AFRICA, NIGERIA AND THE NOBEL PRIZE
The Alfred Nobel Prize, the world’s most prestigious international awards has being awarded in different categories for 109 years now. A Noble Gentleman Chemist, Alfred Nobel by his will instituted the Nobel Prize in five categories namely Peace, Medicine or Physiology, Literature, Chemistry and Physics and the 1st prizes were awarded in 1901, with the Prize in economics created in his memory in 1968.
By his will Alfred Nobel directed that the Prizes be awarded to those who during the preceding year shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. In his words "The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."
However the prize for practical reasons would be awarded for a life’s work or work spanning several decades. A few individuals have won the Nobel which is seen as the greatest recognition for achievement in the selected fields in the world more than once and countries like the US and the UK have lost count of Nobel laureates. Even South Africa has won the Nobel 6 times, 4 for peace and 2 for literature but Nigeria with all its avowed size, intellectuals and human capital has only won the Nobel once, incidentally in an epoch making manner, when in 1986, Professor Wole Soyinka became the first African to win the Nobel prize in literature because Professor Wole Soyinka according to the Swedish Academy “in a wide cultural perspective and with poetic overtones fashions the drama of existence” following in the footsteps of ethereal literary giants – Albert Camus, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, T.S Elliot comes to mind.
Why no Nigerian has won the Nobel in the intervening 23 years beats me silly. In literature for example, there is nothing left for Chinua Achebe to do to deserve the recognition. Some have argued that the literary prize is too Eurocentric and they may not be far from the truth, the 2009 Nobel prize for literature was awarded to Roman born German poet and novelist, Herta Muller with the Swedish academy describing Muller as a writer “who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed”. Though she is relatively unknown, she has been celebrated as one of Germany’s best writers in a long while. American’s it has been reported were shocked at the choice of Muller. If American’s were shocked at the choice of Muller because no American has won the prize in a couple of years then African’s ought to be enraged. In its 109 years old history, only five Africans have won the Nobel prize for literature – Wole Soyinka of Nigeria in 1986, Naguib Mahfouz of Egypt in 1988, Nadine Gordimer of South Africa in 1991, J.M Coetzee of South Africa in 2003 and Iranian/Zimbabwean/British Doris Lessing in 2007.
At least two names I know and I am sure of are missing from the list – Nigeria’s Chinua Achebe and Kenya’s Ngugi nwa Thiong’o. These authors could and ought to have won the Nobel Prize for literature decades ago on the strength of the popular classics that brought them fame and fortune. In the case of the Nigerian “Things fall apart”, the Kenyan, “Weep not Child”. These books apart, the writers have shown durability over the decades, they were not merely flashes in the pan and these works and subsequent ones have stood the test of time. The style and messages of the two authors continue to burnish the world’s literary firmament and not corruption, globalisation, the web, ravages of time and decay has dimmed the fires of these authors and their works. Sure a continent that has produced countless brilliant poets and novelists – Wole Soyinka, Ngugi nwa Thiong’o, Ayi Kwei Armah, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Flora Nwapa, Mongo Beti, John Pepper Clarke, Kofi Awoonor, Buchi Emecheta, Gabriel Okara, Christopher Okigbo, Cyprian Ekwensi, Femi Osofisan, Niyi Osundare, Efua Sutherland, Francis Selormey, Camara Laye, Elechi Amadi, Aly Diallo, David Rubadiri, Bessie Head, Ama Ata Aidoo, Joseph Muthee, Atieno Odhiambo, Mariama Ba, Birago and David Diop, Aminata Sow Fall, Peter Abrahams, Dennis Brutus, Athol Fugard, Mazisi Kunene, Alex La Guma, Lenrie Peters, Okot p’Bitek, Frantz Fanon, Ferdinand Oyono, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie to mention but a few examples could not only have won a handful of Nobel prizes in literature if fairness were entrenched in the award process as it was the expressed wish of Alfred Nobel that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.
The respected Peace prize is another category where only five African’s have won – South African’s Albert Lithuli in 1960, Desmond Tutu in 1984, Nelson Mandela with Fredrick De Klerk in 1993, Ghanaian Kofi Annan in conjunction with the UN in 2001 and Kenyan Wangari Maathai in 2004. No Nigerian has even come close in this category though the Foreign Policy Magazine believed that Ken Saro Wiwa did enough for peace in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria to win the Nobel peace prize. One other Nigerian many believe could well have won the Nobel Prize for peace is the late legendary lawyer Chief Gani Fawehinmi who in the estimation of many did much more than any other Nigerian dead or alive for the cause of law, human rights, good governance and peace in Nigeria and the African continent.
The only other time it was reported that a Nigerian was nominated for the Nobel Prize in physics was in 2002 when Mathematician Gabriel Audu Oyibo in what may well be a hoax was reportedly nominated for the prize in Physics on the strength of his work on the God Almighty’s Grand Unified Theorem (GAGUT). The genuineness of the theory is still a cause of debate in academic circles though. There is also the scientist Phillip Emeagwali, whose claim to fame was the 1989 Gordon Bell prize of which he was one of two winners but his eminence in Science is being disputed by many on account of the fact that for someone who dubbed himself the ‘father of the internet’ and who is said to have built the fastest computer, he has no patent registered in his name and he failed his PHD programme at the University of Michigan. Are these men fake? Otherwise they seem to have done enough to win a Nobel Prize. Do they remind any one of a Doctor Jeremiah Abalaka? Does anyone know whatever happened to the Doctor and his cure for AIDS? He seemed to have fallen off the radar?
But really how and when will a Nigerian win the Nobel prize again when our Universities are without books, there are no research tools and laboratories, there is even no electric power to do paper work to which all our Universities have been consigned, many Universities are nothing but breeding grounds for cultists and semi illiterates, University campuses have become hotbeds for political intrigues as people vie for Vice Chancellorship and other University principal posts in a do or die affair, many University graduates abound who cannot pitch two sentences together much less write decent letters. In the midst of this decay, Professorial chairs are still being endowed and people are elevated to the position of professors; you wonder what they are professing!
Now does this partly explain why no Nigerian has won the Nobel since 1986? Some have posited that Nigeria has too many charlatans posing/masquerading as intellectuals. Yeah there are intellectuals and there are intellectuals but I personally believe that for every charlatan our system throws up there are at least two genuine intellectuals strewn across our University campuses. There was the Mathematician, Doctor Chike Obi in recent memory and there still is the formidable Physicist, Professor Alexander Animalu of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. What is wrong with us has destroyed everything that should make us a proud people. Look at the Olympics for example – a nation of 150 million persons could not raise One Gold medalist at the last Olympiad in Beijing, China where a single American swimmer, Michael Phelps won eight Gold medals.
Just where are we getting it right in our national life? Answers anyone or is it me? I am so disappointed and disillusioned I doubt my generation will ever see our country on the part of sanity. We have made a show of fighting corruption since 1999, but it seems those who will dip their hands in the common till are unimpressed, they have carried on with unimaginable daring. Scamming, gaming and thieving involving gut wrenching and mind blowing sums are being reported everyday. How much of this can we really investigate and prosecute properly? People are getting away with all sorts, the security agencies are overstretched, and the EFCC and ICPC short of anything superhuman cannot be reasonably expected to adequately fight corruption in the especial circumstances of Nigeria, how will they cope with the several revelations of monumental corruption in high places everyday?
Inadequacies in the legal framework continue to provide barriers in the fight against corruption. As much as the courts try, in a tough environment, laws are not interpreted with consistency, delay in the administration of justice, the ease with which accused persons of power and means game the judiciary and the inadequate enforcement of existing laws mean that the fight against corruption will be a long and arduous task. The credibility and efficacy of the judicial system has been questioned by many in the past and many Nigerian’s have continued to express these sentiments. In general, many Nigerian’s perceives the judicial system as slow, corrupt, and not to be trusted.
Where does this all leave us? Some people it would seem have sworn that this country will never work and are positively pursuing that outcome with everything at their disposal. These people, it is becoming apparent by the day, have enough power and means to make good their threat. Now what are the good people doing as a counter force or counter balance? I dare say nothing. They have become like sheep without shepherd, like sailors marooned in an inaccessible island, like knight errands without sword and shield in inevitable skirmishes. Oh we have made such a public spectacle of ourselves in the committee of nations that only God can liberate us now.
Unfortunately we are here now and the reality is we are where we are. How we got here for a country that had so much promise at independence and even now is an unmitigated disaster in nation building and resource management and it grieves the heart so but still we must find practical ways forward and this way forward is what I have canvassed elsewhere thus “It is so bad now that we do not know where to start fixing Nigeria. If we try to do everything at the same time as we are wont to do and yet getting nothing done, we will fail yet again. Let us adopt a simple approach and do the simple things first. What to do is fix our Schools, invest heavily in education, provide basic infrastructure that will stimulate and engender job creation. The Nigerian government may well not have enough resources to do all that is required, but if the sleaze, waste and corruption that permeates most of our national life is halved by two and the resources thereby released dedicated to providing infrastructure such as electricity, roads and fighting disease, the day may not be far off when Nigeria will meet its development goals”.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
THE PRESS AND FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
THE PRESS AND FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
As the debate on the desirability or otherwise of the new Press Law pending before the National Assembly at its hallowed chambers continue to rage, I like to point out an important aspect of our Constitutional provisions as regards the press and its freedom which the framers of the Constitution in being clever by half made non justiciable, in the hope that necessary amendments may be made to the present effort or that the National Assembly may take cognizance of this in the Constitutional review it is presently undertaking.
I have canvassed elsewhere that the 1999 Constitution and many others before it were deliberately made tenuous and unworkable. In my view no other provision of the constitution drives the point home more that the Constitution was not designed to work than the obnoxious provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution known as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chapter provided that it shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of Government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of that Chapter of the Constitution. But in a curious twist, the same Constitution in what an informed commentator has likened to lying against itself in one fall sweep made the provisions non justiciable. Exactly what are these provisions? The Chapter provides for Political, Economic, Social, Educational, Foreign policy and Environmental objectives of state policy. These rights which roughly correlate with the third generation rights now recognized by the United Nations Organisation and espoused in several international documents/instruments are now treated as basic rights which any nation serious about development should incorporate in its constitution and make justiciable because rights such as the one to education and clean water are hardly negotiable any more.
A Constitution is a serious document, these rights should not be contained in it if they are non justiciable and in a tongue in cheek macabre, the Chapter further provided that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people. Just how will the mass media fulfill this obligation when this section is non justiciable? The fourth estate of the realm is in no way protected, laws that gag the press abounds and yet the Constitution will not even protect media houses and media practitioners.
Whatever informed the non justiciability of this Chapter of the Constitution? Some informed commentators have pointed out the deluge of court actions that will arise as a result of the leeway its justiciability will give citizens to enforce these rights and the fear that the Government of the Federation will never be able to meet the cost of guaranteeing these rights to every Nigerian. However founded these concerns may be, it must be borne in mind that if Chapter II of the Constitution is made justiciable, our Law courts will in no time rise to the occasion and formulate rules that will checkmate the expected floodgate of cases sifting and identifying deserving ones as a result.
This point is particularly important because the role of the media in a democracy cannot be overemphasized and in the unique case of Nigeria, the media ought to be feted and not fettered because in more ways than one, the press in Nigeria has helped keep hope alive and have continually demanded accountability from those who would rather rule than govern us. Let us not forget that were it not for the courageous media practitioners with great personal and sometimes fatal risk, we would not have democracy today. They fought the Military junta’s of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, Sanni Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar to a standstill. They have kept the memory of June 12 alive to this day. Were it not for the media, the Siemens/Halliburton scandals and many like it, the Abacha loot and the misdemeanors of Obasanjo’s imperial presidency would since have been trampled underfoot, buried and forgotten. All hail the press and let us give force to the words of one of America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – who wrote that, ‘were it left for me to decide whether to have a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government, I will not hesitate to choose the latter’. For me, this brilliantly sums up in a poignant way the role and importance of the press especially in an emerging democracy as ours.
The provision of the 1999 Constitution on the obligation of the mass media is one provision that must be removed from Chapter II and made justiciable so the mass media can properly fulfill its assigned Constitutional mandate of freedom to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people if we will not make Chapter II of the Constitution justiciable in its entirety.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
As the debate on the desirability or otherwise of the new Press Law pending before the National Assembly at its hallowed chambers continue to rage, I like to point out an important aspect of our Constitutional provisions as regards the press and its freedom which the framers of the Constitution in being clever by half made non justiciable, in the hope that necessary amendments may be made to the present effort or that the National Assembly may take cognizance of this in the Constitutional review it is presently undertaking.
I have canvassed elsewhere that the 1999 Constitution and many others before it were deliberately made tenuous and unworkable. In my view no other provision of the constitution drives the point home more that the Constitution was not designed to work than the obnoxious provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution known as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chapter provided that it shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of Government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of that Chapter of the Constitution. But in a curious twist, the same Constitution in what an informed commentator has likened to lying against itself in one fall sweep made the provisions non justiciable. Exactly what are these provisions? The Chapter provides for Political, Economic, Social, Educational, Foreign policy and Environmental objectives of state policy. These rights which roughly correlate with the third generation rights now recognized by the United Nations Organisation and espoused in several international documents/instruments are now treated as basic rights which any nation serious about development should incorporate in its constitution and make justiciable because rights such as the one to education and clean water are hardly negotiable any more.
A Constitution is a serious document, these rights should not be contained in it if they are non justiciable and in a tongue in cheek macabre, the Chapter further provided that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people. Just how will the mass media fulfill this obligation when this section is non justiciable? The fourth estate of the realm is in no way protected, laws that gag the press abounds and yet the Constitution will not even protect media houses and media practitioners.
Whatever informed the non justiciability of this Chapter of the Constitution? Some informed commentators have pointed out the deluge of court actions that will arise as a result of the leeway its justiciability will give citizens to enforce these rights and the fear that the Government of the Federation will never be able to meet the cost of guaranteeing these rights to every Nigerian. However founded these concerns may be, it must be borne in mind that if Chapter II of the Constitution is made justiciable, our Law courts will in no time rise to the occasion and formulate rules that will checkmate the expected floodgate of cases sifting and identifying deserving ones as a result.
