Politics and Current Affairs
A beloved central banker
Was alleged to be a wanker
He squeezed the send button
To another’s man mutton
Alhamdulillahi,Love u,he thanked her
_____________________________________
A hippo came from the delta
And spoke, all ran helter skelter.
A virtue, her name
Like Helen, a dame
Her logo, a big umblerra.
______________________________________
A soldier named AlMusty
15yrs on trial grew dusty
One week out jail, promoted, all hail
Their consciences are rusty.
I am usually scathing in my remarks about the Nigerian civil service. In addition to the service being overly bloated, most of its staff have absolutely no manners and are unapologetically corrupt. Reforming the civil service will be a tall order, but I would like to think about reform in this piece.
I think the civil service is designed to have too much interaction with the public and this is a huge contributor to the gargantuan corruption in the system. Anyone who wants a regulatory approval needs to go to three separate departments, in each of which five people fastidiously check documentary compliance and the absence of any whom can delay one’s application indefinitely. Then, periodically, the head honcho (in what is usually no more than a “golden parachute” arrangement) decides to revamp the entire system, requiring everyone who ever obtained a permit in the history of the government ministry to “revalidate” his or her permit for a “token fee” plus stress, frustration and hardship.
Each government office one visits has a big notice discouraging Nigerians from patronising touts. However, the system is yet to be designed that is easier than using touts. Who are the touts anyway, if not staff of the ministry or their agents?
Then, there’s supposed to be a customer service initiative called SERVICOM. There are SERVICOM posters at all government departments, telling you that you have the right to be served courteously. Those posters are just as effective as the ones at police stations that tell you that bail is free.
Let’s accept that the Nigerian Labour Congress will never permit the downsizing required to make the civil service a leaner, meaner, more efficient machine. No problem. Here are a few suggestions for reform (if anyone is listening, or cares):
This is 2013, only 7 years before we pretend to be disappointed when we don’t enter the elite league of the 20 most developed economies in the world. We cannot be a top 20 economy with a bottom 20 civil service – who do we think is supposed to drive and institutionalise the quantum leaps we need to make on this journey to the big league?
I truly apologise for the cynicism in this piece but we all know our country. This piece won’t even be a footnote in anyone’s consciousness in a week’s time.
STORY ONE
Once upon a time, there was a man who looked up and saw the roof of his house crumbling. “This roof will surely fall in,” he thought to himself. The next day, he thought about calling in a builder to take a look but decided against it. At any rate, the pressure from the external water tank, on the ground next to the kitchen was really poor. So he called a plumber instead, and the moved the tank from the floor and installed it on the crumbling roof. “This roof will fall in a few months’ time if you don’t reinforce it immediately,” the plumber warned the man. “I know.” the man replied. But the next week, he installed a large satellite dish on the roof and then moved his sofa right under the fault line in the ceiling. Damn, he thought, as he looked up from the sofa one evening into the widening crack in his ceiling, this collapse of this roof is imminent. And then he turned back to his program.
STORY TWO
The villagers at Poposhinshin village were in the middle of their daily feast, when a young man ran into the village square, panting. “Quick,” he said between pauses to gulp in air, “they warriors of Alajeju village are on their way here to attack us. They are still about two days away. What do we do?”
“Hmmm,” said the village chief, stroking his chin very slowly, “this calls for a meeting of the council of elders. We shall meet after the feast today.”
“Forgive me, my elders,” said the breathless man, now much more composed, “but what is there to meet about? They outnumber us 5 to 1, their weapons are far more advanced than ours. They are a village of giants. We must either flee or send an emissary with a peace offering to beg them.”
“You have spoken very well and we will consider all this at our meeting.” The chief replied.
At the meeting later on, the chief divided the council into two committees, one to look into the obvious and remote causes of the pending invasion, the other to propose ways of appeasing the Alajejus. The committees deliberated until sunrise the following day, when the spears, arrows and swords of the would-be conquerors could be seen glistening in the sun, just over the horizon.
All over the village, the mood was surprisingly calm as the glistening metal cluster drew closer to the village. One man decided to leave with his family that day, for Animashaun village. The Animashauns were more powerful than the Alajejus.
As dusk approached again, the people of Poposhinshin had begun to hear the stomping of the Alajejus. “We are doomed”, they casually remarked to one another. “When our village falls, these people might enslave our men and take our women as their wives.” Still very visibly unperturbed, they carried on as normal. The council of elders continued its meeting.
STORY THREE
Once upon another time, the people of Doofus discovered the gift of tea. The tea was brought to their village by a travelling European explorer, who was temporarily their king but was deposed when they decided they could rule themselves. They figured this tea was desirable, for the European had described to them all the wonders of this tea and how it made his own village so much different from and better than Doofus. While the European explorer was king, he dispensed this tea to them in small portions from his nice metal canister. After he left, they decided they needed this tea in much larger amounts.
