is no solution. We want Palestine to be ours as a nation. The Arabs want it to be theirs – as a nation. I don’t know what Arab would agree to Palestine belonging to the Jews.” Ben-Gurion could not foresee a solution to the problem; but he believed that it could be managed.  The former trade unionist who  later became a  leader of Israel once made an assertion at the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab war which Netanyahu should probably ponder today. Ben-Gurion wrote as follows: “We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will  still continue to fight, we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo… This will be a revenge for what they (the neighbouring states) did to our forefathers in Biblical times.” This mindset for territorial expansionism has hardly changed in Israel 75 years later. Instead the cycle of violence reigns supreme in Palestine.

Even in 2023, some historians of the  age-long conflict are saying that the “two-state solution “ has been rendered a “diplomatic fiction”. Israeli has ignored a catalogue of resolutions against the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the encroachment of the land.

According to the Jerusalem-based human rights watchdog B’Tselem, in the last 17 years, Israel  has attacked  Gaza six times before the  present  siege, at least  4,000 people – 405 in 2006, 1,391 in 2008 and 2009, 167 in 2012, 2,203 in 2014, 232 in 2021 and 33 in 2022. It has been shown that  casualties for  civilians have outnumbered fighters.

Guterres said rightly  yesterday that the tragic October 7 attack of Israel  by Hamas “did not happen in a vacuum.”

In the face of the humanitarian  catastrophe  unfolding in Gaza and the danger of the crisis spreading in the region, it is time to have the  moral clarity to call for an immediate  political solution that will ensure the release of all the hostages and an end to the siege on Gaza.

The security of Israel should be sacrosanct while the freedom of the Palestinians and their right to own a  piece of the earth as their own  land in which to  establish a sovereign state should be guaranteed in a package  of an enduring solution.

Moral  clarity should also mean building a community of Jews and Arabs who, despite the bitterness in their lands,  defend our collective humanity.  A model of such a community  is the one of  those Jewish and Arab doctors who reportedly  worked together in bravely  attending to those injured in the October 7 attack.

Beyond that, Israelis and Palestinians must reflect on the history of the conflict to see that violence from either side  will not  bring a solution. Ben-Gurion boasted about  military power in 1948, it would a grave  error if Netanyahu in 2023 still believes the problem has a military solution.

Instead, the  real solution lies in promoting  the cause of  justice and our shared humanity in Palestine.  

“Government shall strive to eradicate illiteracy; and to this end Government shall as and when practicable provide (a) free, compulsory and universal primary education; (b) free secondary education; (c) free university education; and (d) free adult literacy programme.” Section (18 :3) of the 1999 Constitution.”

Aside the fact that the constitutional provision is not enforceable the phrase “as and when practicable” was deliberately inserted in the Constitution to allow the members of the ruling class to determine the time that every Nigerian will access to education. The human rights community resolved to mount pressure on the neo-colonial State to make education available to Nigerian citizens. On the basis of the campaign the Federal Government ratified the United Nations Child’s Rights Convention in 2001 and enacted the Child’s Rights Act in 2003. This was followed by the Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act in 2004. In addition, article 17(1)  of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act states that every individual shall have the right to education.

As the 36 state governments were not prepared to enforce both laws we commenced another campaign for the popularisation and adoption of the Child’s Rights Act.  Even though the Child’s Rights Act has been adopted and enacted by the 36 states of the Federation, it is regrettable to note that the laws are observed by all the states governments in breach. In 2022, UNICEF reported that Nigeria had 18.5 million children that were out of school. The number has since increased as millions of children have been compelled to withdraw from public and private schools as a result of incessant abduction in the northern part of the country.

In commemoration of the 2023 International Day of the Girl Child at plenary earlier this month, the members of the House of Representatives unanimously passed an embarrassing resolution which urged the Federal Ministry of Education to drastically reduce the number of out-of-school girls by ensuring compulsory free education for all girls across the country. This was sequel to the adoption of a motion by Rep. Kafilat Ogbara (APC-Lagos). The legislator said that the last survey by UNICEF revealed that 18.5 million children that were out of school in Nigeria, 60 per cent were girls. While insisting that adolescent girls have the right to a safe, educated and healthy life, Hon Ogbara said that investing in girls’ leadership included creating space and platforms for girls to raise their voices at every policy-making level.

At about the same time, the Senate  passed for first reading of  a bill that recommends a fine of N50,000 to parents who default in providing their children with primary and secondary school education. The bill proposed by Senator Orji Kalu seeks to amend section (4) (b) of the Principal Act by deleting N2,000 and inserting N20,000; section (4) (c) of the Principal Act by deleting N5,000 and inserting N50,000 while section 3(2) of the Principal Act is amended by deleting N10,000 and inserting N100,000.”

It is indeed regrettable to note that the members of the House of Representatives are not aware that the Child’s Rights Act, 2003 and the Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act 2004  have made education free and compulsory for every Nigerian child from primary to junior secondary school. In Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010] ACHPR 109 and Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP) GTE and LTD v Federal Ministry of Education (unreported suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/978/15), the Ecowas Court and the Federal High Court directed the Federal Government to ensure that every Nigerian child is given free and compulsory education.

In a demonstration of executive lawlessness, the judgments of both courts were flagrantly disregarded by the Federal Government.

It is submitted that since each of the 36 States of the Federation has adopted the Child’s Rights Act and enacted a Child’s Right Law, it has become the joint responsibility of the Federal, State and Local Governments to ensure that every Nigerian child is given the opportunity to acquire free and compulsory education. Furthermore, the Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2019, guarantees free education up to senior secondary school level for every person with disability while all public schools, whether primary, secondary or tertiary shall have at least one personnel trained to cater for the educational development of persons with disabilities or special facilities for the effective education of persons with disabilities.

These laws have been observed in their breach because the members of the political class drawn from all registered political parties have not demonstrated any commitment to the education of every child in Nigeria. Hence, the members of the legislative and executive organs of governments have failed to appreciate the danger of having 18.5 million out-of-school children, the highest number in the world. Therefore, amending the Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act to make it more stringent for parents will not work in a poverty- stricken environment.

In June last year, the Executive Secretary of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), Mr. Hamid Bobboyi bemoaned the refusal of state governments to provide counterpart funding and access the annual matching grants given by the commission to develop their basic education system. The commission was particularly concerned that about N110 billion of the intervention funds accessed from UBEC were not utilised by the states in 2021, with the money left in the coffers of State Universal Basic Education Boards (SUBEBs).

