By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

On 5 September, 2022, Kenya’s Supreme Court sitting as the final and sole judicial arbiter of presidential election disputes in the country, certified the election of incumbent Deputy President, William Samoei Ruto, as the lawful winner of the presidential election conducted the previous month on 8^th August.

When he is sworn in on 13 September, Ruto will become the fifth president of Independent Kenya, the second ethnic Kalenjin after the late Daniel Arap Moi to hold the office. He will also be the second former indictee of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be installed in the position in succession to his current boss, Uhuru Kenyatta, both tried unsuccessfully by the court in connection with the post-election violence (PEV) that followed Kenya’s 2007 presidential elections.

            Ruto’s journey from ICC indictee and out-of-favour Deputy President to the presidency is a testament to the ruthlessness of his political talents. The improbable story of how a man with a record of over “30-year involvement in the good, the bad, and the ugly of Kenya’s politics, still managed to spin a winning legend of ‘hustler vs. dynasty’” will be studied by students of political branding and communications for a long time.

            Kenya’s election was not the only significant presidential contest in Africa this year. Two weeks after that event, on 24 August, Angolans also went to the polls to elect a president. At the end of balloting, the ruling Peoples’ Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), Party of General Joao Lourenco, the incumbent president, was announced winner, polling 51% of the vote to 44% by the opposition National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Three days after Kenya’s Supreme Court affirmed the results in Nairobi, Angola’s Constitutional Court similarly rejected UNITA’s challenge to the outcome of the presidential election, and certified the election of the incumbent as duly returned.

The election in Kenya was, however, the most consequential ballot on the continent this year for many reasons. Kenya is a regional anchor in East Africa, with considerable strategic and diplomatic heft beyond the region. It is closely involved in seeking and bringing stability to a fragile region. Kenya’s model of constitutional reforms in the aftermath of the2007-2008 PEV is also an inspiration beyond its borders.

The outcome was close. Raila Odinga, the leader of the Azimio Coalition, whom Ruto beat to the prize, lost with a mere 233,211 votes out of 14,212,995 cast but could have sent the election into a run-off or second round with just 70,000 votes, to deny Ruto the constitutional threshold of 50%+1.

Beyond these numbers, however, the outcome in Kenya is also another significant chapter in how the ICC has become a factor – acknowledged or not – in African politics. When he attended the inauguration of President Uhuru Kenyatta in 2013 (with Ruto as Deputy President), Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni famously declaimed against un-named Western powers whom he said were  “now using it [the ICC] to install leaders of their choice in Africa and eliminate the ones they do not like.” At the time, Uhuru and Ruto faced ICC pending processes in connection with the PEV.

In 2015, the case against Kenyatta collapsed, leading to his discharge and paving the way for his re-election as president two years later. In the trial of Ruto “16 of the 42 prosecution witnesses stopped co-operating with the court and refused to testify because of threats, intimidation, and fear of reprisals. Several other witnesses admitted during their testimonies to have told lies to the prosecutors in return for money.” The case was frustrated by witness tampering and intimidation. The court could not acquit Ruto nor could it find him guilty.

If the trial was an effort master-minded by anyone to dim their political prospects, the opposite seems to have occurred. Far from bearing out President Museveni’s thesis, the trial of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto appeared to have injected Steroids into their political careers.

But Kenya is not the only place where the ICC was accused of international insertion into domestic politics under the guise of prosecutorial action for accountability. When the ICC’s appeals chamber acquitted former DRC Vice-President, Jean-Pierre Bemba, of all charges in 2018, it was said that the judgment was “a political decision aimed at threatening the acting DRC President, Joseph Désiré Kabila, who is not in a hurry to organise free and fair elections and leave power.” One commentator queried: “Could the ICC have been manipulated by those who uphold prescriptive democratic ideals and who have the necessary power to impose ‘democracy’ in developing countries? The possible manipulation of the ICC could have led to Bemba’s freedom.”

Following the indictment of Sudan’s former President, Omar Al-Bashir by the same court in 2009, another observer described an “imbroglio of political and justice considerations”, in which, it seems the politics always wins out. In Sudan, some would argue, the ICC did not have a realistic means to bring Bashir to trial but used the indictment as strategic leverage on such other issues as the independence of South Sudan and support for international terrorism.

The absence of a smoking gun to anchor these claims has not necessarily stopped them from flourishing. What cannot be disputed is the fact that the footprint of the ICC in Africa has had far reaching political consequences in a continent in which the court has not always been remarkable for its political acuity or sense of timing.

            The impact of the ICC in Kenya will be a matter of considerable speculation well into the foreseeable future. The background does bear a brief reprise.