But they didn’t know how to make tea. They had the fire, they had water, they had tea leaves. But they weren’t sure what to boil the tea in. The European explorer never showed them how he brewed his tea. Their day of triumph came when the council of elders proudly announced that they now knew how to boil the tea. The people of Doofus gathered and watched in amazement, as the elders produced a chocolate teapot and put it on the fire.
STORY FOUR
The people of Nigeria, when looking at the indices and benchmarks of a functional nation, have for a long time predicted the implosion (in a calamitous conflagration) of their nation. They do not flee. They do not fight the forces of the impending doom.
Yesterday, I went on the newly-opened Lekki-Ikoyi bridge for the very first time. Yes, the N250 toll was more than double what I would have paid on the Lekki-Epe toll road but my journey time was more than halved. Many have kicked against tolling infrastructure that was built with taxpayers’ money and there may well be some merit in that argument. A suit has been filed against the Lagos State Government in this regard and we will have a judicial pronouncement on the matter soon enough. In the meantime, here are 5 reasons why I think the road should be tolled.
1. The Location
Apart from revenue, tolling also serves to control drivers’ behavior. Take the Congestion Charge in Central London, for instance. More than anything else, the toll was introduced to reduce the number of people driving themselves into London’s central business district. Call this elitist if you like, but we can’t have the whole world driving through the primest of the prime real estate in South-Western Nigeria. The toll is low enough to be practical for the residents of the newly connected vicinities yet high enough to prevent it from becoming the world’s thoroughfare.
2. The Lekki-Epe Concession
The Government of Lagos State is led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Now, yes, this is an ad hominem but the chances are that pacta sunt servanda will mean a whole lot more to them than the Federal Government. Unlike the unlearned Federal Government, which has failed to honour most of its obligations under the BiCourtney airport concession (e.g. closing down the general terminal and moving all domestic operators to the Concessionaire-operated wing), Lagos State will be keen not to create another alternative route to the Admiralty Toll Plaza. I haven’t seen the Lekki-Epe Concession Agreement but any lawyer worth their money (and intent on protect his client’s money) would have protected his client by restricting the creation of more than one alternative route.
3. Journey Time
If you live in Lekki, you can now get to the Third Mainland Bridge in less than 10 minutes. Even Vin Diesel would struggle to do that with a souped up car on the Ozumba route, given the toll plaza, the traffic lights, the numerous intersections etc. And that’s even on a Sunday morning with little or no traffic. Time is still money in 2013, right?
4. Have You Been on the Bridge at Night?
No really, have you? The bridge is a work of art. I overheard someone describe the drive at night as “almost sexual”. Now I don’t know anything about that, but I guarantee that a few marriage proposals (as well as many ulterior ones) will be sealed with a walk or a drive on that bridge.
5. Property Rates
This is more wishful thinking than anything else, but if Lekki is now only 3 minutes away from Ikoyi, should Ikoyi rentals still have a 50% (or more) markup on similar housing units in Lekki? I think not. Then again, with all the empty houses in Lekki, should there be a 40% (or more markup) on Agungi downwards? No? So what was my fifth point again?
On the 15th of May 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan declared a State of Emergency in 3 states in the northern region of Nigeria. Apart from the debate on the propriety or otherwise of the declaration (or “proclamation” as the constitution calls it), a lot of debate has also been had on whether or not a state of emergency can be declared with the Governors of the affected states remaining in office. With all the “sacred” opinions flying about, perhaps it is time to take an academic look at what a State of Emergency is.
What Is A State of Emergency?
A state of emergency is a proclamation by the government of a country suspending certain judicial, legislative or executive functions, or suspending certain rights guaranteed by the constitution, during times of civil unrest or natural disasters. The concept of the need for the state to have emergency powers can be traced back to 5th Century Rome, when the constitution at the time empowered the Senate to appoint a dictator for a period of 6 months, to quickly take decisions and implement strategies for victory at war. Basically, declaring a state of emergency enables the government to override usual administrative controls or circumvent usual checks and balances in order to provide the speedy, effective response a national crisis requires.
When Can A State of Emergency Be Declared?
Generally, an emergency can be declared when circumstances arise that cannot be dealt with quickly or efficiently enough under the rule of law, or under normal constitutional circumstances. Specifically, under the Nigerian constitution, the President has the power to declare a state of emergency when:
a. The Federation is at war;
b. The Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war;
c. There is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof, to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security;
d. There is a clear and present danger of actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger;
e. There is an occurrence or imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting the community or a section of the community in the Federation;
f. There is clearly a public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the Federation; or
g. The President receives a request from a State Governor to do so.
What is the Order of Events to be Followed in Declaring a State of Emergency?
