FAILED FISCAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL BEGGARY

 FAILED FISCAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL BEGGARY

By Kay Aderibigbe

The nexus between state and economy in Nigeria is such an inertial type which is why both institutions are antithetical. This is because there is rarely a meeting point between government prioritized endeavours and the needs of our people. Over the years, Nigeria has solely depended on fossil fuel and eschewed all other meaningful commercial alternative avenues that could provide as much as we earn from oil today. The resultant effect being that all the 36 states of the federation draw their yearly budgets based on the allocations from Federation Account. Ancillary palliative measures to budgetary provisions like internal/external loans, bi-lateral grants from abroad and 'federal bailout' e.g. the recent intervention fund approved by president Buhari are "occasional Jesus Christ that may or may not attend the wedding ceremony of our poor states and turn their water to wine".

 

A flashback into the era of regionalism will show how unashamed, unscrupulous  and unintelligent political administrators in this country are. Before the proliferation of states, regions are specialists in various agricultural products which served as veritable sources of income. Regional governments are the Landlords that contributed taxes/quotas to the federation which actually weakened central monopoly of power, encouraged competitive developments and enhanced our terms/balance of trade and payment in favour of Naira as a currency.

 

Fiscal system during the period of regionalism does not allow uncountable retinue of aides for state governors and parliamentarians alike. There were lesser unnecessary and non-performing ministries. Agriculture made government the largest employer of labour not fraudulent and opaque NNPC. Civils service contained ingenuous and industrious individuals with job roles not ghost workers that do nothing and earn tax payers' money.

 

Initially, multiplication of states was borne out of the calculations of military government [Gowon/Murtala] to reduce the negative effects of tribalism and ethnic chauvinism; while Babangida and Abacha created seventeen more states as political rewards, ' economic pots of soup' for their godfather loyalists. In all, state creation since 1967 does not afford vestigial states the kind of regional economic platform that could enable them exist in commensalism with federal government. More so, many state governors are thieves, foolish and too greedy that they loot through any imaginary means they could fathom. Since most of these state governors lacked creative mentalities that could serve as alternative to oil revenue, they must look up to federal government for survival and retain their second class statuses.

 

As undismayed with decadence in state management as state governors remain, they still take after federal method of politicking such as creating avalanche of ministries with uncountable political appointments that are surplus to requirement. Collapse in oil price mete out an attendant effect  on Nigeria and states have fallen into financial crisis. federal government and states are all indebted. Almost 24 states are owing their workers between 5 and 16 months.

 

The wage bill of these states is almost 75% of their monthly allocations; little wonder they couldn't embark on any meaningful developmental projects, but borrow from anywhere possible even, to pay salaries. This national embarrassment prompted Buhari to approve a sum of #713.7 billion bailout for the federal and states governments to offset workers' salaries. Out of which #413 is an intervention fund while #300 is a soft loan from CBN.

 

 The important questions are the following [i] for how long will this ‘political babihanla’ continue on the part of the states? [ii] when will state governments in Nigeria develop their internal capacities to generating wealth? [iii] for how long would oil crisis degenerate into financial crises for Nigeria? [iv] what is the plan of the current federal government on economic diversification? [v] must state governments employ/appoint so many people that contribute nothing to the economic development of the state but receive salaries in the name of carrying files? [vi] what happens to these backward-thinking states after bailout? [vii] since the dwindling oil price is still nose-diving would Buhari continue to source from the proceeds of NLNG to fund states with dysfunctional economies?

 

My submission is that fiscal federalism would go a long way to put to rest the case of dearth/shortage of finance and financial impropriety; economic imbalance; weeding out of non-performing sections of the civil service; promote internal competition among states; create job opportunities; enhance mass market; diversify the economy; silence or reduce the ubiquity of federal character principle and also promote state-centred against nation-centred federalism.

 

In a simple language, different states have mineral resources; they should be constitutionally empowered to put those into industrialization, and remit taxes to federal government. States with little or no resource(s) can resort to pure agriculture or energy-based production. Against this backdrop, federal politics will be less chaotic; since there is no much goodies to suck, as a result, the centre will be administrative-driven, purposeful and rule-oriented. The reliance on oil revenue will reduce drastically. Moreover, financial problem will not warrant ‘political babihanla’ that will continue to encourage ineptitudeness, dormancy, over-reliant on federal government and external loan which will only add to the backward movement of the Nigerian economy.