This point is particularly important because the role of the media in a democracy cannot be overemphasized and in the unique case of Nigeria, the media ought to be feted and not fettered because in more ways than one, the press in Nigeria has helped keep hope alive and have continually demanded accountability from those who would rather rule than govern us. Let us not forget that were it not for the courageous media practitioners with great personal and sometimes fatal risk, we would not have democracy today. They fought the Military junta’s of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, Sanni Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar to a standstill. They have kept the memory of June 12 alive to this day. Were it not for the media, the Siemens/Halliburton scandals and many like it, the Abacha loot and the misdemeanors of Obasanjo’s imperial presidency would since have been trampled underfoot, buried and forgotten. All hail the press and let us give force to the words of one of America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – who wrote that, ‘were it left for me to decide whether to have a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government, I will not hesitate to choose the latter’. For me, this brilliantly sums up in a poignant way the role and importance of the press especially in an emerging democracy as ours.
The provision of the 1999 Constitution on the obligation of the mass media is one provision that must be removed from Chapter II and made justiciable so the mass media can properly fulfill its assigned Constitutional mandate of freedom to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people if we will not make Chapter II of the Constitution justiciable in its entirety.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
THE RIGHT CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP
THE RIGHT CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP
I read with concern a report on the front page of the Guardian of Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 under the caption “After 10 years your state of origin may change” and the paper went on to report that according to a Bill sponsored by Gozie Agbakoba, a member of the House of Representatives from Anambra State titled ‘A Bill for an Act to Integrate Non-Indigenes into states other than their state’s of origin’, if a person stays in another state for about 10 years and fulfills all his obligations, he or she should be conferred all rights and benefits enjoyed by the indigenes.
According to the widely circulated and leading national daily, Section 1 of the Bill provides “A person who resides in a state other than his state of origin continuously, that is to say without a break for a period of 10 or more years, contributes to the development, lives in harmony with the people of the state; pays taxes to the state, shall be entitled to the rights and benefits accruing to the indigenes or people of that state notwithstanding the fact that he is not an indigene or citizen of that state”. Section 2 of the same Bill went on to extend the rights and benefits to appointments, scholarships, attainment of the highest political office in the state and other such perquisites of indigeneship.
Well it is a good thing that this is coming up now even though belated but those involved should do well to note that this is a fundamental Constitutional matter and treat it as such. Any Constitutional amendment such as the one the National Assembly is now undertaking must as a matter of urgency take this question of citizenship or indigeneship into critical consideration and make lasting constitutional provisions to exorcise the ghost of this divisive issue from our national life forever. No other issue has conspired more to derail Nigeria’s continued search for Unity and Nationhood than the wrong concept of citizenship or indigeneship as conceived in this clime. This Bill though a welcome relief is a mere palliative if what it seeks to correct is not recognized and entrenched in the Constitution. In doing this we must appreciate and understand what the right concept of citizenship is. To this right concept will I now turn.
What exactly is Citizenship? A right concept of citizenship should solve most if not all issues that have to do with patriotism and communal living. Our leaders know this and most commentators do but it is surprising no one has really made an issue of the point. The right concept of Citizenship will foster harmony, self esteem/worth, unity and coherence of the Nigerian state, regardless of our estimated 250 ethnic nationalities and 513 linguistic groupings and their divergent group interests.
The 1999 Constitution in Chapter III provides for Citizenship and what do we find in its provisions. It merely prescribes how Nigerian citizenship may be acquired, exercised and renounced. It did not in any way make any telling provision on how these citizens shall live in the space they choose within the larger Nigerian society. The only provision that remotely comes close to doing so is again contained in the non justiciable provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution thus ‘it shall be the duty of every citizen to respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood; make positive and useful contributions to the advancement, progress and wellbeing of the community where he resides”.
Again much ado about nothing. How is the average Nigerian expected to live out these ideals in a community where he resides and is seen as a ‘stranger’, a ‘non native’, a ‘non indigene’, and a ‘bird of passage’, taking it to the extreme if you like. If we are all citizens of Nigeria, why is it so difficult for the various ethnic nationalities in Jos to live together in peace and harmony? Why are there so much ethnic flash points across the length and breadth of this country? Again the answer is simple, the Constitution was deliberately made tenuous and unworkable so those who have access to power and who know how to exploit the little differences and the insignificant issues that make for disunity can continue to keep their privileges and forever. No one should deceive us; the things that should unite us are far greater than those that divide us if only the generality of the people who bear the brunt of the mismanagement of this country were any wiser. As President Barack Obama said in his recent Cairo address to the Muslim world, ‘so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity’. We have sacrificed merit on the alter of Federal Character in this country, entrenching ineptitude and mediocrity under the guise of balancing the equilibrium. What equilibrium? As if Nigerian’s care who their Leaders are if this country is run properly.
In 1992 when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United State’s, his Vice President, Albert Gore was from a neighbouring Southern State. Who cared? No one. President George Bush was Governor of Texas before he became President of the United State’s in the year 2000 and while he was President; his younger brother, Jeb Bush, was Governor of Florida. Again who cared? No one. Rodham Hillary Clinton was first lady at Little Rock when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and when it was time for her senate seat run; she ran from New York and thus represented New Yorkers in the Senate until recently when she was appointed Secretary of State by President Barack Obama. Now, this is the example of a nation which is serious about Citizenship, Patriotism and Unity. Just what are the examples we have here?
How did the United State’s achieve this? Simple, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State’s solved the problem of ethnicity, indigeneship in one simple sentence when while extending Citizen rights to all Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Caucasian, and Indian) provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Brilliant you might say. So it does not matter where an American was born or where he resides, for where ever he is/lives in the United State’s at any point in time, he is a citizen of that place so questions of ‘indigeneship’, ‘stranger’, ‘non native’ or whatever which has led to violence and avoidable deaths in this clime will never arise.
Imagine how much good this singular provision in one sentence will do to our nation if we have the necessary political will to incorporate same into our constitution. Our leaders know this but because they seek to divide us so they can continually exploit us and feather their nest they will not allow it but any genuine effort at constitutional review must provide that anyone born or naturalized in Nigeria is a citizen of Nigeria and of the state wherein he resides and that he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the state. This provision will not solve all the problems in one day but it will be a constant reminder to all involved of our resolve to ensure the protection of Nigerian lives and property, our resolve to ensure that every Nigerian who will thrives, find happiness and fulfillment no matter where he resides in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
I read with concern a report on the front page of the Guardian of Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 under the caption “After 10 years your state of origin may change” and the paper went on to report that according to a Bill sponsored by Gozie Agbakoba, a member of the House of Representatives from Anambra State titled ‘A Bill for an Act to Integrate Non-Indigenes into states other than their state’s of origin’, if a person stays in another state for about 10 years and fulfills all his obligations, he or she should be conferred all rights and benefits enjoyed by the indigenes.
According to the widely circulated and leading national daily, Section 1 of the Bill provides “A person who resides in a state other than his state of origin continuously, that is to say without a break for a period of 10 or more years, contributes to the development, lives in harmony with the people of the state; pays taxes to the state, shall be entitled to the rights and benefits accruing to the indigenes or people of that state notwithstanding the fact that he is not an indigene or citizen of that state”. Section 2 of the same Bill went on to extend the rights and benefits to appointments, scholarships, attainment of the highest political office in the state and other such perquisites of indigeneship.
Well it is a good thing that this is coming up now even though belated but those involved should do well to note that this is a fundamental Constitutional matter and treat it as such. Any Constitutional amendment such as the one the National Assembly is now undertaking must as a matter of urgency take this question of citizenship or indigeneship into critical consideration and make lasting constitutional provisions to exorcise the ghost of this divisive issue from our national life forever. No other issue has conspired more to derail Nigeria’s continued search for Unity and Nationhood than the wrong concept of citizenship or indigeneship as conceived in this clime. This Bill though a welcome relief is a mere palliative if what it seeks to correct is not recognized and entrenched in the Constitution. In doing this we must appreciate and understand what the right concept of citizenship is. To this right concept will I now turn.
What exactly is Citizenship? A right concept of citizenship should solve most if not all issues that have to do with patriotism and communal living. Our leaders know this and most commentators do but it is surprising no one has really made an issue of the point. The right concept of Citizenship will foster harmony, self esteem/worth, unity and coherence of the Nigerian state, regardless of our estimated 250 ethnic nationalities and 513 linguistic groupings and their divergent group interests.
The 1999 Constitution in Chapter III provides for Citizenship and what do we find in its provisions. It merely prescribes how Nigerian citizenship may be acquired, exercised and renounced. It did not in any way make any telling provision on how these citizens shall live in the space they choose within the larger Nigerian society. The only provision that remotely comes close to doing so is again contained in the non justiciable provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution thus ‘it shall be the duty of every citizen to respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood; make positive and useful contributions to the advancement, progress and wellbeing of the community where he resides”.
Again much ado about nothing. How is the average Nigerian expected to live out these ideals in a community where he resides and is seen as a ‘stranger’, a ‘non native’, a ‘non indigene’, and a ‘bird of passage’, taking it to the extreme if you like. If we are all citizens of Nigeria, why is it so difficult for the various ethnic nationalities in Jos to live together in peace and harmony? Why are there so much ethnic flash points across the length and breadth of this country? Again the answer is simple, the Constitution was deliberately made tenuous and unworkable so those who have access to power and who know how to exploit the little differences and the insignificant issues that make for disunity can continue to keep their privileges and forever. No one should deceive us; the things that should unite us are far greater than those that divide us if only the generality of the people who bear the brunt of the mismanagement of this country were any wiser. As President Barack Obama said in his recent Cairo address to the Muslim world, ‘so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity’. We have sacrificed merit on the alter of Federal Character in this country, entrenching ineptitude and mediocrity under the guise of balancing the equilibrium. What equilibrium? As if Nigerian’s care who their Leaders are if this country is run properly.
In 1992 when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United State’s, his Vice President, Albert Gore was from a neighbouring Southern State. Who cared? No one. President George Bush was Governor of Texas before he became President of the United State’s in the year 2000 and while he was President; his younger brother, Jeb Bush, was Governor of Florida. Again who cared? No one. Rodham Hillary Clinton was first lady at Little Rock when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and when it was time for her senate seat run; she ran from New York and thus represented New Yorkers in the Senate until recently when she was appointed Secretary of State by President Barack Obama. Now, this is the example of a nation which is serious about Citizenship, Patriotism and Unity. Just what are the examples we have here?
How did the United State’s achieve this? Simple, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State’s solved the problem of ethnicity, indigeneship in one simple sentence when while extending Citizen rights to all Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Caucasian, and Indian) provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Brilliant you might say. So it does not matter where an American was born or where he resides, for where ever he is/lives in the United State’s at any point in time, he is a citizen of that place so questions of ‘indigeneship’, ‘stranger’, ‘non native’ or whatever which has led to violence and avoidable deaths in this clime will never arise.
Imagine how much good this singular provision in one sentence will do to our nation if we have the necessary political will to incorporate same into our constitution. Our leaders know this but because they seek to divide us so they can continually exploit us and feather their nest they will not allow it but any genuine effort at constitutional review must provide that anyone born or naturalized in Nigeria is a citizen of Nigeria and of the state wherein he resides and that he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the state. This provision will not solve all the problems in one day but it will be a constant reminder to all involved of our resolve to ensure the protection of Nigerian lives and property, our resolve to ensure that every Nigerian who will thrives, find happiness and fulfillment no matter where he resides in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Friday, October 23, 2009
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ELECTORAL REFORMS IN NIGERIA: FRESH PERSPECTIVES
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ELECTORAL REFORMS IN NIGERIA: FRESH PERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
The numerous ethno religious crisis and shambolic elections in Nigeria’s political history has shown that if we do nothing else, we desperately need to review our Constitution and reform our Electoral laws. The conduct of Elections in Nigeria has consistently degenerated into a theatre of the absurd since Nigeria’s independence in 1960 and matters came to a startling dead end in the 2007 General Elections. Since then, attempts have been made at Electoral Reforms. The Electoral Reform panel headed by respected former Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Mohammed Uwais (Rtd) has since winded up and submitted a comprehensive report recommending far reaching Electoral Reforms to the Federal Government. But the Federal Government is reluctant to accept the report in its entirety. Some of the most important recommendations of the panel have been rejected outright in what is seen by many as a consequence of political expediency.
The National Assembly in recognition of the imperatives for Constitutional Reform and Review set up a Joint Committee of the Legislative Houses to review the 1999 Constitution in 2008. At a January, 2009 meeting of the Joint committee, all hell broke loose over who Chair’s the Committee and since then every attempt to rev the engine of that committee to go on with the task at hand has failed. The 1999 Constitution is no doubt defective and this is not the first time the National Assembly will attempt a wholesale review of that document. May be some if not most of these defects would have been addressed in the attempt at Constitutional Amendment in 2006 were it not for the vaulting ambition of a cluster of political elites/jobbers to remain relevant in the corridors of power forever. They cajoled and convinced then President Olusegun Obasanjo that his fate was inexorably tied with that of Nigeria; the man himself was sure of his place and destiny within the larger historical alchemy of Nigeria. The pro and anti Obasanjo sentiments ran high at the consequent constitutional debates on account of what notoriously became known as the ‘third term saga’. At the end of the horse trading that the Constitution amendment debates of 2006 became, the baby was thrown away with the bathwater as on account of third term alone, the National Assembly aborted the Constitutional review process when in May 2006, the Assembly voted not to continue the constitution review exercise.
HURDLES AT CONSTITUTIONAL AND ELECTORAL REFORMS
This new attempt at Constitutional Reform is not showing any signs of progress from elected representatives who are only too concerned about maintaining their pecuniary advantages. No serious reforms whether Constitutional or Electoral can be effected in a polity where the Centre is as attractive as Nigeria’s as a result of the immense resources concentrated at the centre and the enormous and obscene favours to be dispensed by way of political patronage by whoever controls the centre. In such a situation all efforts and resources are mobilized towards capturing power at the centre and keeping it forever notwithstanding the health or otherwise of the polity.
If the 1999 Constitution is an unworkable document, it was deliberately made so. The Electoral Laws do not work because they were deliberately so designed. Has anyone ever wondered why our Constitution is so verbose and yet covers nothing of importance that could engender nation building? We have tried to cover every conceivable mundane aspect of our National life in a document that is so drawn out without the faintest intention to act in good faith and make it work. The grundnorm is supposed to fashion out minimum rules of engagement while the polity and the judiciary are left to add flesh and then order society. In an attempt to cover everything yet cover nothing, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 has 320 Sections and schedules enough to fill another volume and yet does not incorporate true federalism in a Federation that is one only in name. In fact, the 1999 Constitution as conceived, drafted and operated is a unitary document. Contrast this with the fact that barring the amendments, the original document that was the Constitution of the United State’s of America adopted in 1776 had only 26 Articles. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany known as the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany adopted upon Unification in 1990 has 146 Articles with the incorporation of Articles 136, 137, 139 and 141 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteeing Religious Freedom. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of France which was adopted on the 4th of October, 1958 has only 92 Articles even though there had been 18 amendments by the year, 2007.