1. The President issues a proclamation of a state of emergency and publishes it in the Official Gazette.
2. Immediately after the proclamation is published in the Official Gazette, the President transmits copies to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
3. The Senate President and the Speaker immediately arrange for meetings of their respective houses of legislature to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the proclamation of the state of emergency.
4. The proclamation of the state of emergency ceases to have effect –
a. If it is revoked by the President;
b. If the National Assembly fails to ratify it in each House (resolution supported by two-thirds majority) within 2 days (when the Assembly is in session) or within 10 days (when the Assembly is on recess) after the publication of the proclamation.
c. After a period of 6 months has elapsed since the proclamation came into force (the National Assembly can extend the period of the state of emergency for further periods of 6 months, as it deems fit).
d. At any time after ratification by the National Assembly, when each House of the National Assembly revokes the proclamation.
Must Governors be Suspended During States of Emergency?
While historically, Governors have always been suspended during periods of emergency, there is nothing in the Nigerian constitution that makes their suspension compulsory. The following question then is, how is military intervention in a State compatible with Governors remaining in office for the duration of the state of emergency? My answer to this (but this is not backed by any constitutional provision) is that the two are compatible in the instant situation for the following reasons:
1. The President has deployed soldiers to restore security to the various States. Security is not the only function of a State Governor. In fact, it is arguable (and perhaps even likely) that the Governor performs more administrative than security functions. Unless the affected States have completely ground to a halt, I do not see a reason why the Governor cannot continue to perform all his other functions outside security.
2. The militancy/insurgency is not taking place in every single square mile or local government area of the affected States. Many parts of the affected States continue to enjoy relative peace and normalcy. Should they be neglected because the army is fighting insurgents in pockets of the State? Should the delivery of governance to relatively unaffected areas not continue?
3. Consider that no American Governor has been suspended during periods of emergency. Not even during the manhunt for the bombers of the Boston Marathon.
4. Given that a Governor could request the President to declare a state of emergency in his State, it is unlikely (in this event) that the framers of the constitution conceived that a Governor would believe his suspension from office would be one of the outcomes of him making such a request.
Final Constitutional Question
There is the further question of whether it is even constitutional at all for Governors to be suspended during periods of emergency. Senior lawyers with much more constitutional knowledge and experience than me appear to believe that it is indeed unconstitutional; that a Governor may only be removed from office by impeachment, resignation, or on grounds of infirmity. I have a contradictory hypothesis (emphasis on hypothesis).
I would suggest, that while it is true that a Governor may only be PERMANENTLY removed by the previously-listed means, suspension from office while the period of emergency lasts is valid if ratified by the National Assembly. If a state of emergency is in effect a suspension of the constitutional order because of emergency circumstances, and the only restraint placed on the President in the constitution is that the details of the emergency rule must be ratified by the National Assembly, I think a case can be made for the validity of the temporary removal of an affected Governor from office. It remains a theory however – as is that of my renowned, most esteemed, learned seniors – until the courts are given the opportunity to rule on the question one way or the other.
First, they had no spokesperson and their demands were unknown. Then, they were ghosts and the government was not going to put itself through the indignity of negotiating through psychic mediums, spiritualists and marabouts. Now, it seems somebody’s called the Ghostbusters, told them that their services will never be needed and an amnesty committee has been constituted to make recommendations concerning Boko Haram.
This follows hot on the heels of what many might consider a pre-emptive strike, with the Federal Government said to have awarded yet another dodgy security contract, this time in the South-Western region of the country, to yet another leader of a local militia. The contract is said to be worth N2.4bn a month and it is unclear what the duration is. Southern Nigeria is now crawling with guerrilla warlords who have been rewarded for their mutinous behaviour with “juicy” government work. Let’s ignore the fact that we have several security agencies and reasonably-sized armed forces. Let me not say that government is outsourcing the performance of what the constitution describes as its “primary purpose”, when my ogamost oga at the top is clearly saying something else.
My “Ogamost” Oga At The Top
THISDAY reports that the president “bowed to pressure” to shift ground on amnesty for Boko Haram. This pressure came from many elder statesmen and even a branch of the Nigerian Bar Association. The logic behind the pressure is that amnesty worked in the Niger Delta (although this post empirically questions the correlation between the amnesty programme and increased output in the Niger Delta), therefore amnesty will quell every uprising Nigeria will ever have. Alright, so I have laced it with a healthy dose of cynicism but this clearly is untenable not only from a policy position but also from that of logic.
Granted, there is the solitary similarity between Boko Haram and the Movement for the Emancipation of The Niger Delta (MEND) – they are both militant groups with tribal/sectional origins. But that must be where the similarity ends. MEND was ostensibly fighting for the diversion of a greater portion of the region’s mineral wealth to its own people and remediation of all the damage to their farming land and fishing waters. When the government commenced its amnesty programme there, it first of all admitted that it had wronged the people of the Niger Delta. There was some logic to the government saying, in that instance, “your fight is an honourable one; we have wronged you; lay down your arms, come back into decent society and not only will we not punish your insurgency, we will restore all that the cankerworm has eaten.” Or words to that effect, anyway.
