In the last two Mondays two newspapers – Daily Trust and Nigerian Tribune – have published data on the collection of Value Added Tax (VAT) in the first eight months of 2021. The reports have shed more heat than light.

On Monday, November 22, Daily Trust published an exclusive story entitled, “Kano beats entire five South East in VAT collection.” In the tradition of the newspaper, the story was a serious attempt to explain, in numbers, the tangled mess that VAT sharing has become in recent times.  

The newspaper said that in the first eight months of 2021, Kano State collected more in VAT than the five states of the South East – Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Ebonyi and Abia – combined. In other words, the data obtained suggests that the bogey about Northern states leeching off VAT revenue from the South, is just what it is – a bogey.

It reported, for example, that according to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) data cited, Kano raked in N24.4 billion in eight months, compared to the five South-eastern states which collected N20 billion – a repudiation, if you like, of the widely held caricature of some Northern states as parasites. 

To drive home the point, the report also cited higher VAT collections by states which had been significantly impacted by banditry, like Kaduna and Yobe, compared with Southern states such as Abia, Cross River, Osun, Ekiti, Ondo and Imo, for example, as evidence that the VAT debate championed mainly by two Southern governors – Nyesom Wike of Rivers and Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos – is wrong-headed.

According to the report in the first eight months of this year, and I’m now quoting the exact figures published, Abia collected N2.25 billion; Anambra, N5.56 billion; Ebonyi, N17.21 billion; Enugu, N5.19 billion; and Imo, N1.01 billion. That adds up to N31.22 billion, and not N20 billion, as the newspaper mistakenly reported. 

Then on Monday, November 29, ostensibly from the same set of figures, Nigerian Tribune launched a counter VAT data war. 

In its headline, “Oyo’s VAT revenue higher than total collection of 17 Northern states,” the newspaper reported that Oyo State, its home base, collected N64.646 billion from VAT in the first eight months of this year, beating 17 Northern states (excluding Kano and Kaduna), which collected N61.174 billion. 

Again, although the newspaper said this sum is N3.472 billion more than the collection by the 17 Northern states, my addition showed that even by their own reported figures, Tribune under-estimated the collection of the Northern states by N81 million.  

But addition is not the only problem with the data by  Trust and Tribune. In the current politically charged climate, chances are that some would be inclined to interpret the referenced Trust-Tribune data skirmish as a continuation of the now familiar North-v-South brickbat. I won’t be drawn into such potentially distractive side talk. 

According to a September 11, 2021 report by PwC, the top contributing sectors to VAT in 2020 (which was N1.53 trillion) were professional services and telecoms 10.6 percent; manufacturing 10.07 percent; commercial and trading 5.06 percent; brewing, bottling and beverages 3.90 percent; transport and haulage, 2.84 percent.

The first question that the data by the newspapers raises is which sectors delivered the sterling performance in the total VAT collection of approximately N1 trillion in eight months in 2021?

It would be interesting to know how FIRS surpassed the one trillion naira mark in the first eight months of this year when key sectors responsible for significant revenues have taken an incredible beating. 

State revenues have witnessed nearly 60 percent fall and apart from corporates in ICT/telecoms and perhaps the pharmaceuticals, virtually all sectors have taken a big blow. 

It’s also difficult to understand the whole point about the weaponisation of the data when the states supposed to be the new VAT champions have traditionally been the largest centres of VAT collection.

Lagos, Kano, Oyo, Rivers and FCT traditionally get a higher percentage of VAT largely for historical and demographic reasons. Any data that seeks to compare collections on a state-by-state basis can hardly make sense without stating clearly which sectors are responsible for the performance. That important detail is absent in both reports.

The second question is timing. In the last three years, the South-east has been under a siege. But that siege devolved into a state of anarchy in the first six months of this year, claiming scores of lives, including those of innocent persons caught in the crossfire. Apart from the burial of Obi Cubana’s mother, I’m not sure there was any other viable economic activity in the region for months. 

As for the Northern states, except if bandits who have significantly disrupted telecoms and other normal business activities in swathes of the area are now paying VAT, I wonder what is to be gained by comparing performance there with elsewhere. 

Comparative VAT data targeting a period of abysmal economic activities, worsened by insecurity, the fallouts of COVID-19 and declining oil revenues does not help anyone. 

Not only was the timing bound to yield a tendentious narrative, the decision to focus on a few outliers instead of looking at the trend over a period was also sure to produce a misleading picture.

And that brings us to the third question. Do the figures quoted tally with those submitted at the Federation Account Allocation Committee over the same period or were they taken from data that has not been officially reported? 

This is important since only reported figures are relevant in computing what was collected or what can be shared among the component units. Usually, each state takes 50 percent, and the principle of derivation accounts for not less than 20 percent.

And then the fourth. Why does the FIRS which stands to gain a lot from letting the facts speak for the agency prefer leaking a report, when openness and clarity are required? It’s hard to resist the temptation that the agency has an agenda. 

Yet, even if the data could answer all these questions, it would still be irrelevant in dealing with the most fundamental point in the VAT debate: the illegality, under the present Constitution, of the Federal Government collecting for the last 27 years, revenue which it is not authorised to collect under the law.

The real point of the VAT debate is not how much Kano is getting from beer even though the hisbah routinely crushes beer bottles. It is not whether Kaduna is collecting more than all the South-south states combined or whether the South-east could have posted higher collections with better Federal presence or greater peace and security, too. Nor is it about whether or not Oyo is the new VAT champion. 

It’s simply that the Federal Government has been appropriating income that the Constitution does not authorise it to. No data can defend this illegality.

When the FIRS was created in 1994 – and this has been said publicly by Emmanuel Ijewere, a key member of the Committee that set it up – states were supposed to keep 100 percent of the revenue. The FIRS was to retain five percent as administrative cost. That plan was discarded. 

The recent ruling of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt only reaffirmed what was known all along: that the Federal Government is only authorised to make tax laws and impose and collect taxes that relate to stamp duties, income tax, profits and capital gains tax, as contained in items 58 and 59 of Part 1, Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (Exclusive Legislative list). This means that the imposition of VAT/sales taxes is a residual matter, which falls squarely within the legislative and administrative domain of states. This is the real issue.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the status quo before the dispute be maintained, which some could interpret as “maintaining the long-standing practice”. 

However, there is also a strong legal opinion on whether the Court of Appeal can legally give a mandatory ruling, suspending a judgment of the Federal High Court, before considering the case and delivering its own judgement. 

The overriding view is that it can only urge or advise both parties to maintain the status quo pending its own decision, in order to avoid chaos in case the lower court’s decision is eventually overturned by a superior court.

I understand that those who have benefited from the current illegality, knowing that VAT has become the crown jewel of the seven main taxes, would feel obliged to defend and maintain the status quo. 

It is also perfectly understandable that an increasingly cash-strapped Federal Government would be desperate to grab all the revenue it can find. But the way to redemption is not paved by dubious facts. 

If the Federal Government genuinely thinks that a mistake has been made in the past, it can reach out to all the parties involved and agree on a way to amend the law. After all, the APC has a majority in the National Assembly. 

But until the law is amended or perhaps the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Federal Government must let states collect VAT, as provided by the law.

•Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

Growth and development, as a concept, in whatever shape or form, is predicated on measurable value addition. It is thus commonplace to learn of economic growth, industrial growth or population growth, all geared towards national development.

But there are obvious enablers in the form of available resources, which include human resources and natural resources. These resources are veritable tools, which when utilised optimally; confer on nations the quality growth and development required for stability and good governance.
Knowledge is the engine that propels the utilisation of these resources. It readily comes in the form of education, which embodies among others, science and technology. Science offers humanity the ability to acquire knowledge of facts or principles, in tackling challenges and resolving issues in a methodical, auditable and measurable manner. It is thus empirical. In the same manner technology opens up the practical use of scientific knowledge in advancing Industry and our everyday life.

This is why education is accorded priority attention in countries that focus on growth and development; and Nigeria must not be an exception. Ironically there are a number of tertiary institutions of Science and Technology in this country but their impact must be felt and recognized. In Agriculture they can improve technology for modern methods, to increase produce yield, and enhance preservation to ensure food security. They can be involved in infrastructure development and fabrication of equipment and tools that will reduce importation of such and help conserve foreign exchange.

In the next couple of days, one of these institutions will be graduating 4,412 students out of which 64 have been awarded the first class degree. In addition, 42 have attained the doctorate category, with 219 at the masters level. One question readily comes to mind: With this level of attainment in science and technology, why is it difficult for these institutions to design and produce METERS to monitor electricity consumption in homes and establishments? Have they even thought of contraptions like this which high school students in a country like South Korea toy around with? What are their challenges if any? These are issues we must begin to interrogate if Science and Technology must play a key role in our country.

