To our girls on the Girl Child Day

It is the Day of the Girl Child
So we celebrate the girl today
Yet the girl is that special a child
Whom we should celebrate everyday

That’s how I celebrate mine
I celebrate them everyday
One, two, three I sired over time
Utibe, Eme and Ama I celebrate each day

They call me Dad and I love them much
They bring me laughter, joy and anxiety
Being their father is privilege so much
Bestowed on me by Father Almighty

Therefore the debt I owe God and them
Is give the girls the care they need
To sacrifice as much I can for them
And protect my daughters, nay all girls indeed

(Written on Sunday October 11, 2015)

Some Days Like Today in Lagos

Some days like today in Lagos
You get angry, exhausted and angry again
Angry that you own a car
Angry that you drive a car
Angry that you are driven in a car
Because the traffic just won't move

So you look at the pedestrian with envy
Yes, that same pedestrian
The one you look down on always
Has suddenly been crowned the king
Some days like today in Lagos
The pedestrian is king on the road

Yet some days like today in Lagos
Even the pedestrian dreads this day
The pedestrian dreads the rain and muddy puddles
Nay the muddy puddles but the drivers
Who run over the puddles with abandon
And paint the pedestrian with dirt

So the pedestrian is no king after all
On some days like today in Lagos
Maybe I am the king after all
As I watch the confusion from my hotel room
The confusion on Lagos road dehumanises
They struggle, they shout and they scream

Some days like today in Lagos

You stay and watch and wonder
Same way we watch and laugh and wonder
Wonder at the confusion in the parliament.
Yea! Some days are like today in Lagos
Oh what a day it is to be in Lagos

Why our Hafsat?

So I found myself crying uncontrollably this morning. The last time I remember doing so was on Father’s Day last year. But that was for a happy reason, when my two younger daughters held my hands and prayed for me, deep from their hearts. I appreciated it more than any material gift. Not so, today. Today, when I cried, it was for unsuspected and sad news. And this time again, my cry made my last daughter cry too when I told them who had died.

Ha! It cannot be Hafsat na. It shouldn’t have been. I mean Hafsat was all excited and happy to go for this medical mission, to serve. And we were looking forward to her returning to continue with her passion for social justice.

I remember our last meeting in August. Some of us Ford Foundation Fellowship alumni have been trying to reconnect after about two years of lull in activities. August 15 was a good opportunity, being a Saturday and the birthday of two of us (Austin Aigbe and me). So we called out as many within Abuja to come sit out over drink and have informal, face-to-face chat, away from the social media. We had recently created a whatsapp group to talk about our collective passion – social justice.
As I was driving close to the Maitama Amusement Park, venue of the meet ‘n’ greet, Hafsat called to say she was already there and ask why everyone hadn’t turned up yet. It was just about 11:05am and the event was fixed for 11:00am. And I was three minutes away from the place and I told her so. I took my my wife and children along so they can visit the amusement park while I met with my fellow Ford alumni. When Hafsat met my family, she was so friendly and they liked her instantly. I had often mixed up the name, sometimes saying Hasfat rather than Hafsat. It was a good opportunity to ask her the correct name and she gave me a very easy answer as the “half of a Saturday”. That stuck!
By the time we had our sit out with the few other alumni that turned up, we talked about the past and future of our group and the tasks we need to take up about social justice. We strategized who was going to do what. We agreed to re-energise the alumni association and a few days later, the alumni president appointed Hafsat, me and another to run the elections. That was when Hafsat told us she’s going to be away for some weeks and so would not be available for the assignment.
She was to tell us later that she finally made it as member of the medical team to accompany the pilgrims to this year’s hajj. The interesting thing though was when she said that she had for the past 10 years been applying for this opportunity and never got it. And she believed there was the usual ‘Nigerian factor’ as to why she never made it, but this year she was selected, just like that.

When I heard of the 700 who died in the stampede in Mecca yesterday, I was concerned but truly Hafsat never crossed my mind. Why would such a thought have arisen anyway? This morning, I got the bad news that some Nigerians, including journalist and civil society activist, Bilkisu Yusuf died in the incident. That was shocking enough. Later when I checked up discussions on the Ford Fellowship Alumni whatsapp group, the worst news hit home. We had lost our comrade, Hafsat Shittu, in the stampede. This is quite painful, I dont’ know what else to say.

Saraki, Ayade, legality and due process

Two interesting developing stories in the past week have thrown up the issues of legality and due process. Both involve high-ranking government officials. Senate President, Bukola Saraki, suddenly found himself struggling to extricate from allegation of breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. Elsewhere, the Cross River State Governor, Ben Ayade, was brought down from his high horse with the decision of President Muhammadu Buhari to shelve the invitation from Ayade to flag off the construction of two mega projects, citing failure to follow some conditions precedent to the commencement of such project.

In recent weeks, I had asked the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to put its acts together and give effect to the Code of Conduct for Public Officers by investigating and prosecuting breaches of the Code. I made the point that the main reason we still had the abuses is because the CCB had failed to take advantage of the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). As if acting on the suggestion, the CCB came up last week with the release of information to prosecute one big fish, president of the Senate.

Interestingly, Saraki’s alleged breaches occurred severally when he was governor of Kwara State (1999-2007) and during his earlier terms as senator. Many have queried why it took the CCB that long to act, therefore suggesting ulterior motives or political witch-hunt. There is a suggestion that Saraki’s travails come from the presidency. I have never been enamoured with such arguments, unless they go to address the real issues thrown up. Besides, there is no time limit to prosecute an alleged crime as this.
Last Thursday, however, Saraki did what many powerful citizens try to do in the face of prosecutions like this. He ran to the court to stop the proceedings. The argument is simply that he cannot be prosecuted because there is no occupier of the office of Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) who is the person authorised by law to commence any criminal prosecution. That makes sound sense. I had stressed that fact when I recently wrote about the failure of the president to appoint ministers, for which the AGF is one. Interestingly, the Senate, which Saraki presides over, is still the one to approve the list of ministers when the president eventually sends it.

In attempting to stop his prosecution, Saraki approached the Federal High Court by an ex parte application. Ex parte, by the way, means a case against a party without informing the party about it. In other words, this was done surreptitiously. But the judge directed them to come back on Monday, with notification to the CCB and CCT to also appear before his court to present arguments for or against Saraki’s application.

This is curious. Shouldn’t Saraki have appeared before the CCT, even if it meant entering a conditional appearance and then raise this fine argument? This is because the CCT is a specialised court with coordinate jurisdiction to a high court. With Saraki’s suit, it would suggest that the high court has supervisory powers over the CCT and this is not so. While we wait to see how this pans out, the one thing we would not want to see is the failure to consider and discharge these charges on their merit. The question still remains, is Senator Saraki in breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers; and if he is, what should be the consequences?

For Governor Ayade, I had raised some concerns about his exuberance at governance right from his inaugural speech. On his inauguration on May 29, 2015, Ayade announced that he was a big dreamer and mentioned two projects as his ‘signature projects’. These are the ‘super highway’ meant to run from Calabar to Obudu, connecting the renowned Obudu Mountain Resort, and a ‘second seaport’ in the state. Those are two gigantic dreams, but they raised a lot of questions which I asked at different times and platforms.