On 27 December, 2007, Kenyans went to the polls to elect a president. Three days later, on 30 December, the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), in the middle of the night, announced President Mwai Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU) as duly elected with 46.42% of the votes, ahead of Raila Odinga, of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to whom it gave 44.07%. He was hurriedly sworn in. Meanwhile, in the parliamentary vote which took place with the presidential ballot, the ODM won 99 of the 208 seats on offer with 30.83% of the votes, beating out the PNU slate, which ended up with 43 seats from 20.89% of the votes cast.

Thereafter, as reported by the New York Times the following day, “[i]t took all of about 15 minutes…. for the country to explode.”

            According to an initial assessmentissued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations following a mission in February 2008, “more than 1,200 Kenyans were reported killed, thousands more injured, over 300,000 people displaced and around 42,000 houses and many businesses were looted or destroyed. A significant number of cases of sexual violence were also reported.”

It took a plurinational mediation led by former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Anan, to stem the violence.

            The power-sharing government instituted at the end of the mediation under the National Accord and Reconciliation Act established a hybrid international judicial commission of inquiry into the violence. The three-person commission headed by Philip Waki, a judge of Kenya’s Court of Appeal made two important findings. First, it found that “armed militias, most of whom developed as a result of the 1990s ethnic clashes, were never de-mobilized [and] led to the ease with which political and business leaders reactivated them for the 2007 post-election violence.” Second, it concluded that the PEV was “a result of planning and organization in other areas, often with the involvement of politicians and business leaders.” Instead of paying a price, it seems those “politicians and business leaders” flourished.

            Some people will argue that the outcome of the ICC process in Kenya has been salutary. For proof, they may call attention to the fact that as close as this 2022 ballot was, there was no violence. That is one way of looking at it. It has taught the voters to avoid dying for politicians. They have nowhere to run to or hide.

It is well possible that the would-be president who has prevailed over every prosecutor and politician arrayed against him will, in office, overcome his provenance and plunder greatness from the jaws of infamy. That would be an ending fit for a Hollywood script.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

By Chief Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo

I have taken pains to profile the traditional rulers in Nigeria particularly those in the South South , South East , South West and North Central Zones of Nigeria affected by the water resources bill and I discover that they are all well lettered . By my findings they all can read and write and are well exposed in life . From my findings , it is safe to say that our traditional rulers are literate enough to know what the devious and devilish water resources is all about.

Our traditional rulers cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the said evil bill has once again been introduced on the floor of the 9th Assembly after its rejection by the 8th Assembly .

Our traditional rulers cannot claim not to understand that if the bill is passed into law their people will loss the right to their land , ground and surface water to the federal government of Nigeria.

Our traditional rulers cannot say that they are not aware that if the bill goes through it will be mandatory for their people to obtain a license before using water that will then be considered public asset for domestic, social or commercial purposes from the federal government in Abuja.

Our traditional rulers cannot play the ostrich to the fact that once the satanic bill is passed into law their fertile land and water will be handed over to foreign fulani herdsmen for habitation just like they are currently forcefully and illegally occupying all the federal government of Nigeria forest reserves nation wide .

As Custodians of our history , identity , tradition, customs , culture and heritage our traditional rulers must in unism and unequivocally condemn the water resources bill.

At this junction our traditional rulers must speak out as their silence over the water resources bill at this point in time is no longer golden. If truly that they represents their people and are on the side of their people they must fight against the enslavement , subjugation and repression of their people which the bill is bound to occasion on their people.

Prevention they say is better than cure .

By Engr. Jerry Okwuosa

I read with keen interest the advocacy of Dr. Abiola Akinyode-Afolabi writing on behalf of Women Advocates Research & Documentation Centre (WARDC) requesting for the legalization of abortion in Lagos. Her reason for this request is as follows:

“It gives women improved health-care services; sets guidelines on safe termination of pregnancies for legal indications; women have a right to their bodily integrity and to life; the guidelines are pushing to save women from preventable deaths and It will reduce maternal mortality”.

It is important to recall here that before the European union (EU) forced Ireland to legalize abortion a few years ago, Ireland and Chile have been two of the safest places in the World for pregnant mothers and their unborn children as they achieve lower maternal mortality rates (mmr) than even the United States, UK, France, Germany etc. W H O reports on mmr confirm a trend: countries with restricted abortion laws or who prohibit abortion out rightly have the lowest mmr in their regions. The WHO 2009 report informs that the nation with the lowest mmr in African is Mauritius whose laws are among the Continent’s most protective of the unborn. The report further shows how countries like Ethiopia that have decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to pressure have failed to lower their maternal death rates. Ethiopia’s mmr is 48 times higher than Mauritius’. Similarly, the WHO statistics for the South East Asia region show that Nepal, where there is no restriction on abortion, has the region’s highest mmr. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, with a rate 14 times lower than Nepal. It is not surprising therefore that Chile, which protects unborn life in its constitution is the country with the lowest mmr in South America and that the country with the highest mmr there is Guyana, with an mmr 30 times higher than Chile. Ironically, one of the two main justifications used in liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the “attainment of safe motherhood” by eliminating deaths and complications associated with abortion. This is one of the arguments WARDC is using in Lagos. Evidence therefore abound that legalization of abortion in any country worsens its mmr. Check out the mmr of Ghana and Republic of South Africa before and after the legalization of abortion in those two African countries to confirm the evidence.