On the other hand is Boko Haram, whose cause no one has been able to successfully articulate AND rationalise. “Rationalise”, for me, is the key part of that sentence. Were they formed for an aim that rational society should accommodate? Can any of their demands be met rationally? Is there anything rational in all that they have said or done since they stepped into the international spotlight? If the answer to all these is a resounding ‘NO’, what then is the rationale for granting them amnesty? What has led the government to believe it can reason with them? Above all, what part of their behaviour or rhetoric suggests that amnesty would even be a useful tool? Lest we forget, the predominant MO for MEND was to kidnap oil workers and sabotage oil infrastructure. Boko Haram are suicide bombers.
Now, I fully understand that Borno and Kano have been ravaged by the sect and the people just want peace. But is peace at any price really peace? Boko Haram wants less of an interaction with western civilisation and the implementation of Sharia law nationwide. How do you begin such negotiations? Ok, we’ll ban western education in Borno and Kano States but you have to leave the rest of the country alone? You get to have Sharia in a maximum of 10 northern states and that’s it? And if they renege and pick up their arms again tomorrow, do we show more flexibility on where ‘Boko’ will be ‘Haram’ and how far Sharia will be allowed to spread? Only recently, a splinter group, Ansaru, has been reported to be even more deadly than the original Boko Haram. Should they be offered amnesty too? Is amnesty for Boko Haram justice?
Location of the four cities in north eastern Nigeria where the Boko Haram conflict took place. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The message from the government is also quite clear. Arm yourselves, disrupt activity within the nation with as much violence as you can muster. We will reward you from the abundance of our treasury. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. Unlike your peers who are busy acquiring an education or struggling to build a career. They would be dead to us, if not for the taxes we need them to pay.
Reuben Abati recently outperformed the 2-man (or 1-man/1-woman) interview panel at Channels TV for the second consecutive time. Either his mind was too nimble for theirs or, in the face of attacks of “unprofessionalism” over the oga at the top saga, they chose to be extremely professional with him. In either event, he got away with justifying the presidential pardon of a convicted looter of public funds, someone who, rather conveniently or coincidentally or both, the president has referred to as his political benefactor. Dr. Abati also accused us, who are disgusted by the pardon, of “sophisticated ignorance”. Thankfully, Simon Kolawole has since pointed out Abati’s “sophisticated amnesia” but that isn’t the focus of this piece. I am curious about this business of presidential pardons and eager to cure my ignorance, sophisticated or otherwise.
Anyone familiar with my writing will know by now that I have a penchant for querying the propriety of administrative acts from the perspective of the jurisprudence behind the law that empowered the acts (Abati even ventured into the jurisprudence of punishment in his interview, a topic I previously visited here and to which we shall return presently). So, pardons, where did they come from?
The origins of the presidential pardon lie in the Prerogative of Mercy of the English monarch, being recorded in law as early as 668 AD. Initially, the King’s power to pardon was unfettered but by the reign of King Charles II, parliament excluded impeachments from the previously unlimited scope of offences that could be pardoned by the Crown. At a time the King, upon the declaration of war, as a ploy to swell the number of his troops, would pardon everyone who had committed a homicide or a felony, on the condition that they served a year for free in the army. However, over the centuries, it was obvious that the power was open to abuse, particular in relation to the wealthy or connected members of society, and parliament tried many times to curtail it. They only succeeded in the time of Charles the II because he pardoned the Treasurer/Chief Minister (today’s ‘Chancellor/Prime Minister’?), the Earl of Danby, who was about to be impeached. Parliament declared the pardon illegal but Danby himself resigned shortly afterwards, to avert a constitutional crisis. Forgive the history lesson; on to America, whose constitution we adapted.
In this commentary on the constitutional history of the prerogative of mercy, the writers note that when the power to pardon first evolved, the punishments for many crimes was death, making the power not only useful, but necessary. By the time the American constitution was being framed, things were not so dire. However, it was still thought that the power to pardon was necessary for those exceptional circumstances in which the legal system failed to yield a morally or politically acceptable result. This paper here says the following about the positive use of the power to pardon, by American presidents:
“Pardon proved its practicality right away, in helping the president deal with a series of rebellions and invasions in the early years of the Republic: “The pardon could bring rebels back into the fold, or it could repopulate the army by restoring deserters to service.” President Lincoln issued pardons throughout the Civil War to deal with desertion and draft evasion on the Union side, and to undercut the rebellion in the Border States. Presidents Johnson and Grant used the power to clean up afterwards, as did Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Harding and Truman in connection with later wars. More recently, Presidents Ford and Carter both issued amnesties to draft law violators and military deserters from the Vietnam era. Like the Nixon pardon, these amnesties represent classic uses of the power to reconcile national differences.”