Was Ayade talking about an entirely new road, different from the federal highway that already connects the entire state but which has been in terrible state? What if the state focused on repairing or expanding the current federal road? Given that there is an existing federal seaport in Calabar which is under-utilised, where was the second seaport to be located and what additional advantage would it bring?

My greater concern with Ayade’s dream is the seeming lack of tangible, popularly-agreed and known implementation plan. Despite this, he has been quick to announce the flag-off of the projects. He first claimed that the sites and designs for both projects were ready and all he needed was a date from President Buhari to visit the state to flag off construction. I wondered why the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not in place, more so when the governor is an expert in environmental issues. Have the local communities in the project sites been mobilised? I equally asked where the funding would come from since the 2015 budget of the state did not provide for those projects. In fact, at the time Ayade was talking about this, the House of Assembly had not been inaugurated. Later, there was this media report where Ayade claimed he was now running the state with his personal funds. Whatever that meant, it was apparent that Ayade was on a solo run with his dreams.

While I kept asking those questions, I kept hearing many citizens say the governor means well and knows what he wants and should be allowed to just do it. Today, the presidency has raised issues about the same EIA and we hope it helps remind the governor that there are basic due processes to be followed in transferring dreams to reality.
http://www.thenicheng.com/saraki-ayade-legality-and-due-process/

Getting giddy about the corruption war

Obviously, the anti-corruption stance of President Muhammadu Buhari is catching some fire among many citizens. Suddenly, many Nigerians are getting interested in an all-out war against corruption and are offering their open support and suggestions on how best the government should go about it. The joke is that, ‘Now, stealing is corruption’. It is an apparent attempt to throw a punch at immediate past president, Goodluck Jonathan, who notoriously asserted that ‘stealing is different from corruption’.

During the week, I listened to the publicity secretary of the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, speak on a radio programme called ‘Buharimetre’ where he stressed that by all means, the new government should go after all the looters of our common wealth and get them punished as appropriate. He was quick to add, though, that the president seemed to be using the corruption fight as witch-hunt of political the opposition. So, apparently, there is a common ground between the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the party it dislodged from government.

The above calls for cooperation of all to ensuring that, even if we cannot kill corruption, we can, at least, give it a near-fatal blow. The greatest boost so far to Nigeria’s fresh onslaught on corruption has come from the Labour movement and this happened during the week. In syndicated rallies across major Nigerian cities, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) affirmed their support to the Buhari administration to attack corruption. In the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the groups marched to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in solidarity. Apparently concerned about the seeming failure of the prosecuting agencies to achieve so many convictions, NLC leader, Ayuba Wabba, said of the EFCC: “They should not only bark, but they should be seen to be biting.” They later went to the National Assembly Complex to register their demand for the federal legislators to act fast against corruption.

I am all excited about this trend and I truly hope we can sustain this tempo and get it right this time. But I am also concerned that we don’t get too giddy about this anti-corruption war. My concern stems from the open declaration of the Labour movements for the death penalty for those who loot the common wealth. It wasn’t a one-off thing. Everywhere the rally went to, the same sentiment was echoed by the workers and perhaps other citizens who joined them. Now there is a problem here that is akin to mob action and jungle justice.

It is understandable that a people whose rights have been thoroughly abused and their common wealth despoiled, any opportunity to get back at the perpetrators would be done with much vengeance. Many people are therefore hot-headed and blood-thirsty. That is what happens when we get very emotional. I recall the discussions that characterised the Ibrahim Babangida Political Bureau in 1986 when they went around requesting information on the nature of government best suitable for Nigeria and when. I recall how many citizens, angry at how the civilian government had messed up the country, suggested we should continue with military rule for at least 50 years.

I am still trying to understand what the Labour group means by death penalty for corruption. Pray what nature of corruption are we talking about here? My suspicion is that we are so focused on ‘other people’s corruption’ and are quick to throw the stone that we fail to see our own corruption. Interestingly, within the same week, President Buhari, speaking through Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, accused civil servants (who belong to the Labour movement) of corruption and inefficiency. Are those corrupt and inefficient civil servants going to be sent to the gallows, based on this suggestion of Wabba?

Maybe the proponents of death penalty for corruption should go further to start the differentiation and classification of corruption. What is the evidence anyway that death penalty is enough deterrence against crime, especially corruption. This explains why there is global trend against the death penalty. Tackling corruption requires much more work at different levels. This includes information, reorientation, prevention and punishment. The punishment need not be death. Let the work of identifying, investigating, prosecuting and jailing the corrupt begin and let the Labour fix its house by urging its members to act according to law, rather than get giddy about who should face the death sentence.

http://www.thenicheng.com/getting-giddy-about-the-corruption-war/

Buhari's 100 days in office: Change sans the speed of light

So now it is 100 days of the Muhammadu Buhari Presidency, and there is so much ado about it, almost like it is the time to carry out the first in a series of continuous assessment tests. The man has all of 1,461 days of his four-year term. So what is so fetish about the first 100 days as if he was expected to resolve all our problems within that period? But then, I recall that Buhari arrived the Presidency on the wings of ‘Change’, the agenda of the All Progressives Congress and waving the party’s broom, which many might have mistaken for a magic wand.

 

But guess what, there is a difference between campaign promises and citizens’ wishes on the one hand and reality of governance on the other hand. That seems to have dawned on everyone already. And the earlier we come to terms with it, the better for everyone so we know that real change cannot happen at the speed of light.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

On Buhari’s emergence, I ran a series I called ‘My change wish list’. So far, I am glad to say the President has answered to some of these points, and if I may add, within the celebrated 100 days. Not that I cared if it happened so early or later, provided it was real. Here are some of my wishes which have so far been answered.

 

I had called on the President to limit the number of his political appointees to its barest minimum. I was specific that we do not need more than 20 ministers but that having regard to the provisions of the constitution, he should not exceed 37 ministers. I have yet to know if this would be answered until the President appoints ministers. But on his number of aides, the President requested Senate approval to appoint just 15, much fewer than we have ever had in recent times. If he sticks with that, he would have met my wish. But I also asked him to design clear job descriptions for every appointee to avoid overlaps and thus cut inefficiency. I still look forward to seeing that.

 

Another wish I made was for the President to ensure that proper audits are carried out when due and the reports of such audits implemented. The President recently directed the Auditor-General of the Federation to ensure that all outstanding audit queries are responded to within one month and every new one must henceforth be responded to within a day.

 

On the issue of cost of governance, I called on the President to show leadership by ensuring a drastic reduction in the budget of the Presidency and by extension the Executive arm so as to be on the right moral platform to request similar reduction from the other arms. Until I see his budget proposal for 2016, I may not be able to say conclusively that we are there. But I was thrilled to hear that the President and his vice are taking pay cuts, added to the reduction in the number of personal aides.

 

On corruption, I called for the immediate audit of certain government agencies which currently operate in an opaque manner, detrimental to the wellbeing of Nigeria and its citizens. These include the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation and the Central Bank of Nigeria. Happily, the makeover of the NNPC has started and I hope that of the CBN will soon happen.