It is heartwarming that this same institution is planning to establish a “SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY” [SESET] in the next academic year. But it is more important that the knowledge acquired be put into practical purposes, so that our country Nigeria can produce basic technological equipment and materials, to put an end to the importation of same.
•Sir Jonas Odocha writes from Abuja

When American billionaire and businessman, Bill Gates, criticised the Nigerian government’s Economic Recovery & Growth Plan for “prioritising physical capital over human capital” during his visit to the country in 2018, his comments were taken with a pinch of salt.

Gates had faulted the Federal Government’s decision to anchor Nigeria’s long term economic growth on investments in infrastructure, saying investments in people must go hand-in-hand. To him, “people without roads, ports and factories can’t flourish. And roads, ports and factories without skilled workers to build and manage them can’t sustain an economy.” Logical, isn’t it?
The co-chair of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had advised the Nigerian government to focus more on human capital development to save the horde of the youth population facing poverty and other social malaise. But instead of taking this advice in good faith, the federal government went on the defensive. We probably know better now that bandits and other criminal elements prevent people from moving freely on many popular Nigerian roads. After all, we all see pictures of road users abandoning their cars on highways due to kidnappers’ attacks. Just a few days back, Kaduna-Abuja bound passengers were forced off the road as bandits took over the highway, kidnapping dozens of passengers.
Gates had also advised Nigeria to channel more investment towards health, family planning and education as a means of human development to alleviate poverty on the continent. According to him, Nigeria is one of the most dangerous places in the world to give birth, with the fourth worst maternal mortality rate in the world ahead of only Sierra Leone, Central African Republic and Chad.

Sadly, we haven’t seen much difference in the level of attention given to human capital development in Nigeria since Bill Gates offered his unsolicited advice. If there is anything, the level of poverty has deepened; more Nigerian children are now out of school with the number of youth engaging in banditry, kidnapping and all sorts of crimes increasing daily. While the Nigerian government put the figure of out of school children at 6.9million as of January 2021, an analytical statistics organisation, SBMorgan Intelligence, says the figure as of August 2021 stood at 12,320,529. According to the body, Bauchi State had the highest number with 1,239,759 out-of-school children, followed by Kastina with 873,633 and Kano with 837,479. It further stated that Edo State had the lowest number with 79,446.
In the South-West, the report said Oyo State had the highest with 463,280, Osun State 260,222 and Lagos State 229,264. In the South-South, Rivers State has the highest number of 196,581 and in the South-East; Ebonyi State has the highest with 151,000.

The analytical body clarified that it didn’t manufacture these figures, stating that it got them from the Federal Ministry of Education. The truth is Nigerians know who to believe between the analytical body and the Federal Government. They see the army of kid beggars and child labourers on their streets. They see the child criminals among bandits and Boko Haram insurgents not to mention the ones involved in ritual killings, cultism, etc. They know that the population of these kid criminals are increasing – a proof that the number of out of school children is increasing. So, the Federal Government can continue to downplay the problem, but Nigerians are not deceived.
Just last week, former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, warned that the dreadful Boko Haram insurgents will soon target out-of-school children and recruit them as fighters. He said the solution to security and poverty should start from education. Addressing participants at the presidential youth mentorship retreat held at his Presidential Library, he blamed security challenges in the country for the increasing rate of out-of-school children. According to him, “A situation today where we have 14 million children that should be in school that are not in school, does anybody need to be an oracle to say that 10 years or 15 years from now, those will be where you will recruit pure Boko Haram.”
Well, it’s a vicious circle. Nigeria is already reaping the reward of what was sown in the past years. The kids have already been recruited as bandits and fighters. Perhaps, what the ex-President meant was that the situation would grow worse which in any case is a no-brainer. As far back as January, 2020, I wrote an article titled, ‘On Masari and child bandits in Katsina forest.’ As of that time, Governor Aminu Masari of Katsina State painted a vivid picture of the horrors locked in the Northern forest, where anyone could get hundreds of armed men almost for free. He said that the children abandoned in the forest across the north were coming back to fight the society as bandits. He didn’t stop there. He warned that unless the education of children in this region was addressed, the situation might become worse.

In the governor’s words: “We have problems now with the forest people because they have no education of any kind. They do not have Islamic education and they do not have western education because they have been abandoned in the forest and forgotten. So these are the kind of children who have come up today, fighting us, fighting the society…. since the children are not educated, they only know one pleasure-the pleasure of the flesh, so they keep on producing children in large numbers.’’ The governor rightly analysed the problem. But, what has he done to reverse the trend in his state? It’s amazing how our leaders are good at analysing our problems without corresponding action in proffering solutions. Otherwise, Katsina shouldn’t today be listed as the state with the second highest number of out-of-school children in Nigeria.

In September 2019, I had written an article on ‘Nigeria breeding children of anger every day, where I emphasised that as long as the law of sowing and reaping subsisted, what we were currently witnessing in the country today in terms of security challenges would be child’s play when compared with what would happen in future if we continued to ignore these children’s education. Although our leaders may hate to hear this, we can’t help but make it clear to them that investment in human capital is vital to building a successful economy.

That is why smart countries make deliberate and intentional investments into their educational sector. Nigeria has many examples to follow across the world. So, this is not a case of anyone reinventing the wheel. Sweden spends $ 11, 400 per student from primary to tertiary education and devotes 7.3% of its GDP to education. This funding goes to both public and private educational institutions. No wonder the country enjoys 81.5% employment rate for all levels of education. In the same vein, South Africa spent R246 billion or 16.7 per cent of total government resources on basic education programmes in 2018/19. Overall, the country spends more than 20 per cent of its resources on basic and higher education and its combined education spending is more than 6 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Now, we come to the crux of the matter. I know some people will argue that comparing Nigeria with Sweden is like comparing an orange with an apple. I agree. Nigeria is lagging far behind the developed nations in terms of resources committed to education. But I have also come to realise that the situation in our country is not as bad as the picture being painted. As I pointed out some weeks back, Nigeria currently imposes a two per cent education tax on the profit of all registered companies operating in Nigeria which goes into funding education at the tertiary level. How are we spending this huge money? It is very easy to jump on the bandwagon and regurgitate the common narrative that our education sector is in a mess because government is not committing enough resources into the sector and conveniently overlook how we are managing what is available. It is high time we began to ask questions as regards what we do with the resources allocated to the education of Nigerian children!
Let’s take a look at our basic education for example. The Universal Basic Education (UBE) Programme was introduced in 1999 to provide greater access to quality basic education throughout the country. The Federal Government sets aside two per cent of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) for equal distribution to all the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), to support basic education.

This is how it works. The Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) provides a sum of N500million to each state per annum to improve infrastructure at the basic education level. But, to access this fund, states are expected to provide a counterpart funding of N500million. The assumption is that there would be at least a minimum of N1bn intervention fund to every state per annum to improve on their basic education. The money is strictly for basic education, so projects are monitored to ensure they are in line with the objectives of the programme. Imagine what would have happened if our states have been investing this money in basic education in the last 22 years! One would have expected the state governments to grab this opportunity. But that has not been the case. Rather, UBEC has always been the one pleading with them to come and access their money.
As at March 2021, UBEC said about N41.06 billion matching grant was still with the commission because the states and the FCT failed to access the fund. According to its Executive Secretary, Dr Hamid Bobboyi, only 30 states and the FCT implemented the 2018 (matching grant projects). Six states namely; Anambra, Imo, Kaduna, Kwara, Ogun, and Plateau are yet to implement. For 2019, only eight states implemented the matching grants projects, 28 states and FCT are yet to implement. In 2020, no state implemented the matching grants projects. As we speak Ogun State is yet to access its 2018 allocations. Likewise, Niger, Enugu, Anambra, Ebonyi, Imo and Edo states are yet to provide matching grants for 2019.

The governors are more interested in how they can be collecting the money without providing the necessary counterpart funding. Yet, these are states contending with serious issues of decay in their primary and junior schools. Clearly this is not a case of lack of fund but that of misplaced priorities. The governors would have accessed the money if there was no law forcing them to spend it on education. Since they are not allowed to spend the money as they like, they don’t mind leaving it with the Federal Government. The money as it were is useless to them. Should this be the case if we are truly serious about our education sector?
UNICEF worked hard towards mopping out over 500,000 out-of school children in four northern states namely Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara states in its 2020 Educate a Child (EAC) programme. It paid to educate 31,000 pupils in Kebbi State alone where parents got N8, 000 on each child per term to encourage them to be in school. These world bodies are making these investments in our country because they know that for the world to enjoy peace, the army of burgeoning out-of-school children in Nigeria must be minimised. If not, these children will grow to become a terror to the whole world.

Meanwhile our state governors are foot-dragging in accessing available funds that will not only make a difference in the lives of millions of children, but guarantee a better future for all. My conclusion is that the problem with Nigeria’s education sector goes beyond lack of money; it is simply a case of lack of interest in the sector by the political elite!
•Olabisi Deji-Folutile (PhD) is the editor in chief, Franktalknow.com and member, Nigerian Guild of Editors. Email [email protected]

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN

1.00 INTRODUCTION
1.01 The Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry and Restitution for Victims of SARS Related Abuses (Panel) was constituted and officially inaugurated on 19th October, 2020. Upon completion of its assignment, the Panel submitted two sets of Reports to the Lagos State Government, (LASG) on November 15, 2021. There have been several developments since the submission of these Reports, the most prominent of which were that the LASG and indeed the Federal Government, through some Ministers, rejected part of the said Reports, especially the one relating to the Incident of October 20, 2020 at the Lekki Toll Gate, (LTG).