 

Without this, failure of public policies will not be seen as a setback but rather, as a propellant for government functionaries to arise and stereotyped Nigerians as refugees in their own country despite the volume of illegitimate largesse enjoyed by political office holders in the midst of fiscal imbalance that pervaded the country.

AFTER THE RAIN WILL THERE BE SUNSHINE FOR NIGERIA?

AFTER THE RAIN WILL THERE BE SUNSHINE FOR NIGERIA?

By Kay Aderibigbe

It rained a lot of socio-economic hot water on Nigerians between 2010 and 2015; and up till now our political garments are still wet. Some had serious economic cold, some incurred irreparable physical damage while some died. The rain gathered storm at the time majority crave it but we didn't foresee discomfort and pains contained in it because our people gave their hearts to the government of Jonathan the way we are all singing 'change' now.

 

The manner in which Jonathan's government dilly-dallied without purposefulness on so many important public issues simply eroded his popularity and paved the way for shift of allegiance by Nigerians, except those that eat directly from federal government e.g. legislators, oil marketers, political officials and co. One thing has to be underlined in whatever perspective anybody might want to assess Mr. Jonathan's government, that is the position of 'prebendal politics'. May be that Muhammadu Buhari took notice of by importing Eric Bourdon's line of "I belong to everyone because i belong to no one" in his inaugural speech.

 

Prof. Richard Joseph in 1987, in his "Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic" stated that "prebendalism is when political office holders put the state resources in their care to their own personal use because they do not perceive the people as the rightful owner of the resources". Politics in Nigeria since first republic is typical of prebendal mannerism because of ethnic division that warranted dispersed federal system of government. Consequently, federalism is the root of political failure and dysfunctionality.

 

The situation seems irremediable because  the nucleus of federalism in Nigeria is 'federal character', being the basis for political appointment into all arms of government. I referred to the concept of 'office-for-the-highest-bidder' in my last article as the basis for party representation, really , that method is profoundly erected on the principle of federal character or quota system. This is why each state must produce Ministers, Directors of Ministries and parastatals whether they are daft, dumb, capable or not. Since we placed ethnic representation above capability and efficiency the end result is likely to be dysfuntionalism.

 

In comparative politics what we normally ask is why did a system succeeded or failed? Why did many regimes failed in Nigeria? It is simple logic. The structure of governance is the rudder that regularly sinks the ship of Nigerian state. In the face of this kind of evidence it is difficult to maintain that all actions and processes of thought will automatically lead to methods of transition from political upheaval and economic disintegration to its abatement.

 

Certain problems await the Buhari's government. Firstly, 'it will be thrown into indefinite actions'. A society erected on the platform of ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry will always expect more from the regime that has little to operate with. Secondly, political regime cannot be divorced from the idea of elite-self-rule. In fact, Buhari himself is a product of the same system. Since political office holders are quite aware of the 'ring nature of the political business' as such they produce rule that are integral to the safety and continuity of the ‘elite self-propagation in politics’. These two different bipods i.e. the poor, but expectant and the rich but conservative and greedy with power, form the opponents against which the government we are expecting changes from would have to wrestle.

 

Salvation campaigns by politicians since second republic had yielded nothing, rather, it ended in more bastardization of the system and economic strangulation of the people. I still wallow in abject confusion and surprise when our people look up to the government for redemption. The same politicians are recycled through partisan politics at different times, and the same people still feature in our political lives all the time.

This is the most favourable sort of case where there is a prima facie ground for terminating state of 'satisfaction' enjoyed by politicians; for in most cases the impediment to good governance is studiously planted in the system while whoever intended to rule well is simply made look like a nuisance to the public since our people believe that politicians are heretics of their own principles.

 

In one word, changes required in Nigeria is more than a wish. It is going to be a social re-engineering; a concerted effort; legislative struggle and ideological war against abnormality and aberration that has become a model of governmental operation since the era of oil boom. The questions in my mind are many: How do we start? How will Buhari go about it? Is it a case of we against them? What do we have to give as Nigerians? Can Buhari fight it alone? Is he going to disappoint us? Is he going to fail like his predecessors? Will he become a public enemy through his policies? I think only time will tell.

