Friday, 19 July 2019
Friday, 11 January 2019
Monday, 29 October 2018
Thursday, 11 February 2016
REASONS NIGERIA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES MUST SUSPEND HIKE IN ELECTRICITY TARIFF.
REASONS
NIGERIA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES MUST SUSPEND HIKE
IN ELECTRICITY
TARIFF
The
Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission, NERC, in conjunction with
Electricity Distribution Companies in Nigeria, popularly called DISCOS, introduced a 45% hike in
electricity tariff with effect from February 1, 2016. The argument of
NERC and DISCOS for this latest outrageous hike in electricity tariff
is that it would bring about enhancement in service delivery and
customers' satisfaction. However, this reason advanced by NERC and
DISCOS does not hold water in view of the fact that past increases in
electricity tariff never brought about corresponding increase in
quantity of power supply in Nigeria, enhancement in service delivery and
customers' satisfaction.
Whatever
reasons NERC and DISCOS have for the current hike in electricity tariff, the
reality on ground remains that it is a wrong step at the wrong time and
should not have come in the first place. Here are reasons NERC DISCOS
must suspend the latest anti-people and outrageous 45% hike in
electricity tariff.
The
latest hike in electricity tariff by electricity regulators in Nigeria
is an unlawful act and tantamounts to a contempt of court order. Justice
Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos, had on May 28, 2015
directed NERC to suspend all actions relating to any increment in
electricity tariff pending the hearing and final determination of a suit
filed by a lawyer on the matter. That NERC has gone ahead to increase
electricity tariff in face of a pending suit on the matter is the height
of disobedience against the law of Nigeria.
Currently, electricity distributions companies have not metered millions of electricity consumers in Nigeria. They overbill consumers indiscriminately without relying on electricity meters. Nigerians are already over-paying DISCOS for electricity in the country. The issue of hike in power tariff should only become a matter of discussion and perhaps, consideration when electricity supply improves and consumers metered.
Nigeria
is perhaps, the only country in the world where consumers pay for
services not delivered and enjoyed. The challenge of power generation
and supply in Nigeria has been with us for decades. The reality is that
there has never been any time since independence of Nigeria in 1960,
when Nigerians enjoyed sufficient and uninterrupted electricity supply.
Many Nigerians have paid electricity authorities in the country for
supplying them darkness and this should not be allowed to continue.
Many
Nigerians are already facing serious financial challenges and find it
difficult to meet their basic needs as a result of the dwindling
economic fortune of their country in the face of drastic fall in price
of crude oil, their country's mainstay. Thousands are losing jobs and
the purchasing power of millions of Nigerians have been reduced
drastically as a result of continued decline in the value of Nigerian
Naira vis-a-vis major international currencies. Obviously, ordinary
Nigerians cannot afford any hike in electricity tariff now. This is not
the best of times economically for millions of poor Nigerians.
Nigeria
is a country where the government takes its citizens for granted by not
consulting them before embarking on actions and policies that affect
the them. The Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission and Electricity
Distribution Companies did not consult widely with Nigerians, with a
view to carrying them along and obtaining their consent before
effecting the current outrageous hike in electricity tariff.
Poor
power supply is one of the key reasons the industrial/manufacturing
sector in Nigeria remains comatose. This latest increase in electricity
tariff, if not reversed by the government would only succeed in further
killing industrial sector in Nigeria by stifling industries that are
already spending humongous amounts of money buying diesel and other
petroleum products for production and take away what could have remained
as their profits. The ultimate consequence of this would be shut down
of several production outfits in the country, more job losses for
Nigerians and increase rate in crime and other social vices in the land.
Every
free market economy should be regulated by the forces of demand and
supply. The former Power Holding Company of Nigeria was privatised by
the Federal Government of Nigeria in 2013. Power distribution in the
country has been in the hands of private distribution companies
popularly known as DISCOS. The various DISCOS in Nigeria should provide
sufficient electricity supply for consumers. Power generation and
distribution in Nigeria now hovers between 4500 and 5000 megawatts. This
is grossly inadequate for millions of private, commercial and
industrial consumers in Nigeria. It therefore makes no logical sense
that electricity tariff is being increase in Nigeria when supply is
still very low. Nigerians CANNOT afford to pay more for a service in
short supply to them and almost out of reach from many.
The
Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission and DISCOS cannot be said to
be acting in isolation from the government of Nigeria in this latest
outrageous increase in electricity tariff. To lend credence to this
view, reacting to the mass nation-wide protests by the Nigerian Labour
Congress as a result of the hike in electricity tariff, the Nigerian
Minister of Power, Babatunde Fashola describes latest increase in
electricity tariff as ''a painful pill Nigerians MUST (emphasis mine)
swallow''. It is therefore obvious that the federal government of
Nigeria is behind this inhuman, unlawful and anti-masses hike in
electricity price to further strangulate millions of Nigerians who are
already maligned economically and further impoverished them. While
looking for alternative ways and avenues to generate revenue for the
country as a result of the fall in the fall of crude oil, the federal
government of Nigeria MUST be careful not to create more problems and
destroy the country's economy further. Government is about the people
and should therefore, listen to the people. The people of Nigeria say no
to hike in electricity tariff and the government MUST listen and act in
the interest of its citizens whom it claims to represent. Poor
Nigerians should not be made to pay for decades of corruption and sins
of the so-called 'ruling class' in Nigeria that have brought the country
to the sorry and appalling state she finds herself in every aspect of
her life today.
I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi.
Lagos Nigeria.
EDITORIAL VIEW: DWINDLING FORTUNE OF CRUDE OIL AND THE FUTURE OF NIGERIAN ECONOMY.
The
drastic fall in the price of crude oil has affected and continues to
affect the Nigerian economy adversely. Nigeria's revenue based has
dropped astronomically with over 50% in the last one year as a result
of unprecedented fall in the price of crude oil, her mainstay. As
expected, this has untold negative consequences for her economy.
It
is high time the government of Nigeria realized that oil is gradually
losing value as a major foreign exchange earner for countries that do
depend on it for survival and prosperity of their economies, and by
extension their citizens.
A
number of factors are working together against the fortune of crude in
the international market. The refusal of OPEC countries to cut
production quota, the recent discovery of crude oil in commercial
quantity by some nations that were not hitherto oil producing nations;
the near attainment of energy independence by the United States of
America, which has led to huge reduction in its oil import and the
inventions of automobiles and other machinery that use batteries and
other sources of energy, instead of petroleum products, amongst others,
are some of the factors that have continued to push down the prices of
crude oil in the global market.
Succesive
governments of Nigeria have refused to inject billions of US Dollars
earned from sales of crude oil in the past five decades into the economy
with a view to diversifying it. The humongous amount of money realized
from sales of crude oil was stolen by past Nigerian government officials
while a greater part of it was spent on importation of consumer goods
instead of using it as a catalyst for developing other aspects of the
economy.
The
current sorry and appalling state of Nigerian economy is an aftermath
of years of over-dependence on crude oil, refusal/failure of Nigerian government to diversify the economy and fix power and infrastructure; and corruption/decay in the
system.
I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this editorial.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi.