So, we see a picture emerging. Show grace where the outcome at the courts is clearly unconscionable, readmit a class of outlaws or outcasts in furtherance of national healing. Furthermore, since 1898, when President McKinley signed the Clemency Rules, applications for clemency (or pardon) have been made to the Justice Department’s pardon attorney and, with only very few exceptions, presidential pardons have been granted on the recommendation of pardon attorney (said recommendations being signed by the attorney-general).
Alright, enough of the history. Let us compare the sections of law that grant the president the power to pardon. Section 175(1)(a) of the Nigerian constitution says:
(1) “The President may –
Article II Section 2 of the US constitution says, with relevance to the prerogative of mercy: “[The President] shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in the case of impeachment.”
Thus, while in the United States the president cannot pardon anyone who has been impeached by Congress, in Nigeria, contrary to the position in our judicial forbears, the president’s power to pardon is without limit. Impeachments are fairly rare, however, so perhaps not much should be read into this.
In his paymasters’ defence, Abati rightly points out that pardons are always controversial (see here for a list of controversial pardons) and cites President Clinton’s controversial last-day-in-office pardons in support of his argument. However, unlike Abati’s principal, who has chosen to hide behind media aides, President Clinton published an extensive explanation of those considered the most controversial of the pardons. Clinton points out that the recipients had to agree to be fined in a similar fashion to others similarly accused, in the event that prosecutors found similar circumstances to apply.
Abati says that the convicted looter pleaded guilty, served time, forfeited property and was therefore worthy of being pardoned. He omitted to say that the looter jumped bail in London in 2005 and is still wanted there to respond to money-laundering charges. Or that he was impeached from office, which would be red flag in the UK and the US. We may be sophisticatedly ignorant but we are very clearly not stupid.
The crux of it all is this: given the jurisprudence of the presidential power to pardon, the severity of the offences for which the convicted looter was punished, our country’s much vaunted war on corruption and language with which Abati himself described the looter in 2005, can a charge of sophisticated ignorance be substantiated? One can try, as Abati did, but only very disingenuously. Perhaps sophisticatedly so, even.
A London Underground roundel at one of the entrances to Piccadilly Circus tube station. Piccadilly Circus itself is in the background. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When the government recently announced the completion of (the refurbishment of) the Lagos-Kano rail line, the government’s own media people congratulated their principals and assured the rest of the country that if we were patient, we would continue to see the country being transformed, that after all, Rome was not built in a day. This is a defence used very often by the PDP since 1999 but more so since the inauguration of the incumbent head of state, first as acting president and then after the elections of 2011. The Roman Empire took several centuries to build, our civilisation remains nascent, so bear with us. America’s democracy is nearly 300 years old, we are barely 14 years into ours, so forgive our occasional buffoonery wobble along the way.
“Rome Was Not Built in a Day” might just be the biggest political fallacy of our time. The crux of the argument there is that empires take several years to build and as such we should not expect overnight change. The truth however, is that no one is asking for an empire to be built. And even if we were, would it not be foolish to expect it to take the same length of time today as it took to establish Rome from 27 BC onwards? If the resources and technology available to us today were available to the ancient Romans, would the expression “Rome wasn’t built in a day” even be in existence? Perhaps we should look at rail transport in one of its oldest forms and how it was implemented in another country more recently.
The history of rapid transit (by rail) began in London with the opening of the Metropolitan Railway which now forms a part of the London Underground network. This happened in 1863, with the idea being to reduce the congestion on the roads and to provide working class people with cheap transportation so that they could live in the districts adjacent to (ie the suburbs of) the central business area. In 1864, a patent was obtained by Peter William Barlow for the method/process of digging tunnels using a wrought iron shield. The first subway tunnel (410m long) was dug in 1869 and went into use from 1870. By 1890, the first proper “tube” line was constructed, in twin tunnels, stretching initially over 5.4km. Today, the London Underground (which recently celebrated its 150th anniversary) has 270 stations and is 402km in length.
Fast-forward to 1983 in Singapore, when the first-phase of the metro began. It cost an initial $5bn and, in 1987, the first section (over 6km long, serving 5 stations) opened. By 1988 a further 15 stations had opened and yet another 21 stations were added to the system by 1990, with the project being completed 2 years ahead of schedule. Today, Singapore’s Mass rapid Transit serves over 100 stations, with nearly 150km of lines in operation.
In 1983 (when the Singapore construction started), the London Underground was already 120 years old!! However, there is no comparing the first 20 years of the London Underground with even the first 5 of Singapore’s. Singapore also built the world’s first automated metro system. Rome was not built in a day but imagine if the Romans had today’s technology.