 

THE ELECTION FEVER: POLLS, RESULT AND VIOLENCE ALL PREDETERMINED

THE ELECTION FEVER: POLLS, RESULT AND  VIOLENCE ALL PREDETERMINED

By Kay Aderibgbe 

Majority of our people have been made to adjust their allegiances to either of the two leading political parties (APC and PDP) in the current scheme of politics in Nigeria today. The raison d'eter being the 2015 general elections. Hardly would one see anything without political implications these days. Imagine when you are told to come back for your debt that is due after election. In fact, political issues are deliberately blown out of proportion by politicians. Nigerians in their large numbers suddenly became politically conscious as a result of number of reasons. Factors such as the country's economic condition; security situation; cost and standard of living; religious affiliations; political deprivation; terrorism; meaninglessness of education achievement; general defrauding of our people through the use of public utility; and what has been vigorously argued as the perennial failure/success of the present political regime accounted for the reactionary posture of the politically aware public.

 

As perfectly plausible as these factors seem today they have always remained the same policy narratives that have been featuring on our political agenda ever since the days of Balewa. How come Nigerian Politicians do not think positively about the situation of things if every thinker ought to be greatly influenced by the circumstances of his day? The circumstances surrounding electoral politics in Nigeria cannot be discussed outside the larger concept of ecology of Nigerian politics. The said ecology of politics was a product of thoughts, doctrines and proclamations that were reluctantly arrived at. This body of rules form the substructure upon which every other driving forces of Nigerian politics was laid.  

 

"Such foundation is the idea of political federalism which was informed by the ever-complex and ill-perceived tribalcentric concepts that
underpinned the formation of the state itself" (Aderibigbe, 2014)
The problem nowadays is that "the ecology of Nigerian politics revolves around visible and invisible ethno-cultural, religious, class cum political mentalities that have in the recent times transgenically metamorphosed the Nigerian people from the overwhelming notion of Nigerianity to that of 'individual selves', who are primarily and absolutely concerned with self and other 'extra selves' who can unquestionably work intermingled for the same 'self-propagation' at the detriment of the state. (Aderibigbe, 2014).

 

Let me identify certain issues that altogether form the skeletal framework of the organization of Nigerian electoral politics. This can at least help to unravel the annoying subject of 'do or die' affair and 'electoral violence'. One, the elitists mindset and the idea of 'class in itself'- which is the bedrock of any legislation made for us. Two, the psychological mind frame of religious and ethnocultural defence- which is the problem of the common people. Three, the composition, power and value of the electoral regime- which is de jure factor in who gets what. Four, economic fulfillment, and lastly national security- which affect both the rich and poor and how they fare.

 

The perception of election by the political class is different from the expectations of an ordinary Nigerian because the democracy that hosted election in the first place came at a cost (political mortgage), and also feature party system of 'political office for highest bidder'. The dichotomy therefore, is the reality where politicians employ numerous antics including fascination for policy failures in order that politicians can always stay around and preach 'change' or 'transformation' that will not encapsulate our problems.

 

My position is that Nigerian politicians and the so called administrators are socio-economic individual selves which through politics have stood above an average Nigerian and the collective self of the Nigerian state. The reason is obvious, "different kinds of government do not derive their legitimacy from the people, but rather from the pool of elitist individual wealth which was in the first place stolen from the state and reinvested into the process of retaining governmental powers". (Aderibigbe, 2014)

This is why elections in the past have been characterized with violence and would continue to result into chaos. Certainly, those state actors that invested their money are irrevocable committed to be dogmatic, serious and desperate to win; haven realized that political power is the only possible and viable means through which they can steal, store, display and buy cheap respect in the public realm with the fund meant for the development of the state.

 

Since the process of electoral politics in Nigeria is mostly characterized with interactions that have been schematically calculated by actors that do not expect any outcome other than positive. Politician ensured that programmes that aid peoples' participation, electoral manipulation, and organization of crises, are inherent with the organization of economic life. It can  therefore be deductively summarized that it is inchoate, inconclusive and also an inertia argument to have concluded that the popularity or public support for a political party will determine the success or failure of the party because politicians have game plans that have been segmented into (i) economic deprivation (ii) religious/ethnic divisionism (iii) intimidation (iv) rigging and (v) violence, all erected on 'money politics' which must not fail. So, where is the place of those aromatic mass of our people singing CHANGE or TRANSFORMATION?. I guess another four years in the miasma of deprivation as usual. What a shame!