Lagos Nigeria.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SUPRME COURT JUDGEMENT ON RIVERS, AKWA IBOM, ABIA AND EBONYI GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION TUSSLES.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON RIVERS, AKWA IBOM, ABIA AND EBONYI GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION TUSSLES
The
recent judgement of Supreme Court of Nigeria that upheld the earlier
annulled governorship elections of the serving Peoples Democratic
Governors of Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Abia and Ebonyi states in Nigeria, is
significant in many ways, as demonstrated below in this article.
By
this judgement, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has amply demonstrated
that it is indeed, supreme. The Supreme Court of Nigeria is the highest
arbiter of justice in the land. Its ruling on any matter is final and
should be taken by all contending parties in good faith. Though mixed
reactions continue to trail the judgement of the Supreme Court, along
party lines, the reality remains that, by the judgement, the tussles
for governorship of the states, have been laid to rest. All parties
involved in litigations are therefore expected to abide by the ruling of
the highest court in the land and allow peace to reign.
Before
the judgement of the Supreme Court in favour of the Peoples Democratic
Party in the four states mentioned above, it was alleged by the Peoples
Democratic Party that President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, was
controlling and intimidating the Nigerian judiciary through agencies of
the federal government as the Nigerian Police Force and the the
Directorate of State Services, the DSS, to maneuver election cases in
the affected states, especially in the oil rich Rivers and Akwa Ibom, in
favour of his party, the All Progressive Congress (APC). It is not for
Objective Writers and Analysts to affirm or deny that President Buhari
attempted to maneuver the judiciary to do his bidding in Rivers and Akwa
Ibom states. However, it is very significant that the Supreme Court
ruling did not come in favour of the APC as that would have confirmed
PDP's allegations that Buhari was dictating to the judiciary.
For
many Nigerians, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Rivers
and Akwa Ibom governorship elections in particular, is neither a
victory for the PDP or the APC. Rather, it is a victory for peace and
democracy. It is the position of Objective Writers and Analysts that
electoral violence and possibly deaths of some innocent Nigerians, would
have occurred again had the Supreme Court annulled Rivers and Akwa Ibom
elections and called for fresh elections in the two states. More so, by
the ruling, the Supreme Court has saved Nigeria huge financial and
material resources that would have been deployed in conducting fresh
elections in the affected states.
The
battles for the governorship seats in Rivers and Akwa Ibom states were
more fierce than those in Ebonyi and Abia. The obvious reason for this
is because of the oil wealth of Rivers and Akwa Ibom, and this line of
thought becomes more logical when one takes into consideration that
Nigerian politics is more about looting state resources for personal
aggrandizement of 'political leaders' that occupy various positions,
rather than use of state resources to cater for security and welfare of
citizens.
I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article. Frank, Chukwuka Osimi.
Lagos Nigeria.
Tuesday, 19 January 2016
frankwash: IMPLICATIONS OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL ON GLOBAL PRICES...
frankwash: IMPLICATIONS OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL ON GLOBAL PRICES...: IMPLICATIONS OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL ON GLOBAL PRICES OF CRUDE OIL: EMPHASIS ON NIGERIA. This article attempts a look at the possible econom...
Friday, 8 January 2016
frankwash: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS
frankwash: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS For the purpose of this article, it would be appropriate to offer a working definition of polemic...
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...: The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12t...
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...: The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12t...
NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-SHIA SECTARIAN CONFLICT IN NIGERIA.
The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12th December, 2015, is capable of triggering Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict in Nigeria if not carefully and diplomatically handled by the Nigerian Government. The Shia Muslims in Nigeria are led by Sheikh El-Zakzaky. They operate under the umbrella of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the head of Sunni Islam worldwide while the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leader of Shiite/Shia Islam globally. The Sunni constitute about 85% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims while the Shiite constitute about 15%. Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional enemies in the Middle Middle East and arch rivals for control of politics of the Gulf Region, and by extension, the Islamic world. The history of hostility and rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islamic followers predates the modern era and can be traced to the succession disputes that followed the death of Prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic religion, in the 7th Century AD.
As a conservative ''Wahhabi'' Sunni Islamic Kingdom Saudi Arabia has close ties with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other western countries. On the other hand, Iran is a Twelver Shia Islamic Republic founded in an anti-western revolution in what is known as the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are perceived to have aspirations for leadership of Islam and have conflicting visions of stability and regional order. They also differ on the interpretation of Islam and who should head the Islamic world. Iran sees Saudi Arabia as a puppet state or agent of the United States in the Persian Gulf representing US interests rather than Islam. On her part, Saudi Arabia is concerned and worried about Iran's consistent desire to export its revolution across the board, thereby expanding its influence within the Persian Gulf -notably in post Saddam Iraq, the Levant and within further South, in addition to Iran's controversial, much debated nuclear nuclear program.
The enmity and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is playing out in the relations between the two nations and has contributed and continue to contribute to the sectarian conflict plaguing the Middle East. For instance, the Shia-Sunni divide as epitomized by Iran and Saudi Arabia is one of the major factors fueling the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Iran, a Shia state supports President Assad of Syria who is an Allawite Shia minority fighting majority other Sunni groups in the Syrian civil war and also supports the Houthis Shia fighting the Sunni government of Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of majority Sunni countries to fight the Houthis Shia fighters waging war against the government of Yemen.
Following the clash between the Nigerian Army, which in this case represents the Nigerian state, Iran was reported to have registered her anger and disappointment over the incident by summoning Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Godfrey Onyema and also called President Muhammadu Buhari, and warned that Nigeria should protect Shia Muslims in the country. On the part of Saudi Arabia, she was also reported to have called and praised the Nigerian government for cracking down on Shia Muslims, describing them as ''terrorists''.
On the surface, one may not take the calling of Nigerian government by Iran and Saudi Arabia to mean anything. However, looked at from a very critical diplomatic angle, it is a sign of formal involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the internal affairs of Nigeria and also an attempt to import their mutual hostility, suspicion and religious rivalry into Nigeria. While Saudi sees the killing of Shia Muslims in Nigeria as fight against terrorists, Iran sees it as an attack on Shia Islam and accused Nigerian government of ''committing genocide'' against minority Shia Muslims in Nigeria. Iran further warned Nigerian government to protect Shia Muslims in the country, treat the wounded and compensate families of those that died in the clash with the army. This marks the beginning of involvement of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Islamic religious politics of Nigeria, with the former supporting the Shia and the latter supporting the Sunni. It is important to note that Nigeria has more Sunni Muslims than the Shia. Iran feels that Nigerian government is persecuting minority Shia Muslims, and has warned that she is ready and willing to protect them. It is trite to also note that Iran has been accused of sponsoring the Shia Movement, also known as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
Furthermore, this open show of interests by Iran and Saudi Arabia in the internal affairs of Nigeria as a result of the Army-Shia clash, is coming at time when the government of Nigeria, headed byMuhammadu Buhari, himself a Sunni Muslim just joined a 34-state military alliance headed by Saudi Arabia and made up of Sunni Muslim states. The Saudis argue that the major aim of the alliance is to fight ''global Islamic terrorism''. Some might argue that Nigeria's joining of this alliance is a strategic move to defeat Boko Haram terrorism at home; but looked at from another angle or point of view, she has pitched tent with Sunni countries by joining the Saudi-led alliance and this tantamounts to a declaration of war against Shia Muslims and also capable of importing into Nigeria Sunni-Shia conflict rocking Syria, Yemen, Iraq and some other countries in the Islamic world.