The Dublin Declaration (DD)

Unveiled at the International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare in Dublin Ireland in 2012, and has since been signed by over 2,000 medical experts, the Dublin Declaration (DD) states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

In the light of the above declaration, what then is the basis of WARDC’s claim that the STPG give women improved health-care services whereas the medical experts through DD “confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women”.

As for WARDC’s assertion that the document in question sets guidelines on safe termination of pregnancies for legal indications, we argue that the so-called “safe” termination (abortion) of any pregnancy is an illusion because every abortion kills a baby and harms the mother, so how can such a procedure be declared safe AND that there are no legal indications for abortion in Nigeria because abortion remains illegal here.

Yes, it is only when they are not pregnant that women have a right to their bodily integrity. Once a woman becomes pregnant either by choice, accident, rape or incest, she can no longer lay claim to the integrity of her body because she no longer maintains one body but two bodies. As regards the right to life, this is always taken care of – whether or not a woman is pregnant – by doctors being trained (especially in countries where abortion is not legal) to see two patients and two lives (mother and child) in every pregnant woman that needs medical care.

WARDC’s claim that the guidelines are pushing to save women from preventable deaths is a false claim and a misrepresentation of facts because pregnancy is not a disease which if not treated may result in the death of the mother and fertility is not a curse but a blessing most African women desire. As the DD makes abundantly clear, “there is a fundamental difference between the lifesaving treatment a woman may need during pregnancy, and abortion, which is the direct and intentional taking of the life of the unborn child”.

Finally, WARDC claims that the STPG will reduce maternal mortality. Even if this claim were to be true, its immediate effect will be to increase infant mortality – abortions kill babies -. But this is unacceptable because human life has equal value; the mother’s life is not more valuable than the baby’s. If this claim is true it leaves the wrong impression that God blesses women with childbearing only to let them die of a disease called pregnancy. The claim is actually false because statistics show that abortion contributes 11% of maternal deaths in Nigeria i.e. if our women do not attempt abortion, 11% more of them will be alive to cuddle their new born babies. As a nation, we should, while enforcing the ban on abortion, focus attention on the other causes of death (89%) of our pregnant mothers as these include Haemorrhage (23%); Infection (17%); Obstructed labour, Eclampsia, Sepsis and Anemia (11% each) and Others (5%). Through the Dublin Declaration, obstetricians, gynecologists, neonatologists, pediatricians and other doctors from across the specialties of medicine and surgery confidently testify that “a country does not need legalized abortion in order to preserve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality” but here is WARDC misleading us to believe that legalized abortion will reduce maternal mortality. A principal signatory to the DD, Dr. Eoghan de Faoite, advises that “The first step towards turning today’s society against abortion, is to show it that legal abortion is not needed in maternal healthcare, that it is not needed to save women’s lives and that banning abortion does not bring about a rise in maternal mortality”.

WARDC and its culture of death co-promoters should listen to the voice of reason – pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a curse – and to the medical experts who took the time and trouble to educate the world by issuing the Dublin Declaration and see abortion for what it really is – a killer of innocent unborn babies and does enormous damage to their mothers – and work to restore the culture of life for which Africans are well known. If it is any consolation, their arguments are sound only if what is inside a pregnant mother is not a baby. It is only fair to state that a baby once conceived has a right to be born because the right to light is fundamental and inalienable.

Engr. Jerry Okwuosa.
Director-General, Project for Human Development (PHD)

By Martins Oloja

FILE PHOTO: Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan attends the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Mecca, Saudi Arabia May 30, 2019. Picture taken May 30, 2019. Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout via

(Still On Sheikh Zayed)
Let’s continue with the study of the biographies of great men who didn’t live by bread alone as I was saying. The story of Sheikh Zayed should not be disrupted by space constraint. It is great story of a significant statesman whose integrity laid the foundation of what UAE has remarkably become. We read last week that: In 1952, just when he needed every rupee he could lay his hands on to feed and clothe his own family, the Saudis offered him (Zayed) forty two million dollars to give up his fight against them and their claim on Buraimi. It was an astounding amount of money – overwhelming to Sheikh Zayed who scarcely had one hundred rupees in his pocket at the time and less than a week’s supply of food in his palace. But because he believed in what he was doing and because he is a selfless man, he turned the bribe down proudly. He told the Saudis he did not want their money: he was interested only in the welfare of his people and his homeland. No amount of money could buy his loyalty or change his determination to achieve a peaceful settlement giving the people of Abu Dhabi what was rightfully theirs. The bribe was so incredible that it was registered in the ‘Guinness Book of World Records’ as the highest ever offered to anyone in the world….