SAY NO TO THE MURDER OF OUR 12 PATRIOTIC SOLDIERS

SAY NO TO THE MURDER OF OUR 12  PATRIOTIC SOLDIERS

By kay Aderibgbe

 

The Nigerian Army in the last 15 years have taken a leave from televised politics, but cannot be said to have completely divorced itself from Nigerian politics because of some unprofessional happenings that have stained the credibility of the force. Top on the list of the misconducts typical of military elites is financial misappropriation which has culminated into depletion of the nation's arsenal and the erosion of the natural instinct of an ordinary man for joining the Army with the aim of defending the country.

 

To drive home this point, an eight years analysis of budgetary allocations to the Nigerian Army reveals drastic fall in the ammunition stock pile and man power of the Army. While the recent eye opener was the 3.42 trillion Naira consumed by the Army between 2010 and January 2014; whereas, another #968 billion came from 2014 budget, with a yet-to-be approved $1 billion for the same Army. Upon all these, the Army cannon folders (those thrown into the war fronts to fight) were complaining bitterly that they lack in effective fire power to combat insurgency in the North East.

 

Basically, nothing has been said about this issue.  Houses committees on Defence was quiet. No court martial took place and the Minister for Defence was nowhere to be found. In fact, Gen. Azazi, the late NSA asked the question of financial issue before he died. No single high ranking military officer was called to give an account of how they handled their finance or why they could only boast of a replica of expired explosive that detonated itself at Ikeja cantonment in 2002.

 

Professional mistrust and perception of state perfidy came into being when the military rank and file understood that Boko Haram come almost always to the battle field well prepared, seemed to be informed earlier, more sophisticated and gained vantage position. We didn’t hear anything until certain team of officers in the 7 Division base, Maiduguri were dispatched to face the terrorists that had gotten a first-hand information on the movement of the soldiers. The soldiers ran into an ambush at Chibok and majority of them died. Knowing they were ill-equipped before the failed mission, they requested the attention of General Commanding Officer (GOC) who actually came to the base on the 14th of May, 2014 being the day after their colleagues died shamelessly. The man, Major Gen. Abubakar Muhammed ignored them and zoomed off in his car. This apparently confirmed their suspicion which made the angry soldiers shot his car but he escaped unwounded.

 

The very action of the angry soldiers fits into what they say it is - mutiny. Haven being charged under Sec52(1) of the Armed Forces Act Cap A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, we can put it in a lay man language that they (soldiers that shot their GOC's car)  have committed an "offence prejudical to service discipline".

Since the military frowns at such behaviour, it is punishable, and as bloody as civilians that 'we' are also, we repudiate it.

 My argument stems from two angles: One, the decadence of the military institution is stinking and highly condemnable; two, the societal unrest at the moment is in need of the military and we cannot afford to dampen their morale at this critical stage. Looking at the decay in the military hierarchy critically, we should ask (i) what happened to the finance for the soldiers? (ii) who are those leaking information to the terrorists (iii) where did Boko Haram got all those rockets launchers and tanks (iv) why are the Nigerian soldiers not well equipped? (v) what happened to the arsenals in the North, did they sell everything Obasanjo bought with $8 billion in 2003? (vi) why did they replaced the GOC some days later? (vii) why did Brig. Gen. Olukolade denied the mutiny in first place? 

   

The military elites are hiding something from us with the secret and hasty conviction of these soldiers. If not so why didn't the Major Gen. Okonkwo led court martial allowed the boys propagate their case in the light of deprivation and suicide mission they sent them? Why didn't the Army set up court martial for those that embezzled military funds since it is also an offence prejudical to service discipline (ARMY ACT, 2004)

 

The implication of this verdict if carried out will lower the tempo of the spirits of soldiers facing insurgency  in the North. Secondly, the war against terrorism will remain a drain pipe with which our money will be siphoned yearly since the sponsors of Boko Haram are still in secured offices. Thirdly, we should be expecting a bloody coup soon, if not to usurp democratic institution, at least to unseat some old, wicked, pot-bellied high ranking military officers that are feeding on this insurgency; and finally, the military is likely to divide psychologically, because our side seemed to be incapable of winning the war (since the military is trying to cover up internal sabotage).

