By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja
Femi Falana, SAN has recently called for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the diversion of the $3.4 billion that Nigeria obtained as loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The said amount was intended for purchase and distribution as Palliatives to Nigerians during the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020. However, majority of Nigerians never received the said Palliatives.
A few days ago, another report surfaced that the government of Nigeria has obtained another loan facility of $215 million from the World Bank for the purpose of purchase of Palliatives to the distributed to Nigerians.
The question arises: why does the federal government of Nigeria place so much over-reliance upon distribution of Palliatives instead of providing more permanent solutions?
A palliative is like a first-aid treatment that is administered while awaiting a more permanent treatment by a medical doctor.
If we agree that Governance is a social contract between the elected officials and the general citizens, then it follows that the elected officials are representatives of the citizens of Nigeria and therefore ought to listen to and implement the interests of the majority of the citizens of Nigeria.
In this regard, the majority of Nigerians are not interested in Palliatives.
They prefer that these loans from either the IMF and the World Bank should be utilised to provide 24/7 electricity and pipeborne water to the homes of majority of Nigerians.
Instead of focusing on the provision of tangible infrastructure, the elected officials since the year 2020 have continued to allege that they utilise the loans from the IMF and World Bank to provide Palliatives.
However, the majority of Nigerians are not beneficiaries of the said Palliatives which is the reason why Femi Falana SAN has requested for a probe by the EFCC into how the said sum of IMF loan of $3.4bn was diverted instead of being utilised for the Palliatives.
Now that another World Bank loan of $215 is to be utilised by the Nigerian government as distribution as Palliatives it raises another question namely: in this marriage, social contract between the elected officials and the Nigerian citizens, is it that the overwhelming public interests of Nigerians does not amount to nothing?
Is it that it is only the interests of the elected officials that counts?
In this instance, the interests of the elected officials appears to be the continuous collection of humongous sums of money as loans from the IMF and World Bank, which is later diverted into private coffers under the guise of distribution of Palliatives to Nigerians?
This social contract between the elected officials and the Nigerian citizens is like a marriage between spouses.
One of the requirements of marriage is that both spouses would engage in sexual intercourse (barring any health challenges) on a regular basis.
Instead of indulging their spouse’s legitimate right to Sexual intercourse, the elected officials of Nigeria appear to prefer masturbation, which is a sex act that provides pleasure for only one spouse.
This appears to be the most apt analogy to describe the persistent preference for utilisation of public funds for Palliatives by elected officials since the year 2020.
The problem with the persistent preference for Palliatives is that even under Section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1975, the spouse who is constantly denied of sex is entitled to sue for dissolution of the said marriage or social contract.
The analogy is consistent with the fact that Nigerians prefer sex, the real deal (infrastructure such as electricity, good roads and pipeborne water to their homes) instead of masturbation and the use of vibrators and other sex toys which can be likened to Palliatives.
Statistics confirm this as follows:
“According to the Society for Family Health (SFH), Nigerians consume over 400 million condoms annually. This figure was cited by SFH’s Managing Director, Bright Ekweremadu, during the launch of a new condom brand named “Flex”. He noted that this consumption may be a conservative estimate, as the SFH estimates
Section 15(2) it provides only one ground for the dissolution of a marriage and the sole ground is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. This ground can be established in several ways, which are:
Refusal to consummate the marriage: When one of the parties to a marriage denies the other sex willfully not on health ground but just to punish the other party and has consistently done that. This is one way to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
While 82% of Nigerians find it easy to purchase condoms, affordability and availability can still be challenges for some, according to a report from NOIpolls.”
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