The fact remains that these societies are well run today even though they have what might be considered meager Constitutional provisions compared to what we have because with their history immediately preceding the adoption of the documents (in the case of the United State’s, the breakaway from colonial power and the war of Independence against England, in the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, the dismantling of the Berlin wall, an old relic and reminder of it’s imperialist designs and the plum empire pickings it became instead for the allies and the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war following its defeat, and in the case of France, a compelling necessity to restore pride after the humiliation of a devastating defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany in WWII) their leaders and citizens alike were ready to subject their personal good to the common good recognizing that they were bound by a common destiny – leaders and followers alike.
The tragedy of the Nigerian nation as eminent professor and giant of African literature, Chinua Achebe puts it is the failure of Leadership at all levels.
In suggesting possible areas and an action plan for reform, let us examine two critical areas in constitutional reform and one important aspect of electoral reform which is germane and must be set right if indeed our democracy would survive and deliver on the immense promises democracy offers and which is evident in many countries across the world. Democracy and development are found together. Where the latter does not follow the former, then critical questions ought to be posed. Elections without more do not make a democracy. A democracy means the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and in the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and does not steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Ultimately democracy must lead to larger freedom and liberty.
Let us then proceed to examine the three issues of concern: fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, citizenship and the internal affairs of political parties in a democracy.
FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY AND THE PRESS
Nothing drives the point home more that the Constitution was not designed to work than the obnoxious provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution known as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chapter provided that it shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of Government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of that Chapter of the Constitution. But in a curious twist, the same Constitution in what an informed commentator has likened to lying against itself in one fall sweep made the provisions non justiciable. Exactly what are these provisions? The Chapter provides for Political, Economic, Social, Educational, Foreign policy and Environmental objectives of state policy. These rights which roughly correlate with the third generation rights now recognized by the United Nations Organisation and espoused in several international documents/instruments are now treated as basic rights which any nation serious about development should incorporate in its constitution and make justiciable because rights such as the one to education and clean water are hardly negotiable any more.
A Constitution is a serious document, these rights should not be contained in it if they are non justiciable and in a tongue in cheek macabre, the Chapter further provided that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people. Just how will the mass media fulfill this obligation when this section is non justiciable? The fourth estate of the realm is in no way protected, laws that gag the press abounds and yet the Constitution will not even protect media houses and media practitioners. Whatever informed the non justiciability of this Chapter, it must be borne in mind that if Chapter II of the Constitution is made justiciable, our Law courts will in time rise to the occasion and formulate rules that will checkmate the expected floodgate of cases sifting and identifying deserving ones as a result.
This point is particularly important because the role of the media in a democracy cannot be overemphasized and in the unique case of Nigeria, the media ought to be feted and not fettered because in more ways than one, the press in Nigeria has helped keep hope alive and have continually demanded accountability from those who would rather rule than govern us. Let us not forget that were it not for the courageous media practitioners with great personal and sometimes fatal risk, we would not have democracy today. They fought the Military junta’s of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, Sanni Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar to a standstill. They have kept the memory of June 12 alive to this day. Were it not for the media, the Siemens and Halliburton scandals would since have been trampled underfoot and buried. All hail the press and let us give force to the words of one of America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – who wrote that, ‘were it left for me to decide whether to have a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government, I will not hesitate to choose the latter’. For me, this brilliantly sums up in a poignant way the role and importance of the media especially in an emerging democracy as ours.
The provision of the 1999 Constitution on the obligation of the mass media is one provision that must be removed from Chapter II and made justiciable so the mass media can properly fulfill its assigned Constitutional role if we will not make Chapter II of the Constitution justiciable.
THE RIGHT CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP
What exactly is Citizenship? A right concept of citizenship should solve most if not all issues that have to do with patriotism and communal living. Our leaders know this and most commentators do but it is surprising no one has really made an issue of the point. The right concept of Citizenship will foster harmony, self esteem/worth, unity and coherence of the Nigerian state, regardless of our estimated 250 ethnic nationalities and 513 linguistic groupings and their divergent group interests.
The 1999 Constitution in Chapter III provides for Citizenship and what do we find in its provisions. It merely prescribes how Nigerian citizenship may be acquired, exercised and renounced. It did not in any way make any telling provision on how these citizens shall live in the space they choose within the larger Nigerian society. The only provision that come close to this is again contained in the non justiciable provisions of Chapter II thus ‘it shall be the duty of every citizen to respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood; make positive and useful contributions to the advancement, progress and wellbeing of the community where he resides’.
Again much ado about nothing. How is the average Nigerian expected to live out these ideals in a community where he resides and is seen as a ‘stranger’, a ‘non native’, a ‘non indigene’, and a ‘bird of passage’, taking it to the extreme if you like. If we are all citizens of Nigeria, why is it so difficult for the various ethnic nationalities in Jos to live together in peace and harmony? Why are there so much ethnic flash points across the length and breadth of this country? Again the answer is simple, the Constitution was deliberately made weak and unworkable so those who have access to power and who know how to exploit the little differences and the insignificant issues that make for disunity can continue to keep their privileges and forever. No one should deceive us; the things that should unite us are far greater than those that divide us if only the generality of the people who bear the brunt of the mismanagement of this country were any wiser. As President Barack Obama said in his recent Cairo address to the Muslim world, ‘so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity’. We have sacrificed merit on the alter of Federal Character in this country, entrenching ineptitude and mediocrity under the guise of balancing the equilibrium. What equilibrium? As if Nigerian’s care who their Leaders are if this country is run properly.
In 1992 when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United State’s, his Vice President, Albert Gore was from a neighbouring Southern State. Who cared? No one. President George Bush was Governor of Texas before he became President of the United State’s in the year 2000 and while he was President; his younger brother, Jeb Bush, was Governor of Florida. Again who cared? No one. Rodham Hillary Clinton was first lady at Little Rock when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and when it was time for her senate seat run; she ran from New York and thus represented New Yorkers in the Senate until recently when she was appointed Secretary of State by President Barack Obama. Now, this is the example of a nation which is serious about Citizenship, Patriotism and Unity. Just what are the examples we have here?
How did the United State’s achieve this? Simple, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State’s solved the problem of ethnicity, indigeneship in one simple sentence when while extending Citizen rights to all Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Caucasian, and Indian) provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Brilliant you might say. So it does not matter where an American was born or where he resides, for where ever he is/lives in the United State’s at any point in time, he is a citizen of that place so questions of ‘indigeneship’, ‘stranger’, ‘non native’ or whatever which has led to violence and avoidable deaths in this clime will never arise.
Imagine how much good this singular provision in one sentence will do to our nation if we have the necessary political will to incorporate same into our constitution. Our leaders know this but because they seek to divide us so they can continually exploit us and feather their nest they will not allow it but any genuine effort at constitutional review must provide that anyone born or naturalized in Nigeria is a citizen of Nigeria and of the state wherein he resides and that he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the state. This provision will not solve all the problems in one day but it will be a constant reminder to all involved of our resolve to ensure the protection of Nigerian lives and property, our resolve to ensure that every Nigerian who will thrives, find happiness and fulfillment no matter where he resides in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
POLITICAL PARTIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND DEMOCRACY
Any attempt at Electoral reform must critically address the question of internal democracy within our various political parties because with the pervasive lawlessness in the political parties, any party that controls the centre will not be able or be even willing to entrench democracy as the concept of democracy is even then alien to it. The internal politics of political parties in Nigeria has never been a tidy affair especially where it concerns the selection of candidates for the purpose of elections and occupation of political office. The selection process popularly known as primaries has always been fraught with acrimonies most of which the political parties often prove incapable of resolving. Such acrimonies oftentimes snowball into litigations as courts are called upon to decide who carries the parties’ flags at general elections.
With regards to the practice of democracy in the internal affairs of political parties, the Judiciary has thankfully shown the way. Until recently, such aggrieved contestants who went to court thought that they stood little or no chance of success because the established principle has always been that the internal affairs of a political party (including the choice of its flag bearers in an election) is its business. The principle is to the effect that courts have no business intervening in the internal affairs of political parties. The famous case of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 14 NSCC 494 had become a locus classicus. This principle worked hardship on members of political parties who were very popular but did not enjoy the support of the powers that be within the parties. They could not understand why the justice system seemed to support political parties that had refused to follow its own laid down rules. This effectively led to the death of internal democracy in most political parties.
The Supreme Court unwittingly strengthened the hands of the political parties without considering the infinite capacity of so called party leaders and “godfathers” to do mischief when it held in the important case of Alhaji Balarabe Musa v. The Peoples Redemption Party that:
“such is the position of voluntary associations, a man who joins a club or society must abide by the WILL of the majority or clear out. It is not unlikely that a person may find himself holding a contrary view to those of others in the association to which he belongs and the others may be altogether wrong or unreasonable. His choice is clear. He either abides with the decision of the OTHERS or he clears out. Any society or association comprising of members who voluntarily join it, is entitled to come to any decision which they like”.
The apex court continued:
“it is in the way of voluntary associations that the MAJORITY decision is binding on all members. If a man finds himself as a member of such and it takes a decision which it does not accept, a decision which could even be contrary to good sense, he has only one course open to him – to get out. It must be said loud and clear, the party to which any person belongs is SUPREME so far as its affairs go. A member has to abide by the decision of the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY of the party or he should get out as voluntarily as he came in … But, so far as the party is concerned, it is to have the right to DISCIPLINE its members. As a voluntary association it has the right to lay down its own decisions even when they are unreasonable. They should be obeyed, or the member in disobedience is entitled to quit. The party is in its own right SUPREME over its own affairs. This must be said loudly and clearly. UNLESS IT HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS the court would not interfere. The court will not substitute its own will for that of a political party or any other voluntary association. Those who join clubs or associations or political parties must be made aware of the perils of membership. The majority will must prevail whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. The court cannot intervene in a matter such as this.”
It does appear that the power brokers within the various political parties only understood and interpreted this dictum to mean party supremacy without giving due thought to all the operative words used by the Supreme Court. The operative words as I identify them in capital letters are these: WILL, OTHERS, MAJORITY, SUPREME, APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, DISCIPLINE, and UNLESS IT HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
The WILL as used by the court could only mean the will of the MAJORITY members of the political party which in a democracy approximates to the will of the political party and not the will of some faceless powerful clique within the political parties foisted on others and labeled majority will. The MAJORITY will must be the will of the true majority, the will of the OTHERS and not the One or Few according to the Supreme Court. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY is to be found only where the party constitution locates that authority, a decision of an appropriate authority of the party has to and must emanate from the appropriate authority. Only then, as the Supreme Court contemplates will the member be obliged to obey such decisions. A decision of a powerful party chairman/chief is not a decision from the appropriate authority. A political party can DISCIPLINE members only when they err but discipline as our parties now use it has become a gun boat diplomacy tool - ‘take whatever we give you without complaint or else we expel you’. The Supreme Court then made it unequivocally clear that such decisions must not be in violation of the party’s constitutional provisions, in which case it will become one of such cases in which the court can interfere. Party supremacy cannot be called on to legitimate unjust dealings in a political party which should otherwise be an association of “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours, the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are agreed” in the words of Edmund Burke.
In contemplation of the above scenario, the Electoral Act, 2006 in Section 34 introduced a new provision which requires political parties wishing to substitute candidates after their primaries to give cogent and verifiable reasons for doing so. The first person to test this amendment in the law court was Senator Ifeanyi Ararume, who went to court after he was substituted with Chief Charles Ugwu as the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate for Imo State gubernatorial race.
In Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 7 MJSC1, the Supreme Court held that Section 34 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 does not invest a political party with an absolute power to substitute a candidate who wins the primary election. The provision makes it mandatory for the political party effecting the substitution to give to the INEC cogent and verifiable reasons for the substitution. According to the apex court, the section clearly imposes a duty on any political party intending to do so by informing the INEC in writing within a specified period of not later than 60 days to the date of the election. The section contains mandatory provisions which any political party intending to effect any change in the list of its candidates submitted to the Commission to contest any election must comply with. The court clearly stated that the Electoral Act and the party constitutions must be seen to be complementing the Constitution in formulating broader rules, regulations and operation mechanisms for the true convenience. Where any of such enactment, rules or policies comes in conflict with any section of the Constitution, that enactment, rule or policy must surrender to the Constitution. Accordingly, the court further held that, there is no rational to permit a political party, once it has given its commitment or mandate to a candidate whom it had already nominated whether wrongly or rightly to bulldoze its way to rescind that mandate for no justifiable cause. Politics is not anarchy. It is not disorderliness. It must be punctuated by justice, fairness and orderliness. The admonition of Muhammad JSC at this stage is very apposite. According to the learned JSC
“…If we still want to instill sanity into our human affairs, if we want to entrench unpolluted democracy in our body polity, the naked truth must permeate through the blood, nerve and brain of each and every one of us. Although credit may not always have its rightful place in politics we should try to blend the two so as to attain a fair, just and egalitarian society where no one is oppressed. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us not give a dog a bad name in order to hang it”.
The above Supreme Court decision opened a floodgate of cases as other aggrieved candidates rushed to the court for redress. Following the judicial principle of (stare decisis) precedent, that is a lower court must follow the decision of higher courts, the Court of Appeal and High Courts have no choice but to follow suit.
When it became obvious that the defence of court’s lack of jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of political parties had been overridden by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ugwu v. Ararume (supra) as it affects substitution, the parties promptly changed their defence in order to defeat the reasoning of the court and the demands of justice in the Ararume case. The parties raised a new defence to the effect that disputes over party primaries were electoral matters over which only the Election Petition Tribunals can properly adjudicate and as such the regular courts have no jurisdiction over such matters.
The Supreme Court again rejected this roundabout argument in the case filed by the former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and now Governor of Rivers State, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi against Mr. Celestine Omehia, the then Governor of Rivers State in Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC & Ors. Following this decision was the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal in a case seeking to determine who should be the PDP’s candidate for Akwa Ibom North East Constituency between Senator Bob Effiong and Chief Albert Ime. The Court of Appeal, Abuja division held that a case bordering on substitution of candidates by parties after the primaries was not an election matter that must be heard by an Election Petition Tribunal. The court consequently dismissed the objection filed by Ime challenging its (court) jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by Effiong.
The apex court and the appellate courts clearly showed in the latter cases that the rules and procedures governing the conduct of affairs and internal democracy must be respected in political parties for there to be credible elections.