 

No doubt the president has carried out a lot more changes, especially in the area of anti-corruption, an area that has become synonymous with his person. On Thursday, he and the vice-president finally issued a statement detailing the information they filed in their assets declaration with the Code of Conduct Bureau.

 

But it seems the citizens are in a hurry to feel much more changes than have been seen, especially in Buhari constituting the full complements of his cabinet. September is here already, the month he promised to appoint ministers. While at it, he must expeditiously reconstitute the Independent National Electoral Commission lest the governorship elections in Kogi and Bayelsa states run into a fiasco. I equally wonder the legal effect of criminal prosecutions at the federal level where there is no Attorney-General, the only official constitutionally empowered to commence, maintain or discontinue every criminal proceeding on behalf of the federal authorities.

 

Mr. President may have done well in the changes so far, but he needs to add some speed and urgency to the task.

 

http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/?p=168732

http://www.punchng.com/opinion/letters/change-sans-the-speed-of-light/

More insights on the Code of Conduct for Public Officers

It is not for nothing that the Code of Conduct for Public Officers under the Nigerian Constitution restricted certain officers of state from maintaining and operating a bank account outside Nigeria. It was apparently meant to curtail any effort to siphon state funds or store away proceeds of corruption by those officers. The officers affected are the President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor, ministers of the government of the federation and commissioners of the governments of the states, members of the National Assembly and of the Houses of Assembly of the, and such other public officers or persons as the National Assembly may by law prescribe.

So let’s face it, can we say in certainty that none of the above officers has foreign bank accounts? And how come nobody has been prosecuted and jailed for this breach of the constitution? Does it take too much of an effort for our security operatives and the Code of Conduct Bureau to confirm that most of the above officers are in breach of the Constitution? And in the event we agree that that provision of the constitution is no longer practicable, given that many of these officers regularly travel, even for private purposes outside the country and may need such accounts for lawful transaction, then, the right thing to do is to expunge this provision from our constitution. This would save everyone the stress and give no room for the so-called witch-hunting.

Paragraph 6 of the Code makes interesting provisions related to a public officer receiving property, gifts and benefits. There is no doubt that one of the reasons public officers fail in their duty to serve everyone equally is because they get compromised through gifts, favours, advantages and other benefits in the course of doing or failing to do a thing, using their official positions. It is to avoid this situation that the Code makes specific stipulation against the receipt of such.

It states that a public officer shall not ask for or accept property or benefits of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties. That means it is criminal for a public officer to as much as accept a ‘tip’, ‘dash’, ‘appreciation’ or whatever name we use to euphemise those gifts demanded or offered in the course of any transaction or interaction between public officer and others. So, when a legislator is sponsored on trips by businesses or even state agencies they provide oversight on, they are acting criminally.

With such criminal mindedness, many public officers are very bold with their breach of the Code of Conduct, apparently taking advantage of our weak system that fails to ensure adherence. Recall the highly embarrassing disclosure in 2012 that a federal legislator collected money from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), an agency he and his committee had oversight functions on, to attend a conference in the Dominican Republic and ended up neither attending the conference nor returning the money.

For the avoidance of doubt, the provision states that “the receipt by a public officer of any gifts or benefits from commercial firms, business enterprises or persons who have contracts with the government shall be presumed to have been received in contravention of the said sub-paragraph unless the contrary is proved”. It is a notorious fact that many construction companies, as contractors to governments, have been involved in constructing private homes and other property for government officials or their interests. In our recent history, a construction company built and delivered a new, modern church building to replace an older one in the village of a sitting president.

The provision however allows a public officer to only accept personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such extent and on such occasions as are recognised by custom. This may therefore allow a public officer to receive gifts from close friends and relatives during birthdays for instance. But it would certainly be a breach where, as we have seen severally, businesses, state agencies etc. heap huge material gifts on public officers and their families during weddings or other events of those persons.

In its proviso, the paragraph states that where a public officer receives gifts or donations at any public or ceremonial occasion, such gift shall be treated as a gift to the appropriate institution represented by the public officer, and accordingly, the mere acceptance or receipt of any such gift shall not be treated as a contravention of this provision. That being so, it follows that the gift should be retained by the office and not the officer. But we see our public officers receiving all sorts of gifts and appropriating them, contrary to the laws.

No doubt the Code of Conduct for Public Officers has the template for curbing corruption and abuse of office/privileges, if only we lived by it. There are still more areas to focus on this beautiful Code as I continue this analysis.

(Published in The Niche newspapers Sunday August 23, 2015)

More insights on the Code of Conduct for Public Officers

It is not for nothing that the Code of Conduct for Public Officers under the Nigerian Constitution restricted certain officers of state from maintaining and operating a bank account outside Nigeria. It was apparently meant to curtail any effort to siphon state funds or store away proceeds of corruption by those officers. The officers affected are the President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor, ministers of the government of the federation and commissioners of the governments of the states, members of the National Assembly and of the Houses of Assembly of the, and such other public officers or persons as the National Assembly may by law prescribe.

So let’s face it, can we say in certainty that none of the above officers has foreign bank accounts? And how come nobody has been prosecuted and jailed for this breach of the constitution? Does it take too much of an effort for our security operatives and the Code of Conduct Bureau to confirm that most of the above officers are in breach of the Constitution? And in the event we agree that that provision of the constitution is no longer practicable, given that many of these officers regularly travel, even for private purposes outside the country and may need such accounts for lawful transaction, then, the right thing to do is to expunge this provision from our constitution. This would save everyone the stress and give no room for the so-called witch-hunting.

Paragraph 6 of the Code makes interesting provisions related to a public officer receiving property, gifts and benefits. There is no doubt that one of the reasons public officers fail in their duty to serve everyone equally is because they get compromised through gifts, favours, advantages and other benefits in the course of doing or failing to do a thing, using their official positions. It is to avoid this situation that the Code makes specific stipulation against the receipt of such.

It states that a public officer shall not ask for or accept property or benefits of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties. That means it is criminal for a public officer to as much as accept a ‘tip’, ‘dash’, ‘appreciation’ or whatever name we use to euphemise those gifts demanded or offered in the course of any transaction or interaction between public officer and others. So, when a legislator is sponsored on trips by businesses or even state agencies they provide oversight on, they are acting criminally.

With such criminal mindedness, many public officers are very bold with their breach of the Code of Conduct, apparently taking advantage of our weak system that fails to ensure adherence. Recall the highly embarrassing disclosure in 2012 that a federal legislator collected money from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), an agency he and his committee had oversight functions on, to attend a conference in the Dominican Republic and ended up neither attending the conference nor returning the money.

For the avoidance of doubt, the provision states that “the receipt by a public officer of any gifts or benefits from commercial firms, business enterprises or persons who have contracts with the government shall be presumed to have been received in contravention of the said sub-paragraph unless the contrary is proved”. It is a notorious fact that many construction companies, as contractors to governments, have been involved in constructing private homes and other property for government officials or their interests. In our recent history, a construction company built and delivered a new, modern church building to replace an older one in the village of a sitting president.