 

Though, the decision of the court martial is still awaiting the ratification of the Army council headed by the Minister for Defence but we sincerely implore the person of Mr. President, Goodluck Jonathan, to use the fiat of his office to prevail over the wicked Gen. C.C Okonkwo's court martial by employing Section 175 of the 1999 constitution through granting prerogative of mercy to these 12 patriotic soldiers; after all, those that convicted them are the most corrupt elements in the force.

 

Kindly comment "they must not be killed" Write your comment as anonymous if you do not have a google account. Please rebroadcast as we have attached this blog to www.amnesty.org  www.cnn.com www.bbc.com www.aljazera.com www.michaelmoore.com and www.punchng.com in order to make our voice heard. If we speak we can be heard. Thank you.

RE-EXAMINING OUR CYNICISM: THE POST-CONFAB POLITICS

RE-EXAMINING OUR CYNICISM: THE POST-CONFAB POLITICS

By Kay Aderibigbe

 

My cousin wrote on his Facebook wall about how disappointing the 2014 Confab had turned out to be , but someone labelled him a cynic whose camp may fall anytime soon. I culled from the profile of this 'optimist' that he was born in 1962. Apparently, he witnessed all the Confabs in post-colonial Nigeria. He also enjoyed some free education. At the moment, he works in the civil service. He should be able to recount the outcome of his optimism towards misgovernance in this part of the world because he had a better experience of militarization of politics than anybody in our 'generation of cynics'.

 

Not more than three days later, I met some men who are of the same age grade with the man just described and their response on how the Confab had fared was invariant. If these early Nigerians are 'normal people' how come did Nelson Mandela said "Nigeria is made up of people who are naturally comfortable with poverty since they tolerated irresponsible regimes beyond common sense"?

 

It is against this backdrop that we have opted to juxtapose the recommendations of the conference with the realities of our society, because John Plamenatz opined  that "every thinker, even the most abstract is deeply influenced by the circumstance of his day"

 

With an estimated crunchy official amount of #7bn, a total of 492 persons were contracted to discuss issues relating to the state of the nation (excluding the concept of Nigerianity). A distillate of apolitical and seasonal politicians that made up the delegates gave us some interesting an unconventional 'dramas'. The participatory Nigerian public were keen at the mood with which some salient topical issues were  being propagated albeit the much-touted ratification that is expected through the National Assembly, if it will ever happen.

 

Some monumental failures can be identified from the just concluded talk-show. To mention a few, the delegates did not deem it fit to nip in the bud the menace of insecurity with the platform given to them (since it is a rare opportunity). Secondly, they did not see anything wrong with the politics of budget that wouldn't materialize at every January, as such, legitimizing the delay tactics that characterizes a previous year budget running into non-implementation with the current year. Thirdly, majority of their thoughts/decisions were clouded by ethnic sentiments and chauvinism. Finally, they failed at prescribing a plausible panacea for our ailing democracy because their sense of commitment to Nigerian nationhood had been eroded by political patronage.

 

Political talk show over the years is a symbolism of non-agreeable consensus. While the problem created  by this very one is that it has divided more sharply that strata, which existed between North and South because the nucleus of its operation had degenerated into political chaos and consequently, given the room to downplay its significance by the National Assembly. Why then have we spent so much money on disagreement over what we knew have political error? The time, purpose and dramatis personae are error-based, period!

 

Scientific examinations of past political conferences have led us to the conclusion that government in most cases resort to Confab as a means to pacifying  the public. Political actors would rather disregard the findings and recommendations made because it is always invasive of their plutocratic personalities. Even, at that, we were earnestly awaiting a situation where the delegates would pin point a particular social issue (at least from the myriad available).

 

The request by Mr. President that National Assembly should approve a loan of #1bn in order to fight terrorism is an indication that the highly priced delegates do not even understand what is meant by Boko Haram and the piper, which dictated their tune never attempted to unravel the concept.

 

Meanwhile, a sum of #968bn, an amount representing 20% of the 2014 budget was earmarked for defense just on the 23rd of May this year. If I am permitted to quote the President “how do you fight what you do not see?” This symbolizes that the intricacies of security challenges at the moment is incomprehensible to the number one citizen.