1.02 The LASG subsequently released two White Papers on the two Reports of the Panel on November 30, 2021. Please find below comments on the said White Papers, for your kind information and review.

A. WHITE PAPER ON GENERAL POLICE BRUTALITY CASES (WP1)

INCONSISTENCY OF FACTS IN WP1
2.00 It is important to state from the outset that the Panel did not sit on any Petition dated 10th October, 2021, contrary to the facts stated on the Cover Page of WP1. Indeed, the Panel stopped receiving Petitions from the general public from 22nd December 2020. This is a total misconception of facts from the Committee that reviewed the Reports of the Panel. It is necessary to point out this grave error or misconception, as the case may be, in view of the needless hullabaloo following the minor error of tabular alignments contained in one of the Reports of the Panel, as raised by the LASG.

EXECUTION OF PANEL’S DECISIONS
2.02 As could be seen in paragraph 2.4 of WP1, the Panel paid the total sum of N409,700,000:00 to Seventy (70) Petitioners in respect of police brutality and general human rights abuses. The LASG provided the funds for the compensation. Thus, decisions of the Panel on Petitions were self-executory and not subject to review or rejection by the LASG. This was the agreement and modality adopted from the very day of inauguration of the Panel and it is covered by the extant Tribunal of Inquiry Law section 15, under which the Panel was set up.

ILLEGALITY OF WHITE PAPER
2.03 There is no provision for the issuance of a White Paper under the law setting up the Panel. Under and by virtue of section 15 of the Tribunal of Inquiry Law, upon conclusion of any inquiry, the Governor is only empowered to issue directive for the enforcement of any decision emanating from the inquiry. The Governor cannot issue a White Paper to overrule the decisions of a Judicial Panel of Inquiry.

INCONSISTENCY OF POLICIES BY LASG
2.04 It is important to note the fact that the police is part of the security agencies of the federal government over which the LASG has no control statutorily, but it still accepted to pay compensation to victims of police brutality, which act in itself is very commendable, save that the LASG dithered when it came to compensation for victims of brutality by soldiers, apparently it was connected to the Incident of the Lekki Toll Gate of October 20, 2020.

PETITIONS BY POLICE OFFICERS
2.05 In Paragraph 4.0 of the WP1, the LASG accepted decisions of the Panel in respect of Petitions submitted by policemen and women who were victims of one abuse or the other before, during or after the EndSARS protests. These petitions relate to deaths, grievous injuries and loss of property. This is contrary to and disproves the earlier narratives of lawyers and agents of the LASG that the Panel did not consider the cases of police officers.

INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF POLICE OFFICERS
2.06 The Panel recommended the investigation and prosecution of certain police officers whose names featured prominently in the Petitions heard and determined. In Paragraph 4.0 (ii) (a) & (b) of WP1, LASG undertook to request for the casefiles of the outcome of investigations of these police offices which would then be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for action.
2.07 This is another clear instance of the game of pick and choose, adopted by the LASG in respect of complaints against the police and the army, both of which are outside the statutory control of the LASG but for the fact that the complaints against the army relate to the Lekki Toll Gate, the LASG would not touch them with a pole.

B.WHITE PAPER ON LEKKI TOLL GATE INCIDENT (WP2)
INTRODUCTION
4.00 The assignment of the Panel in respect of the Lekki Toll Gate (LTG) Incident of 20th October 2020 was divided into two, being the general investigation and hearing of individual petitions. This can be confirmed in Paragraph 2.5 of WP2. It is instructive that it is the Report of the Panel on LTG that has been the source of attack from the government as it accepted and indeed commended the Panel on the Report on general police brutality, even though both reports emerged from the same process and from the same Panel.

PETITIONS RELATING TO LEKKI TOLL GATE
4.01 A total of Thirteen (13) Petitions were received by the Panel in respect of the LTG, Twelve (12) were heard and one (1) was struck out. A total sum of N237,000,000:00 was awarded by the Panel as compensation in respect of these Petitions but the LASG government did not make any comment on these awards, especially those of the individual petitions. These Petitions were heard during the open proceedings of the Panel and the LASG through its counsel participated actively in these hearings. The Petitioners whose cases have been determined as successful should be paid like all others.

REFUSAL BY LASG TO COMPLY WITH DECISIONS OF THE PANEL
4.02 There is no provision in the Tribunals of Inquiry Law of Lagos State which permits the Governor to overrule decisions of the Panel conducted through open hearing. As stated earlier, the decisions of the Panel were self-executory and compensations were paid to victims upon the success of any Petition.
4.03 It is improper for LASG to pick and choose which decision of the Panel it would comply with, on the alleged ground that the soldiers/officers involved are outside its statutory control, whereas the same LASG conveniently paid compensations awarded in respect of police brutality and the police are similarly outside its statutory control.

ERRORS AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF WP2
4.04 WP2 overlooked critical evidence that the Panel considered and it also misrepresented the findings and recommendations of the Panel in many areas, to suit its narrative, such as Exhibit LLC A, which confirmed that soldiers shot at unarmed peaceful protesters at the LTG on October 20, 2020, the report of the forensic expert, Sentinel, that both live and blank bullets were fired by soldiers, the testimony of many doctors that treated victims of gunshot wounds, etc.

HOW THE PANEL ARRIVED AT FINDING OF MASSACRE
4.05 The Panel considered several definitions of the word MASSACRE and adopted one of the dictionary meanings of MASSACRE as being ‘the act or instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.’ The Panel reviewed the following documents and testimonies before it:
(i) Exhibit LCC A which was tendered by the Lekki Concession Company, (LCC), being a Press Release issued by LCC on 21st October, 2020, the day after the LTG Incident. In that document, it is stated that “LCC strongly condemns the shooting of unarmed peaceful protesters at the Admiralty Circle Toll Plaza yesterday, 20th October, 2020”. Panel found that the evidence corroborated the case of the EndSARS protesters that the protest was peaceful, orderly and coordinated, that soldiers invaded the protests and shot at UNARMED, HELPLESS, UNRESISTING AND PEACEFUL protesters, which the Panel considered as cruel and atrocious. It was in the CONTEXT of the nature of the peaceful protest and the atrocious and cruel actions of the soldiers which led to several deaths, that the Panel concluded on MASSACRE.
(ii) The Panel considered the fact as confirmed in Paragraph 1.1 of WP2, that LASG identified with the cause of the EndSARS protesters and decided to allow them congregate at two main points at Government House, Alausa, Ikeja and LTG. Also, LASG had already commenced dialogue with the protesters with the Governor accepting to be their ambassador to the Federal Government.
(iii) Panel considered that in the circumstance of the above, the invitation and deployment of the military was totally unwarranted, especially at the LTG, while not faulting the decision of the Governor to restore law and order in other volatile areas of the State.
(iv) The Panel considered that firing live bullets at unarmed, peaceful and unresisting protesters which led to the death of some of them, was cruel and atrocious on the part of the military and the police. The White Paper ignored these explanations and findings by the Panel.

COVER UP OF MASSACRE

4.06 WP2 in its Paragraph 3.0 did not address the findings of the Panel on the actions of certain agencies of government to cover up the Massacre, as follows:
(i) The Panel accepted the report of its forensic expert, Sentinel, that LCC manipulated its cameras in order to withhold material evidence;
(ii) That LASG did not secure the scene of the LTG Incident in order to facilitate proper investigation;
(iii) The Panel accepted the report of its forensic expert, Sentinel, that LAWMA cleaned up the LTG after the protests, thus destroying potential and useful evidence;
(iv) The Panel accepted the evidence of EndSARS protesters that police were trailing them in order to intimidate and scare them from open testimonies;
(v) That LASG did not release funds to conduct DNA tests on the corpses as was done in the cases of Dana Air and Synagogue Church.
These vital findings were not addressed by LASG in WP2 at all.

ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES IN THE REPORT OF THE PANEL
4.07 The LASG in its WP2 misconceived the findings of the Panel in relation to the Forensic Pathologist, Professor Obafunwa. The Panel DID NOT state that Professor Obafunwa was the sole source of its conclusion on deaths at the LTG but rather adopted his testimony as ONE of the sources of confirmation of deaths.
4.08 Professor Obafunwa’s testimony related to 99 bodies which were said to have been picked by Lagos State Environmental Health Management Unit (LASEHMU). Three of these 99 bodies were said to come from LTG, based upon the descriptions and markings on the bodies by LASEHMU. As Professor Obafunwa did not pick these bodies himself and he was not the author of their descriptions, he did not give evidence of the PLACE of death but rather the CAUSE of death.