On the 21st of December 2012, after the sum of N24.3bn had been spent by the Federal Government (although the Obasanjo government awarded an $8.3bn contract in respect of the same project, so some clarification needs to be sought on that), the Lagos-Kano railway line was reopened to passengers after about 10 years. The passenger service operates only once a week and lasts 30 hours. Now, from the viewpoint of there not being a service at all for the past 10 years (and at all at all na hin bad pass) this can be termed progress. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but this is 2013. Lagos to Kano is about 1200km with travel time of 30 hours. London to Dundee, nearly 800km, will take you a maximum of 7 hours by train. A rail journey from Penn Station in New York to Chicago Union Station, a journey of nearly 1,300km takes only 19 hours. And, before the reader despairs at the comparison of Nigeria with the US/UK, it should not be forgotten that Nigeria plans to be one of the world’s leading 20 economies in only 7 years’ time – if we do not compare ourselves with the countries currently in that league, how will we know how much ground we have left to make up?
Defenders of the government (“Doreneuben Omokubati”) will probably categorise this piece under the “never see anything good in government” articles but we can no longer be satisfied with merely the slightest improvements on the key things on which our development as a country turns. Even if all the old rail lines were to be resurrected, without an improvement in journey times (from what they were in the 80s) and even in the carriages and coaches themselves, I say we continue to demand more. If travel by rail is not making enough sense as to take cars (i.e. car owners who would ordinarily drive) off the corresponding road journey, what are we celebrating? 30 hours to travel from Lagos to Kano? In 2013? Are we still in the days of Eze Goes To School? Hercule Poirot needed only half this time to solve the murder on the orient express. Rome was truly not built in a day but imagine, if you can, what the Romans would achieve with our current resources.
First published on thescoopng.com
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Jurisprudence is probably the most important subject of study for would-be lawyers and anyone trying to understand how legal systems work. Jurisprudence provides the “back-story”, if you will, to why we have the laws and legal principles we have today. Theories of state and government have led to laws guaranteeing the separation of powers of government, as well as representation in government by virtue of a people’s assembly. Similarly, the evolution of thought over time on what constitutes justice has also impacted on how different societies punish crime differently. This is why, for instance, amputation as a punishment for stealing and execution for murder are acceptable in some countries and not in others.
Our legal system, including our criminal jurisprudence, like most countries in the Commonwealth, was handed down to us by the British while Nigeria was a colony. This system of law is generally referred to as “Common Law” and countries that practice it are referred to as Common Law jurisdictions. Now, for most CLJs, crimes are punished to achieve the following purposes:
According to the Judicial Commission of New South Wales (Australia is a member of the Commonwealth), the following are the reasons for which a court may impose a sentence on an offender:
(See here and here for enlightening discussions on justifications for punishment).
In its Strategic Plan for 2008-2011, the UK’s Office for Criminal Justice reform said
“The fundamental test of any justice system is its effectiveness in bringing offences to justice. This means that the prosecution is well-managed, the guilty convicted and the innocent freed in a way that meets the needs of victims and treats all sections of the community fairly…It means criminal justice helping to deter crime because offenders know that be caught and punished and ensuring that, when caught, they do not reoffend…The public needs confidence that offenders are being punished and that crime does not pay.”
This background is necessary for a fuller understanding of what happened yesterday, in the prosecution of one Mr. John Yakubu Yusufu (formerly (??) of the Police Pensions Office), for his role in the theft of N39bn of Police Pension Funds. Yusufu, in court before Justice Abubakar Talba yesterday, admitted his role in the theft of roughly N23bn of the stolen funds, in connivance with others. He was charged under section 308 of the Penal Code (of 1959) and was sentenced under section 309 of the same law. Consequent to his admission of guilt on 3 counts and allocutus on his behalf by his lawyer, Justice Talba sentenced Yusufu to 2 years imprisonment on each count (to run concurrently, ie cumulatively, only two years) with an option of a N250,000 fine on each count, forfeiture of 13 houses and the sum of N325m. Public indignation at the proceedings has been torrid.
Section 308 of the Penal Code says “Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any moveable property, commits criminal misappropriation.” Section 309 says “Whoever commits criminal misappropriation shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine or both.” Thus, while a 2-year sentence on each count is what the law prescribes, the use of the judge’s discretion to rule that the sentences run concurrently and then give Yusufu the option of a fine is probably what has confounded most observers.
If we look again at the purposes or justification for sentencing, it would be extremely hard to say that Yusufu was adequately punished or that his punishment will serve as a deterrent to other public servants. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), the EFCC’s counsel is reported to have complained to Justice Abubakar Talba that the sentence makes a mockery of the EFCC and the Federal Government’s fight against corruption.