According to Mohammed Al-Fahim, in ‘FROM RAGS TO RICHES: A STORY OF ABU DHABI: The British, who were central to getting oil in Zayed’s land exported, wanted to see a solid economic foundation in place for the continued exploitation of the vast resources. They wanted development too because they needed it to make the oil industry work properly and profitably. Growth of the oil industry could only be achieved with more qualified staff, better housing, better roads, water resources, electricity, a business community, the list was almost endless. With the then Ruler’s continued resistance to implement change, the pressure intensified on Sheikh Zayed, his brothers and the ruling family to initiate the development process. At the time, neighbouring sheikhdoms and countries including Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia knew what kind of revenues were being generated in Abu Dhabi as a result of the oil industry. They were astonished that nothing was being done with the proceeds. Of course, it was to their advantage for Abu Dhabi to stay as it was: no development there meant people would continue to turn to them for goods and services. They could not believe their good fortune.

Meanwhile, any one of the neighbours might have successfully claimed rights on Abu Dhabi territories because the defences were weak and the loyalty of the tribes was wavering as the government did little to improve their lot. Had any one of them initiated such a claim the rest would have followed suit and it could well have been a free-for-all with Abu Dhabi being carved up into chunks and divided between its neighbours. Even the thought of this potentiality was completely unacceptable to Sheikh Zayed. He was a fiercely patriotic man who loved his country and its people above all else. He took up arms at the age of fourteen to fight against tribes who were infringing on the territory of Abu Dhabi. He fought against neighbouring countries that claimed their lands. Later, in the 1950s, he used his charm and diplomatic skills to inspire loyalty from the various tribes throughout the eastern area. He negotiated with the British on the one hand and with the Saudis on the other.

When the oil revenues began pouring in, he was the one the people turned to for development initiative. Unfortunately, he lacked the financial resources as well as the power to start the process, much as he would have liked to. He was the youngest of four brothers, and the eldest was the Ruler. True, he was an accomplished diplomat with a lot of common sense and a charismatic personality. He also had some influence with his elder brother whom he could sometimes sway or prevail upon to see things differently. But he was not the Ruler. So, he remained frustrated by his inability to effect changes that he thought were crucial to the long-term wellbeing of his country, and his countrymen. His frustration mounted throughout the early and mid-1960s. At the same time, he came under increasing pressure to act – from the people of Abu Dhabi, the ruling family itself, the British, and from the intensity of his own convictions. By 1964, the pressure grew so much that he could no longer stand by accepting the status quo, as the revenues from the oil exports accumulated tremendously. Sheikh Zayed felt it was his duty to act.

Over the next eighteen months he rallied the ruling family around him, including his brothers and cousins who agreed that the situation could not continue as it was, and, with the help of the British, a change in the rulership was effected on August 6, 1966. On that memorable day, Sheikh Zayed became the Ruler of Abu Dhabi. The former ruler went to Bahrain, then to Iran and finally to Lebanon where he lived for many years.

Starting From Scratch
BECAUSE his efforts had been frustrated for so long, particularly in the four years (prior to his administration), Sheikh Zayed began his rule with an unprecedented goodwill. Then an amazing transformation began. As soon as he was in control, Sheikh Zayed began taking steps that would bring Abu Dhabi out of the dark ages. The task was enormous. First, he needed to put together a strong bureaucracy because nothing existed at the time. He started from scratch, building the government department by department: water and electricity, finance, municipal planning, police, defence, communication, internal affairs, external affairs, protocol, health, education, judiciary and more. Here was a man who had never been to school, a man who had lived a nomadic (Bedouin) life since his youth. Yet he conceived and implemented the ideas that would be the foundation of the entire infrastructure of modern day Abu Dhabi/UAE. Naturally, he had to rely on expatriate expertise to a large extent because the local population was simply not qualified then to complete the tasks needed. Without functional schools, most people were still uneducated. So most of the people who ran the government departments initially were brought from elsewhere, seconded from other Arab countries or hired from abroad for their skills. Setting up the framework for the government consumed the first two years of Sheikh Zayed’s rule. But that certainly did not mean that nothing else happened during that time. On the contrary, he was actually implementing some of the development plans as the departments were being formed. With the help of his extended family and knowledgeable Abu Dhabians, he began executing development plans without delay.