Sometime in 2017, we learnt that the federal government had decided to refund state governments all monies so far deducted from their accounts to meet the London Paris Club obligations. We were able to convince the Federal Government to deduct the counterpart fund that the state governments had failed to contribute to the Universal Basic Education Fund. The suggestion was accepted by the Federal Government and that was how the sum of N71.3 billion was deducted from source and remitted to the account of the UBEC. Thereafter, UBEC added  the matching grants of N71.3 billion and the states received a total of N142.6bn for the provision of needed facilities in public primary and junior secondary schools in the country.

What the National Assembly should do is address the refusal of state governments to make  counterpart contribution to the Universal Basic Education Fund pursuant to section 2 of the Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act. As a matter of urgency, the National Assembly should ensure the amendment of the Constitution to empower the Accountant-General of the Federation to deduct from source the counterpart fund payable by every state government to the Universal Basic Education Fund.

It is common to say that Nigeria is a corrupt country. However, that does not really make much sense. Almost every country is corrupt to the extent that there are always some people, in the public or private sector, who deal corruptly. So, a self-acclaimed Nigerian patriot can answer back, “but all countries are corrupt because they have corrupt people”. This is true. I recall a friend who was vexed with what he considers my puritanic stand on public probity and advised that a country needs some corruption to even get running. To him, some degree of corruption is a lubricant of public leadership.

Nevertheless, Nigeria is corrupt in the sense that many countries are not, or at least in the sense that countries aspiring to development should not be. In Nigeria, corruption is not just pervasive, it is respectable and even admirable. One measure of this Nigerian exceptionalism is the number of manifestly corrupt politicians who occupy high political offices in Nigeria, and who have bright political future. These corrupt VIPs didn’t mask their way to the top. They got to the top notwithstanding that people know they are extremely corrupt, even criminal in their conducts. Their continuous ascent to high political offices despite open history of corruption and criminality suggests that either the people do not care much about corruption and criminality, or the system is trapped in indifference or cooption. In which case, corruption and criminality become social norms, a form of social compact.

Do not take my word that Nigeria is corrupt in an exceptional manner. Take the word of a former Nigerian Assistant Inspector General of Police who later became a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. One morning he stood up in the legislative chamber, surveyed the many rows where the so-called ‘distinguished’ Nigerians sat to make laws that cater to their own interests and do deals. He blurted out in disbelief: “I never knew I would meet so many people I put in jail as a police officer here in this chamber”. If you did not get the point. He could not believe that criminals who served terms when he was a police chief could become distinguished senators of the republic. May be that is the reason Alex Perry, the Newsweek columnist, captured Nigeria’s exceptionalism in corruption in these devastating words: “Nigeria’s rulers have often been indistinguishable from its criminals. In Nigeria, corruption does not just pollute the system. Corruption is the system”. 

Nigeria’s rulers are indistinguishable from its criminals. In Nigeria, corruption is the system. Let those words sink in. I didn’t make this up. You can read them up in the April 25, 2011, edition of the US Time magazine. The key point is that Nigeria’s version of public corruption is both pervasive and corrosive of public ethics. Elsewhere criminals operate underground, below the law. In Nigeria, they operate in the full glare of the law, they challenge the legal order; and the legal order bends to accommodate and normalize their nefarious acts. That is what Alex Perry means by saying that in Nigeria, corruption is the system.

Corruption scholars worry about how corruption distorts allocation of resources and leads to development failure, and ultimately compounds poverty. That is the reason corrupt countries are likely to be poor. There is an inverse relationship between corruption and development indexes. Developed countries are usually less corrupt. So, if a country is top on development indicators, it will likely be low on corruption index. It might be that being less corrupt enables a country to develop or that being developed means it will be less corrupt.

The discourse of corruption and development has gone through a lot of nuances and elaborations. Development scholars used to consider corruption as the most important problem of development. However, experience of Asia in development led to the idea that some degree of corruption, even grand corruption, is compatible with economic development. In the case of China, some scholars argued that China grew tremendously despite corruption because production grew faster than the grabbing hand. A popular aphorism puts it better: “In China the Hen was increasingly robust and capable of having more eggs than the Chinese foxes (officials) could grab”.  So, no matter how much official stole, GDP growth continued.

Yet in China, thieving officials faced the music. In 2012, a senior Chinese official, Bo Xilai, was arrested and charged for abuse of power and graft. Prime Minister Xi Jinping took the opportunity to launch war against corruption, warning comrades that corruption “would doom the Party and the nation”.  This began a real crackdown on corruption. Yes. China has corrupt officials. However, corruption has not stopped economic growth. This is partly because in China corruption is not the system. The system responds against corruption when it is detected. In Nigeria, corruption is the system. It does not respond against corruption even when it is in the public.

There are many theoretical explanations for why a country could be pervasively corruption. One of them holds that corruption is a ‘collective action’ problem. This is because people expect others to act corruptly and that becomes self-reinforcing. In a corrupt system, it is difficult to opt out of the corruption web. This is because there is a social compact built on expectations of corrupt acts. We expect people to act corruptly. This makes corruption almost compelling. The transaction cost of corruption is low since you incur no real social cost for corrupt acts. A corrupt system has inbuilt incentives that encourage corrupt acts. It is a form of social pathology. Everyone identifies that pathology. But the problem is understanding how it developed and how to destroy it. This difficulty is what makes corruption path dependent. A corrupt country continues to be corrupt until there is a disruption that creates another trajectory of social development.

Some think the way out of corruption is evolutionary. Others think it is revolutionary. One thing is clear, you cannot exit a culture of corruption if the political economy is not infused with values and institutions of ethical individualism and egalitarianism. Ethical individualism provides the motivation for social accountability. But it does not guarantee accountability. Those who conceive themselves as equals will have reason to demand accountability from political authorities. But even citizens who are motivated to demand accountability may still lack the resources and real opportunity to exert accountability. Where that is the case, there is impunity and corruption trap.

This is where Nigeria is. The exceptionalism of corruption in Nigeria is that corruption is now a system of public leadership. Nigeria’s corrupts are not restrained by threat of legal enforcement or social ostracism. Legal rules are designed and administered to wink at corruption, or even to aid and abet it. Recently, judges have issued decisions that normalize corruption and criminality in public administration. The complicit of the judiciary in helping corrupt Nigerians escape any form of legal stricture is only explainable as a sign of endemic state capture. The entire administrative state in Nigeria is complicit in reinforcing corruption in Nigeria.