In a plane language, Confab could not see Boko Haram despite its ubiquity in the North East. Then, what have they seen? More states to be created I presume. I sincerely wish the president and his cohorts will use the loan in the right way. Let the truth be told; if we continue as a state, to take with levity or politicize insecurity challenges, what we will get in return is the demonization of the minds of minors and teenage girls who now blow up themselves as instrument of terrorism.

 

The minister of information and those that are versed in the art of falsifying societal realities are yet to come out and deny that those kidnapped Chibok girls are not the same kids bombing themselves as suicide agents. Since the state is aware of the deep-seated hatred in the minds of perpetrators of terrorism in Nigeria today I don't think any amount is too much to drive the country out of madness, but the sincerity of purpose and seriousness of government towards our social contract are the factor that matter to me.

 

I will eschew the trend of our cynicism for the time being and pray that the Almighty God sow discord in the midst of those that are behind Boko Haram so that we can breathe peace in Nigeria, (Amen).

SOCIETAL MORALITY AND IMPEACHMENT

SOCIETAL MORALITY AND IMPEACHMENT

By Kay Aderibigbe

Our first experience of impeachment happened on the 21st of May 1962, when the house passed a vote of  no confidence on the Premier, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola, then, Sir, Adesoji Aderemi, the Governor, through Sec33(10) of the constitution of Western Nigeria , set out in the first schedule to the Nigerian constitution Order in Council 1960, removed the  Premier while Mr. Adegbenro Soroye was made the premier.

 

Consequent upon this was the declaration of state of emergency by the Federal Government four days later due to a burlesque presentation of party events in the National Assembly complex in Lagos. Anti-party activities and party perfidy was the dynamo that triggered the impeachment  of Akintola, but a higher political party invasion suspended the Government of Western Region and brought back Akintola after six months of emergency rule.

 

Impeachment was utterly employed as a political weapon when Mr. Balarabe Musa of People's Redemption Party found himself in an Assembly dominated by National Party of Nigeria, a Federal Government party. Balarabe was impeached on June 23, 1981 as a result of 'majoritarian politics"

 

Nigeria's fifteen years of democratic experience has featured impeachment of six Governors, i.e, Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo) Alamieyeseigha (Bayalsa) Ayo Fayose (Ekiti) Joshua Dariye (Plateau) Peter Obi (Anambra) Muratala Nyako (Adamawa) being the latest. An objective analysis of events in the light of above cases would better be done through utility of politics.

 

The issue of political weapon comes into play when the affected Governor was 'victimized' on the ground of minority posture of his party in the scheme of things. This is always the voice/tone of politicians that were defeated; while those that win term it a fight for the state and the triumph of democratic tenets.

 

Why is impeachment possible in a democracy? The simple answer is to erect separation of powers as espoused by Baron de Montesquieu (1689- 1755). Chapter 1v, part 11, section 188(1)-(10) of the 1999 constitution, stated in clear language how a state Governor/Deputy can be removed from office. Political analysts are unable to agree whether the concept of 'gross misconduct' should fall within the purview of the legislature or the judiciary.

 

'Gross misconduct' according to 1999 constitution means a grave violation or breach  of the provisions of this constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion  in the House of Assembly  to gross misconduct'.

 

An epistemological appraisal of the concept of impeachment do not afford  open- jacket definition to those who perceive it as a weapon either. This is because there is embedded slim checks between the House, judiciary and an independent body of investigators that are meant to prove/probe the allegation(s). For instance, the 2006 maladroit impeachment of Ladoja in Oyo state was revoked by two different courts despite the political strength of those that wrestled with the Governor, and moreover, everyone involved smell the pure travesty of parliamentary politics perpetrated.

 

There are two sides to an impeachment of a state Governor. One, the legislators that removed a Governor from office must have perceived a state perfidy/corrupt practices on the part of the executive. In the second place, the political camp where those 2/3 belong must be safe, strong and adhesive of the consequential effects (politically). In my opinion, there is always a 'democracy of the minds' of politicians that enables them (legislature and executive)  to function in unity  either against or for the society that elected them.