The provision however allows a public officer to only accept personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such extent and on such occasions as are recognised by custom. This may therefore allow a public officer to receive gifts from close friends and relatives during birthdays for instance. But it would certainly be a breach where, as we have seen severally, businesses, state agencies etc. heap huge material gifts on public officers and their families during weddings or other events of those persons.

In its proviso, the paragraph states that where a public officer receives gifts or donations at any public or ceremonial occasion, such gift shall be treated as a gift to the appropriate institution represented by the public officer, and accordingly, the mere acceptance or receipt of any such gift shall not be treated as a contravention of this provision. That being so, it follows that the gift should be retained by the office and not the officer. But we see our public officers receiving all sorts of gifts and appropriating them, contrary to the laws.

No doubt the Code of Conduct for Public Officers has the template for curbing corruption and abuse of office/privileges, if only we lived by it. There are still more areas to focus on this beautiful Code as I continue this analysis.

(Published in The Niche newspapers Sunday August 23, 2015)

A peep into the Code of Conduct for Public Officers

Nigeria’s problem is not so much about the lack of rules but more with the breach thereof and impunity. Take for instance the provisions of the ‘Code of Conduct for Public Officers’, which forms part of the Nigerian Constitution, in the Fifth Schedule. That Code is very clear as to what public officers must and must not do. Yet, the same officers flout them without any sanction, much like many road users are bound to break road traffic rules with impunity.

Whenever I see such audacious disregard for the law, I am tempted to believe that some of the perpetrators may be doing so more out of ignorance of the code than anything else. If so, shouldn’t we then focus on making the laws known to the persons and others who may someday be in those positions or may consciously or unconsciously be aiding and abetting the breach. That, I intend to do in this discussion.

The Code lists 16 categories of public officers to include the president and vice president; state governors and deputies; Senate president and deputy; speaker and deputy speaker of the House of Representatives; every judge and staff of law courts; federal ministers and state commissioners; all members of the armed forces; all personnel of the police and other security agencies; all personnel of the civil service (federal or state); officers and staff of all Nigerian missions abroad; chairpersons, members and staff of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal and of local government councils. It also includes chairpersons and members of boards or other governing bodies and staff of statutory corporations and of companies where the federal government has controlling interest; all staff of universities, colleges and institutions owned and financed by federal, state and local government councils and; chairpersons, members and staff of permanent commissions appointed on full time basis. Simply put, virtually everybody connected with government is captured in this definition.

Just a few provisions of the Code would suffice for this discussion. The Code starts by stating in paragraph one that a public officer shall not put himself (or herself as the case may be) in a position where his/her personal interest conflicts with his/her duties and responsibilities. This summarises the guiding principle of the Code. But apparently in Nigeria, most public officers see their office as an opportunity to promote their personal interests first. And too often, their supporters expect and prompt them to act that way. Now who doesn’t know that all the fighting we saw lately in the National Assembly were as a result of personal interests conflicting with official duties and responsibilities?

In Paragraph 2, the Code precludes public officers from receiving ‘emoluments’ of more than one public office at a given time. The code defines ‘emolument’ as ‘salary, wage, over-time or leave pay, commission, fee, bonus, gratuity, advantage (whether or not that advantage is capable of being turned into money or money’s worth), allowance, pension or annuity paid, given or granted in respect of any employment or office’.

Could it therefore mean that the several retired public officers (military and civilians) who have found their ways again into other public offices have been in breach of this Code? That would be so if apart from receiving the emoluments of their present offices, they are still receiving any form of emolument (pensions etc.) from their former employments. There is yet another area that needs scrutiny. The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is equally the chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), a Federal Executive body established under the Constitution. Would the CJN be in breach of the Code of Conduct if he appropriates any such emoluments like allowances and vehicles from the NJC while he already does so through the office of the CJN?

The same paragraph 2 of the Code requires that a public officer on full time employment shall not ‘engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade’ apart from farming. Therefore, as many of our public officers as have businesses they run, promote and benefit from, are in breach of this code. It would be interesting to audit procurements in offices to know the extent of this breach. Obviously, the breaches would be too many to cope with for appropriate sanctions. And what I have so far listed here is a fraction of all the provisions in the Code. What therefore should the Code of Conduct Bureau do, knowing that they are overwhelmed? The response cannot include not doing anything about anyone at all. They have to start something at least.

First published in The Niche newspaper of August 9, 2015. http://www.thenicheng.com/a-peep-into-code-of-conduct-for-public-officers/

What manner of universities?

Is anyone out there taking notes of what is happening to our universities? The pathetic news coming out of Ondo State last week was the closure of the Wesley University of Science and Technology following the failure of the school to pay salaries. Newspaper report indicates that employees of the school are owed up to 21 months salaries. The university authorities announced the closure through telephone text messages addressed, not to the students, but to their parents. In the message, it said: “Our esteemed parents, we have some challenges with salaries and lecturers said they could not conduct exam until they were paid. Since it is dragging, we resolved that students should go home for safety. They’d be called back close to resumption for next semester to write the exam. Please, bear with us.”

I am really at a loss as to what that message was trying to suggest. So, to owe staff for 21 months is considered merely as ‘some challenges’. And the message seems to suggest that the lecturers are to blame for the closure because they (lecturers) say they ‘could not conduct exam until they are paid’. I tried to imagine what it means to be owed salaries for that period of time and still couldn’t comprehend. It only occurred to me that while we recently bemoaned the fate of several employees of governments at different levels who were owed salaries, nobody realised there were others in public institutions like this being owed so much.

The Wesley University is considered a ‘private’ university. When we talk about private schools, we refer to their ownership, not their operations, since they are not owned by the state (i.e. federal or state governments). There are clearly three types of university ownership in Nigeria now – government, individual and registered ‘charities’ made up mainly of religious missions. The Wesley University is in fact owned by the Methodist Church. Whatever the nature of ownership, every university in Nigeria is public to the extent that their licensing and operations are regulated by the National Universities Commission (NUC). Also, their admission is open to everyone, because the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB) is still the clearing house for admissions.

The question, therefore, is what the state institutions responsible for standards in our universities are doing to ensure that students are not short-changed. The regulations required here should start from the grant of licence. I am not satisfied that there is enough rigours put into the process of granting licences for the establishment of universities, be they owned by the state or private citizens or groups. One really wonders what the NUC considers when granting the licences. Do they require properly-researched and written business feasibility plans to show that the promoters can successfully run the schools without such embarrassments as running into debts with salaries payments?

Promoters of universities must realise that it is a mega operation requiring huge investment of funds, not only at the initial stage but continuously until such a time that the school can break even. And that could take up to 10 years from inception. Merely relying on contributions of adherents of the religious missions as basis for funding a public institution is not enough. And school fees alone may not also cover the costs of operation. Even more important is the fact that a university should ideally be seen as a charitable establishment meant to improve human knowledge, and profit-making should not be the basis for their establishment. My concern is that, like most things with us as a people, every religious mission sees it as a right to be licensed to operate a university because other missions like theirs have such universities. And this happens even when many of these missions are struggling with the operation of lower levels of schools owned by them.