Nigeria is a secular state with various religions. The country's constitution does not recognize any state religion, be it Christianity or Islam. Citizens of Nigeria are at liberty to practice any religion of their choice provided it is done in accordance with the law of the land and does not constitute security threat to the Nigerian state and and its citizens.
There is need for the Nigerian government to apply tact and shrewd diplomacy in handling the backlash of the Army-Shiite clash and the interferences from Iran and Saudi Arabia who are involved in sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam that has tore some countries in the Middle East and the Gulf region apart. Nigeria is a sovereign state and should not allow Saudi Arabia and Iran who are involved in a war for the 'SOUL' of Islam turn her into a battle ground for sectarian violence. We have been battling with the Boko Haram insurgency for close to seven years. This insurgency has led to the death of over 20,000 Nigerians and cost her over 6 trillion Naira and continues to gulp the country's resources even at a time she is groaning financially as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her economic mainstay, in the global oil market. Nigeria is therefore warned not to play into the hands of Saudi Arabia and Iran who are only interested in projecting their selfish religious and political interests beyond their shores and cause crisis in unsuspecting countries. Nigeria CANNOT afford a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in her territory. Such states as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and others engulfed in Sunni-Shia sectarian conflicts have been reduced to rubble and the crises rocking them continue to rage with no end in sight. No nation or state survives a religious war.
The views expressed here are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any errors: grammatical, typographical or otherwise that may be found in this article.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the head of Sunni Islam worldwide while the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leader of Shiite/Shia Islam globally. The Sunni constitute about 85% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims while the Shiite constitute about 15%. Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional enemies in the Middle Middle East and arch rivals for control of politics of the Gulf Region, and by extension, the Islamic world. The history of hostility and rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islamic followers predates the modern era and can be traced to the succession disputes that followed the death of Prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic religion, in the 7th Century AD.
As a conservative ''Wahhabi'' Sunni Islamic Kingdom Saudi Arabia has close ties with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other western countries. On the other hand, Iran is a Twelver Shia Islamic Republic founded in an anti-western revolution in what is known as the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are perceived to have aspirations for leadership of Islam and have conflicting visions of stability and regional order. They also differ on the interpretation of Islam and who should head the Islamic world. Iran sees Saudi Arabia as a puppet state or agent of the United States in the Persian Gulf representing US interests rather than Islam. On her part, Saudi Arabia is concerned and worried about Iran's consistent desire to export its revolution across the board, thereby expanding its influence within the Persian Gulf -notably in post Saddam Iraq, the Levant and within further South, in addition to Iran's controversial, much debated nuclear nuclear program.
The enmity and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is playing out in the relations between the two nations and has contributed and continue to contribute to the sectarian conflict plaguing the Middle East. For instance, the Shia-Sunni divide as epitomized by Iran and Saudi Arabia is one of the major factors fueling the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Iran, a Shia state supports President Assad of Syria who is an Allawite Shia minority fighting majority other Sunni groups in the Syrian civil war and also supports the Houthis Shia fighting the Sunni government of Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of majority Sunni countries to fight the Houthis Shia fighters waging war against the government of Yemen.
Following the clash between the Nigerian Army, which in this case represents the Nigerian state, Iran was reported to have registered her anger and disappointment over the incident by summoning Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Godfrey Onyema and also called President Muhammadu Buhari, and warned that Nigeria should protect Shia Muslims in the country. On the part of Saudi Arabia, she was also reported to have called and praised the Nigerian government for cracking down on Shia Muslims, describing them as ''terrorists''.
On the surface, one may not take the calling of Nigerian government by Iran and Saudi Arabia to mean anything. However, looked at from a very critical diplomatic angle, it is a sign of formal involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the internal affairs of Nigeria and also an attempt to import their mutual hostility, suspicion and religious rivalry into Nigeria. While Saudi sees the killing of Shia Muslims in Nigeria as fight against terrorists, Iran sees it as an attack on Shia Islam and accused Nigerian government of ''committing genocide'' against minority Shia Muslims in Nigeria. Iran further warned Nigerian government to protect Shia Muslims in the country, treat the wounded and compensate families of those that died in the clash with the army. This marks the beginning of involvement of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Islamic religious politics of Nigeria, with the former supporting the Shia and the latter supporting the Sunni. It is important to note that Nigeria has more Sunni Muslims than the Shia. Iran feels that Nigerian government is persecuting minority Shia Muslims, and has warned that she is ready and willing to protect them. It is trite to also note that Iran has been accused of sponsoring the Shia Movement, also known as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
Furthermore, this open show of interests by Iran and Saudi Arabia in the internal affairs of Nigeria as a result of the Army-Shia clash, is coming at time when the government of Nigeria, headed byMuhammadu Buhari, himself a Sunni Muslim just joined a 34-state military alliance headed by Saudi Arabia and made up of Sunni Muslim states. The Saudis argue that the major aim of the alliance is to fight ''global Islamic terrorism''. Some might argue that Nigeria's joining of this alliance is a strategic move to defeat Boko Haram terrorism at home; but looked at from another angle or point of view, she has pitched tent with Sunni countries by joining the Saudi-led alliance and this tantamounts to a declaration of war against Shia Muslims and also capable of importing into Nigeria Sunni-Shia conflict rocking Syria, Yemen, Iraq and some other countries in the Islamic world.
Nigeria is a secular state with various religions. The country's constitution does not recognize any state religion, be it Christianity or Islam. Citizens of Nigeria are at liberty to practice any religion of their choice provided it is done in accordance with the law of the land and does not constitute security threat to the Nigerian state and and its citizens.
There is need for the Nigerian government to apply tact and shrewd diplomacy in handling the backlash of the Army-Shiite clash and the interferences from Iran and Saudi Arabia who are involved in sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam that has tore some countries in the Middle East and the Gulf region apart. Nigeria is a sovereign state and should not allow Saudi Arabia and Iran who are involved in a war for the 'SOUL' of Islam turn her into a battle ground for sectarian violence. We have been battling with the Boko Haram insurgency for close to seven years. This insurgency has led to the death of over 20,000 Nigerians and cost her over 6 trillion Naira and continues to gulp the country's resources even at a time she is groaning financially as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her economic mainstay, in the global oil market. Nigeria is therefore warned not to play into the hands of Saudi Arabia and Iran who are only interested in projecting their selfish religious and political interests beyond their shores and cause crisis in unsuspecting countries. Nigeria CANNOT afford a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in her territory. Such states as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and others engulfed in Sunni-Shia sectarian conflicts have been reduced to rubble and the crises rocking them continue to rage with no end in sight. No nation or state survives a religious war.
The views expressed here are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any errors: grammatical, typographical or otherwise that may be found in this article.
Friday, 18 December 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
frankwash: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR U...
frankwash: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR U...: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS. Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representi...
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS.
MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS.
Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representing Kebbi state in the Nigerian Senate, recently presented a bill in the Nigerian Senate to censor use of social media by Nigerians. This bill, if passed into law, would scrutinize activities of Nigerians on the social media: Facebook, Twitter, etc. The bill also proposes 2-year jail term or a fine of N2, 000, 000 for any Nigerian who posts anything considered offensive or unsavory against the government and political leaders of Nigeria.This move by Senator Na'Allah, is seen by many Nigerians as an attempt by the Senate to suppress free speech by majority of Nigerians, who do not have access to the conventional media, to air their views on their country's affairs.