The Iconic Lee Kuan Yew Of Singapore
Joseph Nye, the Harvard University political scientist who coined the terms ‘soft power’ and ‘smart power,’ once described Lee Kuan Yew as a man “who never stops thinking, never stops looking ahead with larger visions. His views are sought by respected senior statesmen on all continents.” Leaders sought out Lee for his vision and his grasp of geopolitics, but his power came from his achievement. He turned a mosquito swamp (Singapore) into a first world nation in a single generation. The legend, Yew was also a powerful communicator, putting across his thoughts in a simple, clear and precise manner. His two-volume memoir (The Singapore Story and From Third World to First) as well as his speeches and interviews offer an engaging master class in governance.

His clear vision: Since Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965 — an event Mr. Lee called his “moment of anguish” — he had seen himself in a never-ending struggle to overcome the nation’s lack of natural resources, a potentially hostile international environment and a volatile ethnic mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians.

“To begin with, we don’t have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors: a homogeneous population, common language, common culture and common destiny. So, history is a long time. I’ve done my bit.”

His resilience and tenacity: Lee had gone through his toughest period when Malaysia chose to separate itself from Singapore. His shedding tears on public television marked one of the most historic moments in Singapore history. However, he never gave up, strengthened his resolve and continued to believe that he could develop Singapore into what he envisioned it to be.

His innovative approach: Zainuddin M. Z, an Indonesian scholar pays tribute to Lee’s strength of character, saying he did not waste his time moping over the separation but instead drew strength from it to create his vision of a Singapore that is “better and stronger” than Malaysia. He says Lee realised that vision by making sure that Singapore achieved developed-nation status before Malaysia would. He credits this to Lee’s creativity and innovative spirit. The scholar adds: “Lee succeeded in developing a strong new nation that transcends the divisions of race and religion. Not only did he suppress Malay communalism but he killed the racial institutions of the Chinese, including Chinese schools and colleges, and he wiped out their secret societies.
His Incorruptible Nature:

This played a big part in shaping Singapore into one of the least corrupt countries in the world. “He presented to the world a Singapore that is clean, efficient and trustworthy) under an administration that is tough against corruption and scandal.”(NYT, 2015 when he died). In a policy intended to remove the temptation for corruption, Singapore linked the salaries of ministers, judges and top civil servants to those of leading professionals in the private sector, making them some of the highest-paid government officials in the world.

Doubtless, LKY was able to lead his one city country from ‘Third To First World’ because he never attempted to live by bread alone. He lived and died for his country. Let all our aspirants to high offices and public servants in Nigeria read the biographies of the two great men here for re-orientation on how to rebuild the broken walls in Africa’s most populous country and indeed the hope of the black race!

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The mantra of candidate Muhammadu Buhari in the campaign that eventually took him to Nigeria’s presidency in 2015 was one word: “Change”. For a fact, it was not original. 32 years before 2015, in the 1983 presidential election, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP) first deployed that slogan in their unsuccessful bid to make President Shagari a one-term president.

The moment then seemed ripe for that message. Under the watch of President Shagari’s National Party of Nigeria (NPN), a unique mixture of poor luck and official criminality conspired to bring Nigeria to its knees. The desire for change seemed very real but then the NPN did not plan to quit power and its opponents were too divided to offer any potent threat. So, Shehu Shagari managed to increase his share of the announced results from 36% in 1979 to 47.5% in 1983. Nnamdi Azikiwe, despite the resonance of his slogan, only ended up with 13.99%.

Muhammadu Buhari, then a Major-General in the Nigerian Army, decided thereafter to procure with the gun what the opposition could not with the ballot box: he ousted President Shagari in a military coup. Having taken power as a soldier from Shagari in 1983, Buhari went back to the future in 2015 to purloin the mantra of the NPP. It is doubtful whether Buhari knew in 2015 that his slogan was a genuflection before the altar of an “Igbo party”, which was how many people viewed the NPP.

To be fair, it was not only president Buhari’s All Progressives’ Congress (APC) that cannibalized the remains of the NPP in 2015. The NPP’s party slogan was “Power to the People” which the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) had stolen at inception in 1998. So, going into the 2015 election, the two leading parties drew their inspiration from one source.

The real challenge in 2015 was one that is all-too-familiar in African politics: an anti-climax of fulfilled political expectations. The ruling party had been so long in power, it had no effective plan for transition into opposition and the opposition party had become so comfortable in that role it did not prepare for governance.

The electorate had to take considerable responsibility for this. People were so enamoured of the unproven powers of the Buhari magic, they decided not to bother with asking him to explain what kind of change he meant. It should have been evident to anyone who cared that “change”, is value neutral. It implies motion without necessarily promising movement or progress. It’s direction can be negative or positive. It has precisely the kind of laconic quality to empty it of any clear commitment. With the promise of “change”, candidate Buhari promised everything while simultaneously committing to nothing.

Four years later, when he ran for re-election, President Buhari reached back into precisely the same bag of trickery, promising “next level” without indicating “of what?”