In the matter of election, which is the most important issue of national security and stability, the electoral regulator blatantly refuses to act against clear evidence of corruption and criminality. Even when the constitution prohibits certain corrupt and criminal acts, the administration of justice denies accountability. The recent electoral decisions of some tribunals and courts in Nigeria, waving away with disdain clear evidence of corruption and criminality, are classic illustrations of impunity- the audacity of corruption.

What does systemic corruption mean for development. Political economist, Yuen Yuen Ang examines why China prospered in the face of ‘vast corruption’. She analyzed and dismissed some of the expert opinions on the paradox of Chinese economic boom amidst vast corruption. She concludes that the experts fail to understand that corruption takes different forms. Chinese corruption is benign, rather than malignant. She argues that “while corruption is never good, not all forms of corruption are equally bad for the economy, nor do they cause the same kind of harm”. In China, corruption does not fully inhibit development whereas in Nigeria, it does.

That Chinese type of corruption may not ground its economy may be understandable considering the point eminent political scientist, Samuel Huntington, made about how ‘exchange-based corruption’ like petty bribe “may be one way of surmounting traditional laws or bureaucratic regulations which hamper economic transactions.” Petty theft, grand theft, speed money and access money, as bad as they are, may not completely hobble the economic engine. But when corruption has become a system such that its audacity trumps the administration of justice to the extent that the rules themselves surrender to the juggernauts of corruption, then no meaningful development can occur. The engine will grind to a halt.

This scenario is one aspect of state capture. The criminal and corrupt class captures the state and its instrument of governmentality. Nothing is emblematic of governmentality than the judiciary. Formal constitutional democracy howsoever described enshrines legitimacy, based on, the supremacy of the judiciary. Through the power of judicial review, the courts ensure that all forms of corruption and criminality do not become the ‘system’ by imposing costs and deterrence against them.

Nigeria’s exceptionalism in corruption draws another distinctive between it and a comparable country, Indonesia. Indonesia has the misfortune of military dictators like Nigeria, dictators who are corrupt. But none of them is like Abacha who stole an equivalent of 10% of Nigeria’s GDP. John Hopkins’ Political Scientist, Peter Lewis in his book, Growing Apart: Oil, Politics and Economic Change in Indonesia and Nigeria, 2007, attributes the divergence in development between Indonesia and Nigeria partly to corruption (whereas Suharto commitment to growth, Nigeria’s military leaders were committed to “clientelism, distributional politics and economic predation”). While Suharto and his military clique could focus on development despite significant corruption, Nigeria’s Abachas could not. Because corruption was the system in Abacha’s Nigeria, development was inconceivable as the focus of statecraft.

Many development scholars argue that the main ingredient for economic development is an elite consensus for development. Unless the ruling elites of a country are committed to a ‘development agenda’ there will be no sustained development. Development requires the ruling elites to focus on implementing such an agenda as a primary and controlling ambition. This is the secret of the East Asian transformation. Successful East Asian countries were led by leaders who primarily focused on development and were accidentally corrupt. Nigeria hard luck is that its ruling elites are primarily focused on corruption and accidentally hit on development. In Nigeria, development is an accidental outcome. This is also the significant difference between 1960s and 2000s Nigeria. In the former, leaders were focused on development, but incidentally got corrupt. In the latter, leaders are focused on corruption and are incidentally developmental.

Nigerian leaders wax rhetorical about development agenda. President Tinubu talks endlessly about how he intends to push Nigeria towards development. Our ruling elites talk about emulating China and South Korea. But we do not treat corrupt officials like they do? Mr. Bo Xilai was a senior Chinese official, the Governor of one of China’s richest regions. He was arrested and charged for abuse of power. He was imprisoned with his wife. In China, corruption may pollute the system from time to time, but it is not the system. More than two South Korean Presidents have been imprisoned for years for what may be described as petty theft.

Nigeria’s Mr. Bo Xilai would still be seated at a high political seat, brandishing a medal of honor from the highest court of the land. That is what Alex Perry means by saying that ‘Nigeria’s leaders are oftentimes indistinguishable from its criminals. There may be many routes to development. But none of its will accommodate this high level of audacity of corruption.

It is common to say that Nigeria is a corrupt country. However, that does not really make much sense. Almost every country is corrupt to the extent that there are always some people, in the public or private sector, who deal corruptly. So, a self-acclaimed Nigerian patriot can answer back, “but all countries are corrupt because they have corrupt people”. This is true. I recall a friend who was vexed with what he considers my puritanic stand on public probity and advised that a country needs some corruption to even get running. To him, some degree of corruption is a lubricant of public leadership.

Nevertheless, Nigeria is corrupt in the sense that many countries are not, or at least in the sense that countries aspiring to development should not be. In Nigeria, corruption is not just pervasive, it is respectable and even admirable. One measure of this Nigerian exceptionalism is the number of manifestly corrupt politicians who occupy high political offices in Nigeria, and who have bright political future. These corrupt VIPs didn’t mask their way to the top. They got to the top notwithstanding that people know they are extremely corrupt, even criminal in their conducts. Their continuous ascent to high political offices despite open history of corruption and criminality suggests that either the people do not care much about corruption and criminality, or the system is trapped in indifference or cooption. In which case, corruption and criminality become social norms, a form of social compact.

Do not take my word that Nigeria is corrupt in an exceptional manner. Take the word of a former Nigerian Assistant Inspector General of Police who later became a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. One morning he stood up in the legislative chamber, surveyed the many rows where the so-called ‘distinguished’ Nigerians sat to make laws that cater to their own interests and do deals. He blurted out in disbelief: “I never knew I would meet so many people I put in jail as a police officer here in this chamber”. If you did not get the point. He could not believe that criminals who served terms when he was a police chief could become distinguished senators of the republic. May be that is the reason Alex Perry, the Newsweek columnist, captured Nigeria’s exceptionalism in corruption in these devastating words: “Nigeria’s rulers have often been indistinguishable from its criminals. In Nigeria, corruption does not just pollute the system. Corruption is the system”. 