For me, the proposed social censor bill before the Nigerian Senate, is not an important national matter. It is not a thing of priority and should not be given any attention by the Nigerian Senate.
Nigeria is in a democracy now and freedom of speech is one of the major pillars of democratic government, the world over. Our democracy would face grave dangers if freedom of speech by ordinary Nigerians, is trampled upon by the Senate. The Senate is therefore, advised to desist from further debating on the social media censor bill before it and concentrate its attention and energy on pressing national issues and challenges facing Nigeria, with a view to proffering solutions to them.
While I have no doubt that the social media bill before the Nigerian Senate will not see the light of the day, I also recommend areas of priority in Nigeria's national life that demand and deserve urgent attention and solutions from the Nigerian Senate:
1.The Nigerian Senate should make urgent and well thought out legislation on how to revive and diversify the Nigerian economy with a view to saving it from collapse in the face of dwindling fortune of crude oil, which is the country's mainstay.
2.The Nigerian Senate should work together with the executive arm of government to fix Nigeria's moribund refineries and also build new ones for Nigeria to attain energy independence and for Nigerians to have easy and abundant access to affordable refined petroleum products. The Senate should save Nigeria from the financial hemorrhage of dubious petroleum subsidies.
3.Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the Senate that would encourage compulsory and if possible, free primary and secondary education for Nigerian female children, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria, who are forced into early marriage by the culture and tradition there.
4. Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the executive, that would encourage job creation in all sectors of the economy for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth.
5.The Nigerian Senate should synergise with the executive arm of government and fix the power sector in Nigeria.
6.If Nigerian Senate claims that it is copying China that does not allow free speech by its citizens; I humbly advise that it desist from that, bearing in mind that China is not a democracy while Nigeria is. However, things are working in China irrespective of the fact that she is not a democracy. This is because corruption is not entertained in China and the penalty for indulging in it is death sentence. I hereby advise Senator Na'Allah to forward a bill to the Senate that would recommend and uphold death sentence for corrupt Nigerian government officials who loot state resources and keep ordinary citizens of the country in perpetual hardship and penury.
7. The Nigerian Senate should cooperate with the other arms of government in Nigeria to adopt the true federalism that would empower every state in Nigeria with the legal and administrative capacity to harness and apply economic resources in its domain for development. This is the only way out of the economic challenges and underdevelopment facing Nigeria. I wish to warn that REAL, DANGEROUS and DESTRUCTIVE economic TSUNAMI, with grave consequences, will befall Nigeria, SOONEST, if she failed to adopt true federalism. The possibility for the price of crude oil to fall more than what the world is experiencing now is very high, with OPEC members feuding amongst themselves, over crude production quota. Now is the time for Nigeria to act. Failure to act, we would get to a stage where the Arab Spring kind of revolution would engulf Nigeria, as a result of economic hardship and suffering inflicted by the government, on the ordinary citizens of Nigeria.
8.The Nigerian Senate MUST pass a bill into law that would address and correct the numerous political, economic and social imbalances at the root of all the crises and woes bedeviling Nigeria. All forms of ethnic and religious killings in parts of the country MUST stop, and all those behind such killings MUST be brought to justice. Nigeria is a country built on injustice. This is the reason there is no peace in the country and peace would continue to remain a mirage to Nigeria except justice prevails in all areas of the country's life.
I wish to end this write-up by quoting my mentor, the legendary Nelson Mandela: ''For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. As the world marks the United Nations Human Rights Day on 10th December, 2015, I call on the Nigerian Senate to respect and uphold the inalienable rights of freedom of speech by the ordinary citizens of Nigeria. Let them devote their time to using their offices as 'LEGISLATORS' to put in place legislations, measures and political strategies that would ensure the welfare and security of citizens of Nigerians. This is the SUMMUM BONU that every responsible and responsive government owes citizens of state, anywhere in the world.
Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representing Kebbi state in the Nigerian Senate, recently presented a bill in the Nigerian Senate to censor use of social media by Nigerians. This bill, if passed into law, would scrutinize activities of Nigerians on the social media: Facebook, Twitter, etc. The bill also proposes 2-year jail term or a fine of N2, 000, 000 for any Nigerian who posts anything considered offensive or unsavory against the government and political leaders of Nigeria.This move by Senator Na'Allah, is seen by many Nigerians as an attempt by the Senate to suppress free speech by majority of Nigerians, who do not have access to the conventional media, to air their views on their country's affairs.
For me, the proposed social censor bill before the Nigerian Senate, is not an important national matter. It is not a thing of priority and should not be given any attention by the Nigerian Senate.
Nigeria is in a democracy now and freedom of speech is one of the major pillars of democratic government, the world over. Our democracy would face grave dangers if freedom of speech by ordinary Nigerians, is trampled upon by the Senate. The Senate is therefore, advised to desist from further debating on the social media censor bill before it and concentrate its attention and energy on pressing national issues and challenges facing Nigeria, with a view to proffering solutions to them.
While I have no doubt that the social media bill before the Nigerian Senate will not see the light of the day, I also recommend areas of priority in Nigeria's national life that demand and deserve urgent attention and solutions from the Nigerian Senate:
1.The Nigerian Senate should make urgent and well thought out legislation on how to revive and diversify the Nigerian economy with a view to saving it from collapse in the face of dwindling fortune of crude oil, which is the country's mainstay.
2.The Nigerian Senate should work together with the executive arm of government to fix Nigeria's moribund refineries and also build new ones for Nigeria to attain energy independence and for Nigerians to have easy and abundant access to affordable refined petroleum products. The Senate should save Nigeria from the financial hemorrhage of dubious petroleum subsidies.
3.Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the Senate that would encourage compulsory and if possible, free primary and secondary education for Nigerian female children, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria, who are forced into early marriage by the culture and tradition there.
4. Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the executive, that would encourage job creation in all sectors of the economy for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth.
5.The Nigerian Senate should synergise with the executive arm of government and fix the power sector in Nigeria.
6.If Nigerian Senate claims that it is copying China that does not allow free speech by its citizens; I humbly advise that it desist from that, bearing in mind that China is not a democracy while Nigeria is. However, things are working in China irrespective of the fact that she is not a democracy. This is because corruption is not entertained in China and the penalty for indulging in it is death sentence. I hereby advise Senator Na'Allah to forward a bill to the Senate that would recommend and uphold death sentence for corrupt Nigerian government officials who loot state resources and keep ordinary citizens of the country in perpetual hardship and penury.
7. The Nigerian Senate should cooperate with the other arms of government in Nigeria to adopt the true federalism that would empower every state in Nigeria with the legal and administrative capacity to harness and apply economic resources in its domain for development. This is the only way out of the economic challenges and underdevelopment facing Nigeria. I wish to warn that REAL, DANGEROUS and DESTRUCTIVE economic TSUNAMI, with grave consequences, will befall Nigeria, SOONEST, if she failed to adopt true federalism. The possibility for the price of crude oil to fall more than what the world is experiencing now is very high, with OPEC members feuding amongst themselves, over crude production quota. Now is the time for Nigeria to act. Failure to act, we would get to a stage where the Arab Spring kind of revolution would engulf Nigeria, as a result of economic hardship and suffering inflicted by the government, on the ordinary citizens of Nigeria.