Another area of concern for me with the operation of universities is the gradual and consistent erosion of independence of thoughts among students. Many of the universities run by religious institutions have so muscled the students, forcing them to live a regimented life of religious observances, including abolition of the use of mobile phones on campus, compulsory light outs in the night and signing of exits before leaving the school etc. There was this photo that trended on the social media a few years ago of university students who were made to kneel outside the school chapel for arriving late for the compulsory Sunday service. You would almost conclude that these universities are glorified secondary schools.

In the instant case of the Wesley University, it is curious to me that the notification was addressed to parents, not the students. This can only mean one thing: the university does not recognise the students as adults yet or that they are important enough to be consulted, even when they are the primary beneficiaries of the school’s services. I can understand nursery, primary and maybe secondary schools writing directly to parents and guardians, sometimes signing the ‘communications book’ and sending it through the pupil to parents to pass information about the schools. But to suggest that our universities have been reduced to the level of lower schools where the students are not considered old enough to take decisions for themselves is worrisome. It is not therefore surprising that some of the universities have since instituted the parent-teachers association (PTA).

First published in The Niche newspaper of July 26, 2015. http://www.thenicheng.com/what-manner-of-universities/

Stop the pilgrimage sponsorship

A few weeks ago, I received my tax clearance certificate from the tax authorities. It showed details of the personal income taxes I have paid in the last three years. Rather than excite me that I got a certificate for my contribution to financing public funds, it made me angrier at some of the things I complain about the country, top of which are corruption and mismanagement of public finance. As we joked about it in the office, someone drew my attention to the fact that my one year tax was about the sum used in clothing a member of the National Assembly in the name of ‘wardrobe allowance’. Now, who wouldn’t be mad about that? So next time you see any of those federal legislators move about with swagger in dapper suit, just know that they are in borrowed robes, paid for by citizens like me who pay the right taxes.

The pain of paying taxes and the government carrying on as if it owes you no duty or responsibility and the feeling that government is not using your contribution judiciously led me to write a few years ago that I needed amnesty for my tax burdens. Today, even with a new government that got into office on the wings of ‘change’, I still need to be convinced that my interest and those of majority of citizens are always reflected in the decisions of government.

Just this past week, I began feeling that way again after I heard this piece of news concerning government’s planned subsidy for pilgrimage. According to media report, President Muhammadu Buhari has approved a special exchange rate of N160 to a dollar for those who plan to go for ‘Christian pilgrimage’. The information was given by the Executive Secretary of the Christian Pilgrims Commission, John Kennedy Opara. He spoke to State House correspondents after he held a meeting with the President, so he couldn’t possibly be speaking out of ignorance and, to the best of my knowledge, the presidency has not denied that report.

Just so that we understand where my anger is welling from, the official exchange rate of the dollar to naira is one dollar to about N200. In the parallel market (that is the open and more patronised market) the street value of the dollar is at least N225. What that means is that for every dollar a potential Christian pilgrim would buy in prosecution of his/her trip, the Nigerian state would officially spend at least N40 to subsidise that. So we are in for another regime of subsidy. No doubt this obnoxious support by the state has been with us for a long time (so technically it is not just a Buhari problem) and similar subsidy is also provided for Muslims when they go on pilgrimage. So the enormity of our financial losses should be well understood here.

Here we are in a country whose Constitution is against state religion, but we routinely squander public resources on religious causes, even if in the process we promote Christianity and Islam and discriminate against other religions. And I keep wondering what government’s business is with citizen’s private lives on which realm religion sits. For the avoidance of doubt, government should stop spending our dwindling public funds on sponsoring pilgrims of any faith or appointing heads of delegation for any pilgrimage with cost to the state. And there are enough reasons for this position.

The resources of Nigeria ought to be managed in a manner that is equitable to all Nigerians. To the extent that our citizens are not only Christians and Muslims, there is no justification in splashing state resources on followers of just those two faiths. There are many more Nigerians who do not adhere to these two faiths and therefore may have their own religious or spiritual equivalent of pilgrimage which the state could be called upon to also support.

Even among the adherents of Christianity and Islam, there are many who do not consider these kinds of pilgrimages as mandatory or necessary. I know some Christians whose equivalent of pilgrimage would be visit to the headquarters, prayer ground or some other ‘camp site’ of their church denominations, and many of their members from across the world troop down there annually for the event. So why is the state not sponsoring or supporting such gatherings? Besides, there is nowhere in the Christian Biblical teachings where there is a suggestion that the faithful should go on pilgrimage and that to any particular location. So, the bare truth (which some Christians would rather not accept for political-economic reasons) is that these so-called ‘Christian pilgrimage’ is nothing but religious tourism and a creation of Nigerian Christian elite.

Granted but not admitting that there is justification for state sponsorship of pilgrimages, how equitable is the selection process of the beneficiaries? What are the tangible gains of all the funds Nigeria has expended on pilgrimage since it started funding such? Even at the spiritual level, would we say ours is a country where morality, honesty and love have risen higher as a result of this window of squandering of resources? Truth is, corruption and lack of integrity have grown even geometrically over the years and the level of religious bigotry is even higher now than before.

There is even the question of how the access to these cheap dollars in the name of government largesse would be managed. I speak of a truth that I do not have confidence in the leadership of even the religious groups to manage this access and sharing of the largesse honestly, fairly and equitably. And unless we want to pretend, most Nigerians would agree with this. And for me, a Christian and certified payer of huge and appropriate personal income tax, I feel thoroughly cheated for my resources to be used to support people going on their personal enhancement projects at the expense of the public.

The Buhari administration would do well to put an end to this inanity. And if it does so, it would save the country huge sums of the much needed resources to invest in critical sectors like education and health. We cannot be shouting change and be stuck in our old ways and expect better results.

First published in The Niche newspaper of July 19, 2015. http://www.thenicheng.com/stop-the-pilgrimage-sponsorship/

Is this new wave of prosecutions for real?

Our courts were on overdrive this past week, churning out interesting rulings and judgments. In Kano, the court ordered the former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, and two of his sons to be remanded in prison custody until the next hearing of the case two months away. They are charged for allegedly collecting N1.3 billion kickback (bribe) from Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company.

It was heart-rending, however, for his supporters who, as has become the tradition now with the prosecution of high profile accused persons, held a protest or rally outside the court in solidarity with their principal or ‘hero’. But the judge couldn’t be bothered by such shenanigans. We always see that happen, especially with former governors. I recall how some Nigerians travelled from Nigeria to the United Kingdom to stage similar protest before a London court where former Governor James Ibori was standing trial for money laundering. That did not stop the court from convicting him. And he has remained in jail since then.

Note, however, that Lamido is still a mere accused person until the prosecution can prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. And that isn’t often a walk in the park. It requires serious work and water-tight evidence while at the same time trying to remove or discredit any doubt that the defence team may raise. It is often easier to destroy a case than build it. This is a fact often misunderstood by the public, hence their disappointment with the judiciary whenever an accused person is not found guilty.