Nigeria’s rulers are indistinguishable from its criminals. In Nigeria, corruption is the system. Let those words sink in. I didn’t make this up. You can read them up in the April 25, 2011, edition of the US Time magazine. The key point is that Nigeria’s version of public corruption is both pervasive and corrosive of public ethics. Elsewhere criminals operate underground, below the law. In Nigeria, they operate in the full glare of the law, they challenge the legal order; and the legal order bends to accommodate and normalize their nefarious acts. That is what Alex Perry means by saying that in Nigeria, corruption is the system.

Corruption scholars worry about how corruption distorts allocation of resources and leads to development failure, and ultimately compounds poverty. That is the reason corrupt countries are likely to be poor. There is an inverse relationship between corruption and development indexes. Developed countries are usually less corrupt. So, if a country is top on development indicators, it will likely be low on corruption index. It might be that being less corrupt enables a country to develop or that being developed means it will be less corrupt.

The discourse of corruption and development has gone through a lot of nuances and elaborations. Development scholars used to consider corruption as the most important problem of development. However, experience of Asia in development led to the idea that some degree of corruption, even grand corruption, is compatible with economic development. In the case of China, some scholars argued that China grew tremendously despite corruption because production grew faster than the grabbing hand. A popular aphorism puts it better: “In China the Hen was increasingly robust and capable of having more eggs than the Chinese foxes (officials) could grab”.  So, no matter how much official stole, GDP growth continued.

Yet in China, thieving officials faced the music. In 2012, a senior Chinese official, Bo Xilai, was arrested and charged for abuse of power and graft. Prime Minister Xi Jinping took the opportunity to launch war against corruption, warning comrades that corruption “would doom the Party and the nation”.  This began a real crackdown on corruption. Yes. China has corrupt officials. However, corruption has not stopped economic growth. This is partly because in China corruption is not the system. The system responds against corruption when it is detected. In Nigeria, corruption is the system. It does not respond against corruption even when it is in the public.

There are many theoretical explanations for why a country could be pervasively corruption. One of them holds that corruption is a ‘collective action’ problem. This is because people expect others to act corruptly and that becomes self-reinforcing. In a corrupt system, it is difficult to opt out of the corruption web. This is because there is a social compact built on expectations of corrupt acts. We expect people to act corruptly. This makes corruption almost compelling. The transaction cost of corruption is low since you incur no real social cost for corrupt acts. A corrupt system has inbuilt incentives that encourage corrupt acts. It is a form of social pathology. Everyone identifies that pathology. But the problem is understanding how it developed and how to destroy it. This difficulty is what makes corruption path dependent. A corrupt country continues to be corrupt until there is a disruption that creates another trajectory of social development.

Some think the way out of corruption is evolutionary. Others think it is revolutionary. One thing is clear, you cannot exit a culture of corruption if the political economy is not infused with values and institutions of ethical individualism and egalitarianism. Ethical individualism provides the motivation for social accountability. But it does not guarantee accountability. Those who conceive themselves as equals will have reason to demand accountability from political authorities. But even citizens who are motivated to demand accountability may still lack the resources and real opportunity to exert accountability. Where that is the case, there is impunity and corruption trap.

This is where Nigeria is. The exceptionalism of corruption in Nigeria is that corruption is now a system of public leadership. Nigeria’s corrupts are not restrained by threat of legal enforcement or social ostracism. Legal rules are designed and administered to wink at corruption, or even to aid and abet it. Recently, judges have issued decisions that normalize corruption and criminality in public administration. The complicit of the judiciary in helping corrupt Nigerians escape any form of legal stricture is only explainable as a sign of endemic state capture. The entire administrative state in Nigeria is complicit in reinforcing corruption in Nigeria.

In the matter of election, which is the most important issue of national security and stability, the electoral regulator blatantly refuses to act against clear evidence of corruption and criminality. Even when the constitution prohibits certain corrupt and criminal acts, the administration of justice denies accountability. The recent electoral decisions of some tribunals and courts in Nigeria, waving away with disdain clear evidence of corruption and criminality, are classic illustrations of impunity- the audacity of corruption.

What does systemic corruption mean for development. Political economist, Yuen Yuen Ang examines why China prospered in the face of ‘vast corruption’. She analyzed and dismissed some of the expert opinions on the paradox of Chinese economic boom amidst vast corruption. She concludes that the experts fail to understand that corruption takes different forms. Chinese corruption is benign, rather than malignant. She argues that “while corruption is never good, not all forms of corruption are equally bad for the economy, nor do they cause the same kind of harm”. In China, corruption does not fully inhibit development whereas in Nigeria, it does.

That Chinese type of corruption may not ground its economy may be understandable considering the point eminent political scientist, Samuel Huntington, made about how ‘exchange-based corruption’ like petty bribe “may be one way of surmounting traditional laws or bureaucratic regulations which hamper economic transactions.” Petty theft, grand theft, speed money and access money, as bad as they are, may not completely hobble the economic engine. But when corruption has become a system such that its audacity trumps the administration of justice to the extent that the rules themselves surrender to the juggernauts of corruption, then no meaningful development can occur. The engine will grind to a halt.

This scenario is one aspect of state capture. The criminal and corrupt class captures the state and its instrument of governmentality. Nothing is emblematic of governmentality than the judiciary. Formal constitutional democracy howsoever described enshrines legitimacy, based on, the supremacy of the judiciary. Through the power of judicial review, the courts ensure that all forms of corruption and criminality do not become the ‘system’ by imposing costs and deterrence against them.

Nigeria’s exceptionalism in corruption draws another distinctive between it and a comparable country, Indonesia. Indonesia has the misfortune of military dictators like Nigeria, dictators who are corrupt. But none of them is like Abacha who stole an equivalent of 10% of Nigeria’s GDP. John Hopkins’ Political Scientist, Peter Lewis in his book, Growing Apart: Oil, Politics and Economic Change in Indonesia and Nigeria, 2007, attributes the divergence in development between Indonesia and Nigeria partly to corruption (whereas Suharto commitment to growth, Nigeria’s military leaders were committed to “clientelism, distributional politics and economic predation”). While Suharto and his military clique could focus on development despite significant corruption, Nigeria’s Abachas could not. Because corruption was the system in Abacha’s Nigeria, development was inconceivable as the focus of statecraft.

Many development scholars argue that the main ingredient for economic development is an elite consensus for development. Unless the ruling elites of a country are committed to a ‘development agenda’ there will be no sustained development. Development requires the ruling elites to focus on implementing such an agenda as a primary and controlling ambition. This is the secret of the East Asian transformation. Successful East Asian countries were led by leaders who primarily focused on development and were accidentally corrupt. Nigeria hard luck is that its ruling elites are primarily focused on corruption and accidentally hit on development. In Nigeria, development is an accidental outcome. This is also the significant difference between 1960s and 2000s Nigeria. In the former, leaders were focused on development, but incidentally got corrupt. In the latter, leaders are focused on corruption and are incidentally developmental.