FINDINGS ON OTHER DEATHS FROM LEKKI TOLL GATE
4.09 In Paragraph 16 at Page 296 of the Report, the Panel made the following vital finding:
“Panel finds the cases of death of or injured protesters as credible and uncontroverted”.
Panel then proceeded to list the names identified by the EndSARS protesters. This is not and cannot be inconsistent with the findings of the Panel on the testimony of Professor Obafunwa, contrary to WP2.

EVIDENCE OF DEATHS AND INJURIES BY EYEWITNESSES
4.10 The Panel evaluated and believed the following testimonies in relation to deaths and injuries from LTG:
(i) Serah Ibrahim personally testified as an eye witness of shootings and deaths and the Panel believed her. She tendered videos and other documents in proof and she was not discredited under cross-examination.
(ii) Olalekan Salami personally testified before the Panel of dead bodies packed in the vans of soldiers wherein he was also taken for dead in the same van and the Panel believed him.
(iii) Dabira Ayuku personally testified about bodies packed in the vans of soldiers and the Panel believed her.
(iv) Onileowo Legend personally testified of deaths and injuries from the LTG and the Panel believed him.
(v) Videos of evidence of deaths from families and relatives of deceased persons from the LTG were tendered before the Panel, which it held to be credible as they were not discredited under cross-examination.
(vi) There were individual petitions (13 in number) relating to deaths and injuries (including amputations and multiple fractures) from the LTG which the Panel heard and believed, upon full hearing.
(vii) In addition to all the above, Professor Obafunwa led evidence and tendered documents relating to 99 dead bodies three of which he said were brought from LTG.
(viii) There was no contrary evidence offered in rebuttal of the above multiple evidence of deaths and injuries from the LTG.
(ix) The testimonies from the government were from Brigadier-General Taiwo on behalf of the Nigerian Army, Mr. Hakeem Muri-Okunola on behalf of the Lagos State Government and the DPO of Maroko Police Station. All three of them stated that they were not physically present at the LTG on October 20, 2020 and they did not witness the event at all.

DUPLICATION OF NAMES OF DECEASED PERSONS
4.11 In response to Recommendation 24 of the Panel, the LASG in its WP2 stated that the names of Kolade Salami and Folorunsho Olabisi appeared twice on the table as Nos. 37 and 38 at pages 297-298. This was a misnomer from the spreadsheet that ought to have terminated at Page 297 but mistakenly overlapped to Page 298 with the same names and same numbers. It was the computer error of the Secretariat of the Panel which could have been corrected as the Secretariat of the Panel was domiciled in the Ministry of Justice at all times. In any event, the mere fact of repetition of same names on a table cannot without more, nullify the uncontroverted evidence of death.

4.12 Nicholas Okpe, Ukala Patrick Ayide, Joshua Samuel and Nathaniel Solomon jointly presented a Petition on the shooting and killing of the late Abuta Solomon at the LTG. The Petition was heard by the Panel and it reached a decision declaring the Petition as successful and awarded the sum of N25M as compensation to the family of the deceased. Compensation was awarded for this case because a separate Petition was presented on behalf of the deceased and the Panel conducted a full hearing on it and so it had to render a decision on the Petition. The family physically appeared before the Panel. Nathaniel Solomon was erroneously listed as No.46 on the table by the Secretariat of the Panel, which error should have been corrected by the LASG as the Secretariat was at all times domiciled in the Ministry of Justice. The mere listing of the Nathaniel Solomon on the table does not itself nullify the fact of the death of his brother, Abuta Solomon, which the Panel confirmed.
4.12 The Chairperson, all Panel members and indeed the Secretariat of the Panel were all within the reach of the LASG for clarifications if there was sincerity, other than picking holes in order to evade responsibility on account of computer errors and tabular alignments of cut and paste.

AWARD TO SERAH IBRAHIM AND OTHER ENDSARS PROTESTERS
4.13 The EndSARS protest was a movement, a collective of various interest groups pursuing a common agenda termed EndSARS. This much was confirmed by the LASG through its witness before the Panel, Mr. Hakeem Muri-Okunola who stated thus on 22nd June 2021 when he testified before the Panel:
“I want to start my presentation with an introduction of what the EndSARS protest meant to us at the time. It represented a decentralized social movement asking for disbandment of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) which had gained notoriety for series of brutalities and abuses.”

4.14 The Panel took the cases of EndSARS protesters in representative capacity, including the named and unnamed representatives of the movement also recognized as such by the LASG. But for the EndSARS protesters, the work of the Panel would have been extremely difficult, in respect of the LTG. The Panel considered the trauma of the EndSARS protesters, some of who were sand witched between dead bodies and could have been hit by the bullets, the quality of their testimonies and the materials tendered. Serah Ibrahim tendered live bullets and about 300 videos as evidence before the Panel. The Panel also awarded compensation to other EndSARS protesters like Dabira Ayuku, Kamsiyochukwu Ibe, Onileowo Legend, etc.

20TH OCTOBER AS ENDSARS MEMORIAL
4.15 The Panel recommended in its Report that 20th October of every year should be a day of memorial. LASG accepted this recommendation “… in the spirit of healing and reconciliation.” This same spirit should be extended to all victims of the LTG Incident and payment of compensation made to them as recommended by the Panel.

PAYMENT TO HOSPITALS FOR TREATMENT OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS
4.16 Based upon evidence before it, the Panel recommended to the LASG that all hospitals involved in the treatment of victims of gunshot wounds arising from the LTG should be paid the cost of such treatments. In its comment in WP2, LASG stated that: “Lagos State Government had paid all the Hospitals.” This is a clear admission of liability since government cannot pay for treatment of gunshot wounds and still deny that there were gunshots at the LTG. Government is urged to pay all other victims their compensation.

CONCLUSION
4.17 The Panel reiterates its gratitude to the government and people of Lagos State for the opportunity given to serve and hopes that with these clarifications, the government will commence the process of genuine healing and reconciliation which it started through the payment of compensation to deserving victims through the Panel.

FEMI ADEOTI COLUMN

He is struggling intensely with himself. He strives hard to please

himself all alone. He is at the greatest risk to trust himself.

The more he tries, the more he goes down low, down the drain and

frustrated. To satisfy himself has become a huge cross. The harder he

shouts hoax, the better for us.

Without mincing words, Alhaji Lai Mohammed perfectly fits this

mysterious bill. And this is not palatable at all. He holds sway as

Minister, Information and Culture.

But each time he appears anywhere. Anytime he chooses to talk to us,

we easily pick the ruse in him. We can close our eyes and fault him

effortlessly. Even without stress or strain. We don’t think twice to

do this wonderfully. And we are always better for it.

He labours all the time and at all times. He toils day and night to

curry our favour all to no avail. He needs it so badly. But we won’t

oblige him.

He burns both ends of the candles. These come in different ugly

shapes, moulds, types and forms. But we refuse to give him a second

chance. That could be eternally disastrous.

For the first weeks, he lost his bearings totally. The so-called

leaked report of Lekki Toll Gate (LTG) massacre jolted him. It threw

him off balance.

The report ran riot to his eerie position on Lekki shootings from “top

to bottom.” He didn’t like it a hoot. So, he went into reclusion. He

withdrew to his shell unannounced.

But The Punch editorial of that Monday, November 29, 2021, threw him

out. The paper had run a brilliant comment on the report. That forced

Lai out of his self-imposed seclusion on Tuesday.

In his usual uncanny character, he drew his awful conclusion: “That

report is nothing but the triumph of fake news, tales by the

moonlight. What is circulating in public space is simply a rehash of

the unverified fake news that has been playing on social media since

the incident of October 20, 2020.”

And for The Punch: “How can any news organization worth its salt write

an editorial validating this kind of report? In a shocking twist, a

Nigerian newspaper chose to hail what it calls ‘detailed investigative

report.’”

Festus Keyamo followed closely on the heels of Lai. He is a junior

minister in the Ministry of Labour and Employment. He is anxiously

taking after Lai.

Trust him, he is learning the robe very fast. He goes at the

incredibly alarming speed. All are worried. Help, Keyamo needs urgent

intervention to halt the drift.

He came out ferociously as a back-up for Lai. In the process, he made

the matter messier for his principal. He literally walked the law on

its head. And he wanted us to clap for him.

Keyamo, just listen to yourself: “For me, that panel was an illegal

panel. It is totally illegal. All lawyers who are listening to me

should go back and read the Tribunal of Inquiry Act of Lagos State.

“It says that the governor will have power to inquire into the conduct

of any person and chieftaincy matters and any matter that would

promote the good of the public.

“However, any person there was defined in section 21 to mean public

officers of the state. It is defined to mean somebody within the

public service of the Lagos State or the local government as the case

may be.

“However, if you look at section 21 again of the tribunal of inquiry

law, it says that it has to be within the legislative competence of

Lagos State.