8.The Nigerian Senate MUST pass a bill into law that would address and correct the numerous political, economic and social imbalances at the root of all the crises and woes bedeviling Nigeria. All forms of ethnic and religious killings in parts of the country MUST stop, and all those behind such killings MUST be brought to justice. Nigeria is a country built on injustice. This is the reason there is no peace in the country and peace would continue to remain a mirage to Nigeria except justice prevails in all areas of the country's life.
I wish to end this write-up by quoting my mentor, the legendary Nelson Mandela: ''For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. As the world marks the United Nations Human Rights Day on 10th December, 2015, I call on the Nigerian Senate to respect and uphold the inalienable rights of freedom of speech by the ordinary citizens of Nigeria. Let them devote their time to using their offices as 'LEGISLATORS' to put in place legislations, measures and political strategies that would ensure the welfare and security of citizens of Nigerians. This is the SUMMUM BONU that every responsible and responsive government owes citizens of state, anywhere in the world.
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Welcome to Afrivid©: Photo:150 Nigeria Soldiers Slaughtered by Boko Har...
Welcome to Afrivid©: Photo:150 Nigeria Soldiers Slaughtered by Boko Har...: The missing 150 Nigerian soldiers might have been slaughtered by Boko Haram. It is alleged that Boko Haram used some chemical weapon to car...
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
Thursday, 12 November 2015
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER? PART 1.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S REVOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 1.
President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is the first sitting president in Nigeria to be voted out from office since the country's independence in 1960. Mixed reactions trailed the outcome of Nigeria's 2015 presidential election as expected. For some, it was unthinkable for a sitting or incumbent president to lose an election to the opposition. For, others, the loss of the election by Dr Jonathan was not a surprise. To persons in this school of thought, the failure or inability ofJonathan's government to fix the plethora of social, economic and political woes and challenges bedeviling Nigeria is more than enough reason to be voted out of office.
Government has many functions and responsibilities. These functions and responsibilities can be reduced to two: protection of lives and property of citizens of state and ensuring of their welfare. Everything a government does comes under these two functions and responsibilities. Any government that fails to live up to expectations as far as these two things are concerned does not deserves to remain in office. This is the thrust of Social Contract, between persons in government and citizens of the state.
Many local and foreign political analysts and commentators have advanced various reasons behind the defeat of Dr Jonathan by General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in the Nigeria 2015 presidential election. As to be expected, many of these analysts and commentators are of the view that the inability of Dr Jonathan to provide solutions to the myriad of problems plaguing Nigeria was the chief reason for his political fall. To some of them, the determination of the North to take back power, having lost it , following President Yar'Adua's death in May 2010 is the cardinal factor behind his defeat at the polls. There is no argument that the two reasons provided above contributed in no small measure to the political demise of President Jonathan. In the remaining part of this article, I take a critical look at these two factors that have been advanced by political experts as reasons for Jonathan's defeat and conclude with my own view as to why he lost the election.
It has been noted earlier in this piece, that the essence of government in a state is to ensure the security and welfare of citizens of the state. The Theory of Social Contract as propounded by Thomas Hobbs, a British political philosopher, has it that persons in government, are in a social contract with citizens of the state. According to Hobbs, government officials hold power in trust on behalf of citizens of the state. This implies that the consent to govern a state comes from the citizens and state officials should use power to harness and deploy state resources for the welfare and benefit of every citizen. Hobbs further opines that any government that fails to take care of the security and welfare of its citizens does not deserve to remain in power and should be dismantled or uprooted from power by citizens of the state.
To start my analysis, the problems and challenges bedeviling Nigeria are almost as old as the country herself. At the return of democracy in 1999, Nigerians were full of hope and expectations that all the countries woes under the military would soon be a thing of the past and that the country would be a better place for every Nigerian. General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd), who was the first democratically elected president of Nigeria, spent eight whooping years in power (1999-2007). H e was the first president to govern Nigeria under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Opinions differ regarding the achievements of Obasanjo as president of Nigeria for eight years. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the major challenges facing Nigeria: unemployment, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta then), corruption, weak economy, energy and power sector challenge and so on, were still there.
General Obasanjo was succeeded by late President Yar'Adua, another leader produced by the PDP. Yar' Adua's government was short-lived as the wicked hand of death took him from mother earth. Before his death however, late President Yar'Adua had the Seven Points Agenda as the cardinal state policy and road map for the development of Nigeria. During his short stay of about three years in power, Yar'Adua succeeded in instituting an electoral reform committee to reform and overhaul Nigeria's electoral system in order to bring about the conduct of free, fair and credible elections in Nigeria. He also reduced the pump price of petrol from N70 to N65 and created the Niger Delta Ministry and initiated an amnesty program for former fighters in the Niger Delta region, with a view to bringing an end to the crisis in the Niger Delta and as well as bring development to the region, while also ensuring that there is lasting peace in the region for conducive atmosphere for oil production upon which Nigeria's economy depends, to take place uninterrupted and undisturbed.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan formally became the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 6th, 2010, following the formal announcement of the the death of his boss, Alhaji Musa Yar'Adua.
The circumstances behind the emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria and the consideration that he was from an humble background made the expectations of Nigerians from him to be very high. As it were, he came to power at a time Nigeria was facing numerous challenges in every facet of the country's national life and many Nigerians had expected him to proffer solutions to most, if not all the daunting challenges facing the country.
Amongst the monstrous challenges plaguing Nigeria then (and even now) were/are insecurity (especially the menace of Boko Haram), unemployment, poor state of economy, corruption on the part of state officials, challenges in power and energy sectors and so on. It is no longer news that president Jonathan has not been able, in the last five years to fix all these aforementioned challenges facing Nigeria.
Dr Jonathan's actions and in-actions regarding various national issues contributed to the failure of his administration. Chief amongst these were his inability to defeat Boko Haram, the kidnap of Chibok school girls, the Nigeria Immigration saga that led to the death of about twenty Nigerian job seekers and so on. To be fair to Jonathan, he put in efforts at fixing some of these challenges, but, his inability to fix them did not go down well with Nigerians and made many to vote against him in the last presidential election. I shall turn to the second factor, the resolve of Northerners to take power back.
It is not arguable that the North was instrumental to the emergence of General Olusegun Obasanjo as the president of Nigeria in 1999. As stated above, Obasanjo spent eight years in power. Under the zoning formula of the Peoples Democratic Party, a Northerner was supposed to spend eight years as president of Nigeria to balance the dynamics of ethnic and regional politics in Nigeria. It has also been noted above that President Yar'Adua, the Northerner who succeeded Obasanjo in 2007, died in 2010 in office. As required by the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, Yar'Adua was succeed by his then vice president, Dr Jonathan, a Southerner. The emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, as a consequence of Yar'Adua's death did not go augur well with the North. I do not intend to undertake a chronicle of the political drama that played out in the Nigerian power arena during Yar'Adua illness and even after his death as that is known to even a casual observer of Nigerian politics. However, it is well known that the North felt short-challenged by the non adherence to PDP zoning arrangement, following the death of their kinsman and the the rise of Jonathan to the office of the number citizen of Nigeria. This was the beginning of Jonathan's political problem which largely culminated in his defeat in the last presidential election in Nigeria.