Nigerian leaders wax rhetorical about development agenda. President Tinubu talks endlessly about how he intends to push Nigeria towards development. Our ruling elites talk about emulating China and South Korea. But we do not treat corrupt officials like they do? Mr. Bo Xilai was a senior Chinese official, the Governor of one of China’s richest regions. He was arrested and charged for abuse of power. He was imprisoned with his wife. In China, corruption may pollute the system from time to time, but it is not the system. More than two South Korean Presidents have been imprisoned for years for what may be described as petty theft.

Nigeria’s Mr. Bo Xilai would still be seated at a high political seat, brandishing a medal of honor from the highest court of the land. That is what Alex Perry means by saying that ‘Nigeria’s leaders are oftentimes indistinguishable from its criminals. There may be many routes to development. But none of its will accommodate this high level of audacity of corruption.

While trying to controversially obtain billions of dollars from Nigeria through the courts, P&ID had access to Nigeria’s internal documents which it should not have had access to, a British court found.

PREMIUM TIMES earlier reported that the court also ruled that the contract and arbitration for which the firm wanted Nigeria’s money was fraudulently obtained.

Robin Knowles, a High Court judge in London, ruled that the 2010 gas contract at the centre of the long-running saga involving Nigeria and Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) was fraudulent.

The ruling comes after a decade of legal wrangling that put Africa’s largest economy at risk of having to pay $11 billion in compensation.

In 2017, an arbitration tribunal ordered Nigeria to pay $6.6 billion to P&ID following the collapse of a contract between the group and Nigeria’s petroleum ministry. The award increased to $11 billion with interest.

On Monday, Mr Knowles overseeing the appeal at the high court in London said the awards “were obtained by fraud” and “the way in which they were procured was, contrary to public policy”.

Interestingly and beyond the corruption-tainted contract, the judge indicted P&ID for improper retention of Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents that it had received during the arbitration.

Mr Knowles said P&ID retained the documents (rather than returning them unread) so as to monitor Nigeria’s position and awareness as the arbitration continued.

“This included monitoring whether Nigeria had become aware of the deception being practised by P&ID on the Tribunal and on Nigeria as a party before the Tribunal,” the judge said.

He added that Nigeria’s right to confidential access to legal advice was utterly compromised throughout all or most of the Arbitration. “It is now apparent that through the course of the Arbitration, P&ID was provided with many of Nigeria’s internal legal documents,” the judge said.

Specifically, there was a flow of over 40 of Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents to P&ID during the period of the arbitration from commencement on 22 August 2012 to Final award on 31 January 2017.

Details of the contents of these internal legal documents were revealed in the 140-page judgement delivered by Mr Knowles on Monday.

Between 2012 and 2017, these materials monitored by P&ID showed that Nigeria had no awareness that its former legal adviser, Grace Taiga, had been bribed when the gas contract came about and that bribery or corrupt payments continued to buy her silence. Ms Taiga was a former legal adviser to Nigeria’s petroleum ministry.

“Indeed they were bribing or making corrupt payments to keep the truth concealed and (through retention of Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents) monitoring Nigeria’s awareness of the truth,” the judge said.

P&ID argued that its retention of Nigeria’s internal legal documents “did not cause any substantial injustice within section 68, because it had no effect whatsoever on the Awards, irrespective of how or from whom the documents were obtained.”

The judge, however, rejected the argument saying they did not cause substantial injustice because they gave P&ID no relevant advantage in the arbitration but it shows the effect of a dishonest course of conduct.

“The Court will be realistic here about what proof is possible in terms of showing the effect of a dishonest course of conduct. The nature and contents of the documents, and the scale, continuity and circumstances of P&ID’s conduct were such that, in my judgement, Nigeria’s right to confidential access to legal advice was utterly compromised throughout all or most of the Arbitration.”

The judge agreed with Nigeria. He said: “I have reviewed these internal documents and at least some were plainly subject to legal professional privilege: they were confidential to Nigeria and P&ID was not entitled to see them.”

P&ID’s improper retention of Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents, received at various points during the arbitration, enabled P&ID to track Nigeria’s internal consideration of merits, strategy and settlement during the arbitration, court papers show.

In addition, P&ID’s improper retention of Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents also allowed it to monitor whether Nigeria had become aware of the fact that the tribunal and Nigeria were being deceived.

In concluding the matter, Mr Knowles said: “I will be referring a copy of this judgement to the Bar Standards Board in the case of Mr Trevor Burke KC and to both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board in the case of Mr Seamus Andrew.

“I trust that these two regulators of the legal profession in England & Wales will consider the professional consequences of the conduct of Mr Burke KC and Mr Andrew (P&ID) lawyers in relation to Nigeria’s Internal Legal Documents.”

[Premium Times]

THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has removed the name of Timipre Sylva of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the list of candidates for the November 11 governorship election.

INEC also removed the name of Sylva’s ruining mate, Joshua Maciver, from the list.

 This was observed in the amended list of candidates released released by the Commission

The amended list was signed by the Secretary of INEC, Rose Oriaran-Anthony,

The column containing the names of APC candidates and his ruining mate was left empty in the list on the INEC website, with the words “court order” written.

The Commission also listed Ahumbe Chiazor as the running mate and Uchechukwu Ishiodu as the governorship candidate for the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) in the state election of Imo.

In the revised document, Oriaran-Anthony clarified that the Commission’s actions complied with court orders on the lists supplied to it.

According to her, the Commission received a court order regarding the APC’s nominee for the Bayelsa governorship race after it was published.

“By virtue of the provision of Section 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Commission is bound to enforce the orders of the court on the nomination of candidates by political parties in the state.

“The Amended list of candidates in respect of the 2023 Bayelsa State governorship election is hereby amended pursuant to the court orders served on the commission,” Oriaran-Anthony said.

She further reminded Imo voters that in compliance with Section 32 of the Electoral Act of 2022 and the timetable and schedule of activities for the election, INEC released the final list of candidates for the state governorship election on June 9.

She said after the publication, the Commission was served with an order of court for including the PRP and its candidate on the 2023 Imo State governorship election list.