“In other words, it is only a person over which whom the Lagos state

has control that they can inquire into their conduct. If you don’t

have control over me, you can’t inquire into my conduct.

“The policemen, the armed forces, the military are not officers of

Lagos state. They are officers of the federal government.

“By virtue of the constitution, it is only the federal government that

can control the conduct of policemen and the military. Lagos state

cannot be in control, cannot legislate too regarding police matters

and military matters.

“To inquire into the conduct of policemen and military, no state

government can’t do that.”

Keyamo would not go unchallenged. He had a match in his namesake,

Festus Ogun. I found Ogun’s response an apt response to Keyamo’s

outburst. He practically took Keyamo to the cleaners:

“On Sunday, Festus Keyamo, Minister of State for Labour and

Employment, said the Lagos Judicial Panel of Inquiry on Restitution

for Victim of SARS Related Abuses and Other Matters was ‘illegal and a

waste of time’ on the ground that the Lagos State Government lacks the

power to probe the conduct of police and military officers.

“With due respect, the position of the learned Senior Advocate of

Nigeria (SAN) is grossly misconceived, suspiciously misleading and

does not reflect the true position of the law. The Lagos EndSARS panel

was constituted within the ambits of law and its investigative powers

are neither overreaching nor beyond the scope of the 1999

Constitution.

“First, Section 1 of the Tribunal of Inquiry Law, Cap T7, Laws of

Lagos State, 2015, confers power on the Governor of Lagos State to

constitute the judicial panel to investigate ‘any matter in respect of

which in the opinion an inquiry would be for the public welfare.’

Instructively, it is settled law that the Federal Government lacks the

power and authority to constitute judicial panels or any tribunal

whatsoever for state governments.

“With a clear understanding that the Federal Government lacks the

constitutional vires to constitute tribunal for states, the National

Economic Council (NEC), last year directed the immediate establishment

of state-based judicial panels of inquiry to investigate complaints of

police brutality or related extrajudicial killings with a view to

delivering justice for all victims of the dissolved Special

Anti-Robbery Squads (SARS) and other police units.

“In the popular case of Fawehinmi v. Babangida (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt.808)

604, the Supreme Court succinctly held that: ‘The National Assembly

cannot enact a general law for the establishment of tribunals of

inquiry for and applicable in the Federation of Nigeria. The power to

enact such a law has become a residual matter for the states in

respect of which the houses of assembly can legislate for their

respective states by virtue of Section 4(7)(a) of the 1999

Constitution. Although the Tribunals of Inquiry Act is an ‘existing

law,’ its application is limited and has no general application.’

“Flowing from the decision of Supreme Court, it is clear like crystal

that the Federal Government of Nigeria can only set up tribunal for

the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and not for states of the

federation.

“It is not in doubt that matters relating to the police and other

security agencies established by law are on the exclusive legislative

list. It is equally not a subject of controversy that Section 21 of

the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of Lagos State empowers the governor to

exercise his powers under the law in respect of matters within the

legislative competence of the state.

“My only question is whether issues of human rights are within the

legislative competence of state governments and whether the panels so

constituted can look into the atrocities and human rights violations

committed by the police and other security agencies?

“In AG Abia State v. AG Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265, the

Supreme Court clarified that matters not included in the exclusive and

concurrent lists are residual and are meant for the state, not the

federal, to legislate upon. Human rights related matters are neither

on the exclusive nor concurrent lists, therefore, they are within the

legislative competence of Lagos State. Thus, the Lagos State

Government can validly make laws in respect of human rights and

constitute panels to investigate cases of human rights violations

recorded within the state.

• Dokpesi is a victim of his own logic when he argues that IPOB agitation for Biafra should exclude Ndigbo from their country’s leadership table

By Ikechukwu Amaechi

I intended my article, “Ndigbo and the fallacy of power not served a la carte,” to be the last on the issue of a Nigerian president of Igbo extraction in 2023, at least for now.

My reasons were two-fold. First, Nigerians have the inalienable right to decide who their next president will be when the time comes. Second, I don’t envy anyone who will succeed President Muhammadu Buhari because it will require extraordinary capacity to clean up the huge mess his administration is leaving behind. So, anyone who has the capacity and political will to accomplish that task will, indeed, be doing Nigerians a favour and should, therefore, be persuaded to take the job, no-matter where he comes from.Advertisement

But my attention was drawn to an opinion piece written by Dr. Raymond Dokpesi, chairman of DAAR Communications Plc., which was a more insidious regurgitation of the “power not served a la carte” barney.  

Reacting to an article titled, “Is Dokpesi suffering from inferiority complex,” published in ThisDay newspaper on Sunday, October 17, 2021, which apparently was a response to his earlier statement that the chances of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) returning to Aso Rock in 2023 is better burnished if Ndigbo are excluded from the power permutations, Dokpesi only doubled down on his cynical proposition.

But he was only smart by half. While claiming that his “statement pertaining to the PDP’s best chances of winning the 2023 election being tied to the PDP producing a northern candidate” was not based on his “ties and relationships with prominent northern businessmen and politicians and having an inferiority complex about Southern Nigeria’s political ambitions,” Dokpesi only ended up confirming just that.

Of course, like every other Nigerian, Dokpesi has a right to his political fancies. Even if he is driven solely by self-serving interests as it seems to be the case here, that does not in any way obviate that right.

But what is unacceptable is Dokpesi’s inelegant attempt to use the state-sanctioned glass ceiling on Ndigbo as a stepping stone to his own political ascendancy.

It has been said in certain quarters that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has promised him the highly coveted office of Chief of Staff if he becomes president in 2023. But attainment of that position, as lofty as it is, should not be at the detriment of Ndigbo.

In the article, Dokpesi said he not only unapologetically believes in one Nigeria but also that the country can only remain united and in peace on the basis of fairness, equity and justice even as he romanticized with the idea of zoning as the basis of inclusion. 

“Since 1960, only 10 states have produced presidents or heads of state in Nigeria. Whilst some of these 10 states have produced more than one president, the entire Southeast region hasn’t produced president or head of state since the First Republic and still another region, the Northeast, has never ever produced neither president nor head of state since 1960 – date.”

This is factually incorrect. Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria’s first and only Prime Minister, hailed from Bauchi, one of the six states that make up the Northeast region. In a parliamentary government, the Prime Minister is the head of cabinet and leader of the ministers in the executive branch. In other words, Balewa, as Prime Minister of Nigeria between October 1, 1960 and January 15, 1966, was not only the de facto but also de jure head of state.

Had Dokpesi stopped there, this article would not have been necessary. But in his zest to throw Ndigbo under the grinding wheels of national prejudice, he dredged up arguments that are asinine and absurd.

Even as he admitted that “the politics that have governed how leadership is determined under both military and democratic systems of government have been unfair to both the Northeast and the Southeast regions,” he is of the opinion that the “injustice” meted out to the Northeast should be redressed in 2023.

What about the Southeast? He said, not yet!

Why not?

The same stale, unimaginative and hackneyed reason suffices for him. “On January 14, 1966, soldiers of mostly Igbo extraction led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, an Igbo from Okpanam near Asaba, present day Delta State, eradicated the uppermost echelon of politicians from the Northern and Western provinces.

“This and other factors effectively led to the fall of the Republican Government. Though Aguiyi-Ironsi, an Igbo, was purportedly slated for assassination, he effectively took control of Lagos, the Federal Capital Territory (at the time).

“With President also an Igbo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, refusing to intervene and ensure the continuity of civilian rule, Aguiyi-Ironsi effectively compelled the remaining members of Balewa’s Government to resign seeing that the government was in disarray, he then allowed the Senate President Nwafor Orizu, another Igbo who was serving as acting president in Azikiwe’s absence, to officially surrender power to him, thus ending the First Nigerian Republic,” he wrote.

Dokpesi didn’t say what magic wand Zik could have waved at the material time to ensure the continuity of a civilian government that had already been overthrown by the military. Of course, he didn’t say because there is none and he knows that for a fact. He was only being economical with the truth in order to pander to the whims of his benefactors.

But not only that, he contended – 55 years after the unfortunate coup – that the rest of Nigeria should continue to deny a third of its population a place on the leadership table. That is cheap blackmail.

The second reason, according to Dokpesi, why Ndigbo should be denied the presidency is because “the emergence of IPOB and its influence across the Southeast has complicated and undermined the agitation for patriotic Nigerians of Igbo extraction to lead this nation as far as the 2023 election is concerned.”

Dokpesi said the concern of other Nigerians “is that if Nnamdi Kanu plays the role of Aguiyi Ironsi in leading a militant revolt against constitutional government in the Southeast under Igbo presidency, the president will be pressured by his base to facilitate the UN processes for the Southeast to call for independence from Nigeria. Thus an Igbo President may be compromised in protecting the political and geographic boundaries of Nigeria whilst Nigeria remains under the threat of IPOB’s secessionist activities.”

How hackneyed can an argument get? So, Aguiyi-Ironsi led the militant revolt against Balewa’s government? That is a new one on many Nigerians and it is shameful coming from a man of Dokpesi’s standing.

