Friday, 16 May 2014

THE POLITICS OF INSECURITY AND POLITICAL SECURITY






THE POLITICS OF INSECURITY AND POLITICAL SECURITY
By Kay Aderibigbe


The level of security in Nigeria, especially, in the North East today is in a total state of gamble because over a period of time now the Nigerian state cannot comprehend the sadistic and heinous intent behind the unreasonable maiming and bombing of innocent Nigerians, even, in sacred places like churches and mosques. Invariably, we cannot pin point categorically, if the aim of the terrorists is to Islamize the country; or to destabilize the dispensation of Jonathan as espoused by some; or to just put an end to the continuity of Nigeria as one united country.

Politics of insecurity encompasses all the antics, plots, neglects and dramas that were schemed by the federal government and those Northern Governors who are privy to classified information in order that the spate of violence and barbaric acts that constituted security threats would seemed more or less of a natural disaster that needed time and resources to be apprehended. Whereas, the refraction of events point directly to cluster of intentional dispositions calculated at disguising the true colour of political stake holders.

One of such methods revolves around the budgetary allocation for security. The fund, over time has remain unused, unaccounted for, untraceable and to a large extent indefinitely starched in the pockets of those that are always directly credited through the Federation Account (Mr. president, State Governors, Reps and Senators). Whosoever speak about such misappropriation is rather ignored or taken aback; that was why I referred us to a question asked on the death of Andrew Owoye Azazi, the former NSA in my last article.

Another dimension of politics of insecurity is also the issue of negligence on the part of federal government. A political approach at handling terrorism by Jonathan's government simply proved so naive, inefficient and not targeted at the problem itself but some individuals that could likely be paraded as enemies of the state. This did not only gave the insurgents free hand to operate but enough ground to metamorphose and spread their tentacles until they attracted international attention.

Also part of the politics of insecurity played by all the parties involved in taking custody of safety and wellbeing of our people in this country is the problem of political disagreement and non-respecter of opposition’s view. According to

Borno State Governor, Kashim Shettima, he puts forward that “the fact in all these things is that, three years ago, I was repeatedly telling them that before long, that this is not a minor problem, that if it is not handled with tact and care, it is capable of metamorphosing into a conflagration that might consume the whole north. But the Federal Government was deaf, dumb and blind to the reality….

A part of this problem was the military redtapism in Borno state that resulted in the death of some soldiers ; they protested the death of their colleagues and they are now termed ‘mutineers’ . As such, social commentators and even, certain section of the military rank and file believed in the indulgence of Boko Haram by the Nigerian Military. What an irony, the night watch dinning with the robbers! In fact, there is even a case of protracted accusations and counter accusations now that some elites believed that negotiation would do more to bring back the girls despite that foreign allies are bent on a non-negotiating method.

A general overview of my assessment of how insecurity situation has been politicized stems from the fact that federal government has failed woefully in its initial efforts at curbing the activities of terrorists by imposing a haphazard or half-hearted state of emergency in three North Eastern states i.e. Borno, Adamawa and Yobe. This was probably because: one, Jonathan doesn't want to be castigated for suspending a democratic institution; two, he wanted badly the support of North East in 2015; and lastly, he does not want to call for too much money from the already coveted security vote. According to section 305(3)(d) of the 1999 constitution, it was stated clearly, that, the president shall have power to issue a proclamation of state of emergency when:

(d) there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.

The situation in those places, even, in Abuja, fits so acutely into the definition above because people die randomly at any moment while the government plays politics.

Federal government is at it again. The National Assembly have given thumbs up to emergency rule in the affected states to continue for the next six months. Here are the implications: one, the security situation remains the same because only a full-blown emergency rule will charge military to the core; two, the affected states elites would feel marginalized in their mental faculties because the state of democratic rejuvenation will be porous (elections may probably not hold); three, the mere fact that the Governors under emergency rule are circumstantially incapacitated, they will not and never be accountable; four, there will be a conflict of command structure between the military oligarchy and the elected regime just like it is happening in Borno now; five, we may face the possibility of suspense of political terror because more sabotage would ensue from elites that have nothing at stake in 2015. We must not forget according to Obahiagbon, “2015 is the 'fronset origo' of the crises befalling the Nigerian state since 2011”.