In less than four weeks, on 28 September 2022, the campaign season for the 2023 presidential election will begin. If Nigerians are not to fall into the same error as in 2015, when the electorate seemed hynoptised into choice without information, then in 2023, there has to be a concerted effort to get clarity concerning the positions of leading candidates on the issues that matter.

It is a measure of the misadventure that has been the Buhari presidency that the two issues that arguably did more than any others to persuade Nigerians to his corner will not much bother most people in 2023. One is integrity and the other is corruption. On both issues, the Buhari presidency has been characterized by “a yawning gap” between rhetoric and reality, which has spawned a rich supply of choice epithets from “a fraud” to “dishonest integrity”. Many believers, shell-shocked from the duplicities of this Buhari era, seem to have decided that they will not mind capable rogues who can get things done.

This is why as the campaign season begins, the voters need to put themselves in a position to identify the issues on which every serious candidate must show that they have done some contemplation.

One is coexistence. It has become cliched that Nigeria has not been this frayed since the end of the Civil War in 1970. The major reason for this is that President Buhari, in the memorable words of former military governor of Kaduna State, Col. Abubakar Umar, has profoundly “mis-managed Nigeria’s diversity.” As a testament to this, on the approach to the 40th anniversary, the landscape of the 2023 elections could potentially reprise the 1983 elections. There will be two major candidates from the south, one from the north, and an unending supply of dog whistle. It will be a brave candidate who campaigns boldly on a message of coexistence. But may be such is the kind of candidate that the country needs at this time. Every serious candidate needs to be pressed on this point.

Two, what is the value of a Nigerian life? By the most conservative counts (based on open sources), 5,797 persons in Nigeria have been killed in the first half of this year but the numbers do not do justice to the desperate straits in which the country finds itself. We have become used to the president neither acknowledging the human abattoir that the country has become under his watch, nor having any interest in empathy or fellow feeling. This indifference has set the country asunder when it should be coming together against the common threat of insecurity. Economic activity has been blighted and a nation-wide food security crisis could be imminent.  In many cities, such as Kaduna in the north-west and Jos in the north-central, going from one part of the city to another could be a death sentence. Even the uniformed security services are struggling to protect themselves. Each serious presidential candidate must be prepared to show from the first hour of office what they propose to do to alleviate insecurity.

Three, how will the Commander-In-Chief optimize the security services? This is probably the most important job of a president. It is also the one that the present incumbent has proved most inept at. Under him, the federal government retrenched the police, transferring its responsibilities to the armed forces. When he addressed the cohort at the National Defense College in 2017, then Interior Minister, General Abdulrahman Dambazau, described the situation of the country as “military operations other than war, (MOOTW)” and proclaimed the doctrine that the armed forces are now “spearheading all internal security operations due to the fact that the Nigeria Police is no longer in position to handle such matters effectively.” As proof, today, the army is actively deployed in all 36 states of the Federation in 18 special, expeditionary theatres. What this means is that the army is too stretched to be effective against threats upon the homeland while the police is too demoralized to do its primary task of safeguarding law and order. Every serious candidate must have a plan to reverse this and make the security services fit for purpose.

Four, the economy will require attention in respect of both monetary and structural reforms. The president who will be inaugurated on 29 May 2023 will not have the luxury of a honeymoon. He’ll have to confront a disabling debt overhang, the removal of petroleum subsidy, a fiscal cliff, and a national currency in free fall. Every serious presidential candidate must be pressed on his strategy for ending the calamity that is the current Governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank.

Five, to make progress on the above four issues, every serious candidate has to answer the question: are you prepared to serve only one term? This is not a matter of political convenience or deals. Rather, any president who desires to make progress on these must be prepared to confront committed blowback. If they are too in love with a second term, then the first term will be wasted. This indeed may be the defining issue of all.

Still on Bishop Kukah:

There were three errors in my piece of last week on Bishop Hassan Matthew Kukah. First, he is the Convener of the National Peace Committee, not the Secretary.

Second, Kevin Aje, who came from Kanke Local Government Area of Plateau State, was the first Nigerian Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto. Kukah was the second.

Third, the Diocese of Sokoto does not cover Kaduna. In fact, Sokoto Diocese was under the old Kaduna Diocese and is currently under the Kaduna Ecclesiastical Province. The Diocese of Sokoto covers Katsina State, Zamfara State, Sokoto State, and parts of Kebbi State (Jega, Kamba, Birnin Kebbi, Argungu). Zuru, Koko, Yauri, and some other parts of Kebbi state within those axis belong to Kontagora Diocese. My thanks to Fr. Chris Omotosho, Director, Social Communications, Catholic Diocese of Sokoto, for this.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]  

By  Rotimi Akeredolu

The news concerning the purported award of pipeline contracts to some individuals and private organisations by the Federal Government has been unsettling. More disquieting is the barely disguised hostility displayed against either the idea or the actual establishment of security outfits by some State Governments to fill the widening gaps in the scope of security coverage noticeable nationally.