While the Lamidos and their supporters went away crest-fallen, former Governor Ihedi Ohakim of Imo State had a reprieve. He was granted bail in his case where he is being prosecuted for money laundering and failure to disclose all his assets in his declaration submitted to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) during investigation.

Yet in another decision, another court nullified the sham local government elections conducted by then Governor Rotimi Amaechi a few days to the end of his tenure, against every sound reasoning, apparently to spite the next state administration. The court’s decision was to be expected after Amaechi flagrantly went ahead with the elections despite an interim order from the court not to proceed. So now, who takes responsibility for the public funds and precious human resources and other inconveniences suffered as a result of the callous action of the then administration, all in the name of politics?

Back to the Lamido case, one is happy that the EFCC, which for many had been in hibernation, seems to have bounced back to life. But one is also cautious that merely charging accused persons to court is not enough to ‘celebrate’ that corruption is being tackled. We have passed a similar road before. Flash back to 2007 when several of the governors had just completed two terms in office. Nearly all of them were taken to court. They included Lamido’s predecessor, Ibrahim Turaki; Orji Uzor Kalu of Abia, Jolly Nyame of Taraba, Boni Haruna of Adamawa, Joshua Dariye of Plateau, Chimaroke Nnamani of Enugu, Adamu Abdullahi of Nasarawa and George Akume of Benue.

Many would still recall the dramatic images of many of those ex-governors being brought to court and then to prison custody in very humiliating manners to the jubilation of hapless citizens who thought it was comeuppance yet. Alas, their excitements were misplaced. Before long, all the accused persons were as free as can be. Some of them were at the time already holding other political offices including sitting as senators.

I have previously observed how we prosecute high profile accused persons in Nigeria. And the pattern often goes this way. The EFCC or similar investigating body hypes about the evidence it has about the accused, dramatically arrests the accused and dramatically brings the accused to court. The drama trends in the media and in gossip centres for a while. In court, the judges would initially refuse bail and after a few appearances they may grant bail because the accused, being a powerful citizen, would have enough high profile friends who can meet the bail conditions as sureties.

At other times, the accused suddenly falls ill (some even collapsed in court) and their defence lawyers would plead that their clients need to undergo urgent treatment in a foreign hospital. That is not surprising since the government officials had since rendered our local hospitals almost useless to attend to serious ailments. In the case of Peter Odili, former governor of Rivers State, he would have none of such. He simply got a perpetual injunction from the court against his prosecution and I am still at a loss as to why the government has not deemed it fit to appeal against that ruling to set it aside.

In any event, after all the drama, just few months after, everybody seems to forget about the entire thing as the trials drag on and on until the case slips away from citizen’s memories and we wait for another round of drama.

The one way to ensure that all the pending cases are speedily and comprehensively disposed off is to have serious-minded, result-oriented and non-partisan persons appointed as attorneys general. But ultimately, we would need to have the proposed amendment of the Constitution to separate the office of the attorney general from that of minister of/commissioner for justice.

First published in The Niche newspaper of July 12, 2015. http://www.thenicheng.com/is-this-new-wave-of-prosecutions-for-real/

Now that we are broke

It is no longer in doubt that our country is broke. Not just the federal government, but the component units (states and local governments). Why not, if they have no money to pay salaries of public servants? Why not if, if we believe Governor Adams Oshiomhole, even the federal government has only been able to pay salaries because, as the custodian of the federation till, it had helped itself to ‘loans’ therefrom to settle its bills for the past few months?

The situation was so bad that the state governors across party lines came together to seek ‘bail-out’ by whatever name from the president. At the end, they got a temporary reprieve when they agreed with the president to chip off another chunk of the ‘excess crude account’ and share across the three tiers of government. That should help the states stay afloat for a few more weeks or months, if, and only if, they learn to curtail their penchant for outlandish tastes.

The turn of events is an acknowledgement of what many of us had seen and talked about many months ago, that Nigeria and its component units are broke! The confirmation came from those who should know – state governors, even if they and their contemporaries have been in the thick of the causes for our economic predicament.

Before then, information from the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) showed that about 22 of the 36 states owe salaries of ranging between one and nine months. Then came the dramatic admission of failure by Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, that his state was too broke to be able to pay the salaries. He blamed it on dwindling allocation from the Federation Account resulting from the crash in global oil price which feeds much of that account. It’s such a pity actually. But why did the state governments build their entire hopes and dreams on the proceeds from a volatile commodity like oil?

And could Aregbesola and his colleague governors who are owing salaries to civil servants say in all good conscience that while those salaries were owed, political office-holders (elected and appointed) were also owed their salaries, allowances and estacodes/duty tour allowances (DTA) etc when they travelled? Pray, how did the state governors fund all those private and personal trips they embarked on during the electioneering within and outside their states, travelling with hordes of staff, hangers-on, journalists etc if not from state resources? Didn’t each of them convert state resources to oiling the political war machines of their respective political parties through covert means and more overt means like hosting political events in government houses and other state facilities?

Among these debtor states are those who embarked on luxury and white elephant projects that have little to add to their state’s local economies or improve the lot of their citizens. What they called ‘signature projects’ were nothing but failed or potentially-failed monuments, raised to glorify the governors who had become tin gods. Most of those projects are not self-sustaining, yet huge resources of their states were sunk into them. Many times they actually borrowed to fund those inanities.

Until the state governors show proper leadership by cutting down on their inordinate taste for extravagance, the explanations for their refusal/neglect/failures to pay salaries remain unacceptable. It starts from the size and choice of their cabinets. There is no reason for any state to have more than 12 commissioners in the present circumstance. But just this week, a House of Assembly approved 35 special advisers/assistants for the new governor; and this in an era of austerity.

We must spare a few words for the members of the various Houses of Assembly. No doubt, majority of them past and present are ignorant of their roles and responsibilities under the laws to serve their people by holding the executive arm of government to account for every naira of public funds spent. But whether out of ignorance or outright criminal collusion with the governor, they are culpable for allowing the governor live large on state resources (even while sharing the crumbs with them). They must all collectively take the flak for the seeming failed states we have now.

State legislators need to ensure that every new project introduced by the state falls within the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) earlier passed by the legislature, otherwise they should refuse approval. We are beginning to see new governors come up with new fantastic ideas and grand projects which were neither in the state budget this year nor in the MTEF.

The future looks very rough as far as the economy goes, but it also provides opportunity for real committed patriots in government to make the difference. I hope we can count many of such from the present crop of governors. This is where Governor Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna seems to be making sense among the crowd. He recently banned state sponsorship of pilgrims and the sharing of freebies in the name of Ramadan feeding/gifts. In doing so, he broke from a ‘tradition’ that did his state and citizens no good. That truly is what governance should be about in these austere times and we expect other governors to take a cue from him.

First published in The Niche on Sunday July 5, 2015.

http://www.thenicheng.com/now-that-we-are-broke/ 

NASS inauguration: When legality trumped politics

The events at the inauguration of Nigeria’s eighth National Assembly (NASS) and election of its presiding officers raise a lot of issues. There are a lot of ways to discuss the events, but I will focus on three areas namely law, democracy and politics, even as I realise their interconnectivity in the present case.