Dokpesi frets about IPOB’s secessionist rhetoric, yet he wants someone from Northeast, the home of Boko Haram, a group that is fighting for an Islamic State, to be president.

He said his interaction with leaders of other regions proves to him that they are not willing to trust the Southeast with the presidency in 2023. The problem, he said, is compounded by the perception that “leaders of the Southeast have not done enough before now in dealing with and addressing the challenge that IPOB poses to their aspirations in leading Nigeria.”

Pray, what have leaders from other zones, including South-South where Dokpesi comes from, done in addressing the challenges posed to Nigeria by sundry militant groups?

Northeast region typifies the Hobbesian state of nature where life is brutish, solitary and short. If anyone from the region, and indeed, the entire North qualifies to run for the presidency, why would someone from the South, Southeast in particular, be excluded?

Dokpesi said “by supporting Atiku Abubakar from the Northeast to victory in 2023, the rotation of power across Nigeria will have come full cycle.”

Really? How will that be?

He then went on to say that after Atiku’s presidency, the agitation for a Southeast presidency will be better accepted and appreciated by other regions in subsequent elections after 2023.

So, after Atiku’s turn, Nigerians will no longer remember that Ndigbo plotted the January 1966 coup in pursuit of an ethnic power grab agenda? They will also forget that IPOB will collude with a Nigerian President of Igbo extraction to seek a referendum?

It is morally reprehensible for Dokpesi to lie against Ndigbo in order to ingratiate himself to Northerners.

In case he does not know, the New York Times on Wednesday, August 3, 1966 wrote about Awolowo’s release from prison thus: “Thousands of Yorubas in Lagos and throughout the West celebrated into the early hours today over the release of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the hero of the Action Group who was jailed for subversion in 1962. The decision to free Awolowo and his associates had already been made a week ago, July 27, by General Ironsi and they were to have been released tomorrow, Thursday, August 4. But the public did not know this.”

Ironsi’s junta had taken a decision to release Awolowo from prison two days before he was gruesomely murdered in Ibadan by young military officers from the North.

To continue insisting that the January 15, 1966 coup was carried out by Igbo officers to engender a phantom ethnic domination when many military officers of that era have boldly stated that the sole goal of Nzeogwu and his colleagues was to release Awolowo from prison and install him the Prime Minister is to continue inflicting harm on national psyche. The country will continue to be worse for it.

In his book, Nzeogwu, former President Olusegun Obasanjo said this about the so-called Igbo coup: “There was no intention on Chukwuma’s part, to collude or conspire with Ibo officers in the army and with Ibo politicians and academics, to lead a coup for the purpose of ensuring the political leadership of Nigeria by Ibos. No doubt, Ibos and non-Ibos, gave a sigh of relief when the coup took place.”

If Igbo people were the President, Senate President, Supreme Military commander prior to the coup, what other leadership position would have prompted the conspiracy?

Let me reiterate for the umpteenth time: Ndigbo are not the reason why Nigeria is in a mess. Dokpesi and his ilk should spare them this orchestrated campaign of calumny.

Most of those who run our affairs in Nigeria are minutely making us a laughing stock before the civilized world. Most of us admit this unpleasant fact about our country. In his classical essay entitled, Common Sense, Tom Paine maintained that the English government was evil. “Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness: the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is patron, the other punisher”, he opined.

To a striking degree in line with Tom Paine’s thought, our government in Nigeria is an engine of fraud if not complete evil. For example, the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry set up to investigate the 2020 Lekki Toll Gate Massacre (#Lekki Massacre) has recently submitted its Report to the Lagos State government. The Report is a damning incitement on the Buhari government as well as the Lagos State government.

Not unexpectedly, the Federal government through Information Minister Lai Mohammed has rejected the Report of the Panel. Why? Because the Report indicts the Federal government. The Report finds the Nigerian soldiers and policemen culpable in the massacre of young protesters at the Lekki Toll Gate despite the fact that some of them were waving the green-white-green Nigerian flag as a testament to their national pride and unalloyed patriotism and loyalty to their country. Perhaps the saddest aspect is that right now some members of the Panel are either receiving death threats or are being physically assaulted in broad daylight in the streets for letting truth and justice prevail or come to light in the Report of the Panel. I can’t understand this country. If one waves the Biafra flag or the Oduduwa flag one is hounded and killed by blood thirsty and trigger-happy State agents. Now if one waves the green-white-green Nigerian flag one is also shot at and killed by the same blood thirsty and trigger-happy State agents. So what is happening in Nigeria? What should a true Nigerian patriot do in the face of oddities? Stand hands akimbo, jaw dropped and watch the oddities unfold? Must the truth offend?

At first the Federal government washed its hands off the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry Report on the illogical contention that it was purely a Lagos affair. Now the Federal government argues that since none of the relatives of the murdered protesters has come before the government to claim compensation, the Report lacks merit and therefore should be rejected. This is laughable. It is also an infantile afterthought. It is on record that the soldiers, police, other State agents and the Federal government itself freely submitted to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel. They freely participated in the proceedings of the Panel. Each was represented by a lawyer of its choice. Each was given ample time and opportunity to argue its case before the Panel. Each called its witnesses, examined them in chief, re-examined them as well as cross-examined the opponents’ witnesses. Why is the Federal government through Lai Mohammed rejecting the Report of the Panel simply because it indicts the Federal government? The refutation of the truth contained in the Panel Report by the State may be an instruction that our country Nigeria is built on criminal foundation otherwise why should anybody in his right senses continue to say that the shooting, killing and maiming of Lekki young protesters which we all watched on that live streaming in the night of October 20 2020, is “a massacre without bodies”.

At the Press Briefing organized last week by Civil Society on harassment and intimidation of the members of the Lagos Panel, an NGO called the Corporate Accountability & Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) distributed one of its publications where some of the Lekki Massacre survivors gave detailed accounts/testimonies of what transpired during the shooting. Hear them. “We were hinted that soldiers were coming…we began to hear gunshots…My friend was shot in the chest in my presence” (Edwin Augustine Ekene); “They were shooting up and down, and suddenly they began to shoot towards our direction. They said they used rubber bullets but how can that lead to amputation(Faleye Olalekan, an amputee); “Patrick Ukala was by my side when I was shot. We have known each other for a long time before the protest. We live in the same area. When it happened, I turned to him saying, Patrick they don shoot me o…The blood of protesters lost in the struggle is crying for justice” (Nicholas Anthony); “They shot my son in the forehead” (Ayedungbe Olufunmi); “They came to kill, not to scare protesters away” (Ajumobi Olajide); Soldiers will tell people to run and as they go, they shoot at them” (Dabira Oluwa); “My brother was killed at Lekki Tollgate”;(Nathanial Solomon); “We were still singing our national anthem and holding our flags but the worst happened at exactly 6.14-6.40 pm, the soldiers attacked. They started shooting at us straight, they said it was blank bullets, how can a blank bullet penetrate and kill somebody, how can a blank bullet pull someone’s skull up?” (Ibeh Perpetual Kamsi). I can go on reeling out the Lekki Massacre victims’ accounts.Advertisment

The foregoing evidence and the evidence contained in the Report of the Panel are overwhelmingly incriminating. Where in any civilized world are agents of the State dispatched to kill or main peaceful protesters? Where in any civilized world are agents of the State dispatched to carry out a nocturnal raid of the residences of the Supreme Court justices or, indeed, the residence of any citizen for that matter? Mind you, the Lekki shooting and killing of unarmed civilians is not the first and certainly would not be last of its kind in Nigeria. The Nigerian soldiers and Nigeria police have gained notoriety across the world for opening fire and killing unarmed civilians. If the military only fired blank bullets in the thin air as Lai Mohammed claims, how come there were mutilated human corpses lying in the pool of human blood after the shooting? If the military didn’t shoot at the protesters, why were the Nigerian flags carried by the protesters smeared with human blood? If the military didn’t fire live bullets, why was the scene of the crime littered with bullet casings and pellets after the shooting and murder?.

Therefore the Lagos State government is humbly advised to release the White Paper on the Lekki Massacre forthwith. The Paper, firstly, should commend the Judicial Panel for a job well done. The White Paper should order that all those culpable in the Lekki Massacre, whether soldiers, police, personnel of the Lekki Concession Company, big men or big women, should be brought to justice forthwith. Nobody is above the law. It should order that all the relatives of those who lost their loved ones and victims of the Lekki Massacre in general, including amputee Faleye Olalekan, should be adequately compensated. Considering that the commercialization of the Lekki Toll Gate further prompted the Lekki Massacre, the White Paper should ban further collection of tolls at the Lekki Toll Gate and recommend that the Toll Gate should be converted as a national monument in remembrance and immortalization of the victims of the Lekki Massacre. The White Paper should also order that no member of the Panel should henceforth be harassed, intimidated, visited with death threats or otherwise be made to suffer any disadvantage or inconvenience or fatality. Finally, the Paper should recommend that October 20 of every year should henceforth be declared in Nigeria as #EndSARS Remembrance Day in honour of the victims of Lekki Massacre. The Lekki Massacre has cut deep into the heart of the nation. No Lai Mohammed lie, denial, or dirty politics or pseudo-rationalization can erase away the murder from our collective memory.