THE WAY FORWARD
Nigeria no doubt faces enormous challenges in Constitutional and Electoral reforms but these challenges are by no means insurmountable. As we have seen the trouble with Nigeria is not necessarily the absence of laws/rules but the absence of the necessary political will to enforce the inadequate ones we do have. If we do not imbibe the necessary culture to make our country work, then whatever reforms we muster except they are such as is self executory, will not necessarily move our country beyond where we already are. I have canvassed elsewhere that we must learn to do the simple things first and take it one at a time as it is obvious that our innumerable attempts at doing all things at the same time in the past has met with contemptuous failure. Take for example, President Yar Adua’s seven point agenda. Who can sincerely say he understands what has been achieved on any point of the agenda. Supposing he takes one point, tackle it and then move unto the next? Well your guess is as good as mine.
It does appear now that Constitutional Reforms must precede Electoral Reforms judging from the seven bills on Electoral Reforms sent to the National Assembly by the President. The bills are, a Bill for an Act to Amend the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Act, Cap 15, LFN 2004 and other Matters Connected Thereto; a Bill for an Act to Establish the Electoral Offences Commission and for Matters Connected Thereto; a Bill for an Act to Alter Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and for other Matters Connected Thereto (Second Amendment); a Bill for an Act to Establish the Centre for Democratic Studies and other Related Matters; a Bill for an Act to Further Amend the Police Act, 1967, Cap P19 LFN, 2004 and for other Matters Connected Therewith; a Bill for an Act to Establish the Political Parties Registration and Regulatory Commission and for other Matters Connected Thereto; and finally a Bill for an Act to Alter Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and for other Matters Connected Thereto (Third Amendment).
Two of the Bills seek to amend the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The utility of an Act of the National Assembly amending provisions of a Constitution patently defective in several respects is highly debatable and it may be unrealistic to expect the National Assembly to pass the other Bills in their original form and content. The bills again are not designed to and there is nothing in their provisions to suggest that they will solve Nigeria’s electoral woes. The provisions of the bills are not the exorcist provisions one would expect in a genuine effort at Electoral Reforms. From all indications, a wholesale amendment of the Constitution will not be undertaken soon enough to enable electoral reforms before the 2011 polls which will really be a testy time for our fragile democracy but our country can learn from the examples from abroad. The United States, Germany France and even South Africa have adopted a piecemeal approach to constitutional amendments in their various countries and their countries have not ceased to work. Since the adoption of the German Constitution in 1990, the constitution has been amended over fifty times, by 2007, France had amended its 1958 Constitution eighteen times and South Africa has amended theirs sixteen times since 1996.
What to do is adopt this approach, identify the more pressing issues for address, amend the relevant sections of the Constitution and then pass subsidiary legislation to enhance its social utility and in no distant time the much touted Constitution and the working society we all crave will be with us.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA
FOUNTAIN COURT PARTNERS
36B, OGUDU ROAD
OJOTA
LAGOS.
08052066172.
INTRODUCTION
The numerous ethno religious crisis and shambolic elections in Nigeria’s political history has shown that if we do nothing else, we desperately need to review our Constitution and reform our Electoral laws. The conduct of Elections in Nigeria has consistently degenerated into a theatre of the absurd since Nigeria’s independence in 1960 and matters came to a startling dead end in the 2007 General Elections. Since then, attempts have been made at Electoral Reforms. The Electoral Reform panel headed by respected former Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Mohammed Uwais (Rtd) has since winded up and submitted a comprehensive report recommending far reaching Electoral Reforms to the Federal Government. But the Federal Government is reluctant to accept the report in its entirety. Some of the most important recommendations of the panel have been rejected outright in what is seen by many as a consequence of political expediency.
The National Assembly in recognition of the imperatives for Constitutional Reform and Review set up a Joint Committee of the Legislative Houses to review the 1999 Constitution in 2008. At a January, 2009 meeting of the Joint committee, all hell broke loose over who Chair’s the Committee and since then every attempt to rev the engine of that committee to go on with the task at hand has failed. The 1999 Constitution is no doubt defective and this is not the first time the National Assembly will attempt a wholesale review of that document. May be some if not most of these defects would have been addressed in the attempt at Constitutional Amendment in 2006 were it not for the vaulting ambition of a cluster of political elites/jobbers to remain relevant in the corridors of power forever. They cajoled and convinced then President Olusegun Obasanjo that his fate was inexorably tied with that of Nigeria; the man himself was sure of his place and destiny within the larger historical alchemy of Nigeria. The pro and anti Obasanjo sentiments ran high at the consequent constitutional debates on account of what notoriously became known as the ‘third term saga’. At the end of the horse trading that the Constitution amendment debates of 2006 became, the baby was thrown away with the bathwater as on account of third term alone, the National Assembly aborted the Constitutional review process when in May 2006, the Assembly voted not to continue the constitution review exercise.
HURDLES AT CONSTITUTIONAL AND ELECTORAL REFORMS
This new attempt at Constitutional Reform is not showing any signs of progress from elected representatives who are only too concerned about maintaining their pecuniary advantages. No serious reforms whether Constitutional or Electoral can be effected in a polity where the Centre is as attractive as Nigeria’s as a result of the immense resources concentrated at the centre and the enormous and obscene favours to be dispensed by way of political patronage by whoever controls the centre. In such a situation all efforts and resources are mobilized towards capturing power at the centre and keeping it forever notwithstanding the health or otherwise of the polity.
If the 1999 Constitution is an unworkable document, it was deliberately made so. The Electoral Laws do not work because they were deliberately so designed. Has anyone ever wondered why our Constitution is so verbose and yet covers nothing of importance that could engender nation building? We have tried to cover every conceivable mundane aspect of our National life in a document that is so drawn out without the faintest intention to act in good faith and make it work. The grundnorm is supposed to fashion out minimum rules of engagement while the polity and the judiciary are left to add flesh and then order society. In an attempt to cover everything yet cover nothing, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 has 320 Sections and schedules enough to fill another volume and yet does not incorporate true federalism in a Federation that is one only in name. In fact, the 1999 Constitution as conceived, drafted and operated is a unitary document. Contrast this with the fact that barring the amendments, the original document that was the Constitution of the United State’s of America adopted in 1776 had only 26 Articles. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany known as the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany adopted upon Unification in 1990 has 146 Articles with the incorporation of Articles 136, 137, 139 and 141 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteeing Religious Freedom. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of France which was adopted on the 4th of October, 1958 has only 92 Articles even though there had been 18 amendments by the year, 2007.
The fact remains that these societies are well run today even though they have what might be considered meager Constitutional provisions compared to what we have because with their history immediately preceding the adoption of the documents (in the case of the United State’s, the breakaway from colonial power and the war of Independence against England, in the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, the dismantling of the Berlin wall, an old relic and reminder of it’s imperialist designs and the plum empire pickings it became instead for the allies and the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war following its defeat, and in the case of France, a compelling necessity to restore pride after the humiliation of a devastating defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany in WWII) their leaders and citizens alike were ready to subject their personal good to the common good recognizing that they were bound by a common destiny – leaders and followers alike.
The tragedy of the Nigerian nation as eminent professor and giant of African literature, Chinua Achebe puts it is the failure of Leadership at all levels.
In suggesting possible areas and an action plan for reform, let us examine two critical areas in constitutional reform and one important aspect of electoral reform which is germane and must be set right if indeed our democracy would survive and deliver on the immense promises democracy offers and which is evident in many countries across the world. Democracy and development are found together. Where the latter does not follow the former, then critical questions ought to be posed. Elections without more do not make a democracy. A democracy means the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and in the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and does not steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Ultimately democracy must lead to larger freedom and liberty.
Let us then proceed to examine the three issues of concern: fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, citizenship and the internal affairs of political parties in a democracy.
FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY AND THE PRESS
Nothing drives the point home more that the Constitution was not designed to work than the obnoxious provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution known as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chapter provided that it shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of Government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of that Chapter of the Constitution. But in a curious twist, the same Constitution in what an informed commentator has likened to lying against itself in one fall sweep made the provisions non justiciable. Exactly what are these provisions? The Chapter provides for Political, Economic, Social, Educational, Foreign policy and Environmental objectives of state policy. These rights which roughly correlate with the third generation rights now recognized by the United Nations Organisation and espoused in several international documents/instruments are now treated as basic rights which any nation serious about development should incorporate in its constitution and make justiciable because rights such as the one to education and clean water are hardly negotiable any more.
A Constitution is a serious document, these rights should not be contained in it if they are non justiciable and in a tongue in cheek macabre, the Chapter further provided that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people. Just how will the mass media fulfill this obligation when this section is non justiciable? The fourth estate of the realm is in no way protected, laws that gag the press abounds and yet the Constitution will not even protect media houses and media practitioners. Whatever informed the non justiciability of this Chapter, it must be borne in mind that if Chapter II of the Constitution is made justiciable, our Law courts will in time rise to the occasion and formulate rules that will checkmate the expected floodgate of cases sifting and identifying deserving ones as a result.
This point is particularly important because the role of the media in a democracy cannot be overemphasized and in the unique case of Nigeria, the media ought to be feted and not fettered because in more ways than one, the press in Nigeria has helped keep hope alive and have continually demanded accountability from those who would rather rule than govern us. Let us not forget that were it not for the courageous media practitioners with great personal and sometimes fatal risk, we would not have democracy today. They fought the Military junta’s of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, Sanni Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar to a standstill. They have kept the memory of June 12 alive to this day. Were it not for the media, the Siemens and Halliburton scandals would since have been trampled underfoot and buried. All hail the press and let us give force to the words of one of America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – who wrote that, ‘were it left for me to decide whether to have a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government, I will not hesitate to choose the latter’. For me, this brilliantly sums up in a poignant way the role and importance of the media especially in an emerging democracy as ours.
The provision of the 1999 Constitution on the obligation of the mass media is one provision that must be removed from Chapter II and made justiciable so the mass media can properly fulfill its assigned Constitutional role if we will not make Chapter II of the Constitution justiciable.
THE RIGHT CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP
What exactly is Citizenship? A right concept of citizenship should solve most if not all issues that have to do with patriotism and communal living. Our leaders know this and most commentators do but it is surprising no one has really made an issue of the point. The right concept of Citizenship will foster harmony, self esteem/worth, unity and coherence of the Nigerian state, regardless of our estimated 250 ethnic nationalities and 513 linguistic groupings and their divergent group interests.
The 1999 Constitution in Chapter III provides for Citizenship and what do we find in its provisions. It merely prescribes how Nigerian citizenship may be acquired, exercised and renounced. It did not in any way make any telling provision on how these citizens shall live in the space they choose within the larger Nigerian society. The only provision that come close to this is again contained in the non justiciable provisions of Chapter II thus ‘it shall be the duty of every citizen to respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood; make positive and useful contributions to the advancement, progress and wellbeing of the community where he resides’.
Again much ado about nothing. How is the average Nigerian expected to live out these ideals in a community where he resides and is seen as a ‘stranger’, a ‘non native’, a ‘non indigene’, and a ‘bird of passage’, taking it to the extreme if you like. If we are all citizens of Nigeria, why is it so difficult for the various ethnic nationalities in Jos to live together in peace and harmony? Why are there so much ethnic flash points across the length and breadth of this country? Again the answer is simple, the Constitution was deliberately made weak and unworkable so those who have access to power and who know how to exploit the little differences and the insignificant issues that make for disunity can continue to keep their privileges and forever. No one should deceive us; the things that should unite us are far greater than those that divide us if only the generality of the people who bear the brunt of the mismanagement of this country were any wiser. As President Barack Obama said in his recent Cairo address to the Muslim world, ‘so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity’. We have sacrificed merit on the alter of Federal Character in this country, entrenching ineptitude and mediocrity under the guise of balancing the equilibrium. What equilibrium? As if Nigerian’s care who their Leaders are if this country is run properly.
In 1992 when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United State’s, his Vice President, Albert Gore was from a neighbouring Southern State. Who cared? No one. President George Bush was Governor of Texas before he became President of the United State’s in the year 2000 and while he was President; his younger brother, Jeb Bush, was Governor of Florida. Again who cared? No one. Rodham Hillary Clinton was first lady at Little Rock when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and when it was time for her senate seat run; she ran from New York and thus represented New Yorkers in the Senate until recently when she was appointed Secretary of State by President Barack Obama. Now, this is the example of a nation which is serious about Citizenship, Patriotism and Unity. Just what are the examples we have here?
How did the United State’s achieve this? Simple, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State’s solved the problem of ethnicity, indigeneship in one simple sentence when while extending Citizen rights to all Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Caucasian, and Indian) provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Brilliant you might say. So it does not matter where an American was born or where he resides, for where ever he is/lives in the United State’s at any point in time, he is a citizen of that place so questions of ‘indigeneship’, ‘stranger’, ‘non native’ or whatever which has led to violence and avoidable deaths in this clime will never arise.
Imagine how much good this singular provision in one sentence will do to our nation if we have the necessary political will to incorporate same into our constitution. Our leaders know this but because they seek to divide us so they can continually exploit us and feather their nest they will not allow it but any genuine effort at constitutional review must provide that anyone born or naturalized in Nigeria is a citizen of Nigeria and of the state wherein he resides and that he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the state. This provision will not solve all the problems in one day but it will be a constant reminder to all involved of our resolve to ensure the protection of Nigerian lives and property, our resolve to ensure that every Nigerian who will thrives, find happiness and fulfillment no matter where he resides in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
POLITICAL PARTIES INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND DEMOCRACY
Any attempt at Electoral reform must critically address the question of internal democracy within our various political parties because with the pervasive lawlessness in the political parties, any party that controls the centre will not be able or be even willing to entrench democracy as the concept of democracy is even then alien to it. The internal politics of political parties in Nigeria has never been a tidy affair especially where it concerns the selection of candidates for the purpose of elections and occupation of political office. The selection process popularly known as primaries has always been fraught with acrimonies most of which the political parties often prove incapable of resolving. Such acrimonies oftentimes snowball into litigations as courts are called upon to decide who carries the parties’ flags at general elections.
With regards to the practice of democracy in the internal affairs of political parties, the Judiciary has thankfully shown the way. Until recently, such aggrieved contestants who went to court thought that they stood little or no chance of success because the established principle has always been that the internal affairs of a political party (including the choice of its flag bearers in an election) is its business. The principle is to the effect that courts have no business intervening in the internal affairs of political parties. The famous case of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 14 NSCC 494 had become a locus classicus. This principle worked hardship on members of political parties who were very popular but did not enjoy the support of the powers that be within the parties. They could not understand why the justice system seemed to support political parties that had refused to follow its own laid down rules. This effectively led to the death of internal democracy in most political parties.