To buttress the point above, some northern leaders did everything possible to undermine Jonathan's person as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This can be found in the hostile and unfriendly attitude and posture of some of them towards him. Most notable act of aggression from the North was the threat by some northern leaders to make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan. It is believed also that the memo released by the impeached governor of Adamawa, Murtala Nyako, was a handiwork of the entire North and that it was an indication of the non acceptance of Jonathan's government and show of hostility by the North to him.
To add salt to injury, Dr Jonathan, whom the core North sees as a USURPER, enjoying a mandate supposedly meant for the North, indicated his interest to contest in the 2015 presidential election with a view to be re-elected as president by Nigerians. This decision by Jonathan, was to the North, the last straw that broke the camel's back.
The presidential election had come and gone. The election saw the defeat of Jonathan and the emergence of Buhari as the president elect of Nigeria. The question now is: Was Jonathan a scapegoat of PDP's 16-year misrule or victim of North's resolve to take power back?
Watch out for an answer to this question in part 2 of this article.
N.B:
I wrote this article on 22, May 2015 and published it on my Google Plus account.
President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is the first sitting president in Nigeria to be voted out from office since the country's independence in 1960. Mixed reactions trailed the outcome of Nigeria's 2015 presidential election as expected. For some, it was unthinkable for a sitting or incumbent president to lose an election to the opposition. For, others, the loss of the election by Dr Jonathan was not a surprise. To persons in this school of thought, the failure or inability ofJonathan's government to fix the plethora of social, economic and political woes and challenges bedeviling Nigeria is more than enough reason to be voted out of office.
Government has many functions and responsibilities. These functions and responsibilities can be reduced to two: protection of lives and property of citizens of state and ensuring of their welfare. Everything a government does comes under these two functions and responsibilities. Any government that fails to live up to expectations as far as these two things are concerned does not deserves to remain in office. This is the thrust of Social Contract, between persons in government and citizens of the state.
Many local and foreign political analysts and commentators have advanced various reasons behind the defeat of Dr Jonathan by General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in the Nigeria 2015 presidential election. As to be expected, many of these analysts and commentators are of the view that the inability of Dr Jonathan to provide solutions to the myriad of problems plaguing Nigeria was the chief reason for his political fall. To some of them, the determination of the North to take back power, having lost it , following President Yar'Adua's death in May 2010 is the cardinal factor behind his defeat at the polls. There is no argument that the two reasons provided above contributed in no small measure to the political demise of President Jonathan. In the remaining part of this article, I take a critical look at these two factors that have been advanced by political experts as reasons for Jonathan's defeat and conclude with my own view as to why he lost the election.
It has been noted earlier in this piece, that the essence of government in a state is to ensure the security and welfare of citizens of the state. The Theory of Social Contract as propounded by Thomas Hobbs, a British political philosopher, has it that persons in government, are in a social contract with citizens of the state. According to Hobbs, government officials hold power in trust on behalf of citizens of the state. This implies that the consent to govern a state comes from the citizens and state officials should use power to harness and deploy state resources for the welfare and benefit of every citizen. Hobbs further opines that any government that fails to take care of the security and welfare of its citizens does not deserve to remain in power and should be dismantled or uprooted from power by citizens of the state.
To start my analysis, the problems and challenges bedeviling Nigeria are almost as old as the country herself. At the return of democracy in 1999, Nigerians were full of hope and expectations that all the countries woes under the military would soon be a thing of the past and that the country would be a better place for every Nigerian. General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd), who was the first democratically elected president of Nigeria, spent eight whooping years in power (1999-2007). H e was the first president to govern Nigeria under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Opinions differ regarding the achievements of Obasanjo as president of Nigeria for eight years. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the major challenges facing Nigeria: unemployment, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta then), corruption, weak economy, energy and power sector challenge and so on, were still there.
General Obasanjo was succeeded by late President Yar'Adua, another leader produced by the PDP. Yar' Adua's government was short-lived as the wicked hand of death took him from mother earth. Before his death however, late President Yar'Adua had the Seven Points Agenda as the cardinal state policy and road map for the development of Nigeria. During his short stay of about three years in power, Yar'Adua succeeded in instituting an electoral reform committee to reform and overhaul Nigeria's electoral system in order to bring about the conduct of free, fair and credible elections in Nigeria. He also reduced the pump price of petrol from N70 to N65 and created the Niger Delta Ministry and initiated an amnesty program for former fighters in the Niger Delta region, with a view to bringing an end to the crisis in the Niger Delta and as well as bring development to the region, while also ensuring that there is lasting peace in the region for conducive atmosphere for oil production upon which Nigeria's economy depends, to take place uninterrupted and undisturbed.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan formally became the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 6th, 2010, following the formal announcement of the the death of his boss, Alhaji Musa Yar'Adua.
The circumstances behind the emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria and the consideration that he was from an humble background made the expectations of Nigerians from him to be very high. As it were, he came to power at a time Nigeria was facing numerous challenges in every facet of the country's national life and many Nigerians had expected him to proffer solutions to most, if not all the daunting challenges facing the country.
Amongst the monstrous challenges plaguing Nigeria then (and even now) were/are insecurity (especially the menace of Boko Haram), unemployment, poor state of economy, corruption on the part of state officials, challenges in power and energy sectors and so on. It is no longer news that president Jonathan has not been able, in the last five years to fix all these aforementioned challenges facing Nigeria.
Dr Jonathan's actions and in-actions regarding various national issues contributed to the failure of his administration. Chief amongst these were his inability to defeat Boko Haram, the kidnap of Chibok school girls, the Nigeria Immigration saga that led to the death of about twenty Nigerian job seekers and so on. To be fair to Jonathan, he put in efforts at fixing some of these challenges, but, his inability to fix them did not go down well with Nigerians and made many to vote against him in the last presidential election. I shall turn to the second factor, the resolve of Northerners to take power back.
It is not arguable that the North was instrumental to the emergence of General Olusegun Obasanjo as the president of Nigeria in 1999. As stated above, Obasanjo spent eight years in power. Under the zoning formula of the Peoples Democratic Party, a Northerner was supposed to spend eight years as president of Nigeria to balance the dynamics of ethnic and regional politics in Nigeria. It has also been noted above that President Yar'Adua, the Northerner who succeeded Obasanjo in 2007, died in 2010 in office. As required by the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, Yar'Adua was succeed by his then vice president, Dr Jonathan, a Southerner. The emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, as a consequence of Yar'Adua's death did not go augur well with the North. I do not intend to undertake a chronicle of the political drama that played out in the Nigerian power arena during Yar'Adua illness and even after his death as that is known to even a casual observer of Nigerian politics. However, it is well known that the North felt short-challenged by the non adherence to PDP zoning arrangement, following the death of their kinsman and the the rise of Jonathan to the office of the number citizen of Nigeria. This was the beginning of Jonathan's political problem which largely culminated in his defeat in the last presidential election in Nigeria.
To buttress the point above, some northern leaders did everything possible to undermine Jonathan's person as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This can be found in the hostile and unfriendly attitude and posture of some of them towards him. Most notable act of aggression from the North was the threat by some northern leaders to make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan. It is believed also that the memo released by the impeached governor of Adamawa, Murtala Nyako, was a handiwork of the entire North and that it was an indication of the non acceptance of Jonathan's government and show of hostility by the North to him.