To be continued.........

Friday, 9 May 2014

FEDERAL GOVT AND BOKO HARAM : a tale of chai dia is God o o o o


FEDERAL GOVT AND BOKO HARAM : a tale of chai dia is God o o o o
By Kay Aderibigbe


I might have seemed silent over time about the menace of Boko Haram, but the case, in reality, is more complex than it appears on the news. As complex as the Nigerian society is, Boko Haram or any sectarian organization cannot operate itch-free without the understanding or backing of the political god fathers of the domain in question; as such, i decided to wait and look thoroughly, through the socio-political whirlpool of the Nigerian state and its environs so that we wouldn't be making misjudgment from misinformation and invariably, avoiding misconception.

The issue of Boko Haram has practically transmogrified into a nightmare which the whole of Nigerian society now panic before they go to bed because even, the government and its security apparatus are at loss as to the capacity of the intending peril and ferociousness of the devilish sect.

I have four basic perspectives through which i would like to make an objective analysis of the concept of Boko Haram: (1) a body of people that became angry at the Nigerian government and took up arms because of their impoverished nature and the outright denial of their rights to attaining social consciousness (extremists Almajiris) (2) a body of people employed by some vexing elements in the North all to destabilize Jonathan's administration because of their own sinking oligarchy (3) a body of people though, employed by politicians but gained consciousness and as such bent on making a mess of the polity that produced inhumane humanity (4) a body of people recruited by external force for the purpose of fomenting internal trouble so as to force world powers involvement in peace keeping to prompting sharing of our country as protectorates torn by war(s) (USA and allies)

There are lots of activities that informed such predictions as stated above, but the intertwined nature of events leading to the aimless, undefined and unguided combustion of violent behaviour of Boko Haram are accountable for multi-facet approach adopted by this blog.

Boko Haram at inception was mainly an Okada-operated banditry restricted
to Borno state under Muhammed Yusuf, who was murdered by the then police commissioner of that state. The International Human Rights Court ruled that his family be compensated and the group be disbanded. Federal government did not pay attention but was busy politicking as usual. We now have a group of people with high taste for day-light bombing of religious and non-religious oriented people. The sophistry at which they perpetrate violence is such that is identical of the Middle East Islamist extremist who now flags branches in places where government is highly irresponsible and soak people in poverty.

Where were all those people that are shouting 'eradicate Boko Haram' when the sect was operating on a farm land in Borno township? Where was the madam that shed crocodile tears on the case of missing school girls of Chibok when twenty (25) girls was taken at Kwandaga? Where was Asari Dokubo when the Madala bomb blast took place in December 25, 2011? Why didn't anyone call it propaganda then? How come are the Americans coming now and not at the time the United Nations building was bombed in Abuja? Why did the federal government kicked out Gen. Owoye Azazi, the former national security adviser and suddenly the man lost his life when he asked questions about unused budgetary security votes that has been on meteoric increase since 2010?

Whatever the conspiracy is in reality or imagination, the Nigerian state simply made a fertile ground for the planting of evil seed like that of Boko Haram because a long term state neglect of those jobless, half-thinking, religiously-drunk human beings coupled with poverty would actually lend credence to the development of insurgence. Moreover, if we look around the world today, the Middle East, with high concentrate of Militia activities is relatively poor compared to the West and they spread such ideas easily, to places where poverty has disarticulated the lives of people e.g Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, Tanzania and etc.

The matter has gone beyond chai dia is God o o , or a situation where an imbecile president will be wearing bow hat all about telling us that it is all but propaganda. Nigeria as a country must stand up and address reality because this is neither a speculation nor myth. Be it local, state or federal government, employment and alleviation of poverty must be prioritized. Security of livelihood comes first before any other thing. Governance means nothing when the people are hungry, homeless, hopeless and lack in other basic necessities of life; this is because the war against terrorism is more than war against those that carry arm, but also war against the pool of human resource from which they recruit fanatics. In as much as there continue to be a wider gap between the rich and the poor to the extent that poverty gets to the extreme, the erosion of insurgency will sweep our courage and probably split the country at a particular point of frustration.