I am not sure the EFCC is without blame, however. A cursory glance through the same Penal Code also contains Criminal Breach of Trust offences. Section 311 says “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts that property to his own use or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.” Section 312 says “Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.”
Of even greater relevance is section 315, which says “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, factor, broker, legal practitioner or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to a fine.”
Unless my understanding is wrong and a pension fund accountant is not one “entrusted with” the funds, I am at a loss as to why conviction was not sought additionally under these sections.
Perhaps a final mention should be given to Yusufu’s allocutus (his plea for leniency after his admission of guit). I am reproducing it, as reported by PMNews, in full –
Yusufu’s lawyer, Mr. Maiyaki Theodore Bala, in his submission after his client pleaded guilty, told the court that the conduct of his client had demonstrated remorse to the court and to Nigeria as a nation for breaching its laws.
According to him, ”By pleading guilty, the convict has shown respect to this court and have saved precious time of the court. The court will also find that he is a first time offender without any previous record of conviction, furthermore, he is the head of a family of four, a wife and 3 children, two of who are university students while one is a primary school pupil. These people depend on him for their survival and well being, including the payment of school fees. It is also pertinent to note that he has a chronic heart condition which has aggravated to a serious case of high blood pressure, a condition that requires frequent medical attention. His aged parents are still alive and due to old age, have attendant medical complications which require regular medical attention and both depend on him to deal with these.”
The lawyer also told the court that Mr. Yusufu had grown to become a community leader with a number of students depending on him for scholarships, these Nigerian children, according to him, will loose (sic) the opportunity if justice is not tempered by mercy.
Continuing in his plea for leniency for his client, Maiyaki told the court that going by the application for complete forfeiture of the assets and properties confiscated from his client, that the EFCC had taken everything from his client and he is left with nothing. He urged the court to exercise the discretionary powers granted it under section 309 of the Penal Code in favour of the convict and give him an option of fine so as to serve as incentive to the other accused persons to take the courage of coming forward to admit their guilt where one exists.
Now, while the primary purpose of allocution is to mitigate the sentence for the offence to which one has just pleaded guilty, is its purpose simply to get accused persons the most lenient sentence possible? Surely not. A child kills his parents but begs for mercy because he is now an orphan? Given the tragic history of pensions and pensioners in Nigeria, the unending tales of pensioners fainting (dying, even) on queues to collect their pensions, the anti-corruption rhetoric of the current federal administration and the huge injustice in N35bn of public funds simply vanishing, should any allocution (even if it were from the lips of the late Rotimi Williams himself) absolve any Nigerian pension thief of jail time?
The fight against corruption needs to grow some mean teeth. The prosecution must push for the most severe punishment available and the brotherhood of judges must censure their colleagues who pervert the course of justice. Our criminal laws, especially as they relate to graft in public office, need periodic reviewing. If, truly, the most severe punishment available for stealing public money is a 2-year jail term commutable to a fine of N250,000, do not be surprised if the queue to confess suddenly elongates, with these criminals smiling all the way back to their banks.
The Nigerian quest for leadership continues and, unfortunately for progressives, zoning and entitlement to others standing down so that a particular region can enjoy its turn to produce the next president is the current preoccupation of the ruling elite and the chasing pack. The pro-zoning argument is mostly that it corrects marginalisation and encourages “a feeling of belonging”. As there is a gaping lack of evidence that any region has benefitted from being the sitting president’s home-region, one must question what exactly those who protest it are being marginalised from?
The North (I use these geo-political groupings only very nominally) has produced the majority of the country’s heads of government post-Independence. The consensus is however that it is largely the region lacking the most in infrastructure, education and several other key development indices. The South-West had its own turn but no one can point to the exclusive benefit this conferred on the region during those eight years. The incumbent is from the South-South and it would also be hard to point to anything that has accrued to that region specifically. What then can the accusation of marginalisation be in reference to, if the regions do not enjoy special benefits for producing the president? This zoning argument also scales down to politics at the state level, where the governorship “must” be rotated between the different regions that comprise the states. Marginalisation apparently also exists at the state and local government levels too. The majority of the country must therefore be suffering from this malaise of marginalisation at every point in time.
My guess is that it is not the benefits that would accrue to the region that these marginalisation politicians refer to. It is more than likely to be the benefits that accrue to the members of the office-holder’s circle of trust and their hangers-on – the ability to influence appointments (and accumulate political capital), the potential to increase their own personal wealth and [in the tiniest of whispers] the opportunity to assist with how looted funds, if any, will be laundered.. If the President or Governor emerges from your region, you can expect a handsome personal reward depending on how close a friend you are or how prominent a role you played in his election. The cry of marginalisation cannot have very much to do with the progress of the officer-producing region.