To add salt to injury, Dr Jonathan, whom the core North sees as a USURPER, enjoying a mandate supposedly meant for the North, indicated his interest to contest in the 2015 presidential election with a view to be re-elected as president by Nigerians. This decision by Jonathan, was to the North, the last straw that broke the camel's back.
The presidential election had come and gone. The election saw the defeat of Jonathan and the emergence of Buhari as the president elect of Nigeria. The question now is: Was Jonathan a scapegoat of PDP's 16-year misrule or victim of North's resolve to take power back?
Watch out for an answer to this question in part 2 of this article.
N.B:
I wrote this article on 22, May 2015 and published it on my Google Plus account.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 2.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16 -YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 2.
In attempting to answer the question as to whether Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP 16-year misrule or victim of the resolve of the people of Northern Nigeria to take power back, it is imperative and appropriate to take a cursory look at the meaning of scapegoat. After this, I shall examine the last sixteen years of PDP rule in Nigeria, with emphasis on their inability to provide solutions to the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria, as well as the loss of power by the North in 2010 as a result of the death of their son and kinsman, late Musa Yar'Adua, and how that uttered the balance of power in Nigerian politics in favour of the South-South region of Nigeria, at the expense of the North.
Here are some of the definitions of scapegoat. Google defines scapegoat as ''A person or group that is made to bear the blame for others''. Marriam Webster Dictionary defines scapegoat as ''A person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done''.
As noted in part 1 of this article, the Peoples Democratic People (PDP), was the ruling party in Nigeria from 1999 to 2015. In 1999 when the PDP took over power in Nigeria, there were numerous social, economic and political challenges bedeviling Nigeria as a state. The essence of a government in a state is to harness and deploy state resources to bring about overall national growth and development, for the good and benefit of citizens of the state. Against this backdrop, at the return of democratic rule in 1999, there were huge expectations on the part of Nigerians from their government to solve most, if not all the challenges plaguing the country from independence through the military era, to the end of military rule in 1999.
The first beneficiary of power in Nigeria, at the return of democracy in Nigeria, was Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. He was in power under the umbrella of the PDP, for two consecutive tenures of four years each from 1999-2007, that was for a period of eight years. Many local and international analysts and commentators on Nigeria still differ on Obasanjo's achievements in eight years. However, amongst other things, it was under him that the telicom sector was privatized and this saw the coming of private telicom companies like MTN, ECONET (now AIRTELL), GLO, and so on, into the Nigerian telecommunication market. Telecom services are now available to almost 70% of Nigerians and the rigours and difficulties associated with access to telecom services during the days of Nigerian Telecommunication Limited (NITEL), a monopoly telecom company that was owned by the Nigerian government are no longer there. Chief Obasanjo was also said to have left about $45 billion in Nigeria's foreign reserves as at the time he was leaving power in 2007. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the challenges of unemployment, corruption in government, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta), energy and refineries, power sector failure (even after claiming to have spent over $16 billion on power generation) and impunity were still very much high in Nigeria.
Late President Yar' Adua, who succeeded Chief Obasanjo in May 2007, had a short-lived government of less than three years. He became incapacitated in November 2009 and died in May 2010. He was however, able to reduce the price of petrol from 70 Naira to 65 Naira, set up amnesty programme for former fighters in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria; create the Ministry of Niger Delta to bring about economic and social development of the the oil producing region of Nigeria, amongst other things.
Dr Jonathan succeeded late Musa Yar'Adua in May 2010 following the former's death. The challenges of insecurity, corruption, power/energy sectors failure, weak and mono-product economy, and so on were very much alive at the time of Jonathan's ascension to power in 2010. He completed late Yar'Adua's first tenure and contested in 2011, emerging victorious. It would not amount to an exaggeration to say that there were high expectations from Nigerians for Jonathan to fix Nigeria in view of the numerous woes confronting the country and the circumstances surrounding his ascendancy to power. The Jonathan administration will come to and end on May 29, 2015. That Nigeria now faces more troubles in every area of her national life than she did in 2010 is a pointer to the fact that Jonathan's government has not been able to fix the country in the last five years. As it were the challenges of insecurity (Boko Haram), corruption, power/energy crises, impunity in our national life, unemployment and so on, still display their ugly heads in Nigeria now, more than ever before. I now turn to the northern factor.
Some political experts have said that Dr Jonathan lost the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to General Buhari (rtd) because of the resolve of the core Muslim North of Nigeria to take power back having lost it in 2010 as a consequence of the death of their son and kinsman, Musa Yar'Adua. This created room for Dr Jonathan, a Southerner, to become the president of Nigeria. The rise of Jonathan to the office of the number one citizen of the federal republic of Nigeria did not go down well with the core Muslim North of Nigeria. The North had argued that another Northern be made to continue as president of Nigeria in fulfillment of the purported PDP's zoning agreement, which provided for power rotation between the Northern and the Southern parts of Nigeria. Unfortunately for the North, the Nigerian constitution, the supreme law of the country, stipulates that the vice president of Nigeria should be swore in as substantive president of the country in the event of the death of the president and commander-in-chief of armed forces of the country. The constitution held sway and saw the emergence of Dr Jonathan
as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This did not go down well with Northerners, who felt short-changed and also saw Jonathan as an usurper and an illegitimate president enjoying a mandate 'SUPPOSEDLY' meant for the North. This the beginning of Jonathan's political problem as president of Nigeria.
In conclusion, the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party leadership to fix Nigeria in sixteen years and give better and quality life to Nigerians contributed immensely to their defeat in the last general election in Nigeria. From the definitions of scapegoat above, it would not be completely right and accurate to submit that Dr Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. This is because scapegoat suggests innocence and non involvement on the part of the person that is been blamed for what other have done. In the case of Nigeria, Jonathan was a president under the umbrella of PDP like Obasanjo and late Yar'Adua. Altogether, the PDP spent sixteen years in power without been able to fix the woes facing Nigeria. It would be more sensible to talk about the collective failure of PDP as a party than to talk about Jonathan as a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. The reality is that Nigerians were fed up and frustrated with the PDP and resorted to an alternative, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Now, on whether Dr Jonathan is a victim of North's resolve to take over power at the centre, the reality as has been noted earlier, is that the North was not happy about Yar'Adua death because it made them lose power and ultimately saw the emergence of Jonathan as president of Nigeria. The North that had spent about forty years in power, since Nigeria's independence, fifty five years ago, only had access to it for a paltry three years (Yar'Adua's short-lived tenure) in the last sixteen years. It is imperative to note that the northern part of Nigeria has never joked with power since Nigeria's independence in1960, in view of the economic challenges faced by the region as a consequence of natural factors. This is because power grants them unlimited and unfettered access to Nigeria's oil and other resources and northern politicians control about 85% of oil blocks ownership in the Nigeria. More so, Northerners believe that only 'ONE OF THEIR OWN' can and will protect their political and economic interests in Nigeria. This explains their hostile disposition towards Jonathan's government since 2010. It is my candid opinion that the 2015 presidential election was a 'now or never' moment for the North. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude that the determination of northern political elite to take back power was a more decisive factor that led to the defeat of Dr Jonathan. Put succinctly, while I agree that inability of Jonathan to fix the catalog of woes in the Nigerian social, economic and political sectors led to his defeat, I am of the strong opinion that North's resolve to take power back at all cost was the key factor behind his political fall.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a Historian, HMO Officer/PRO, Blogger, Analyst and Commentator on national and international affairs. The views expressed in this article are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any form of errors that may be found in the article.