To be continued .........

Saturday, 3 May 2014

NATIONAL CONFERENCE : THE USUAL ROAD TO OBLIVION


NATIONAL CONFERENCE : THE USUAL ROAD TO OBLIVION 
By Kay Aderibigbe


Retired justice kutigi, chairman of the on-going constitutional conference made a public announcement a week ago that there had been created twenty one standing committees within the 492-member 'sleeping conference' to oversee and discuss special or technical topics.

Like i suggested earlier on, sleeping time, recesses and waste of time on matters that do not have direct implication on the convocation of the conference had grotesquely shifted certain values out of place. As a result, delegates have been rewarded with six (6) more weeks to sleep, make more money, jump into parties, discuss and dilly-dally on what is crystal clear to an average man on the street that leadership and negative humanities is the bane of the Nigerian state.

Political juggernauts that formed a chunk of the on-going conference took part in 1995 Abacha's conference and 2005 Obasanjo's confab. Alas, they produced a replica of institutional political fashions as found in 1979 second republic constitution and that of political bureau of 1987. At the end of the day, they wasted time, energy, money and most painful of all, they dashed the hope of our people like they always do.

Jonathan, like other inward-looking head of states/presidents that had ruled Nigeria was quick at reading in-between the lines by employing the services of those that could put lies and false hopes together amidst unstable and uncertain political atmosphere all to retain power and popularity. This is because all the antics and sudden change of mind by Jonathan to jump-start an unplanned conference is to blindfold Nigerians into sympathy votes for his government in 2015.

A veritable pointer to the unwillingness and missionlessness of the conference was, for example, the disagreement among the committee members on Power Devolution whether or not to include 'mines, mineral resources, revenue and geological survey ' in the concurrent legislative list or exclusive legislative list. If those in such committee are interested in the well-being of the country it is expected of them to make constituent states enjoy at least a considerable degree of control over some selected natural endowments so as to trigger inter-state socio-economic competition. It is only in such situation that state-centred, as against nation-centred federalism can grow viz the remittance of accruable taxes to the federal government. This will reduce the yoke of economic burden carried by federal government; take care of unemployment; and reduce to the barest minimum, ethnic chauvinism as a result of economic comparative advantage.

Instead of resorting to the aforementioned obvious socio-political salvation that could rescue us from perennial failure, political brokers relish in making money and lounge about at the expense of clueless leadership and helpless citizens. Since the conference, based on its composition, convocation and abstract intent, has toed the foot path of previous failed talk-shows in the country, it is then not out of place to suggest that the present national conference with the enormous finance committed to it is likely to fail woefully.

To be continued ........



 

Friday, 18 April 2014

THE TWISTS IN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE



THE TWISTS IN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE 
By Kay Aderibigbe


The idea of national conference is somehow becoming a riddle wrapped in an enigma in the recent time. Probably because of the enormity of defunct congressional outcomes (1987 political bureau's report, 1995 draft constitution, 2005 confab report) given to the delegates to study or non-directive nature of the conference which is symptomatic of the non-committal approach of the delegates. Many diversionary activities have taken place with the intention of dividing and remaking that very focal point(s) within the conference though, there is a non-debatable clause of the oneness and federal fossilization of the Nigerian state.

The North, surreptitiously, are invoking a common front just as we have always had in the past conferences, but lacking in popularity this time, may be due to a 'card method' of appointment adopted by Mr. President, the nominator of majority of the delegates. Political brokers are of the view that the duration of the conference should be elongated beyond the projected three months so that they can make more money. At a point, delegates became disinterested because of the disappointment they experienced as regards their sitting allowance. Such was the national skepticism and negligence when majority of the delegates left the conference to attend Mr. Jonathan's daughter's wedding; it paid off anyways, because according to the rumour being brandish in all over the social media 'they got gold plated i-phone as presents'.

National conference as per performance and excellence is far removed from reality because we don't know if the same set of people that have been politicking since Second republic will be so considerate to propel Nigeria into Millennium Development Goal out of many national goals that have amputated our society from the league of commonsensical nations and nation-states.