 

In Nigeria, purveyors of divesting macabre (politicians) would see impeachment from one angle, but a policy analyst will always look at it from different dimensions. Adamawa state Assembly had worked with Nyako for seven years. They even passed a vote of confidence in him last year October. How come did they plotted against him now? Many will attribute the move to partisan differences, yes it is true! Do we ask why they prevailed? What happened to the #6bn he couldn't account for? Why did he refused to defend himself even, when the seven-man committee set up by the court were advertising that he should come?

 

The fault lies with the constitution. It makes public accountability difficult since there is absence of  'constituency surgery' - calling representatives to explain how they spent their constituency allowance over every 2 years. Since majority of our people are illiterates they cannot even deploy a 'recall'. Thereby leaving law makers to assume they are veritable mountains.

Whoever is swept away by the flood of impeachment should not be politicized because politicians are heretics of their own concept. After all, every Assembly and Governor are party to any sort of embezzlement of public fund. We should long for the democratization of life instead of crying a river over politicians who hide under party sympathy to defraud their people.

 

THE MOST DRAMATIC CONFERENCE EVER

THE MOST DRAMATIC CONFERENCE EVER

By Kay Aderibigbe

 

The assertion that 'Nigeria as a state only enjoys an abstract existence' according to Oyovbaire Sam, seems so quite incredible, but socio-political occurrences over the years have lent credence to that fact.

For a variety of reasons Nigerian politicians, who have also paraded themselves as administrators have displayed embarrassing and unintelligent wits in their resolve to addressing societal problems, yet, they remained impenitent through the course of their inglorious actions.

 

We have been following keenly, decisions of the National Conference since the division of the delegates into twenty specialized committees to study different issues with fundamental errors.  Among which are devolution of powers; cost of governance; structure of government and the entire outlook of the 1999 constitution.

 

Meanwhile, the delegates started out with the normal sickness of 'consensus'. Following that was the problem of adopting the agreed threshold, i.e. 70% to arriving at a popular consensus on any concluded issue. For instance, matters such as state police; rotational presidency; adoption of six geo-political zones; eradication of 774 LGAs from the constitution; resource control and indegene/settler have been criticized by a section of the conference.

 

Consequently, the opposing team within the conference who demanded that there ought to be a reversal of almost all the initially agreed upon issue is made up of delegates from the North East and North Central. They canvassed for the adoption of what they termed personality vote or head count, as against voice vote.

 

Prior to the emergence of the mushroom committees on all these so called 'national issues' there was created within the conference, a group of political figures representing each geo-political zones, saddled with the responsibility of harnessing divergent opinions into a concrete whole; in order to promote a less-rowdy plenary session. They call these people consensus bridge-building group, but I call them the ‘political silencer’.

For record purpose: Chief Dokpesi, Edwin Clark, Gen Ike Nwachukwu, Prof Ibarahim Gambari, Prof Jerry Gana, Ibrahim Comassie, Prof Anwalu Yadudu, Olu Falae and eleven others formed the group.

 

Majority of the delegates approve of this group and they are quite aware of its functions. In the same vein, they all agreed that the cost of governance was too high and should be drastically cut down. Prompting for example, the recommendation that ministers should be reduced to eighteen (18) instead of the abnormal (36*2). On the contrary, the same conference deemed it fit to increase number of federating states in Nigeria to 54.

 

Little wonder they clamoured for state police and resource control. The implication of more state creation will not only plunge the country into financial  chaos, but economic stagnation. This is because the whole idea of cost of administration reduction is at variance with federal character principle. Those daft delegates that refused, neglected, failed or forgot to pluck out the root of administrative and political laxity (federal character) from the system will only succeed at making the economically non-viable states regress the more.

 

To make a mess of the whole morass, we should be expecting 108 ministers, because only Nigerian government appoints a minister for state; 54 commissioners of partisan police; 166 senators and as many as possible representatives. The synthesis will therefore be, more militia in the South, more Boko Haram in the North, more kidnappers in the East, since the real issue of economic failure, energy, education, value of naira, unemployment and misplaced socio-cultural values are left unaddressed.

 

I am really sorry that the same old people, like I told us in my previous article on national conference, who have presented a somewhat insuperable posture of Nigeria's situation are still commissioned with tax payers' money to blow the dust out of our eyes. Alas!