The ICIR reported that a Federal High Court in Abuja disqualified Sylva from participating in the Bayelsa State Governorship Election.

In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/821/2023, Demesuoyefa Kolomo, a member of the All Progressives Congress in the state, asked the court to determine Sylva’s eligibility for the election, given his past terms as governor of Bayelsa from May 29, 2007, to April 15, 2008, and from May 27, 2008, to January 27, 2012.

But, in his affidavit, Sylva stated he was elected once as the state’s governor, disputing the 2007 election’s occurrence. While citing an April 2008 court of appeal ruling that nullified the 2007 election, the former minister also emphasised his constitutional and legal right to contest the most-coveted seat in the state.

However, delivering judgment on Monday, October 9, the presiding judge, Donatus Okorowo, held that Sylva, having been sworn in twice and ruled for five years as governor, would breach the 1999 constitution if allowed to contest again.

Okorowo also said Sylva, who served as the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources in the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, would spend more than eight years in office if allowed to participate in the election and eventually win.

Okorowo highlighted that the drafters of the nation’s constitution explicitly stipulated that a person should not be elected governor more than twice. 

He further mentioned that all parties involved in the case acknowledged that Sylva had been elected into office twice.

Okorowo stated that if Sylva could contest the next election, any citizen could contest for a political office as often as they wish.

The states are three of six states in Nigeria with off-season governorship polls. 

The current governor of Imo State’s term expires on January 14, 2024; Kogi and Bayelsa States had respective terms that expire on January 26, 2024, and February 13 of the same year.

The ICIR, in this report, presented the top candidates in the three states and their chances.

[ICIR]

• In a bid to counter wildlife trade, Nigeria recently publicly destroyed seized pangolin scales, leopard, python and crocodile skins.
• Nearly 4 tonnes of seized pangolin scales and 110 kilograms of dried skins from a variety of protected species were incinerated.
• Pangolins are the most trafficked mammal in the world, for the use of their scales and their meat is considered a delicacy by some.

In a groundbreaking move, Nigeria has publicly destroyed tonnes of seized wildlife products, including pangolin scales and leopard, python and crocodile skins. The public display echoes similar events in Kenya and elsewhere on the continent and marks Nigeria's renewed commitment to combatting wildlife trafficking and safeguarding the nation's biodiversity.

The event was the first of its kind in Nigeria and was intended to send a strong message to traffickers and consumers of the illegal trade, and to safeguard the nation's biodiversity, according to conservation officials.

"By destroying these pangolin scales and skins, we're crushing the illegal trade that preys on our wildlife. Our commitment is unwavering, and we will not compromise on the protection of our endangered species," said Kolawole Gbenga, head of conservation monitoring at the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Nesrea).

The incineration ceremony took place in Abuja on 17 October, according to local media, and pictures were posted on the Nesrea Facebook site. The event was presided over by representatives from various government agencies, local and international environmental NGOs, and wildlife conservation experts.

Nesrea said it had collaborated with the Elephant Protection Initiative (EPI) Foundation, with support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Together, they burned nearly four tonnes of seized pangolin scales and 110 kilogrammes of dried skins from a variety of protected species.

Gbenga also said that Nigeria is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The international agreement seeks to ensure that the global trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of species.

The international community would see that Nigeria is serious about combatting the illegal wildlife trade, improving the battered image of Nigeria, which has become a transit point for illicit trade in animal products.

According to CITES, pangolins are among the world's endangered "Big Five", together with elephants, rhinos, sharks and tigers.

The pangolin is the world's most trafficked mammal and is hunted primarily for its scales, which are in high demand in traditional Asian medicine. The meat is also a delicacy in some Asian cultures and is consumed as "bush meat" in some parts of Africa.

In some areas, the pangolin is also killed for superstitious reasons, as its sighting is believed to signify the onset of drought, further driving the mammal into extinction.

Each of the eight pangolin species, including four from Asia and four from Africa, holds a place in Appendix I of the CITES, ensuring that they receive the highest level of legal protection. With the severe depletion of the four Asian pangolin species, the demand in Asian markets is now being met by a growing supply of trafficked African pangolins and their parts.

While existing CITES rules impose restrictions on the trade of Asian species, they do permit regulated trade in the four African species. However, illegal trade is threatening this species dangerously close to extinction, with two of the four African pangolin species listed as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (or IUCN) Red List.

In recent years, Nigeria has become a busy transit hub for pangolin-scale trafficking from the four remaining African species.

According to recent research by the University of Cambridge, pangolin scales intercepted by Nigerian officials between 2010 and 2021 amounted to a staggering 190 407 kilogrammes. This translates to around 800 000 dead pangolins.

Ivory tusks have also been found among the impounded scales, which signals trafficking is far more complex and well-organised than previously thought.

According to Gbenga, Nigerian authorities recognise the urgency of protecting this species and have taken significant steps to address the trafficking of pangolins through its borders.

"We have adopted the first National Strategy to Combat Wildlife and Forest Crime. Subsequently, the government has also established the Wildlife Law Enforcement Task Force, of which Nesrea is the operational lead, to work closely with other key stakeholders and the Federal Ministry of Environment in addressing wildlife crime in the country," he explained.

He added that the Nigerian government, through Nesrea, also uses the Endangered Species (Control of International Trade and Traffic) Act and the National Environmental (Protection of Endangered Species in Domestic and International Trade) Regulations 2023 to combat wildlife crime.

Nigeria joins other African countries, notably Kenya, which held its first public burning of ivory tusks in 1989. That event, the first of its kind, was presided over by then president Daniel Arap Moi. In 2016, President Uhuru Kenyatta presided over a similar burning of ivory tusks at Nairobi National Park in a move designed to send a message to poachers and consumers alike.

Nathan Gichohi, a senior ecologist at the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) based at the Tsavo-Mokomazi landscape, supported and endorsed Nigeria's move:

"It's a very good thing to destroy the pangolin scales. Because for one, if they are not destroyed, they will end up in the illegal market. This is what usually happens with all trafficked wildlife trophies. If they are not destroyed, of course, they will end up in the illegal market," Gichohi said.

The AWF has also partnered with UNODC to curb illegal wildlife trade in the international arena.

"It's a question of working with the consumer countries, together with international instruments like CITES and those other multilateral agreements so that the consumer market is closed," he said.

Other African countries that have burnt items seized from illegal wildlife traders include Gabon, Tanzania and South Africa.