In attempting to answer the question as to whether Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP 16-year misrule or victim of the resolve of the people of Northern Nigeria to take power back, it is imperative and appropriate to take a cursory look at the meaning of scapegoat. After this, I shall examine the last sixteen years of PDP rule in Nigeria, with emphasis on their inability to provide solutions to the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria, as well as the loss of power by the North in 2010 as a result of the death of their son and kinsman, late Musa Yar'Adua, and how that uttered the balance of power in Nigerian politics in favour of the South-South region of Nigeria, at the expense of the North.
Here are some of the definitions of scapegoat. Google defines scapegoat as ''A person or group that is made to bear the blame for others''. Marriam Webster Dictionary defines scapegoat as ''A person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done''.
As noted in part 1 of this article, the Peoples Democratic People (PDP), was the ruling party in Nigeria from 1999 to 2015. In 1999 when the PDP took over power in Nigeria, there were numerous social, economic and political challenges bedeviling Nigeria as a state. The essence of a government in a state is to harness and deploy state resources to bring about overall national growth and development, for the good and benefit of citizens of the state. Against this backdrop, at the return of democratic rule in 1999, there were huge expectations on the part of Nigerians from their government to solve most, if not all the challenges plaguing the country from independence through the military era, to the end of military rule in 1999.
The first beneficiary of power in Nigeria, at the return of democracy in Nigeria, was Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. He was in power under the umbrella of the PDP, for two consecutive tenures of four years each from 1999-2007, that was for a period of eight years. Many local and international analysts and commentators on Nigeria still differ on Obasanjo's achievements in eight years. However, amongst other things, it was under him that the telicom sector was privatized and this saw the coming of private telicom companies like MTN, ECONET (now AIRTELL), GLO, and so on, into the Nigerian telecommunication market. Telecom services are now available to almost 70% of Nigerians and the rigours and difficulties associated with access to telecom services during the days of Nigerian Telecommunication Limited (NITEL), a monopoly telecom company that was owned by the Nigerian government are no longer there. Chief Obasanjo was also said to have left about $45 billion in Nigeria's foreign reserves as at the time he was leaving power in 2007. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the challenges of unemployment, corruption in government, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta), energy and refineries, power sector failure (even after claiming to have spent over $16 billion on power generation) and impunity were still very much high in Nigeria.
Late President Yar' Adua, who succeeded Chief Obasanjo in May 2007, had a short-lived government of less than three years. He became incapacitated in November 2009 and died in May 2010. He was however, able to reduce the price of petrol from 70 Naira to 65 Naira, set up amnesty programme for former fighters in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria; create the Ministry of Niger Delta to bring about economic and social development of the the oil producing region of Nigeria, amongst other things.
Dr Jonathan succeeded late Musa Yar'Adua in May 2010 following the former's death. The challenges of insecurity, corruption, power/energy sectors failure, weak and mono-product economy, and so on were very much alive at the time of Jonathan's ascension to power in 2010. He completed late Yar'Adua's first tenure and contested in 2011, emerging victorious. It would not amount to an exaggeration to say that there were high expectations from Nigerians for Jonathan to fix Nigeria in view of the numerous woes confronting the country and the circumstances surrounding his ascendancy to power. The Jonathan administration will come to and end on May 29, 2015. That Nigeria now faces more troubles in every area of her national life than she did in 2010 is a pointer to the fact that Jonathan's government has not been able to fix the country in the last five years. As it were the challenges of insecurity (Boko Haram), corruption, power/energy crises, impunity in our national life, unemployment and so on, still display their ugly heads in Nigeria now, more than ever before. I now turn to the northern factor.
Some political experts have said that Dr Jonathan lost the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to General Buhari (rtd) because of the resolve of the core Muslim North of Nigeria to take power back having lost it in 2010 as a consequence of the death of their son and kinsman, Musa Yar'Adua. This created room for Dr Jonathan, a Southerner, to become the president of Nigeria. The rise of Jonathan to the office of the number one citizen of the federal republic of Nigeria did not go down well with the core Muslim North of Nigeria. The North had argued that another Northern be made to continue as president of Nigeria in fulfillment of the purported PDP's zoning agreement, which provided for power rotation between the Northern and the Southern parts of Nigeria. Unfortunately for the North, the Nigerian constitution, the supreme law of the country, stipulates that the vice president of Nigeria should be swore in as substantive president of the country in the event of the death of the president and commander-in-chief of armed forces of the country. The constitution held sway and saw the emergence of Dr Jonathan
as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This did not go down well with Northerners, who felt short-changed and also saw Jonathan as an usurper and an illegitimate president enjoying a mandate 'SUPPOSEDLY' meant for the North. This the beginning of Jonathan's political problem as president of Nigeria.
In conclusion, the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party leadership to fix Nigeria in sixteen years and give better and quality life to Nigerians contributed immensely to their defeat in the last general election in Nigeria. From the definitions of scapegoat above, it would not be completely right and accurate to submit that Dr Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. This is because scapegoat suggests innocence and non involvement on the part of the person that is been blamed for what other have done. In the case of Nigeria, Jonathan was a president under the umbrella of PDP like Obasanjo and late Yar'Adua. Altogether, the PDP spent sixteen years in power without been able to fix the woes facing Nigeria. It would be more sensible to talk about the collective failure of PDP as a party than to talk about Jonathan as a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. The reality is that Nigerians were fed up and frustrated with the PDP and resorted to an alternative, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Now, on whether Dr Jonathan is a victim of North's resolve to take over power at the centre, the reality as has been noted earlier, is that the North was not happy about Yar'Adua death because it made them lose power and ultimately saw the emergence of Jonathan as president of Nigeria. The North that had spent about forty years in power, since Nigeria's independence, fifty five years ago, only had access to it for a paltry three years (Yar'Adua's short-lived tenure) in the last sixteen years. It is imperative to note that the northern part of Nigeria has never joked with power since Nigeria's independence in1960, in view of the economic challenges faced by the region as a consequence of natural factors. This is because power grants them unlimited and unfettered access to Nigeria's oil and other resources and northern politicians control about 85% of oil blocks ownership in the Nigeria. More so, Northerners believe that only 'ONE OF THEIR OWN' can and will protect their political and economic interests in Nigeria. This explains their hostile disposition towards Jonathan's government since 2010. It is my candid opinion that the 2015 presidential election was a 'now or never' moment for the North. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude that the determination of northern political elite to take back power was a more decisive factor that led to the defeat of Dr Jonathan. Put succinctly, while I agree that inability of Jonathan to fix the catalog of woes in the Nigerian social, economic and political sectors led to his defeat, I am of the strong opinion that North's resolve to take power back at all cost was the key factor behind his political fall.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a Historian, HMO Officer/PRO, Blogger, Analyst and Commentator on national and international affairs. The views expressed in this article are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any form of errors that may be found in the article.
Wednesday, 4 November 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)