On legality, President Muhammadu Buhari had issued a proclamation for the inauguration of NASS, pursuant to Section 64(3) of the Constitution. It must be noted that the proclamation, as read by the Clerk of NASS, specified 10am as the time for the inauguration. Therefore, the clerk was right to proceed as planned.

Some people queried why the clerk went ahead when all the senators-elect were not present. The fact remains that 10am was fixed for the inauguration and if majority were there at that time or within reasonable time thereafter, there was no legal impediment on the clerk to proceed, moreso when by Section 54(1) of the Constitution, the quorum for the legislature is one-third, and that number had been surpassed. In fact, more than 50 per cent of the senators-elect were present when the inauguration commenced. As an analogy, would an airline be expected to delay the operation of a flight at its designated time when majority of checked-in passengers have boarded and some others are nowhere in sight?

There was a question also as to why the election was held before the members were sworn in. By Section 52 of the Constitution, the elections of the Senate president and deputy as well as the House of Representatives speaker and deputy actually come before the members take their oaths of allegiance and of office. The elected officers thereafter take the oaths of allegiance and of office before the clerk. It is only after then that the elected Senate president or speaker of the House administers the oaths of allegiance and of office to the rest of the members.

In considering how democratic the process was, we should acknowledge that democracy stresses the rule of the majority. In this case, the majority of the legislators-elect freely chose their leaders within the chambers, as required by law. Nobody was restrained from nominating or standing election. I was happy to see that after Yakubu Dogara from the North East geopolitical zone was elected speaker, another North East member was again nominated to contest the deputy speaker position. And although a few persons tried to query that, he agreed to contest and was not disqualified. That, to me, was the spirit of democracy at work.

The area that has generated the most discussion is the politics of the entire exercise. The APC, being the majority party in government, had tried to reach an agreement on the leadership of NASS. That is to be expected in politics. But what they failed to appreciate was that the election for the leadership of the legislature is held in the chambers of the legislature, not outside. I had in recent writings cautioned the APC against becoming as megalomaniac as the party it dislodged, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It seems to me that the effort to foist the leadership of the legislature on the members and by extension the country had an overdose of arrogance driven by a cabal of ‘kingmakers’, and it backfired, like it happened to PDP in the House of Representatives in 2011.

It was such arrogance that made APC call for a meeting in the morning of Tuesday, when the members-elect ought to be heading for NASS for their inauguration. Whatever internal misunderstanding APC had should have been settled in-house prior to the inauguration time. To suggest that the Clerk of NASS should have deferred to the presidency by holding on was to suggest that the NASS, as the representation of all the people of Nigeria, should wait indefinitely until a few bickering politicians in one of several political parties could settle their differences.

Besides, since the clerk already had a proclamation duly issued by the president in his hands, the only way he could have delayed would have been by another written request issued by the president, not based on some information trending in the media (including social media) that morning or by persons claiming to act on behalf of the president. And this is why I am equally concerned by the president’s failure to name some other of his critical aides, including the Chief of Staff, given that some of his party bigwigs are beginning to make statements or act in manners that are being passed off for presidential positions on issues.

On the issue of ‘supremacy of the party’, I find it difficult to accept the attempt by Nigerian political parties to push that concept too far in a presidential system which we operate, as though we were back in the First Republic (1960s) where we operated a cabinet system. We saw how PDP used this same principle to push for the inclusion of ‘third term’ in the Nigerian Constitution. The party had then threatened its members in NASS to support the third term as the official position of the party, even when it was glaring that such purported party position was obtained by subterfuge, driven by a cabal in the party. Since that time, I always stressed that no party position was so important to supplant national interest.

And for those who underestimate what happened in the Senate with the emergence of Bukola Saraki as Senate president, they should recall that the very next day, those senators-elect who missed out or shut themselves out of the inauguration on Tuesday went back to the same chambers and before the same Senator Saraki to be sworn in as senators. If in fact they were convinced of the illegality of the Senate presidency, they would not have submitted to his authority to admit them into parliament by way of administering the oaths of office and allegiance on them.

First published in The Niche on June 14, 2015 http://www.thenicheng.com/nass-inauguration-when-legality-trumped-politics/

Belonging to everybody and keeping the oaths

One of the most-talked-about take-away lines from President Muhammadu Buhari’s inaugural speech a few days ago is the “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody” sentence. It is a sublime expression of what an elected leader ought to be in a democracy, even when we hardly experience that in these climes. But we must try all the same. And we must help the president and all public office-holders to realise that and uphold it.

The starting point is to underscore the basis for this “leader for all” expression. For most of the offices created under the Constitution such as the president, vice president, governor, deputy governor, ministers and commissioners, as well as all the legislative offices, there is a common oath of allegiance they swear to. It is a short sentence that says the oath-taker swears to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to protect and defend the Constitution.

Allegiance refers to duty of fidelity owed, or freely committed by someone to his/her state. What this oath therefore means is that the oath-taker commits to wholly and, without any reservation, be faithful to the country and to do everything within his/her powers to uphold the Constitution of the country. By taking that oath, the person is publicly swearing or affirming that any other allegiance he has is subject to the Constitution. That is why we must stress that public office-holders cannot claim to be under an obligation to support any other interest, including even their political party on whose platform they got into office. Public office-holders cannot also owe allegiance to their ethnicity, region or faiths against the oath of allegiance to Nigeria and its Constitution.

This is where I find it totally unacceptable for state governors to decorate the public spaces they occupy (office, official vehicles etc) with the colours of their political party. In fact, I had cause to object when I saw the video clip of the swearing-in of Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State with the flag of the All Progressives Party (APC) fluttering directly behind him. I equally saw a photo of Governor Akinwunmi Ambode of Lagos on his first day at work with the flag of APC by his side.

It is not a practice limited to any political party. Until recently, in front of the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC) office, there used to be a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) flag flying alongside the Nigerian flag. I also see state governors and local government chairpersons fly the flags of their political parties on official vehicles. Has anyone ever wondered how silly it would be for the official aircraft of the president to be painted in a political party’s colours/flags?

There are various oaths of office, depending on the office. Let us start with the oath of office of the president for which many of the other oaths have some similarities with. The Nigerian president swears or affirms to an oath of office to discharge his/her duties to the best of his ability, “faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution …and the law, and always in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity … of Nigeria”.

The president further swears/affirms to “strive to preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution” and not allow any personal interest to influence his/her official conduct or official decisions. Citizens who are related to public office-holders or belong to the same society (political, religious, ethnic, cultural, educational, professional etc) as those officers must not mistake such closeness as suggesting that the officer then belongs to them exclusively.

Under the same oath, the president is under a duty to use his/her best ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This no doubt reiterates the oath of allegiance which he/she first swears to before the present oath. It is important therefore for public officers to be conversant with the provisions of the Constitution to be able to preserve, protect and defend them.

The president is under the provisions of the oath of office obliged to abide by the Code of Conduct contained in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and, in all circumstances, to do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. It is important to stress here that under the Code of Conduct, it is a crime for any public officer to maintain a foreign bank account. Until that law is changed, every one of them must abide by it.