The Supreme Court unwittingly strengthened the hands of the political parties without considering the infinite capacity of so called party leaders and “godfathers” to do mischief when it held in the important case of Alhaji Balarabe Musa v. The Peoples Redemption Party that:
“such is the position of voluntary associations, a man who joins a club or society must abide by the WILL of the majority or clear out. It is not unlikely that a person may find himself holding a contrary view to those of others in the association to which he belongs and the others may be altogether wrong or unreasonable. His choice is clear. He either abides with the decision of the OTHERS or he clears out. Any society or association comprising of members who voluntarily join it, is entitled to come to any decision which they like”.
The apex court continued:
“it is in the way of voluntary associations that the MAJORITY decision is binding on all members. If a man finds himself as a member of such and it takes a decision which it does not accept, a decision which could even be contrary to good sense, he has only one course open to him – to get out. It must be said loud and clear, the party to which any person belongs is SUPREME so far as its affairs go. A member has to abide by the decision of the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY of the party or he should get out as voluntarily as he came in … But, so far as the party is concerned, it is to have the right to DISCIPLINE its members. As a voluntary association it has the right to lay down its own decisions even when they are unreasonable. They should be obeyed, or the member in disobedience is entitled to quit. The party is in its own right SUPREME over its own affairs. This must be said loudly and clearly. UNLESS IT HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS the court would not interfere. The court will not substitute its own will for that of a political party or any other voluntary association. Those who join clubs or associations or political parties must be made aware of the perils of membership. The majority will must prevail whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. The court cannot intervene in a matter such as this.”
It does appear that the power brokers within the various political parties only understood and interpreted this dictum to mean party supremacy without giving due thought to all the operative words used by the Supreme Court. The operative words as I identify them in capital letters are these: WILL, OTHERS, MAJORITY, SUPREME, APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, DISCIPLINE, and UNLESS IT HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
The WILL as used by the court could only mean the will of the MAJORITY members of the political party which in a democracy approximates to the will of the political party and not the will of some faceless powerful clique within the political parties foisted on others and labeled majority will. The MAJORITY will must be the will of the true majority, the will of the OTHERS and not the One or Few according to the Supreme Court. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY is to be found only where the party constitution locates that authority, a decision of an appropriate authority of the party has to and must emanate from the appropriate authority. Only then, as the Supreme Court contemplates will the member be obliged to obey such decisions. A decision of a powerful party chairman/chief is not a decision from the appropriate authority. A political party can DISCIPLINE members only when they err but discipline as our parties now use it has become a gun boat diplomacy tool - ‘take whatever we give you without complaint or else we expel you’. The Supreme Court then made it unequivocally clear that such decisions must not be in violation of the party’s constitutional provisions, in which case it will become one of such cases in which the court can interfere. Party supremacy cannot be called on to legitimate unjust dealings in a political party which should otherwise be an association of “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours, the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are agreed” in the words of Edmund Burke.
In contemplation of the above scenario, the Electoral Act, 2006 in Section 34 introduced a new provision which requires political parties wishing to substitute candidates after their primaries to give cogent and verifiable reasons for doing so. The first person to test this amendment in the law court was Senator Ifeanyi Ararume, who went to court after he was substituted with Chief Charles Ugwu as the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate for Imo State gubernatorial race.
In Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 7 MJSC1, the Supreme Court held that Section 34 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 does not invest a political party with an absolute power to substitute a candidate who wins the primary election. The provision makes it mandatory for the political party effecting the substitution to give to the INEC cogent and verifiable reasons for the substitution. According to the apex court, the section clearly imposes a duty on any political party intending to do so by informing the INEC in writing within a specified period of not later than 60 days to the date of the election. The section contains mandatory provisions which any political party intending to effect any change in the list of its candidates submitted to the Commission to contest any election must comply with. The court clearly stated that the Electoral Act and the party constitutions must be seen to be complementing the Constitution in formulating broader rules, regulations and operation mechanisms for the true convenience. Where any of such enactment, rules or policies comes in conflict with any section of the Constitution, that enactment, rule or policy must surrender to the Constitution. Accordingly, the court further held that, there is no rational to permit a political party, once it has given its commitment or mandate to a candidate whom it had already nominated whether wrongly or rightly to bulldoze its way to rescind that mandate for no justifiable cause. Politics is not anarchy. It is not disorderliness. It must be punctuated by justice, fairness and orderliness. The admonition of Muhammad JSC at this stage is very apposite. According to the learned JSC
“…If we still want to instill sanity into our human affairs, if we want to entrench unpolluted democracy in our body polity, the naked truth must permeate through the blood, nerve and brain of each and every one of us. Although credit may not always have its rightful place in politics we should try to blend the two so as to attain a fair, just and egalitarian society where no one is oppressed. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us not give a dog a bad name in order to hang it”.
The above Supreme Court decision opened a floodgate of cases as other aggrieved candidates rushed to the court for redress. Following the judicial principle of (stare decisis) precedent, that is a lower court must follow the decision of higher courts, the Court of Appeal and High Courts have no choice but to follow suit.
When it became obvious that the defence of court’s lack of jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of political parties had been overridden by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ugwu v. Ararume (supra) as it affects substitution, the parties promptly changed their defence in order to defeat the reasoning of the court and the demands of justice in the Ararume case. The parties raised a new defence to the effect that disputes over party primaries were electoral matters over which only the Election Petition Tribunals can properly adjudicate and as such the regular courts have no jurisdiction over such matters.
The Supreme Court again rejected this roundabout argument in the case filed by the former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and now Governor of Rivers State, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi against Mr. Celestine Omehia, the then Governor of Rivers State in Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC & Ors. Following this decision was the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal in a case seeking to determine who should be the PDP’s candidate for Akwa Ibom North East Constituency between Senator Bob Effiong and Chief Albert Ime. The Court of Appeal, Abuja division held that a case bordering on substitution of candidates by parties after the primaries was not an election matter that must be heard by an Election Petition Tribunal. The court consequently dismissed the objection filed by Ime challenging its (court) jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by Effiong.
The apex court and the appellate courts clearly showed in the latter cases that the rules and procedures governing the conduct of affairs and internal democracy must be respected in political parties for there to be credible elections.
THE WAY FORWARD
Nigeria no doubt faces enormous challenges in Constitutional and Electoral reforms but these challenges are by no means insurmountable. As we have seen the trouble with Nigeria is not necessarily the absence of laws/rules but the absence of the necessary political will to enforce the inadequate ones we do have. If we do not imbibe the necessary culture to make our country work, then whatever reforms we muster except they are such as is self executory, will not necessarily move our country beyond where we already are. I have canvassed elsewhere that we must learn to do the simple things first and take it one at a time as it is obvious that our innumerable attempts at doing all things at the same time in the past has met with contemptuous failure. Take for example, President Yar Adua’s seven point agenda. Who can sincerely say he understands what has been achieved on any point of the agenda. Supposing he takes one point, tackle it and then move unto the next? Well your guess is as good as mine.
It does appear now that Constitutional Reforms must precede Electoral Reforms judging from the seven bills on Electoral Reforms sent to the National Assembly by the President. The bills are, a Bill for an Act to Amend the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Act, Cap 15, LFN 2004 and other Matters Connected Thereto; a Bill for an Act to Establish the Electoral Offences Commission and for Matters Connected Thereto; a Bill for an Act to Alter Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and for other Matters Connected Thereto (Second Amendment); a Bill for an Act to Establish the Centre for Democratic Studies and other Related Matters; a Bill for an Act to Further Amend the Police Act, 1967, Cap P19 LFN, 2004 and for other Matters Connected Therewith; a Bill for an Act to Establish the Political Parties Registration and Regulatory Commission and for other Matters Connected Thereto; and finally a Bill for an Act to Alter Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and for other Matters Connected Thereto (Third Amendment).
Two of the Bills seek to amend the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The utility of an Act of the National Assembly amending provisions of a Constitution patently defective in several respects is highly debatable and it may be unrealistic to expect the National Assembly to pass the other Bills in their original form and content. The bills again are not designed to and there is nothing in their provisions to suggest that they will solve Nigeria’s electoral woes. The provisions of the bills are not the exorcist provisions one would expect in a genuine effort at Electoral Reforms. From all indications, a wholesale amendment of the Constitution will not be undertaken soon enough to enable electoral reforms before the 2011 polls which will really be a testy time for our fragile democracy but our country can learn from the examples from abroad. The United States, Germany France and even South Africa have adopted a piecemeal approach to constitutional amendments in their various countries and their countries have not ceased to work. Since the adoption of the German Constitution in 1990, the constitution has been amended over fifty times, by 2007, France had amended its 1958 Constitution eighteen times and South Africa has amended theirs sixteen times since 1996.
What to do is adopt this approach, identify the more pressing issues for address, amend the relevant sections of the Constitution and then pass subsidiary legislation to enhance its social utility and in no distant time the much touted Constitution and the working society we all crave will be with us.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA
FOUNTAIN COURT PARTNERS
36B, OGUDU ROAD
OJOTA
LAGOS.
08052066172.
Monday, October 19, 2009
THAT LOKOJA ABUJA ROAD
THAT LOKOJA-ABUJA ROAD
I spent the last Yuletide in my Edo North country home, Igarra. After the Yuletide, I had business to do in Abuja and I left home on Sunday, January 4, 2009 for Abuja. Transport was expensive and it took all day to get one from Ibillo to Abuja. "Agberos" (self-styled transporters) will not let anyone move until they have extorted as much money as they could. All these, despite the declaration to the contrary by Adams Oshiomole, the comrade Governor of Edo State.
At some point, someone whose car was damaged in the process went to the police at Ibillo. What did the police do? They came and promptly took the car to the police station with the "Agberos" in tow boasting that they work hand-in-hand with the men in black and that nothing would happen. We finally moved after several hours, and on getting to Lokoja, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. We ran into one of the worst traffic snarls I had ever seen. In a usual manner, our driver veered off the highway to go through the town, which supposedly should be faster. We eventually spent three hours to get out of Lokoja and what I saw in those three hours makes me fret for the future of this country.
There were all sorts of miscreants along the way either fighting or blocking lanes to extort money. I made it a point of duty to count and I counted over a thousand young men who had nothing to do but stay on the road all day fomenting one kind of trouble or the other. Whilst this lasted, I did not see a single security officer trying to keep the peace. For God's sake, where is the place of the law and its enforcement agents in this country? If only records were available, the illegal toll collected on the road in this country will amount to billions of naira every year. Can anyone hazard a guess, what these young men will do in the years to come when they can no longer live on the road?
As if this was not trouble enough, a few metres away from Abaji, we ran into a burning tanker loaded to the hilt with petroleum product. Our vehicle and others had to beat a retreat and another long wait and chaos ensued. Pray, what self-respecting nation still transport's petroleum products by road when there are now special rails designed for that purpose? I continued to ponder these questions when it suddenly dawned on me that the contract for the dualisation of the Lokoja-Abuja highway on which Senator A. T Ahmed and several less-privileged Nigerians met their sorrowful but avoidable deaths had actually long been awarded to a consortium of contractors and that work had stopped completely after fitful starts. Will anyone tell Nigerians why that road has not been built and apologise to all those who spent so much time on the road that day and every other day on almost all roads imaginable across the country.
If that road was built by now, the traffic snarl at Lokoja could have been avoided. If there were two lanes, the burning tanker would not have posed as much threat as it did and the chaos might not have ensued. When I sprawled on a bed that was a welcome relief in Abuja at about 10:30 p.m. on that eventful day, I could not help but marvel at how a three hours journey I started at 10:00 am took all day and yet in a nation that harbours the economic pretensions of being one of the biggest 20 by 2020.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
I spent the last Yuletide in my Edo North country home, Igarra. After the Yuletide, I had business to do in Abuja and I left home on Sunday, January 4, 2009 for Abuja. Transport was expensive and it took all day to get one from Ibillo to Abuja. "Agberos" (self-styled transporters) will not let anyone move until they have extorted as much money as they could. All these, despite the declaration to the contrary by Adams Oshiomole, the comrade Governor of Edo State.
At some point, someone whose car was damaged in the process went to the police at Ibillo. What did the police do? They came and promptly took the car to the police station with the "Agberos" in tow boasting that they work hand-in-hand with the men in black and that nothing would happen. We finally moved after several hours, and on getting to Lokoja, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. We ran into one of the worst traffic snarls I had ever seen. In a usual manner, our driver veered off the highway to go through the town, which supposedly should be faster. We eventually spent three hours to get out of Lokoja and what I saw in those three hours makes me fret for the future of this country.
There were all sorts of miscreants along the way either fighting or blocking lanes to extort money. I made it a point of duty to count and I counted over a thousand young men who had nothing to do but stay on the road all day fomenting one kind of trouble or the other. Whilst this lasted, I did not see a single security officer trying to keep the peace. For God's sake, where is the place of the law and its enforcement agents in this country? If only records were available, the illegal toll collected on the road in this country will amount to billions of naira every year. Can anyone hazard a guess, what these young men will do in the years to come when they can no longer live on the road?
As if this was not trouble enough, a few metres away from Abaji, we ran into a burning tanker loaded to the hilt with petroleum product. Our vehicle and others had to beat a retreat and another long wait and chaos ensued. Pray, what self-respecting nation still transport's petroleum products by road when there are now special rails designed for that purpose? I continued to ponder these questions when it suddenly dawned on me that the contract for the dualisation of the Lokoja-Abuja highway on which Senator A. T Ahmed and several less-privileged Nigerians met their sorrowful but avoidable deaths had actually long been awarded to a consortium of contractors and that work had stopped completely after fitful starts. Will anyone tell Nigerians why that road has not been built and apologise to all those who spent so much time on the road that day and every other day on almost all roads imaginable across the country.
If that road was built by now, the traffic snarl at Lokoja could have been avoided. If there were two lanes, the burning tanker would not have posed as much threat as it did and the chaos might not have ensued. When I sprawled on a bed that was a welcome relief in Abuja at about 10:30 p.m. on that eventful day, I could not help but marvel at how a three hours journey I started at 10:00 am took all day and yet in a nation that harbours the economic pretensions of being one of the biggest 20 by 2020.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
THE NIGERIA POLICE AND POLICING
THE NIGERIA POLICE AND POLICING
Federalism in Nigeria today is no doubt defective. May be some if not most of these defects would have been addressed in the attempt at Constitutional amendment in 2006 were it not for the vaunted ambition of a cluster of political elites/jobbers to remain relevant in the corridors of power forever. They cajoled and convinced then President Olusegun Obasanjo that his fate was inexorably tied with that of Nigeria, the man himself was sure of his place and destiny within the larger historical alchemy of Nigeria. The pro and anti Obasanjo sentiments ran high at the consequent constitutional debates on account of what notoriously became known as the third term saga. At the end of the horse trading that the Constitution amendment debates became, the baby was thrown away with the bathwater as on account of third term alone, the national assembly aborted the Constitutional review process when in May 2006, the assembly voted not to continue the constitution review exercise.