Just to remind us of the positivity and objectiveness of this blog. I would as a matter of sincerity and pragmatism opine that the conference should save itself from indefinite assignments by streamlining its focus to few national problems such as insecurity, unemployment, power supply, education, true democracy etc. This is simply because Nigerians are not interested in the volume of documents produced, but positive practical implications of the outcome of the conference on our lives; not a replica of the adulterated re-based GDP as espoused by Okonjo Iweala and co.

To be continued .........



Thursday, 27 March 2014

WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2014



WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2014
By Kay Aderibigbe
 


The so much touted national conference was inaugurated on the 17th of March, 2014 and some hours after the first sitting they decided to recede and converge some seven days later when the chairman, a learned former chief justice, greeted the delegates with 'asalam alikum waramotulah wabarakat' in a supposedly secular arrangement.

A production of house rules and manners of proceedings brought them together only to recess again simply because they could not agree on whether a delegate is to be referred to as 'he' or 'she' and most annoying is the consensus on voting system, whether 2/3 or simple majority.

Since my blog is all about positive politics, i will at every moment present a scientific analysis of events as it unfold within the congers' conference of Nigerian state.
This is due to a number of reasons. One, any argument that tend to tilt towards religion, race, sex, class and cultural beliefs would seem bias, value-laden and impressionistic. Two, we need not be a thorough-going consequentialist before we dispel the question of 'Nigerianity as a state'. Lastly, any reasonable modern nation or nation-state crave for and relish 'imperatives of state' as put forward by Crawford Young, i.e security, hegemony, authority, autonomy and economy.

In as much as we opted not be bias or question 'Nigerianity' as a no-go-area, what is left for any right thinking policy analyst is to assess the motive of the conference whether it stresses such values as the authoritative allocation of resources for the attainment of strong imperatives of state.

On the conference so far, i will put forward three questions and make three cases for and against the talk show. What is the justification for the twelve million given to each delegate when the national minimum wage is a paltry #18,000?. Two, what are the criteria for the selection of these highly priced delegates? What are the types and contents of issues these delegates are going to be talking about?

The enormity of the financial largess attached to the conference speaks volume of non-accountability and recklessness on the part of the government. Little wonder did some inordinate delegates asked that their aides be paid also. The issue of selection of representatives negates democracy as being shouted at the roof top by this administration. Many delegates have been spotted sleeping heavily while some deliberately absconded. In fact, a delegate, appointed to represent the civil society, Mamoud Aminu, moved that the media should be restricted on the coverage of the conference. What a state of hopelessness for the Nigerian civil society!

Dr. Aliku Ndabawa, Assistant Secretary on proceedings of the conference slumped on Sunday and report had it that he was flown to Dubai for treatment. Isn't this alone, an enough pointer to the fact that the quality and nature of issues to be discussed should revolved around how the Nigerian state can actually cater for its people be it poor or rich.

To be continued .........


Tuesday, 4 March 2014

National dialogue or National conference



'National dialogue' or 'national conference', the nomenclature is not the real deal but the reason(s) for the talk show and the outcome of such endeavour, whether it shall be positively telling on the lives of the people or it will continue to divide the society along the irreconcilable lines of poverty and extreme wealth on the part of the two main publics that made up the Nigerian state.

The Nigerian state is insincere to the ideals it stands to represent, and as such been found guilty of the same suspicion that had in the past retarded the growth of regional politics (era before 12 states) and the period after the creation of 36 states.
Such insincerity is visible on the timing, convocation and table of contents of the issues that are deemed discussable in the national dialogue.
There ought not to be a case of no-go-area if the Nigerian state is aware and sensitive to the sociological particularism of the society at large.
In fact, those areas we were told to eschew are supposed to be the starting point of our discussion if we are truly going to live in a Nigeria that would be free of political hatred, suspicion, greed, selfishness and continuous animosity within the federating units.

As for now what are we talking about? Who are those appointed to talk? Are they talking about the real issue(s)? What are the motives behind the talk show? Is this talk convention different from what we have had in the past? We shall shed more light on these questions when the talk show actually begins.