It is extremely idealistic but I am hopeful that one day, marginalisation will cease to be the motivation or justification for a candidate’s eligibility, and the most important factor in our choices at the ballot will be the quality of the candidate’s learning and the strength of his character. I have often wondered whether the prosperity of the world’s richest nations has anything to do with how well-educated their leaders are. I finally did some digging this week and the results are in the table that follows. The table tries as much as is possible to either go as far back into time as 1980 or, where the information was not readily available, to list the last four heads of government. The table omits schools outside the US and the UK, as most of us (Nigerian readers) are unlikely to be familiar with their pedigree.
|
Name of Head of Government |
Profession/Education |
||
| UNITED KINGDOM | |||
|
David Cameron |
Oxford University, 1st Class in Philosophy Politics & Economics | ||
|
Gordon Brown |
1st class History
University of Edinburgh, PhD History |
||
|
Tony Blair |
Oxford, 2nd Class BA Arts, later became a barrister | ||
|
John Major |
O-Levels, Correspondence course in banking | ||
|
Margaret Thatcher |
Oxford, 2nd Class Honours BSc Chemistry, later became a barrister
|
||
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |||
|
Barack Obama |
Columbia University (Political Science, International Relations); Harvard Law School |
||
|
George W. Bush |
Yale University (History), Harvard Business School (MBA) |
||
|
Bill Clinton |
Georgetown University (BSc Foreign Service); Oxford (Philosophy, Politics & Economics); Yale Law School |
||
|
George H. W. Bush |
Yale University, BA Economics |
||
|
Ronald Reagan |
Eureka College, BA Economics |
||
| GERMANY | |||
|
Angela Merkel |
PhD, Physical Chemistry |
||
|
Gerhardt Schroeder |
Law |
||
|
Helmut Kohl |
History & Political Science |
||
|
Helmut Schmidt |
Army conscript |
||
| FRANCE | |||
|
Francois Hollande |
Political Studies |
||
|
Nicolas Sarkozy |
Law |
||
|
Jacques Chiraq |
Political Studies |
||
|
Francois Mitterand |
Political Science |
||
| JAPAN | |||
| Shinzo Abe | Political Science, Public policy | ||
| Yoshihiko Noda | Political Sciences & Economics | ||
| Naoto Kan | Patent Attorney | ||
| Yukio Hatoyama | PhD, Industrial Engineering | ||
| Junichiro Koizumi | Economics | ||
| SWEDEN | |||
| Fredrik Reinfeldt | Business & Economics | ||
| Göran Persson | Social & Political Sciences (didn’t graduate) | ||
| Ingvar Carlsson
|
Diploma in Business Economics, BSc in political science | ||
| AUSTRALIA | |||
| Julia Gillard | BA, Law | ||
| Kevin Rudd | BA Arts, Asian Studies | ||
| John Howard | BA, Law | ||
| Paul Keating | (No higher education) | ||
| Bob Hawke | BA Arts, Oxford | ||
| SINGAPORE | |||
| Tony Tan | BSc Physics (1st Class)
MSc, MIT PhD Applied Mathematics |
||
| S R Nathan | Social Studies | ||
| Ong Teng Cheong | Architecture | ||
| Wee Kim Wee | Journalist (Political Features) | ||
There is a preponderance of degrees in political science, law, business, economics and arts (with Singapore throwing its own unique party). Leaders educated in the science of statehood, jurisprudence, commerce and humanities. Of course, this is incomplete, almost half-arsed, data and not much can be gleaned from it. For instance, we do not know from this table if the citizens of these countries prefer leaders with this sort of education or whether it is each country’s political infrastructure that ensures that the cream rises to the top. The table does not examine the presidents’ cabinets and the quality of the team they are surrounded with. We cannot tell if the countries are rich because their leaders are well-educated or whether the leaders are well-educated because the countries are rich.
Regardless, there does appear to be a correlation between the level to which a country’s leaders over time have been educated and how prosperous the country is. This is more so when Sub-Saharan Africa (in which a huge number of the world’s poorest countries are located) is examined in a similar vein and we see several countries that have been pillaged [mostly] by soldiers in the period under review. The soldiers that have usurped civilian rule have also mostly not been of the senior ilk – coups are rarely planned by generals. Many of these countries have also endured long stretches during with the same head of government. Imagine a first-year medical student performing heart surgeries, and answerable to no one for the inevitable cock-ups.
Going forward, while I realise that the “masses” probably do not care much for what university the president went to nor, indeed, if he even went at all, the nature of candidates’ education must be taken into greater consideration. It should come as no surprise, for instance, when people who know nothing of the theories of state get onto our television screens and spout heresies. How can we expect such people to be aware of their own responsibilities in the social contract? When merit is perpetually sacrificed on the altar of marginalisation, how can we expect progress or growth? Perhaps our change advocacy needs to make much more of an issue of this.
The Chronicles of Chill 