There are so many vexatious and contentious issues in the Nigerian federation and with that, we lost the opportunity to take a second look at the issues and then decide one way or the other. Some of the most contentious of these issues includes Local Government Creation and Administration, Independent candidacy for purposes of elections, the proper derivative formula, the Immunity Clause and State Police. So many provisions in the Constitution that could do with some reformation but thus far, the most contentious and difficult is the question of State police or a local police or better still community policing as some would describe it. As would be expected, this issue became a major point of debate at the 1st Kafaru Oluwole Tinubu Memorial Lecture at the NIIA on the 18th of March 2008, a Lecture which chose as theme “The Rule of Law and the Role of the Police in an Emerging Democracy”. The Attorney General of Lagos State, Olasupo Sashore (SAN), in his presentation argued for some form of control of the Police force by the component states of the federation as it is clearly antithetical in a federation to have a centrally controlled police while designating a Governor as Chief Security Officer of a State with a police force he clearly cannot control and which takes no orders from him. The Governor of Lagos State, Babatunde Raji Fashola was himself present at the occasion and he shed more light on what Lagos meant by a State Controlled Police. Essentially, his reasoning which is congruent with federalism is that all State’s should be afforded the opportunity to determine the number, character and welfare of the police its circumstances demand rather than this ‘one size fits all approach’ of the federal government. According to him, matters of policy and training could remain in the hands of the federal authorities. True, as it is only delusory to carry on as we currently do. The security needs of Yobe state for example cannot be the same as that of Lagos State. The dynamics do not match. Other contributors at the Lecture had something interesting to say about the issue of state police. One of the important arguments against a state controlled police is the fear of the abuse to which it might be put by state governors. There is the fear that a state police controlled by the governor of the state will merely be an appendage of the ruling party in that state at the beck and call of the governor to settle political scores and their fear is not unfounded but to assume that all the 36 governors of the State’s will do this is merely begging the question.
To drive home the urgency of the situation, I read elsewhere a piece delivered by the Governor of Lagos state on March 25, 2008 where he posited that “when we realize that the greatest challenge that we have today is one of law and order, the danger to our democracy of a central police becomes manifestly clear…the existence in Nigeria of an exclusive federal police is a major stumbling block at evolving a community based police structure that enables the state and local government to respond to local security demand. Security is essentially a local matter. Each State has its peculiar security problems which are well within the knowledge of States and Local Government Councils. A Federal controlled Police Force composed of officers from different parts of the country not familiar with the culture, lifestyles and terrain of local communities will have an insurmountable problem of effectively responding to their security needs. The challenges faced by federal security forces in responding to militant activities in the Niger Delta area affords a good illustration of the point been made. The militants’ are able to take advantage of the geographical terrain of the area at the expense of Federal forces. It would take a security outfit of locals familiar with the terrain to effectively respond to the security concerns in that region”.
Much has been written about the propriety of a state controlled police in the peculiar circumstances of Nigeria. Without going into the desirability or otherwise of a state controlled police, it is worthy of note that in federations across the world, state police is a necessary compliment of the federal security apparatus. The United State’s of America is a shining example in this regard. Canada and Australia are two countries where this has also worked. Suffice to point out however, at this stage, a few issues in policing that we as a people should avert our minds to pending the resolution of state controlled police issues one way or another.
The role of the police in a working society and in any modern democracy goes beyond and is much more than that of law enforcement. Police agencies provide a variety of services to the communities they serve, ranging from travelers aid to ambulance service. Indeed, enforcing criminal laws is, at best a part-time activity for most police departments and police officers. The police are the “agency of last resort”. While we must focus upon the law-enforcing duties of police agencies because of our interest in criminal justice, it is also important to note the non enforcement demands placed on the police.
Because police are available 24 hours each day, are mobile and carry authority, we call upon them to resolve many issues and problems. Most of these problems are not, strictly speaking, law enforcement oriented in nature. The principal task of a police agency is best described as “order maintenance”. The peacekeeping function of police is far more important than the law enforcement function. Law enforcement is only a small part of order maintenance.
The criminal law is only one of many tools available to police officers and police agencies in their efforts to keep peace in our communities. The police are responsible for dealing with stray Children and dogs, lost travelers, injured persons, stranded motorists, traffic accidents, parades, domestic disputes and crimes. It seems that almost any disruptive event can be resolved by “calling the cops”. In many cases, people have reported fires to the police first, rather than the fire department. According to many, the police are often called to deal with abandoned cars, but the reason they are called is not because the car may have been involved in a crime. People call the police because the police are the first agency that comes to mind.
People also call the police because they have come to know that the police can (and probably will) do something about the problem. The police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. The ability to use force and to make people behave in certain ways defines the police role in society. The police are called to deal with a variety of problems for which force may be required. For example, the police may be called to intervene with a mentally disturbed person because, if all else fails, they can arrest and remove the individual. This action may not cure the mental disorder, but it will solve the immediate problem.
With the crime control mandate came an equally important definition of the police as serving a crime-prevention function. The police were not only expected to detect and apprehend offenders, but police presence on the streets of a city was expected to deter others from committing crime. From this came the tradition of preventive patrol. The uniformed officer on patrol would not only be better able to detect crime, but the patrol presence would prevent crime as well.
The tradition of police as peacekeepers (order maintenance), however, has also remained. While the definition of the police became (and remains) one of a crime-control force, the functions of a modern police department are far broader. The police are the most visible representatives of Government in a community, and they represent the legitimate authority of the law. As they are always (theoretically) present and available, the police have become ombudsmen for all social and legal problems.
Order maintenance is at once both the most important and the most troublesome of police role. Order maintenance is the main purpose of police. If they do nothing else, the police must ensure that the citizens go about their daily business safely and efficiently. Order maintenance activities includes settling disputes, dispersing crowds, keeping sidewalks and streets clear and traffic flowing smoothly, and other important activities.
Law enforcement activities are those that relate directly to the detection and apprehension of criminal offenders. Responding to alarms and citizens complaint of crime, investigating suspicious persons and circumstances, and arresting suspected offenders are all law enforcement activities.
Today however the police role is shaped by a variety of social, political, legal and administrative factors.
The scenario as painted above supposes a modern democracy and a working society. What is the police role here? Do the Nigeria police do any of the things enumerated above? If they do, to what extent have they succeeded or failed? How has the variety of social, political, legal and administrative factors shaped the police role in Nigeria? The Police Act provides that the police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as may be required by them by, or under the authority of, this or any other Act.
To start with, legally and administratively, the Nigeria police is a highly unified force and is centrally controlled. The Nigeria police have a single command structure with a very powerful police chief, the Inspector General who is accountable and answerable only to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who appoints him upon the recommendation of the Nigeria Police Council. In the component state’s of the Federation, the Police Commissioners, who are appointed in similar fashion by the Police Service Commission are not accountable to the Governors of the various state’s even though the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, designates State Governors Chief Security Officers of their various states. They are rather subject to the authority of the Inspector General of Police. To make the position of the state Governors more untenable is the fact that when the Governor gives directives to the Commissioner of Police with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state, the Commissioner of Police may not carry out the lawful order, but request that the matter be referred to the Federal authorities.
This therefore means that a police commissioner can choose what directives to obey or ignore. The discretion is not in any way qualified. So a police commissioner can actually abdicate duty under the guise of consulting with the federal authorities whilst the state where he is expected to maintain law and order and secure lives disintegrate. Recent experience has shown that this is not farfetched. It happened in the days when Chris Uba and his cohorts unleashed mayhem and held Anambra State by the jugular. Revelations at the Justice Kayode Esho led Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Rivers State showed that this may have happened at some point when a community was sacked by armed men in the days of Governor Peter Odili in Portharcourt. So the danger of the misuse of this wide discretion is even now clear and present.
In the same vein, a modern police force may have to grapple and contend with several competing political interests. In much of Africa where the police is centrally organized and controlled, the police and its secret variant have been willing collaborators in any scheme of the ruling power however sinister. The police across Africa during the colonial era was an essential arm of the colonial apparatchik that helped sustained colonial policies and kept the local peoples in check. The dreaded South African secret police helped maintained apartheid and put down rebellion against the evil regime, terrorizing Children and Parents in their homes in the South African townships. The Sharpeville massacre of 1960 and the death of Steve Biko in the custody of the South African police are prime examples. On a grander and unspeakable tragic scale were the dreaded Gestapo and the feared SS in Nazi Germany, the Russian secret police ably aided by the mammoth red army in the days of Communist Russia.
Has Nigeria fared any better? The political situation may never have been anything near what we had in the examples from abroad but the police here have not shown that they will act any differently given the same circumstances. Witness the bestiality and brutality that the police usually unleash during Student protests in time past and during the June 12 struggles. The monumental fraud that was the 2007 elections and the farce in Ekiti State in April 2009 where the police aided and actively colluded with election riggers and ballot box snatchers to truncate the peoples will are recent examples.
The point here is that a centrally controlled police force will more readily lend itself to abuses of this nature. The command structure of such a force is such that once its leadership gets entangled in the political web and intrigues of the ruling party or government as the case may be, then abuse is inevitable. If the police were regionally organized with a loose command structures as should be in a federal state then its susceptibility to abuse or its use for political purposes will be minimized if not eliminated.
Socially, a modern police department should meet the social needs and objectives of the people they police whilst the Government meets the social needs of the police. The quality of Police social interaction with the communities they police invariably manifests in the effectiveness of police work. If the police is distrusted in any community it cannot properly perform its policing functions. The Nigeria police are so distrusted that most people will never genuinely volunteer useful information to them. This in no small measure hampers their crime detection and prevention capacity. Successive police heads recognize the danger this distrust poses to their effectiveness and have taken measures albeit ineffective to correct this and the general impression that in Nigeria, the police is not your friend. There is the ‘police is your friend’ campaign, the police mouth the mantra ‘to protect and serve with integrity’, and there is the police community relations committee yet Nigerians are unimpressed. The police, especially the rank and file are so disreputable in the estimation of Nigerians that it may take another lifetime to whitewash the image of the Nigerian police. It is an irony of sorts that this same odious police at home perform stoutly and are often the toast of peace keeping missions abroad.
A corollary of the pitiable social condition of the police in Nigeria is the poor welfare that obtains. Corruption is rife in the force; the police is ill equipped, poorly paid and ill motivated. The barracks across the length and breath of this country are an eyesore and when any one of them is unfortunate enough to pay the supreme price in the course of duty, he is unsure if his family will be protected and fed. As long as a policeman earns less than N 50, 000. 00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) - which the Nigerian Labour Congress conservatively considers living wage as opposed to laughable minimum wages that successive Governments like to prescribe - per month in Nigeria, then corruption in the force will remain and we will perpetually be ‘a thousand light years’ away from an efficient, effective and effectual police force.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Federalism in Nigeria today is no doubt defective. May be some if not most of these defects would have been addressed in the attempt at Constitutional amendment in 2006 were it not for the vaunted ambition of a cluster of political elites/jobbers to remain relevant in the corridors of power forever. They cajoled and convinced then President Olusegun Obasanjo that his fate was inexorably tied with that of Nigeria, the man himself was sure of his place and destiny within the larger historical alchemy of Nigeria. The pro and anti Obasanjo sentiments ran high at the consequent constitutional debates on account of what notoriously became known as the third term saga. At the end of the horse trading that the Constitution amendment debates became, the baby was thrown away with the bathwater as on account of third term alone, the national assembly aborted the Constitutional review process when in May 2006, the assembly voted not to continue the constitution review exercise.
There are so many vexatious and contentious issues in the Nigerian federation and with that, we lost the opportunity to take a second look at the issues and then decide one way or the other. Some of the most contentious of these issues includes Local Government Creation and Administration, Independent candidacy for purposes of elections, the proper derivative formula, the Immunity Clause and State Police. So many provisions in the Constitution that could do with some reformation but thus far, the most contentious and difficult is the question of State police or a local police or better still community policing as some would describe it. As would be expected, this issue became a major point of debate at the 1st Kafaru Oluwole Tinubu Memorial Lecture at the NIIA on the 18th of March 2008, a Lecture which chose as theme “The Rule of Law and the Role of the Police in an Emerging Democracy”. The Attorney General of Lagos State, Olasupo Sashore (SAN), in his presentation argued for some form of control of the Police force by the component states of the federation as it is clearly antithetical in a federation to have a centrally controlled police while designating a Governor as Chief Security Officer of a State with a police force he clearly cannot control and which takes no orders from him. The Governor of Lagos State, Babatunde Raji Fashola was himself present at the occasion and he shed more light on what Lagos meant by a State Controlled Police. Essentially, his reasoning which is congruent with federalism is that all State’s should be afforded the opportunity to determine the number, character and welfare of the police its circumstances demand rather than this ‘one size fits all approach’ of the federal government. According to him, matters of policy and training could remain in the hands of the federal authorities. True, as it is only delusory to carry on as we currently do. The security needs of Yobe state for example cannot be the same as that of Lagos State. The dynamics do not match. Other contributors at the Lecture had something interesting to say about the issue of state police. One of the important arguments against a state controlled police is the fear of the abuse to which it might be put by state governors. There is the fear that a state police controlled by the governor of the state will merely be an appendage of the ruling party in that state at the beck and call of the governor to settle political scores and their fear is not unfounded but to assume that all the 36 governors of the State’s will do this is merely begging the question.
To drive home the urgency of the situation, I read elsewhere a piece delivered by the Governor of Lagos state on March 25, 2008 where he posited that “when we realize that the greatest challenge that we have today is one of law and order, the danger to our democracy of a central police becomes manifestly clear…the existence in Nigeria of an exclusive federal police is a major stumbling block at evolving a community based police structure that enables the state and local government to respond to local security demand. Security is essentially a local matter. Each State has its peculiar security problems which are well within the knowledge of States and Local Government Councils. A Federal controlled Police Force composed of officers from different parts of the country not familiar with the culture, lifestyles and terrain of local communities will have an insurmountable problem of effectively responding to their security needs. The challenges faced by federal security forces in responding to militant activities in the Niger Delta area affords a good illustration of the point been made. The militants’ are able to take advantage of the geographical terrain of the area at the expense of Federal forces. It would take a security outfit of locals familiar with the terrain to effectively respond to the security concerns in that region”.
Much has been written about the propriety of a state controlled police in the peculiar circumstances of Nigeria. Without going into the desirability or otherwise of a state controlled police, it is worthy of note that in federations across the world, state police is a necessary compliment of the federal security apparatus. The United State’s of America is a shining example in this regard. Canada and Australia are two countries where this has also worked. Suffice to point out however, at this stage, a few issues in policing that we as a people should avert our minds to pending the resolution of state controlled police issues one way or another.