Nelson Mandela, the legendary African anti-apartheid fighter, said the future belongs to the youth, but Barak Obama qualified it by saying that the future belongs to young people with education and the imagination to create. None of them could foresee that drug could ambush the youth and threaten the future. This reality stares us in the face today. The optimism of a bright future led by the youth of today and leaders of tomorrow is gradually fading away, thanks to the menace of drugs. Unfortunately, it is a national problem linked to all other criminal activities, but we do not consider it critical. A generation of people is gradually being wiped out. The implications of this are too dire even to contemplate.

There are two sides to the drug issue, and both sides complement each other – the supply and demand sides. Drug trafficking and drug abuse/addiction form parts of a vicious circle. One significantly correlates with the other. Where there is a high level of drug abuse, there must always be a correspondingly high level of drug trafficking and vice versa. The psychology and economics of drugs in our society juxtapose synergically with our youths’ crass criminality and wanton debasement. Let us tackle first the issue of drug trafficking.

Regional drug trafficking intersects with many security issues ranging from war and terrorism to human trafficking and national instability. It brings along with it, myriad security issues and challenges, notably an intricate network of actors across various levels of handling narcotics management, which in most instances extend abroad. External manipulation by drug traffickers has resulted in a surge in maritime drug trafficking in Lagos and Nigeria’s coastal regions and is wreaking havoc at the land borders of the North East and North West.

The emergence of new criminal avenues to launder drug money, such as cryptocurrency and money transfer systems, has exacerbated the menace of drug trafficking. Drug transactions seem seamless, and funds from illicit drug deals are laundered and allowed to filter into legitimate business environments.

The heightened insecurity and lack of employment in many states create opportunities for drug traffickers’ relative smooth operations, apart from the occasional seizures. The potential for the drug trade to become a source of violent political competition, instability and, most importantly, emerge as a parallel power that rivals the established legal system and political hierarchy becomes a frightful possibility.

A cursory look at the media in Nigeria reveals that hardly any month passed in 2021 without any significant cases of vast amounts of drugs seized at the important gateways in Nigeria or a Nigerian caught abroad with a large consignment of drugs being smuggling into another country. These seizures have shed light on how the work of trafficking networks is facilitated by a range of actors, including allegedly business people, politicians, celebrities, and students. Nigeria’s porous borders, weak institutions, corrupt practices, political patronage, poverty, and ethnic identities, enable traffickers to avoid detection by the formal security apparatus. There are even times when the conventional security apparatus itself provides cover for traffickers, giving rise to legitimate concerns about the ability of criminal networks and illicit drug monies to infiltrate security and government agencies, transform or influence the motivations of its members, reorient objectives towards the spoils of drug trafficking activity, thus undermining the democratic processes. Still on the supply side is the new availability of cheap opioids in the open market under different brands names. 

The demand side of the drug debacle follows the same trend. Recent data shows that about 14.3m Nigerians abuse drugs , which represents a 14.4% prevalence rate, three times the global prevalence rate of 5%. Of the almost 15 million people abusing drugs, 10.6 million abuse cannabis Sativa, a.k.a Indian hemp – the rest abuse various other hard drugs. The use of cocaine and heroin is gaining prominence, especially among youths from upper-middle-class or upper class or young and well to do professionals. Most of the poor people who abuse drugs either use Indian hemp or abuse pharmaceutical drugs like tramadol,cough syrups and the famous ‘mkpurumiri’ trending across social media lately. There is the news of foreigners setting up factories in South-East Nigeria for the manufacture of’Mkpurumiri’.

Gen Buba Marwa, Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency Chief, in an article  admitted that just like the rest of Africa, West African countries have been grappling with the problem of a dearth of credible data on the trend of drug use in the sub-region. However, available data shows that within the first 10 months of 2021, about 10,355 people were arrested for drug offences, 3.1m kg of assorted drugs valued at nearly N120b were seized, with about 5,579 people counselled and rehabilitated.

This statistics for 2021, although looking like a drop in the ocean compared to the type of statistics we expect to get with an intensified effort from relevant authorities to curb this drugs menace, is still a considerable improvement to the data from 2018 to 2020. All the three years combined are less than the 10 months figures for this year alone. This report shows that the curve is bending on drug trafficking and abuse as more effort is made by this administration to improve the situation. I commend this renewed effort and hope it will continue to be sustained by the government.

The escalating drug consumption in the student community, in the streets of major cities, and the growing music and film world is indicative of the ever-increasing tentacles of the drug trade. Across Nigeria, there has been an upsurge in drug consumption fueled by increasing stress and hopelessness among youth. Unemployment, lack of opportunities and descent into anarchy may be forcing youths into all forms of escape. The upsurge has resulted in many Nigerians questioning the effectiveness and resilience of the existing legal and enforcement machinery. This escalation becomes worse closer to the general election period.

The politician-drug nexus is one of the factors responsible for the spread of the menace. It cuts across political parties. The reasons vary from desperation in looking for money to fund election, money laundering, facilitation of violence, political patronage to substance abuse by thugs. A trend has been established that as we approach every election cycle, there is always a three- or four-fold jump in substances seized and the number of drug-related arrests spike. The link between drugs and politics is shameful, and every leader in Nigeria must openly work at completely eradicating drug abuse within his area of influence.

Apart from the apparent damage to society drug abuse causes, it has broader implications and far-reaching consequences to all. At the nuclear level is the devastation it causes to families. Most times, parents are the last to know that their children are dependent on hard drugs. It is easier to spot another person’s child than yours in circumstances like this. Drug abuse is not far from most parents, just that they are not inquisitive enough to find out. Obviously, their children and wards are already ‘junkies’ and wholly hooked on drugs by the time it is obvious. This ordeal has a devastating effect on the family.

One of the main challenges lies in the fact that the predominant approach to drug trafficking in the region has been based on the international narcotics control regime, which focuses on stemming the supply of drugs through law enforcement efforts. Little emphasis has been placed on the  health,developmental and spill-over effects of drug use and trafficking, which over time will constitute a more significant security threat to the nation. Health facilities in Nigeria are not geared to deal with the consequences of drug dependency. There is a dearth of specialised units and medical professionals, and rehabilitation centres across the country.

Furthermore, there is widespread concern that transnational organised crime, including illicit weapons and banditry, piracy and armed robbery at sea, kidnapping and terrorism, are increasingly linked with drug trafficking and abuse, pose a direct security threat to peace and stability in the Niger Delta region and main theatres of conflicts in the North East and North West.

A severe threat posed by drug trafficking and abuse is their ability to reshape relational dynamics between and among political and security actors, the citizenry, and the business community within and beyond borders. The infiltration and potential weakening of military, police, customs, and border agencies by criminal organisations can damage national security.

The threat of radicalisation and youth recruitment by Boko Haram, ISWAP and terrorist groups is another profound corollary of drug trafficking and abuse. Radicalisers and recruiters target vulnerable youths from higher institutions, villages, and gangs. Mosques are a soft pool that is exploited easily, and fresh recruits, both male and female, are whisked off to join other militants and terrorists operating at the edges of Northern Nigeria or other foreign countries and in war zones. 

Another area of concern is that rivalries between different groups involved in the drug trade can lead to violent competition for access to routes, products, and profits. 

Cross border security threats with their spill-over effects have impacted negatively on Nigeria’s internal security. The Federal Government has continued to mitigate these transnational security threats through bilateral and multilateral engagements. In addressing the above threats, the government has made concerted efforts by improving interoperability and synergy in the multi-agency approach. It has deployed counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics initiatives which led to the disruption of several high profile planned attacks.

As I pointed out earlier, the government has intensified efforts to tackle the problem of drug abuse and trafficking to stem the slipping slope to ignominy many youths who dabbled into drugs are heading to. However, I will implore that a robust counter drug trafficking and abuse initiative be started immediately. A national strategy that will map out actions at federal, state, and local government levels is needed and must involve security agencies, civil societies, and ordinary citizens.

Moreover, a national media sensitisation and mass mobilisation against drug abuse and trafficking must be carried out. Parents must be made aware of the dangers of drugs on their children so that they become more vigilant, monitoring online platforms, especially those used by drug peddlers to coordinate drug trafficking activities. 

The government should enact and implement robust anti-money laundering laws aimed at disrupting the financial flow of drug money. EFCC should use existing financial regulation laws to prosecute known drug dealers actively. 

Finally, the government must locate, disrupt, and destroy all forms of illicit drug trafficking whilst working hard to establish the infrastructure to tackle drug abuse. The government must confiscate all monetary proceeds of drug trafficking, and drug pushers punished by the law. The time to act is now. NDLEA claims that over 40% of Nigerian youths (between 18 and 35) are deeply involved in drug abuse. This new epidemic may cause more significant harm than the COVID 19 soon.