This is a significant step for these countries, as illegal wildlife trade has often been linked to illicit financial flows. From bribes to money laundering, the list is endless.

According to the 2020 UNODC report, it's estimated that between 2016 and 2018, the illegal income generated from trafficking ivory was around $400 million, and for rhino horn, it was about $230 million.

The bulk of this money is made at the retail level, where the products are processed and sold to the final buyers. In reality, the actual illegal financial flows, which involve moving money across borders, could be far higher and as an unknown percentage funds criminal and terror networks inside host countries, Nigeria and other African countries are now looking to crack down harder.

[news24]

Legislature is a major building block of democracy. KUNLE ODEREMI takes looks at the two-day retreat held for senators, especially on the review and resetting a pragmatic plan of action based on national needs.

CONSTITUTIONAL democracy such as the one existing in Nigeria rests on a tripod: executive, legislature and the judiciary. Even though by the principle of the separation of powers, they are required to act independent of one another, such independence is never absolute to guarantee seamless running of government.  The constitution states their individual powers and limitations; the legislature ensures checks and balance on the executive through oversight functions.

But the National Assembly tends to come more under public scrutiny and searchlight because of the express mandate of the members from well-defined and delineated constituencies. This calls for pragmatic programme of action by the legislature, retooling and review of such agenda in order to be sync with the yearnings and aspirations of the citizens, who constitute the popular sovereignty. 

A couple of days ago, a three-day retreat for senators in the 10th Assembly held in Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State. It provided the opportunity for the upper chamber of the National Assembly to rest the needle for a new dawn. Beyond conviviality, the forum afforded all the principal officers and other persons to dissect and design, a realistic and progressive agenda. Thus, the Leader of the Senate, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele proposed strategic collaboration between the Federal Executive Council and National Assembly as one of the strategies to squarely tackle protracted national challenges. The success of the 2023 retreat was underscored by the fact the participants engaged frank discourses under the theme, “Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms in Nigeria.” The retreat explicitly delved into diverse issues that placed Nigerians under undue socio-economic burdens in the last two decades.  Conscious of the contemporary realities in the country, the participants were focused in the quest to address nagging national challenges. For the president of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, it is a forum for building capacity, which every legislator requires to function effectively.

Facilitated by the National Institute of Legislative and Democratic Studies, Akpabio set the stage for the retreat, where resource persons freely shared divergent views about many challenges confronting the federation and proposed convergent strategies, which they believed, would restore stability in the country’s macro-economic environment and promote peaceful coexistence if each arm of governments pursues its goals with political will.

Capacity building is just one of the rationales for the parliamentary retreat, according to Akpabio. Besides, the senate president observed that the retreat was designed to develop pro-people legislations that could promote enduring peace; guarantee sustainable development and deepen peaceful co-existence, among all Nigerians, irrespective of their ethnic nationalities and religious leaning.

Thus, apart from senators, members of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) attended the retreat to underline apolitical inclination. The list included the Chief of Staff to the President, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila; Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Olawale Edun; Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, Alhaji Atiku Bagudu and deputy governor of Akwa Ibom State Akon Eyakenyi.

All guest speakers and resource persons were unambiguous on the socio-economic realities in the country. So, the preponderance of their submission was  the significance of developing creative legislative frameworks in response to the socio-economic realities.

A number of issues emerged based on the submissions and conclusions of the participants. One of such questions was if the retreat was sufficient to activate the consensus, especially at a time of global crises that directly impinge on domestic economies and politics? In his presentation, the Leader of the Senate, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele set the agenda on how to transform this consensus to reality in nearly all sectors of Nigeria’s economy.

Similarly, for guest speakers, legislative intervention is critical to every initiative directed at making Nigeria an investment destination or ensuring stability in all parts and sectors of the federation. But Bamidele specifically recommended a forum where the executive and legislature would always meet to perfect institutional approaches to addressing  vicious challenges that threaten Nigeria. He further delineated the need for such regular sessions, an initiative comparable to quarterly executive-legislative parleys that successive governments in Lagos State have embraced since 1999.

Can such an initiative work at the federal level? Bamidele did not specifically refer to the case of Lagos. But he suggested that such sessions should be held quarterly or biannually. Also, they should be tailored practically at discussing and perfecting coherent and logical responses to a myriad of socio-economic challenges that complicate the conditions of living and undermine the unity of Nigeria.

On this account, Bamidele explained the imperative of holding regular executive-legislative sessions, which other speakers agreed, would open a new vista of strategic collaboration in the overall interest of Nigeria and her teeming population. First, according to him, such sessions will give the National Assembly and Federal Executive Council room to work out modalities of mainstreaming Tinubu’s eight-point agenda into the programmes of the National Assembly.

Second, the Senate Leader believed, such sessions will speed up the process of developing and initiating innovative legislative frameworks that can aid delivery of enviable public services within a short period. Bamidele’s argument is pure and simple. He simply argued that actualising Tinubu’s eight-point agenda “entails the collective responsibilities between the two arms of government rather than unilateral roles of the executive.”  As he stressed, this calls for strategic collaboration between ministers and chairmen of all standing committees in the Senate and House Committees. It also calls for legislators to have strategic sessions with the permanent secretaries and chief executives of key federal parastatals with a view to devising approaches to the implementation of the eight-point agenda in national interest.

He clearly mapped diverse challenges that currently beset Nigeria. From the food crisis to intractable insecurity, chronic inflation, Naira devaluation and political instability, Bamidele explained how the eight-point agenda painstakingly sought to address all these challenges. He also explained how legislative interventions “are critical to seamless actualisation of the eight-point agenda.”

Bamidele suggested key areas where the executive and legislature should leverage strategic collaboration “to break the vicious cycle of economic doldrums and political contradictions that have been the woes of Nigeria.” The areas include the need to review the Land Use Act, 1979; strengthen the National Directorate of Employment; embrace true fiscal federalism; diversify the country’s economy and standardise social investments.

Like other senators at the retreat, the senate president utterly agreed with Bamidele on the need to set a common forum for lawmakers and members of the Federal Executive Council, where they would discuss issues of strategic national interest and work out innovative legislative frameworks to those issues that threaten the country’s collective interests. It is time, according to him, to culture a strategic collaboration.

Beyond creating an executive-legislative forum, Akpabio specifically explained the place of the Senate, indeed the entire National Assembly, in establishing “an environment that can guarantee investments and promote harmony among citizenry.” For him, this can only be achieved through enacting innovative legislation and carrying out oversight functions purely in the national interest.