The role of the police in a working society and in any modern democracy goes beyond and is much more than that of law enforcement. Police agencies provide a variety of services to the communities they serve, ranging from travelers aid to ambulance service. Indeed, enforcing criminal laws is, at best a part-time activity for most police departments and police officers. The police are the “agency of last resort”. While we must focus upon the law-enforcing duties of police agencies because of our interest in criminal justice, it is also important to note the non enforcement demands placed on the police.
Because police are available 24 hours each day, are mobile and carry authority, we call upon them to resolve many issues and problems. Most of these problems are not, strictly speaking, law enforcement oriented in nature. The principal task of a police agency is best described as “order maintenance”. The peacekeeping function of police is far more important than the law enforcement function. Law enforcement is only a small part of order maintenance.
The criminal law is only one of many tools available to police officers and police agencies in their efforts to keep peace in our communities. The police are responsible for dealing with stray Children and dogs, lost travelers, injured persons, stranded motorists, traffic accidents, parades, domestic disputes and crimes. It seems that almost any disruptive event can be resolved by “calling the cops”. In many cases, people have reported fires to the police first, rather than the fire department. According to many, the police are often called to deal with abandoned cars, but the reason they are called is not because the car may have been involved in a crime. People call the police because the police are the first agency that comes to mind.
People also call the police because they have come to know that the police can (and probably will) do something about the problem. The police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. The ability to use force and to make people behave in certain ways defines the police role in society. The police are called to deal with a variety of problems for which force may be required. For example, the police may be called to intervene with a mentally disturbed person because, if all else fails, they can arrest and remove the individual. This action may not cure the mental disorder, but it will solve the immediate problem.
With the crime control mandate came an equally important definition of the police as serving a crime-prevention function. The police were not only expected to detect and apprehend offenders, but police presence on the streets of a city was expected to deter others from committing crime. From this came the tradition of preventive patrol. The uniformed officer on patrol would not only be better able to detect crime, but the patrol presence would prevent crime as well.
The tradition of police as peacekeepers (order maintenance), however, has also remained. While the definition of the police became (and remains) one of a crime-control force, the functions of a modern police department are far broader. The police are the most visible representatives of Government in a community, and they represent the legitimate authority of the law. As they are always (theoretically) present and available, the police have become ombudsmen for all social and legal problems.
Order maintenance is at once both the most important and the most troublesome of police role. Order maintenance is the main purpose of police. If they do nothing else, the police must ensure that the citizens go about their daily business safely and efficiently. Order maintenance activities includes settling disputes, dispersing crowds, keeping sidewalks and streets clear and traffic flowing smoothly, and other important activities.
Law enforcement activities are those that relate directly to the detection and apprehension of criminal offenders. Responding to alarms and citizens complaint of crime, investigating suspicious persons and circumstances, and arresting suspected offenders are all law enforcement activities.
Today however the police role is shaped by a variety of social, political, legal and administrative factors.
The scenario as painted above supposes a modern democracy and a working society. What is the police role here? Do the Nigeria police do any of the things enumerated above? If they do, to what extent have they succeeded or failed? How has the variety of social, political, legal and administrative factors shaped the police role in Nigeria? The Police Act provides that the police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as may be required by them by, or under the authority of, this or any other Act.
To start with, legally and administratively, the Nigeria police is a highly unified force and is centrally controlled. The Nigeria police have a single command structure with a very powerful police chief, the Inspector General who is accountable and answerable only to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who appoints him upon the recommendation of the Nigeria Police Council. In the component state’s of the Federation, the Police Commissioners, who are appointed in similar fashion by the Police Service Commission are not accountable to the Governors of the various state’s even though the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, designates State Governors Chief Security Officers of their various states. They are rather subject to the authority of the Inspector General of Police. To make the position of the state Governors more untenable is the fact that when the Governor gives directives to the Commissioner of Police with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state, the Commissioner of Police may not carry out the lawful order, but request that the matter be referred to the Federal authorities.
This therefore means that a police commissioner can choose what directives to obey or ignore. The discretion is not in any way qualified. So a police commissioner can actually abdicate duty under the guise of consulting with the federal authorities whilst the state where he is expected to maintain law and order and secure lives disintegrate. Recent experience has shown that this is not farfetched. It happened in the days when Chris Uba and his cohorts unleashed mayhem and held Anambra State by the jugular. Revelations at the Justice Kayode Esho led Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Rivers State showed that this may have happened at some point when a community was sacked by armed men in the days of Governor Peter Odili in Portharcourt. So the danger of the misuse of this wide discretion is even now clear and present.
In the same vein, a modern police force may have to grapple and contend with several competing political interests. In much of Africa where the police is centrally organized and controlled, the police and its secret variant have been willing collaborators in any scheme of the ruling power however sinister. The police across Africa during the colonial era was an essential arm of the colonial apparatchik that helped sustained colonial policies and kept the local peoples in check. The dreaded South African secret police helped maintained apartheid and put down rebellion against the evil regime, terrorizing Children and Parents in their homes in the South African townships. The Sharpeville massacre of 1960 and the death of Steve Biko in the custody of the South African police are prime examples. On a grander and unspeakable tragic scale were the dreaded Gestapo and the feared SS in Nazi Germany, the Russian secret police ably aided by the mammoth red army in the days of Communist Russia.
Has Nigeria fared any better? The political situation may never have been anything near what we had in the examples from abroad but the police here have not shown that they will act any differently given the same circumstances. Witness the bestiality and brutality that the police usually unleash during Student protests in time past and during the June 12 struggles. The monumental fraud that was the 2007 elections and the farce in Ekiti State in April 2009 where the police aided and actively colluded with election riggers and ballot box snatchers to truncate the peoples will are recent examples.
The point here is that a centrally controlled police force will more readily lend itself to abuses of this nature. The command structure of such a force is such that once its leadership gets entangled in the political web and intrigues of the ruling party or government as the case may be, then abuse is inevitable. If the police were regionally organized with a loose command structures as should be in a federal state then its susceptibility to abuse or its use for political purposes will be minimized if not eliminated.
Socially, a modern police department should meet the social needs and objectives of the people they police whilst the Government meets the social needs of the police. The quality of Police social interaction with the communities they police invariably manifests in the effectiveness of police work. If the police is distrusted in any community it cannot properly perform its policing functions. The Nigeria police are so distrusted that most people will never genuinely volunteer useful information to them. This in no small measure hampers their crime detection and prevention capacity. Successive police heads recognize the danger this distrust poses to their effectiveness and have taken measures albeit ineffective to correct this and the general impression that in Nigeria, the police is not your friend. There is the ‘police is your friend’ campaign, the police mouth the mantra ‘to protect and serve with integrity’, and there is the police community relations committee yet Nigerians are unimpressed. The police, especially the rank and file are so disreputable in the estimation of Nigerians that it may take another lifetime to whitewash the image of the Nigerian police. It is an irony of sorts that this same odious police at home perform stoutly and are often the toast of peace keeping missions abroad.
A corollary of the pitiable social condition of the police in Nigeria is the poor welfare that obtains. Corruption is rife in the force; the police is ill equipped, poorly paid and ill motivated. The barracks across the length and breath of this country are an eyesore and when any one of them is unfortunate enough to pay the supreme price in the course of duty, he is unsure if his family will be protected and fed. As long as a policeman earns less than N 50, 000. 00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) - which the Nigerian Labour Congress conservatively considers living wage as opposed to laughable minimum wages that successive Governments like to prescribe - per month in Nigeria, then corruption in the force will remain and we will perpetually be ‘a thousand light years’ away from an efficient, effective and effectual police force.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
BARACK OBAMA, BOB MARLEY, ROBERT MUGABE AND ZIMBABWE
BARACK OBAMA, BOB MARLEY, ROBERT MUGABE AND ZIMBABWE
President Barack Obama of the United States is no doubt the man of the moment and the momentum has carried him all over the world and across continents since he was elected the 44th President of the United State’s and sworn into office in January 2009 in an epochal historical alchemy.
The President took the oath of office at a time America was at war on two fronts – Afghanistan and Iraq and at a perilous time economically as the world was gripped by a severe recession and economic meltdown not seen since the great depression of the 1930’s. America was loosing friends and influence across the globe mainly due to a needless war the new President has declared a war of choice that provoked strong differences in his country and around the world unlike the war of necessity in Afghanistan.
The young President has provoked enthusiasm every where he has traveled with his eloquence, seeming willingness to give a new direction to the supercilious foreign policies of Washington and to lead from the front. It helps that he has a graceful and intelligent wife and a young family most people can identify with. Infact after Eight years of the suffocating Bush Presidency, Barack Obama’s is an exhilarating breath of fresh air.
Barrack Obama is an accomplished lawyer, historian, teacher and orator well known for his beautiful speeches. His oratorical skills first came to the National consciousness at the 2004 National Democratic Party Convention in Boston, where Obama then a member of the Illinois State Senate delivered an acclaimed keynote speech which he titled the Audacity of Hope. He has since written a second book with the same title and the speeches and oratory have gotten even better. Since his election as President of the United States the speeches have been coming thick and fast everywhere he went leaving concrete debatable issues in his wake.
One of the latest of these speeches was delivered in Ghana to an African audience outlining America’s rules of engagement with Africa during the Obama presidency. Obama berthed in Ghana after a long trip he began in Russia for a summit between two great powers, a trip to Italy for a meeting of the world’s leading economies and an audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. Some government officials and many others have questioned and made an issue of Obama’s decision to bye pass Nigeria ‘the Giant of Africa’ and Kenya, his ancestral home to visit the small West African country of Ghana. If these people were in denial, pretending they do not know why, Obama answered them comprehensively when he highlighted the progress Ghana has made since its return to the democratic fold. The monumental fraud that was the 2007 election and the atrophying corruption that still thrives here is enough to make Obama and any leader with serious democratic credentials cringe with revulsion. Whereas Ghana had a competitive and close election where the ruling party lost power and the heavens did not fall, the post election violence in Kenya last year did it no favours knocking it off the perch of Obama wannabe hosts.
Professor Wole Soyinka as usual wrote an incisive piece on why Obama should not and could not visit Nigeria but Obama himself in a veiled reference to Nigeria told us why he could not come here and I will copiously quote him “as I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable and more successful than governments that do not. This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to produce wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves … or if police – if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where government skims 20% off the top … or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No body wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that kind of governance to end. In the 21st Century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success – strong parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges … an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people’s everyday lives”
Will any of these jesters deny that this does accurately describe their perpetual sleeping ‘Giant of Africa’? Femi Falana also accurately captures the mood when he wrote “the reactionary governing class must have thought that Mr. Obama was joking when he cautioned in his inauguration speech that, ‘To those leaders who cling to power by corruption and deceit … you will soon find out you are on the wrong side of history’. If Mr. Obama is not prepared to associate with election riggers in Kenya, his fatherland, why should he collaborate with those who have threatened to continue to capture and impose themselves on the Nigerian people for 60 years? For goodness sake why should President Obama associate with a regime that lacks the political will to bring to book a few former government officials who have been indicted by foreign courts in the Siemens, Wilbros and Halliburton scandals?”
One only hope this puts to rest the question of Obama’s visit to Nigeria. When we put our house in order, I am sure he will gladly pay a week long working visit to Nigeria.
Obama’s oratorical powers are unquestioned and his speeches are indeed beautiful pieces of art and will make a wonderful collection for anyone interested enough and you can hardly fault most of his reasoning and conclusions. Infact if beautiful speeches alone solve problems, the multifarious troubles bedeviling our world today would long have been history but unfortunately they do not. The speech in Ghana was one of such good and beautiful speeches but the President was wrong on one score. While his speech proceeded on the premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans he could not have been right to sweepingly exculpate and absolve the west of any culpability in the debacle that is Zimbabwe today by insisting that “the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade”.
To be sure Robert Mugabe has his own issues and no doubt carries the lion’s share of the blame for the destruction of Zimbabwe, the role and equally devastating that the west through Britain played cannot be ignored or glossed over. The troubles in Zimbabwe did not start a decade ago and Obama well knows this. The seed for the destruction of Zimbabwe was sowed by Britain in the years leading to Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 and thereafter when its last bastions of empire were crumbling across the globe and the sun was setting on her majesty’s imperial realm. With the failure of Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence over the then Southern Rhodesia, Zimbabwe’s independence was hurriedly negotiated and while the elections that followed were won by Robert Mugabe after a campaign filled with intimidation, violence and threats to continue the Bush war by Mugabe’s ZANU should he lose the election, Britain which had earlier considered disqualifying ZANU for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement and violent intimidation of the militants he now controlled went on to hand over power to Mugabe at independence in 1980 over the other more popular Nationalists such as Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole and Joshua Nkomo amongst others who were angling for power at the time because in their flawed thinking and as they and other colonial powers have done all over Africa since Ghana’s independence in 1957, they had to install puppet regimes that will forever look unto them as patrons so they can merely substitute colonialism for neo colonialism.
At the London Conferences at Lancaster House to negotiate Zimbabwe’s independence, Robert Mugabe was pressured to sign the agreement and land was the major stumbling block, aid in excess of # 630 million pounds was pledged for resettlement/land redistribution and sundry British support in exchange for the constitutional arrangement that Zimbabwe cannot seize European owned lands for 10 years and the willing buyer, willing seller clause to be funded by Britain. Britain did not deliver much on this promise and in 1997 after over # 40 million pounds has been spent, the Labour Government of Tony Blair unilaterally declared that the British government did not accept that it had a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe notwithstanding the Lancaster House Agreement. The majority of the arable farm lands are in the hands of white owners. Zimbabwean whites although making up less than 5% of the population owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best. The lands were thus reserved for white landlords growing cash crops for export, a sector of the economy favoured by the west with little or no regards to the sensibilities of the majority of the landless poor peasants. Every time Robert Mugabe tries to hold Britain to this agreement or find alternative ways of bringing about land redistribution, he was threatened and blackmailed. The rational thing was to find common ground but instead Britain went the divisive route of propping up the opposition to wrest power from Mugabe and the ruling party and has openly called for the overthrow of the old man. This is a very delicate issue though because it is obvious that democracy is being subverted in Zimbabwe. The old man has being in power for 29 years now and he is not showing any signs of letting go. But the truth should equally be obvious to anyone who cares to look that the old man is hanging on to power out of fear even though there may really be nothing to offer Zimbabwe anymore. He needs assurances that out of power, whatever is left of his legacy will be preserved; he does not want to relinquish power on British terms and to ‘British stooges’. So Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism aggravated by western economic meddling as much as the troubles of a Robert Mugabe that has stayed in power for too long. As Matthew Swift wrote in the Independent, it was Cecil Rhodes who originated the racist ‘land grabs’ to which Zimbabwe’s current miseries can ultimately be traced. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with as Obama said of 9/11 and al Qaeda in his Cairo speech.