And should anyone be found to have erred, whether in or out of office, our laws must be allowed to take its course and their community people should not get in the way. That is the way to show that the officer belongs to everybody and to nobody.

First published in The Niche on June 7, 2015 http://www.thenicheng.com/belonging-to-everybody-and-keeping-the-oaths/

My Change wish list (parts 1 and 2)

PART 1:

By this time next week, General Muhammadu Buhari (GMB) will become President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB). Since he will transmute from being GMB to PMB, let me play a pun on the new tag of PMB by sending my ‘Change wish list’ to his private mail bag, albeit publicly. I do so in my capacity as a proud holder of the ‘Office of the Citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’, the highest and most important office in Nigeria. The list is a very simple one, focusing on governance issues. It requires clear steps to be taken by the new administration to save us some of the problems we face as a country, especially since 1999. Here we go.

I call on President Buhari to limit the number of political appointees to the barest minimum. To be honest, we don’t need more than 20 ministers of government. However, having regard to the provision of the Constitution, I will ask that he limits this to 37 ministers. He should not appoint more than 10 special advisers by whatever nomenclature. I submit that many of the governance and administrative duties carried out by some of the large retinue of aides of government officials could be effectively carried out by senior civil servants in those ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), and that would even be carried out in a professional manner.

The president should ensure that there are specific job titles and descriptions to all officers of government, to avoid overlaps and thus cut inefficiency. The government should streamline the functions of different agencies that overlap at the moment. PMB needs to pick out a few tips from the recommendations in the Orasanye Panel Report which is in the presidency and I believe should form part of the hand-over notes/briefings he will get from President Goodluck Jonathan.

Experience shows that it is easier to prevent corruption than investigate, prosecute and punish infringements. The government must commit to implementing and strengthening the existing mechanisms for preventing corruption, to reduce the level of corruption. This includes ensuring that proper audits are carried out when due and the reports of such audits implemented. PMB must work closely with the legislature to do more with the reports of the Auditor-General, to ensure that sanctions are carried out as appropriate.

It also follows that the Auditor-General’s office has to be reformed in a way that builds the confidence of the head and all the auditors, that their professionalism would not be compromised or they made to suffer for whistle-blowing. This above should be done along with the proper prosecution, to its logical conclusion, of all cases of corruption that have remained in court for many years. We need to speed up and conclude the prosecutions for corruption that started in 2007 against many of the former state governors.

Still on the issue of cost of governance, the new president should show leadership by ensuring a drastic reduction in the budget of the presidency and by extension the executive arm, so as to be on the right moral platform to request similar reduction from the other arms. PMB can start by reducing the number of aircraft in the presidential fleet. Reports indicate that there are currently between nine and 11 such aircraft. I opine that our country does not need more than three of such aircraft. He must see to the offloading of the excess aircraft and pay similar attention to the number of other facilities such as vehicles of government as well as those assigned to government officials.

A situation where the government provides too many vehicles to an official, such that some of the vehicles are put to the use of the official’s family members, as though they were state officials, must stop. Let every paid official and worker be responsible for organising their families and their transportation needs, and not pass such the public coffers.

I have severally canvassed against government getting involved in the private affairs of citizens. One of such is the issue of pilgrimages. While citizens should be allowed the right to practise their religions and while government can do well to protect the welfare of their citizens wherever they are, I believe that can still be done without government getting involved in pilgrimage arrangements. This is because, currently, the country is being haemorrhaged through the pilgrimages by both Christians and Muslims. What is more, this has become a colossal waste of state resources on the elite class or for currying political favours by those in government.

(End of part 1 published in The Niche on May 24, 2015 http://www.thenicheng.com/my-change-wish-list-1/)

PART 2:

As I was saying last week and now that President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) has been inaugurated, I wish to continue with my change wish list. I am excited to hear that some of the suggestions contained in my last week’s wish list may be implemented by the new president, especially the one about a leaner government in terms of cabinet appointment. The decision we heard of not taking or working with a list from the state governors for the composition of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) is a welcome one. It is a political masterstroke to save the country from the clutches of the governors who constitute one of the most powerful political cabals.

The new government must take adequate steps to reform the criminal justice system to allow for speedy prosecution for crimes. Happily, the vice president is not only a professor of law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), but was for some years the attorney-general in Lagos State, where he drove some reforms in the justice sector.

Agreed that there are peculiar situations that warrant the entering of plea bargains, we suggest that even where such is entered into, the minimum the state should ensure is the recovery of stolen sums/proceeds of such corruption and a conviction which would therefore disqualify the criminal from certain privileges. On no account should this new administration consider granting state pardon, whimsically, to convicts whose only seeming qualification for such consideration is the fact that they are politicians and as such part of a ‘family’. The cases of the pardon and active involvement of Salisu Buhari and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha in the public space should never be used as precedent and must be seen as an embarrassing milestone of our political history.

To provide the basis for driving development, we need data for proper planning. The government should immediately strengthen and expand the national citizens’ registration system to ensure that every citizen from birth is captured in the database. It should be very easy to register new-borns in hospitals and during the monthly immunisation exercises, and such registration should feed directly into the national database. There should also be a harmonisation of every other citizens’ data capture such as from the voter registration, international passport, telephone SIM registration and the bank customers’ registration.

There is no doubt that our country and the component units are broke! Much of what led to the present situation include corruption, greed, poorly thought out projects with poor funding architecture and, very importantly, the failure to make savings.

PMB and team must commence a process of getting all stakeholders to buy into and approve a legal framework for saving a percentage of our earnings for the future. They need to revisit all issues associated with the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) and the Excess Crude Account (ECA) and address all obstacles. If well managed, it is even possible for states to also set up similar savings and wealth management schemes at their levels.

My other wish is for the PMB government to immediately commence a thorough audit of government agencies which currently operate in an opaque manner, detrimental to the wellbeing of Nigeria and its citizens. These include the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). It is clear that there is something fishy and faulty about the financial DNA of those agencies that make them perpetual cesspit of corruption, while a few crooked citizens benefit from it.

We also need to review the budgeting system to ensure citizens’ involvement in a bottom-up approach. This would ensure that citizens’ needs are addressed in the budget. This would save the country the burden of government officials mortgaging our future through white elephant projects that do not have positive effect on generality of citizens, even as many of such projects get abandoned after huge sums of money have been splashed on them.

We must take every step to end impunity. This means that PMB must not only live by example (and I have no doubt he can) but he must lead his government to ensuring that every breach of the law and regulation is punished. On this account, the new government must re-open investigation and ensure appropriate sanctions for certain glaring cases of impunity in the recent past. Of particular note is the bungled recruitment into the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) where money was extorted from applicants and the process was mismanaged, leading to the death of about 20 citizens and injuries to many others across the country.

There are certainly a lot more things too wish for. But I would leave them at these few, knowing that many others also have their wish list. It is left now for President Buhari to consider the list and address them. It is a new dawn for the country and we all must work hard to make this work.

(Concluding part published on May 31, 2015 http://www.thenicheng.com/my-change-wish-list-2/)