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)