This is where the United State’s and the west come in if the multifarious problems bedeviling Africa will ever be solved. But all we heard in Ghana was how Africans must salvage Africa. Obama did not tell us in concrete terms what America will do to help Africa. In Moscow, he told Russians what America will do and will not do. In Cairo he assured the Islamic world and Palestine that the only resolution to the Middle East conflict is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two state’s and that he will personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task required. To Pakistanis he said his Government was planning to invest $ 1.5 billion each year over the next five years to build roads, schools etc. To Afghans he said his Government was providing over $ 2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on. To concerned Iraqi’s he pledged to honor America’s commitment to remove all troops from Iraq by 2012 and undertook that his government will help train its security forces and develop its economy. In his Ghana speech Africa was merely an adjunct in a $ 3.5 billion food security initiative and a $ 63 billion investment into a global health plan.
We Africans have been told fair and square though that we are on our own. Those who thought the election of a President with an African heritage will put African issues on the front burner of America’s foreign policy have been left to lick their wounds. Barack Obama is President of the United State’s and the focus, objectives and central theme of America’s foreign policy does not necessarily change with the election of Presidents; only strategy and style may differ. There is no way Africa can suddenly become more important than the Middle East in the conceptualization and implementation of America’s foreign policy. The earlier we accept this indubitable fact of America’s engagement with Africa and move on with our lives, the better for us all.
Africa should have heeded the wise counsel of that iconoclast, Robert Nesta Marley (Bob Marley) on the eve of Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980. In 1980 at Zimbabwe’s independence, Africa and the rest of the world had high hopes for that country. In the midst of the euphoria however, Bob Marley sang what became one of the most popular and ever appealing revolutionary anthems in world history. In the piece titled “Zimbabwe” and drawing from the United Nations “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples” (otherwise referred to as The Right of Self Determination Resolution) of 1960 Bob Marley counseled that everyman had a right to decide his own destiny and that in that judgment there is no partiality and that together in arms we will fight the struggle and that we will come together to overcome our little troubles.
He further expressed the satisfaction that African’s are the ones who fittingly and rightly liberated Zimbabwe and he admonished Zimbabwe’s leaders against internal power struggle and the divide and rule strategy which history has shown to have no practical utility as it will only tear Africans apart and alienate the leaders from the people. Finally he expressed the hope that in no time the real leaders (revolutionaries) whose only motivation for seeking power is the good of all Africans will be identified and the mercenaries amongst them found out.
How ironic things have played out. Not only was the hope of Zimbabwe never realized, none of the good things Bob Marley spoke about was replicated on Zimbabwean soil. Zimbabwe’s leaders are at each others throat, internal power struggle and rivalry is the lot of its leaders, divide and rule is the order of the day and the destruction of the economy has had the country teetering at the edge of the precipice with no immediate solution in sight. The situation is so dire and complicated now that you do not know who and what to believe any more. All the parties – Mugabe, the Opposition, Britain and the West - seem to have genuine claims to the peoples trust in Zimbabwe.
But the rot in Zimbabwe can still be halted if all involved approach the negotiations with open hearts, throwing out the window old prejudices, the continued mediation of South Africa with high level support from the United States and Nigeria may remain the surest way to resolve the Zimbabwean debacle. Britain should acknowledge its destabilizing and irresponsible posture towards a former colony and henceforth stop its fixation with the overthrow of the Mugabe government. It should instead support a framework that ensures that Mugabe’s ZANU PF genuinely shares power with the opposition led by Morgan Tsvangirai in a meaningful way. A framework that recognizes Zimbabwe’s shared past, the present differences/difficulties and the complexities of the future ensuring that at least the opposition has a continued chance of winning power in free and fair polls.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
President Barack Obama of the United States is no doubt the man of the moment and the momentum has carried him all over the world and across continents since he was elected the 44th President of the United State’s and sworn into office in January 2009 in an epochal historical alchemy.
The President took the oath of office at a time America was at war on two fronts – Afghanistan and Iraq and at a perilous time economically as the world was gripped by a severe recession and economic meltdown not seen since the great depression of the 1930’s. America was loosing friends and influence across the globe mainly due to a needless war the new President has declared a war of choice that provoked strong differences in his country and around the world unlike the war of necessity in Afghanistan.
The young President has provoked enthusiasm every where he has traveled with his eloquence, seeming willingness to give a new direction to the supercilious foreign policies of Washington and to lead from the front. It helps that he has a graceful and intelligent wife and a young family most people can identify with. Infact after Eight years of the suffocating Bush Presidency, Barack Obama’s is an exhilarating breath of fresh air.
Barrack Obama is an accomplished lawyer, historian, teacher and orator well known for his beautiful speeches. His oratorical skills first came to the National consciousness at the 2004 National Democratic Party Convention in Boston, where Obama then a member of the Illinois State Senate delivered an acclaimed keynote speech which he titled the Audacity of Hope. He has since written a second book with the same title and the speeches and oratory have gotten even better. Since his election as President of the United States the speeches have been coming thick and fast everywhere he went leaving concrete debatable issues in his wake.
One of the latest of these speeches was delivered in Ghana to an African audience outlining America’s rules of engagement with Africa during the Obama presidency. Obama berthed in Ghana after a long trip he began in Russia for a summit between two great powers, a trip to Italy for a meeting of the world’s leading economies and an audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. Some government officials and many others have questioned and made an issue of Obama’s decision to bye pass Nigeria ‘the Giant of Africa’ and Kenya, his ancestral home to visit the small West African country of Ghana. If these people were in denial, pretending they do not know why, Obama answered them comprehensively when he highlighted the progress Ghana has made since its return to the democratic fold. The monumental fraud that was the 2007 election and the atrophying corruption that still thrives here is enough to make Obama and any leader with serious democratic credentials cringe with revulsion. Whereas Ghana had a competitive and close election where the ruling party lost power and the heavens did not fall, the post election violence in Kenya last year did it no favours knocking it off the perch of Obama wannabe hosts.
Professor Wole Soyinka as usual wrote an incisive piece on why Obama should not and could not visit Nigeria but Obama himself in a veiled reference to Nigeria told us why he could not come here and I will copiously quote him “as I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable and more successful than governments that do not. This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to produce wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves … or if police – if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where government skims 20% off the top … or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No body wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that kind of governance to end. In the 21st Century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success – strong parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges … an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people’s everyday lives”
Will any of these jesters deny that this does accurately describe their perpetual sleeping ‘Giant of Africa’? Femi Falana also accurately captures the mood when he wrote “the reactionary governing class must have thought that Mr. Obama was joking when he cautioned in his inauguration speech that, ‘To those leaders who cling to power by corruption and deceit … you will soon find out you are on the wrong side of history’. If Mr. Obama is not prepared to associate with election riggers in Kenya, his fatherland, why should he collaborate with those who have threatened to continue to capture and impose themselves on the Nigerian people for 60 years? For goodness sake why should President Obama associate with a regime that lacks the political will to bring to book a few former government officials who have been indicted by foreign courts in the Siemens, Wilbros and Halliburton scandals?”
One only hope this puts to rest the question of Obama’s visit to Nigeria. When we put our house in order, I am sure he will gladly pay a week long working visit to Nigeria.
Obama’s oratorical powers are unquestioned and his speeches are indeed beautiful pieces of art and will make a wonderful collection for anyone interested enough and you can hardly fault most of his reasoning and conclusions. Infact if beautiful speeches alone solve problems, the multifarious troubles bedeviling our world today would long have been history but unfortunately they do not. The speech in Ghana was one of such good and beautiful speeches but the President was wrong on one score. While his speech proceeded on the premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans he could not have been right to sweepingly exculpate and absolve the west of any culpability in the debacle that is Zimbabwe today by insisting that “the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade”.
To be sure Robert Mugabe has his own issues and no doubt carries the lion’s share of the blame for the destruction of Zimbabwe, the role and equally devastating that the west through Britain played cannot be ignored or glossed over. The troubles in Zimbabwe did not start a decade ago and Obama well knows this. The seed for the destruction of Zimbabwe was sowed by Britain in the years leading to Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 and thereafter when its last bastions of empire were crumbling across the globe and the sun was setting on her majesty’s imperial realm. With the failure of Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence over the then Southern Rhodesia, Zimbabwe’s independence was hurriedly negotiated and while the elections that followed were won by Robert Mugabe after a campaign filled with intimidation, violence and threats to continue the Bush war by Mugabe’s ZANU should he lose the election, Britain which had earlier considered disqualifying ZANU for flagrant violation of the Lancaster House Agreement and violent intimidation of the militants he now controlled went on to hand over power to Mugabe at independence in 1980 over the other more popular Nationalists such as Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole and Joshua Nkomo amongst others who were angling for power at the time because in their flawed thinking and as they and other colonial powers have done all over Africa since Ghana’s independence in 1957, they had to install puppet regimes that will forever look unto them as patrons so they can merely substitute colonialism for neo colonialism.
At the London Conferences at Lancaster House to negotiate Zimbabwe’s independence, Robert Mugabe was pressured to sign the agreement and land was the major stumbling block, aid in excess of # 630 million pounds was pledged for resettlement/land redistribution and sundry British support in exchange for the constitutional arrangement that Zimbabwe cannot seize European owned lands for 10 years and the willing buyer, willing seller clause to be funded by Britain. Britain did not deliver much on this promise and in 1997 after over # 40 million pounds has been spent, the Labour Government of Tony Blair unilaterally declared that the British government did not accept that it had a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe notwithstanding the Lancaster House Agreement. The majority of the arable farm lands are in the hands of white owners. Zimbabwean whites although making up less than 5% of the population owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best. The lands were thus reserved for white landlords growing cash crops for export, a sector of the economy favoured by the west with little or no regards to the sensibilities of the majority of the landless poor peasants. Every time Robert Mugabe tries to hold Britain to this agreement or find alternative ways of bringing about land redistribution, he was threatened and blackmailed. The rational thing was to find common ground but instead Britain went the divisive route of propping up the opposition to wrest power from Mugabe and the ruling party and has openly called for the overthrow of the old man. This is a very delicate issue though because it is obvious that democracy is being subverted in Zimbabwe. The old man has being in power for 29 years now and he is not showing any signs of letting go. But the truth should equally be obvious to anyone who cares to look that the old man is hanging on to power out of fear even though there may really be nothing to offer Zimbabwe anymore. He needs assurances that out of power, whatever is left of his legacy will be preserved; he does not want to relinquish power on British terms and to ‘British stooges’. So Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism aggravated by western economic meddling as much as the troubles of a Robert Mugabe that has stayed in power for too long. As Matthew Swift wrote in the Independent, it was Cecil Rhodes who originated the racist ‘land grabs’ to which Zimbabwe’s current miseries can ultimately be traced. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with as Obama said of 9/11 and al Qaeda in his Cairo speech.
This is where the United State’s and the west come in if the multifarious problems bedeviling Africa will ever be solved. But all we heard in Ghana was how Africans must salvage Africa. Obama did not tell us in concrete terms what America will do to help Africa. In Moscow, he told Russians what America will do and will not do. In Cairo he assured the Islamic world and Palestine that the only resolution to the Middle East conflict is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two state’s and that he will personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task required. To Pakistanis he said his Government was planning to invest $ 1.5 billion each year over the next five years to build roads, schools etc. To Afghans he said his Government was providing over $ 2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on. To concerned Iraqi’s he pledged to honor America’s commitment to remove all troops from Iraq by 2012 and undertook that his government will help train its security forces and develop its economy. In his Ghana speech Africa was merely an adjunct in a $ 3.5 billion food security initiative and a $ 63 billion investment into a global health plan.
We Africans have been told fair and square though that we are on our own. Those who thought the election of a President with an African heritage will put African issues on the front burner of America’s foreign policy have been left to lick their wounds. Barack Obama is President of the United State’s and the focus, objectives and central theme of America’s foreign policy does not necessarily change with the election of Presidents; only strategy and style may differ. There is no way Africa can suddenly become more important than the Middle East in the conceptualization and implementation of America’s foreign policy. The earlier we accept this indubitable fact of America’s engagement with Africa and move on with our lives, the better for us all.
Africa should have heeded the wise counsel of that iconoclast, Robert Nesta Marley (Bob Marley) on the eve of Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980. In 1980 at Zimbabwe’s independence, Africa and the rest of the world had high hopes for that country. In the midst of the euphoria however, Bob Marley sang what became one of the most popular and ever appealing revolutionary anthems in world history. In the piece titled “Zimbabwe” and drawing from the United Nations “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples” (otherwise referred to as The Right of Self Determination Resolution) of 1960 Bob Marley counseled that everyman had a right to decide his own destiny and that in that judgment there is no partiality and that together in arms we will fight the struggle and that we will come together to overcome our little troubles.
He further expressed the satisfaction that African’s are the ones who fittingly and rightly liberated Zimbabwe and he admonished Zimbabwe’s leaders against internal power struggle and the divide and rule strategy which history has shown to have no practical utility as it will only tear Africans apart and alienate the leaders from the people. Finally he expressed the hope that in no time the real leaders (revolutionaries) whose only motivation for seeking power is the good of all Africans will be identified and the mercenaries amongst them found out.
How ironic things have played out. Not only was the hope of Zimbabwe never realized, none of the good things Bob Marley spoke about was replicated on Zimbabwean soil. Zimbabwe’s leaders are at each others throat, internal power struggle and rivalry is the lot of its leaders, divide and rule is the order of the day and the destruction of the economy has had the country teetering at the edge of the precipice with no immediate solution in sight. The situation is so dire and complicated now that you do not know who and what to believe any more. All the parties – Mugabe, the Opposition, Britain and the West - seem to have genuine claims to the peoples trust in Zimbabwe.
But the rot in Zimbabwe can still be halted if all involved approach the negotiations with open hearts, throwing out the window old prejudices, the continued mediation of South Africa with high level support from the United States and Nigeria may remain the surest way to resolve the Zimbabwean debacle. Britain should acknowledge its destabilizing and irresponsible posture towards a former colony and henceforth stop its fixation with the overthrow of the Mugabe government. It should instead support a framework that ensures that Mugabe’s ZANU PF genuinely shares power with the opposition led by Morgan Tsvangirai in a meaningful way. A framework that recognizes Zimbabwe’s shared past, the present differences/difficulties and the complexities of the future ensuring that at least the opposition has a continued chance of winning power in free and fair polls.
STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