The prevalence of drug abuse in Nigeria and the negative impact on public health and safety necessitate that all hands be on deck to curtail the challenge. Schools, communities, voluntary organisations, and religious bodies should embark on drug abuse  enlightenment, treatment and prevention. There is no better time than now for all relevant stakeholders to rise and join the crusade to make Nigeria a better and safer nation, especially for the youths – the leaders of tomorrow.

Inside Stuff With MARTINS OLOJA

Last week, I was summoned to Abuja, Nigeria’s seat of power, specifically to explain whether my team in Rutam House and my colleagues in the news media have any capacity to monitor governance and hold government to account in this age of the giants – that have disrupted the business dynamics journalism.

Dayo Aiyetan’s International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR) collaborated with the McArthur Foundation to implicate me even as they knew the answer to their question was already blowing in the wind. The theme of the colloquium and media awards to three investigative journalists is: ‘The role of the media in promoting public accountability’.

The media capacity question as the dominant element in the keynote in Abuja last week, had for quite some time kept me thinking about managing media, which is not so significant in the curriculum of journalism in this part of the world.

I had in 2018 raised the question at a seminar I addressed at the Bayero University attended by most of the Heads of Departments of Journalism and Mass Communication in Nigerian Universities and Polytechnics (156) of them). I had then suggested a disruption of the mass communication and journalism curriculum to include management and business education modules. Reason? Media boards of directors have always moved journalists from newsrooms to boardrooms without concomitant training in management of even finances. This will be a discussion point on the state of the media in our milieu, any time soon.

In any case, as I was saying, I suspected that the ICIR strategists who seemed to have been harbouring some hidden agenda to implicate me and my colleagues in this part of the world where the economy dominated by public sector engagement can hardly sustain press freedom, wanted me to address what I call, “the political economy of press freedom” in Africa’s most populous country. Let read some excerpts from my presentation:

“…The role of the media is clearly spelt out in Section 22 of the constitution – to monitor governance and hold public officers to account. Only good and independent journalism can deliver this tough job. This is where people will feel that the news media actually promote public good. In other words, development agencies should not lose sight of this fact: that only a truly independent news media can monitor governance, lest they become lapdogs.

That is why Sina Odugbemi, former Programme Head, Communication for Governance and Accountability Programme (CommGAP) at the World Bank (Institute) once observed in a (World Bank) publication titled, Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform that, ‘A focus on strengthening institutions like the news media is not yet seen as a core business in many development agencies.

That is therefore why opportunities to strengthen the news media will always depend on the situation in each country and will always depend on the interplay of forces within each country. Odugbemi in the same vein believes that, ‘the political economic realities will always determine what can be achieved’. What that means is that those who want to improve media systems in their own countries must learn to build effective coalitions. That is where work is really needed. In that treatise, Odugbemi says nonetheless, it is possible to bring together what we know right now about how news media can contribute to good governance outcomes. Second, it is possible to draw the necessary policy implications. This is where the political economy of a free press is relevant.

Gatekeeping and fostering of civic competence
Gatekeeping we simply call the art of editing is a vital process, which determines the silencing or expression of various voices. Those who control the conduits for expression have the power to filter what kind of information, or whose gets into the public realm and hence gets attention or shapes the public discourse. The media have a significant influence on the public sphere, through the exercise of this control. Depending on how they exercise this control, the media can help shape civic competence among citizens.

What is civic competence?
Civic competence is the citizens’ ability to understand, engage with, and make appropriate demands on the state while meeting their responsibilities and obligations as citizens, for example, through voting and public service.

The Ford Foundation raised the following questions in a summer 2003 Forum on media diversity and public interest:

Regarding the responsibility of media
The current media system in the United States and other Western nations is manifested by giant cross-platform conglomerates dominating the printed, spoken and viewed news. Does this system promote the diversity of perspectives and viewpoints (the ‘market place of ideas’) essential for citizens to function in an informed way within their participatory government and social environment?

Regarding the responsibility of journalism
Modern media corporations seem far more interested in profits than they are in news dissemination. Because of this, or in spite of this, do they provide sufficient content services to adequately address the local news and information needs of citizens and communities?
These are two momentous questions. They have never had to be asked before in quite this way. We need to deal with these questions and their many ancillary questions, debating if the present conglomerates are meeting the responsibilities of both the media and journalism, and if not, whether anything can be done about it.

Some historical perspective of the media in other lands
Early journalist Lincoln Steffens warned about the corporatisation of newspapers as early as 1897 declaring, ‘The magnitude of the financial operations of the newspaper is turning journalism upside down. Big business was doing two things in general to journalism: it was completing the erection of the industrial institution upon what was once a personal organ; and it was buttressing and steadying the structure with financial conservatism’.

Former Des Moines Register editor and Washington Post Ombudsman Geneva Overholser sees a weakening of journalism under most chain ownership. ‘In an era that cries out for entrepreneurialism and a belief in the future, she wrote, ‘newspapering is risk averse and dispirited, cowed by the over-emphasis on the short-term profits, and steadily bleeding the commitment to public service that animates us’.

In other words, the market-driven journalism genre has long been with us. That is why modern researchers on media management such as Dennis Herrick, author of. ‘Media management In the age of Giants…’ are now focusing on ‘the business dynamics of journalism’, which is threatening press freedom in our country that unfortunately cannot boast of a robust private sector, which should be the oxygen of a free press.

Undoubtedly, the relevant question is: in this age when citizen journalism practice, which tends to empower everyone as a journalist through investigative journalism, can public office holders and stockholders be monitored and held to account? Breaking news items, most of which are press statements and official pronouncements can be newsworthy. They are most times public relations. Why do I say that? The classic definition of news is: News is something, somebody somewhere is trying to hide, the rest is advertising.This is what viewers, readers and listeners want from the news media – revelations. Pubic officials even in global context, would always want to hide something from the public. And so a journalist’s capacity to dig out something the public officials want to hide is the way to hold them to be accountable.

That is why experts tend to agree that investigative journalism is capable of pricking at public capacity for outrage. Some even call it ‘journalism of outrage’. That form of journalism is now being nurtured by data (data journalism). It has measurable elements and has persisted and endured everywhere as a way of ‘seeking reform within a system’.

To understand the role of the media, let’s share some thoughts on newsgathering, which is the focal point of journalism. “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.”― William Randolph Hearst. Oscar Wilde said, “Speaking the truth that somebody wants you not to publish is journalism. Everything else is marketing.” “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” Yet we found another similar quote from Horacio Verbitsky (in Spanish): “Journalism is to spread what someone does not want you to know; the rest is propaganda.” A version of this quote first appeared on 30 November 1918, on page 18, column 4 of The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers, Ernest F, Birmingham, Fourth Estate Publishing Company, New York. The quote is as follows:“Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,” is the sentiment expressed in a little framed placard on the desk of L. E. Edwardson, day city editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner. You can now see why Nigeria’s Information and Culture Minister is just doing what he is paid to do: ‘public relations and advertising’ for his employers. But the point is: no power on earth can stop the role of the press and mass media in any political system in monitoring governance and holding public officers to account.

Ordinarily good journalism should be one of democracy’s safety valves. Without it, journalism can become sterile and barren. Without it, these days, a newspaper can become uncaring and bloodless. Without it, it becomes easier for government and our society to develop hardening of arteries and the heart.

But the question today is: will investigative journalism survive what seems to be an inexorable trend toward concentrated corporate ownership of news-media organs?

As it is often noted, investigative journalists the world over are no strangers to controversy. By exposing abuses of power, media muckrakers have had to endure frequent legal challenges, ethical critiques and political attacks. Yet in most parts of the world, investigative reporting has survived and even prospered in this often-hostile environment.

In the United States, for instance, the notion that investigative reporting can be a powerful catalyst for change has gained widespread acceptance in post-Watergate America. For more than two decades, the public has been inundated with news stories by crusading journalists who expose alleged misconduct and right reputed wrongs. The reformist image of investigative reporters has been further reinforced and embellished by movies and books. This is how that accountability works: vigilant journalists bring wrongdoing to public attention. And then an informed citizenry responds by demanding reforms from their elected representative. Policy makers in turn change by taking corrective action.

‘Still on the power of investigative journalism’

Where is the capacity to hold the powerful to account? If News in its classic form is what somebody, somewhere is trying to hide, and the rest is advertising, let’s ask more questions: Do today’s media organisations in Nigeria have capacity or enough capitalisation to hire investigative journalists that can hold public officers to account without caring a hoot about advertising support from organisations or agencies run by them?

Why do the state actors in Nigeria seek to criminalise journalism, which they always demonise as threatening national security and the media managers don’t often write robust editorials and investigations that can expose them?

***Let’s continue in the next issue on the political economy of press freedom vs accountability…and why the media here can’t monitor governance robustly.