The Federal Government, through the Office of the National Security Adviser, has been consistent in its refusal to accede to the request by some States in the Federation to strengthen the complementary initiatives adopted to protect lives and property. This is done in spite of the knowledge that the very issues which necessitated the creation of these outfits support providing adequate weaponry. All attempts to persuade the Federal Government to look, critically, into the current security architecture have been rebuffed despite the manifest fundamental defects engendered by over-centralisation.

It is, therefore, shocking to read that the Federal Government has maintained the award of the contract to “protect” the country’s pipeline from vandals to private organisations. This story, if true, leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The NSA will, obviously, not advise the President to approve the award of a contract of such magnitude if the operators have not displayed sufficient capacity to checkmate the criminal activities of equally powerful groups. Consequently, it is safe to conclude that the Federal Government has, impliedly, permitted non state actors to bear heavy assault weapons while denying same privilege to the States, the federating units.

The award of contract to private organisations to protect vandalisation of pipelines raise fundamental questions on the sincerity of the advisers of the Government on security issues. The open and seeming enthusiastic embrace of this oddity, despite the constant and consistent avowal of the readiness by the Security Agencies in particular the Navy to contain the pervasive and deepening crises of breaches and threats to lives and property, attracts the charge of insincerity bordering, deplorably, on dubiety. If the State Governments, which are keenly desirous of protecting their citizens, establish ancillary security outfits and there has been pronounced reluctance, if not outright refusal, to consider permitting them to bear arms for the sole purpose of defence, granting private individuals and or Organisations unfettered access to assault weapons suggests, curiously, deep-seated suspicion and distrust between the Federal Government and the presumed federating units.

The engagement of private organisations to handle serious security challenges reinforces the belief that the whole defence architecture in the country needs an urgent overhaul. The Federal Government cannot be seen to be playing the Ostrich in this regard.

ARAKUNRIN OLUWAROTIMI O. AKEREDOLU, SAN
GOVERNOR, ONDO STATE

By Sonnie Ekwowusi

Last Thursday I went to one of the branches of the Access Bank to carry out a transaction on one of the accounts of our law firm. This particular account was opened about 17 years ago long before Access Bank acquired  Diamond bank. And since the opening of the account, our law firm has been successfully operating without any hitches or hiccups.  Almost all staffers of this particular branch of the Access bank are well known to me. In fact, I know some of them by name.

On their part, most of the bank staffers know me very well by my name too. They know I am a lawyer who comes to the bank from time to time to carry out bank transactions on our accounts. So, I have had about 17 years of smooth and cordial relationship with this bank.

But something strange happened last Thursday between me and the bank. I had arrived at the bank, as usual, to carry out the usual bank transaction. After presenting my cheque at the counter, one of the ladies at the counter held my cheque in her right hand, looked at it closely, and muttered some inaudible words. Asked what was amiss, she directed me to the inquiry desk. On getting to the desk, the lady desk officer took a studied look at the cheque, tapped her computer keyboard, looked at the screen, and said to me: “Sir, this account needs reactivation”. ”Why the reactivation?”, I queried. “Because it has been rendered dormant. It is no longer active”, she responded. Visibly angry, I retorted: “But what makes it dormant? What will I do to reactivate it”. She quickly opened the drawer by her side, pulled out a sheet of paper containing some bank requirements, threw the paper at me, and said: “Sir, these are the requirements for reopening the account. We need two references from you, your means of identification. We also need your utility bills, signatures of signatories to the account, Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML) Certificate.

Flabbergasted beyond belief, I carefully explained to the lady that I was an old customer of the bank, and, that at the time of opening account 17 years I satisfied all bank requirements for opening a corporate account, and that the SCUML certificate wasn’t a requirement at the time I opened, and, in fact, does not apply to law firms. At this juncture, my contention attracted the attention of the bank branch manager and he left what he was doing and joined the discussion. After it dawned on me that the bank was unyielding to my conviction, I left the bank and returned to the office. After about two hours I returned to the bank with a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in Central Bank of Nigeria V Nigeria Bar Association delivered on June 14 2017 wherein the court held, inter alia, that the Money Laundering Act 2011 (SCUML), in so far as it relates to legal practitioners, is repugnant to the Legal Practitioners Act and the Evidence Act, and, therefore not applicable to law firms.

As soon as I entered the bank hall I flashed the copy of the judgment before the lady. I saw her countenance change a little bit. But that was the only change I could see in her. After a moment of silence, she stood up, looked me in the eyes, and returned her previous verdict- to the effect that I must produce a SCUML certificate failure for which our law firm account will remain closed. Considering that the bank had neither respect for the rule of law nor respect for their long-time customer, I told the bank that I was applying to permanently close the account. Upon the grant of my application, I quickly put pen to paper and instantly closed the account. Before leaving the bank, I turned and told the bank staffers who cared to listen to me that disobedience to the court order and contemptuous treatment of customers were not only capable of damaging the image of the bank but could land the bank in big trouble someday.