Akpabio was not the only functionary that shared this sentiment. Also, Speaker, House of Representatives, Honourable Abbas  Tajudeen and  Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Barau Jibrin shared the same conviction. Collectively, they emphasised the need not just to betray the expectation of the people that voted them into offices, but rekindle the hope of all Nigerians irrespective of their political leanings.

Nearly all key speakers agreed to this collective aspiration, which they all argued, should be vigorously pursued in order to evolve a new nation. But Akpabio argued that such an aspiration would not be a mere mirage if the National Assembly fails to work with key functionaries in the FEC with a view to mainstreaming Tinubu’s eight-point agenda into the legislative programmes.

With the depth of engagement at the retreat, Edun concluded that a great future “is awaiting Nigeria, though her present challenges may be daunting.” Now that a new vista for strategic collaboration has been opened, Edun observed that both arms of government “are under obligation to work out collective responses to hydra-headed challenges that confront us as a people of common destiny.”

Edun thus acknowledged the centrality of legislative interventions to the implementation of the eight-point agenda. For him, the agenda is well defined and will be wholeheartedly pursued in the overall interest of the people. However, the minister emphasised the role of the National Assembly in implementing the eight-point agenda, which was at the core of Bamidele’s proposal for strategic collaboration between the executive and legislature.

From food security to poverty eradication; growth, job creation; access to capital; inclusion; rule of law; and fighting corruption, Edun agreed that the time has come for both arms of government to synergise on how to methodically and systematically pursue the eight-point agenda in order to bring about desirable outcomes across all sectors.

But does this quest for strategic collaborations suggest the erosion of legislative independence? Stakeholders at the retreat largely disagreed on its possibility of eroding the independence of the National Assembly. Collaboration between both arms, they all admitted, may not in any way turn the legislature to a willing tool in the hands of the executive. Rather, it offers a platform for mainstreaming campaign promises into legislative programmes in the interest of all Nigerians, whether the poor or the rich, the middle class or the vulnerable.

Nigeria’s National Assembly – the 10th since independence – was inaugurated on 13 June 2023. It has two arms: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 109 senators and 360 representatives were elected on 25 February 2023.

Godswill Akpabio was elected Senate president and Tajudeen Abass House of Representatives speaker. Its primary responsibility is lawmaking for effective administration of the state. In Nigeria, the power of the National Assembly’s two houses to legislate is enshrined in section 4 of the 1999 constitution. The constitution also enables the National Assembly to scrutinise and monitor executive activities. Sections 88 and 89 of the constitution set out its the oversight powers. Overseeing the executive requires a determined and strong legislative institution committed to its constitutional responsibilities. All the issues are within the oversight competence of the National Assembly.

Effective oversight of executive actions is a necessity to boost the fortunes of the nation and rekindle the hope of citizens that entrusted the National Assembly with their collective power for the promotion of their interests. Since the Fourth Republic began on 29 May 1999, Nigerians have been waiting in vain for the assembly to fulfill this role. The previous nine legislatures have failed as the central institution of the government. That’s because politics has been about personal power and financial gain.

Under President Olusegun Obasanjo’s government from 1999 to 2007, the National Assembly was unable to assert its relevance. The executive sought to cage and control its activities, against the principle of separation of powers. The corruption scandals in the legislature since 1999 have dented the assembly’s integrity as the conscience of the public. The failure of the legislative assemblies since 1999 to do what the constitution expects of them has resulted in the country’s people being unable to meet their basic needs. When other institutions of the government fail in their responsibilities, the legislature cannot afford to fail its principal, the people. Nigeria’s 10th Assembly can make a difference.

[Tribune]

Debt and stock market players in West Africa plan to complete the harmonization and validation of regulation for trading and settlement of securities by June, Lamido Yuguda, chairman of West Africa Securities Regulators Association, said at a conference in Lagos.

The rule will facilitate the establishment of a common market in the region for the issuance and trading of financial assets across member countries, Yuguda, who’s also the director-general of the Nigerian Securities and Exchange Commission, said.

The capital market regulators’ umbrella body was founded in 2015 to foster market integration in West Africa.

[Bloomberg]

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Wednesday presided over emblem appeal launch for 2024 Armed Forces Remembrance Day.

Naija News reports that the emblem launch was held at the state house, Abuja.

Speaking at the launch, Tinubu commended troops of the Nigerian armed forces for security “this great nation.”

He said: “Our foremost objective is to provide a conducive environment free from threats and criminality to enable all who reside within our borders to thrive and live in peace.

“For this reason, we owe a debt of gratitude to our gallant troops who have risen to the challenge of securing this great nation.”

He stated that the armed forces remembrance day embalmed remains a symbol of remembrance and a beacon of hope for a peaceful future.

“It is also our humble way of appreciating the veterans and the families of their fallen colleagues,” Tinubu said.

“I wish to call on all Nigerians and non-Nigerians residing in the country irrespective of their political affiliation or religious beliefs to adorn the emblem with pride and identify with those who laid down their lives for the peace and security of our dear nation,” the president added.

[NaijaNews]

The Bayelsa Gubernatorial Campaign Council of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has urged its supporters not to be deterred by the delisting of its candidate for the Nov. 11 poll, Chief Timipre Sylva.

This is contained in a statement issued in Yenagoa by Mr Perry Tukuwei, the Director of Media and Publicity of the Council on Wednesday.

“The Bayelsa APC Gubernatorial Campaign hereby urges our dear people of Bayelsa not to be deterred with recent happenings in the polity as we match towards the victory post at the Nov. 11 Governorship Election.

“We are clearly miles ahead with a well thought out Renewed Hope for Bayelsa agenda as well as resounding successes recorded in campaign activities across communities culminating in the decision by people of the state.

“To look the way of Chief Timipre Sylva and Joshua Maciver as the next Governor and Deputy Governor respectively.

“Our dear people of Bayelsa, do not fear. Do not be discouraged. We are on course with no distractions,” he said.
He added:“Our lawyers are very well on top of the situation as we expect victory at the Court of Appeal. We will win.”

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Tuesday published the list of candidates for the election without the name of the APC candidate in compliance with the ruling of a Federal High Court that disqualified him from the election.

The APC had filed an appeal challenging the court decision and applied for a stay of execution of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.

[Newsguru]