Most Nigerian banks have a reputation for acting contrary to the law and interests of their customers. Truth to tell, at times I am tempted to buy the argument that most Nigerian banks are just dysfunctional. To begin with, the apex bank, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is working against the interest of many Nigerians respectfully Nigerian exporters and importers. The current CBN is a pawn in the chess of the Buhari government. The governing board of the CBN is not insulated from partisan politicking. In fact, Emefiele’s CBN functions as if it is an appendage to the Presidency. President Buhari habitually directly issues instructions to the CBN Governor and the latter obeys without qualms. More than 2,000 manufacturing companies and would-be investors including Dunlop Plc have been forced to flee Nigeria owing to the CBN’s strangulating forex policy and monetary policies.

The CBN obstructs food importation into the country even though it cannot tackle food scarcity in the country. For example, recently the 10 products selected by the CBN for special intervention to reduce food importation in the country fell short of the target contained in the bank’s five-year policy plan. Whereas the CBN easily denies manufacturing companies the foreign exchange to import raw materials and other essential goods into Nigeria, it prints trillion upon trillions of the Naira currency and freely doles them out to President Buhari and others for the satisfaction of their personal needs. Small wonder Governor Emefiele nurses the ambition of becoming the President of Nigeria. As far as he is concerned, he is in the good books of President Buhari’s and therefore he is qualified to be the President of Nigeria

Under the pretext of charging their customers bank charges such as value-added tax, or service charges or alert charges, or charge on transfer (COT), new cheque book charges, overdraft charges, returned cheque charges, or any other bogus charges, most commercial banks in Nigeria are quietly “stealing” depositors’ funds without the knowledge of the depositors. The annoying aspect is that these unsolicited prohibitive charges are arbitrarily and recklessly imposed on customers without prior consent of the customers. Also, the charges are discriminatorily imposed. For instance, a bank may exempt some wealthy customers with fat bank accounts from paying COT charges and turn around to impose heavy COT on other customers of the bank with lean bank accounts.  Besides, some bank statements are replete with calculation inaccuracies and errors. And considering many bank customers do not cross-check their bank statements or statements of account, such inaccuracies and errors are undetected. Fund transfers from abroad are also heavily charged. The last time I transferred some funds abroad my bank charged me an incredible percentage as transfer charges despite the fact that I maintained a domiciliary account with the bank. Not to mention the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and the various e-payment bloated charges. Bank customers in Nigeria groan under the yoke of oppressive ATM charges.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that the CBN and many commercial banks in Nigeria are in dire need of reinvention to guarantee their efficiency and ethical practices, and professionalism. It beats the imagination that banks which ought to render customers the best bank services turn around to maltreat their customers as well as impose prohibitive bank charges on them. The tragedy is that Emefiele’s CBN which ought to exercise a supervisory role over the commercial banks is in dire need of supervision at the moment. For sure, the accumulated rot at the CBN cannot be cleansed in one fell swoop: it requires constant cleansing possibly in the coming years until the whole rot is cleansed away. Certainly, we cannot continue to live in a country with dysfunctional CBN and commercial banks.

That said, bank customers should learn to cross-check their statements of account to ascertain that they are not fraught with errors. We need an enlightened bank citizenry that is keen on protecting their rights. In keeping with bank-customer good relationships, banks should treat their customers with respect, refinement, and delicacy. According to the popular saying, customers are always right. A customer is never wrong. Therefore requesting that a bank customer should first and foremost procure a SCUML certificate before his account is reopened is punitive and disrespectful. I thought banks were supposed to make opening of bank accounts easier for their customers in order to encourage them to continue to patronize the banks. Definitely, by making the procurement of a SCUML certificate mandatory many customers would be forced to shut down their bank accounts as I recently did.

Therefore in order to enhance smooth bank-customer relationship, the CBN should scrap the SCUML certificate requirement. First, getting a SCUML certificate from the EFCC is tedious. The process takes almost a month. So, needless to place this unnecessary SCUML burden on the shoulders of a bank customer who is simply patronizing the bank. If the EFCC and our security operatives are seriously out to track down and arrest money launderers or those involved in financial crimes, they know the best way of going about it. Certainly harassing an innocent bank customer over the non-possession of a SCUML certificate is improper. Therefore the CBN, as I earlier said, should reinvent itself. First and foremost, it should regain its independence. It should serve the interest of all Nigerians not only the interest of the Presidency. Above all, it should perform its duties responsibly. In the coming months, we look forward to seeing a revamped CBN capable of fulfilling its statutory duties diligently and responsibly no matter whose ox is gored.

On their part, commercial banks should treat their customers with due respect and regard.