|
Written by Abba Mahmood
|
|
Wednesday, 10 March 2010 20:11 |
|
When I wrote my piece last week entitled "Incapacity and Illegitimacy", I did not know that it would attract many reactions. From text messages, voice mails and even phone calls, I got over a hundred reactions. Those who liked it were as passionate as those who did not like it. There was a lady from the office of the minister of information who insisted that I was not fair to her principal. And I asked her to write a counter-argument pointing out what is not true or not correct and I would publish it. There was a young man who left me six voice mails and considered me "not worth being a human being". By and large, I think that piece has achieved its purpose and I stand by everything I wrote.
There was a message from somebody who is obviously very sympathetic to Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. It must be realised that I have nothing personal against Dr. Jonathan. As far as I am concerned, both Jonathan and Mallam Umaru Yar'Adua belong to the same Peoples Democratic Party that has had the opportunity and means to turn around this great country for the better in the last 10 years but has allowed us to remain stagnant and static. I am not a journalist. I am just an ordinary columnist. And, God knows, I am not interested in any personal glory. That is why even my picture does not appear on this page. I am only a concerned citizen who is desirous of positive changes in the only country I can call mine.
What is most important is for whoever has a contrary view to dazzle us with facts and figures and not to baffle us with sentiments and emotions. If the last piece was perceived as pro-Yar'Adua, then, it must have been unintentional. I was just trying to point out the wrong approach of those who are trying to unseat him. I have never read in the constitution or in any law where being sick is a crime. And if one is trying to dig the ditch of evil, one should remember to dig it wide and not deep, for the digger may be the one to fall inside.
In any case, why should I serve any narrow, personal pro-Yar'Adua interest and not our collective national interest? For one, Mallam Yar'Adua does not know how to attract loyalty. Instead, he repels it. Secondly, by most accounts, the last three years of this administration have not witnessed any qualitative improvement in the lives of our people. And, thirdly, those perceived as closest to him, the so called kitchen cabinet, have not been associated with any spectacular achievements since they came to office. Abba Sayyadi Ruma is the agriculture minister and from Ruma village to every other part of Nigeria, what improvement has he brought to this important sector? Tanimu Yakubu Kurfi is the economic adviser. He will only be remembered as one of the most arrogant and inaccessible public officials in Nigeria's history.
These are the people around Yar'Adua. They are also his greatest baggage. No. I have no reason to stick my neck out for this obviously anti-people regime. And Dr. Jonathan is constitutionally the chairman of the National Economic Council. In all honesty, what is the economic policy of this administration? Can anybody tell me? But for the singular intervention of the Central Bank governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the whole of the Yar'Adua/Jonathan regime would have been uneventful; and only God knows what the banking industry would have been like. That is why I consider Yar'Adua and Jonathan as two sides of the same coin until I am convinced otherwise As the Fulani say, an antelope will not jump and its child will only crawl.
So, I honestly, do not understand the hysterical view of those who think Jonathan should be supported and Yar'Adua should be opposed. This must be a sectional agenda which has no basis in logic. And I also cannot comprehend the calls for the removal of some military officers for giving protection to Yar'Adua when he came back from Saudi Arabia. With all the hypocritical posturing of some high government officials, can anyone blame the military for organising such secret protection for him? Was it not at the airport that Rwanda's Habyarimana was blown up, which led to the genocide in that country? Thus, if these soldiers cannot be commended, they should not be condemned.
My attention was also drawn to page 44 of the Vanguard newspaper of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, where an advertorial entitled "Southern Nigeria will go if..." was carried by a group called the Southern Protectorate Movement. In paragraph 24, they wrote that "these Northern rascals should be careful; Southerners are no fools. Recall that Lagos and Kano states were created on the same day in 1967. While Lagos state remains as a single state, Kano has since been split into three states of Kano, Katsina and Jigawa. Lagos State today has 20 local government areas while Kano, Katsina and Jigawa together have 105 LGAs and contributing nothing to the federal purse they share from".
In their conclusion, they wrote: "Therefore if the Northern elements refuse to accept Goodluck as the President of a united Nigeria, then we will gladly endorse him as the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Southern Protectorate of Nigeria. In which case, the Northern Protectorate can go with the content of the air ambulance."
First of all, either out of mischief or sheer ignorance, these people mentioned that Katsina was part of the old Kano state, which indeed is a big lie. Katsina was part of the old Kaduna State. And because Lagos has small landmass, there has never been any clamour for a new state from there since it was created in 1967. Anyway, very soon all these issues they raised will be properly addressed here.
Also, if these people are doing this to help Jonathan, then, it is counter-productive and may achieve the opposite. In the first place, how did Jonathan become acting president without the support of the North? In fact, how would he have become vice president without the North's support? And, if really he is interested in being a national leader, why is he not dissociating himself from these terribly costly adverts and calling them to order? What efforts have anyone made to create the sea or oil that is in the South and which these faceless groups are using as propaganda weapons?
We must not lose our heads just because of some individuals who are actually fighting for power and ego and not any common good. No amount of cheap blackmail or baseless intimidation can make anyone achieve his or her objectives. Nigeria will never be the same without any part or section. We must learn to accept, respect and accommodate each other in the spirit of unity and brotherhood. If Jonathan wants to be a national leader either now or in the future, he knows that he needs to build confidence, convince others to trust him by his deeds and actions and not by propaganda, lies and deceit from faceless groups. We must also know that our problems are not tribes, religions or sections but a certain corrupt class of people that have been retarding our progress since independence. God save Nigeria.
Plateau Again!
Just as I was writing this, the issue of reprisal attacks in Jos came up again. I sympathise with the victims and condemn any destruction of life and property by anybody or group. It is a most deplorable and despicable act. May God bring peace to Plateau and to our nation. Amen.
|
|
|
Written by Hannatu Musawa
|
|
Tuesday, 09 March 2010 18:17 |
|
On Sunday, in faraway Los Angeles, American female director Kathryn Bigelow made history by becoming the first woman to win the coveted Academy Award (Oscars) for Best Director. Kathryn's big win made many women the world over so proud; it came on the eve of the celebration of International Women's Day. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the occasion that was first proposed in 1910 by a German socialist leader, Clara Zetkin. In her work promoting women's rights, Mrs Zetkin urged every county to mark a special day for women with the aim of addressing gender demands. Although the initial aim of the annual celebration was to tackle various areas of gender disparity, the annual celebration is now largely dedicated to inspiring women and celebrating their achievements. In this regard, Ms Bigelow's historic triumph could not have come at a better time.
This year's International Women's Day came with the theme, "Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Progress for All". The theme is such an appropriate and vital subject of discussion, especially in a country like Nigeria where there continues to be gender inequity in the labour and employment sector. Even though the Nigerian constitution provides "equal pay for equal work without discrimination on account of sex or any other ground", discrimination and disparities still persist in the wages and opportunities for women as opposed to those of men. Every day in this country, women struggle with the impediment to professional employment and adequate salary representation. While more women are venturing into a career in male-dominated fields, they do not receive the equal opportunity, equal pay and equal treatment that men do for the same kind of work. The disparity in the treatment, opportunity and wage gap for men and women could not be more blatant in spite of the fact women tend to be just as passionate and dedicated to their work as men are.
In the private sector, it is very common to find competent women prematurely reaching a plateau in their career because of a lack of promotion. This, in many instances, is arguably due to the fact that most employers tend to favour the promotion of a male over that of a woman.
No matter which way we look at this matter, there is very little doubt that women face enormous challenges within the workforce. The genesis of the callenge lies in our cultures and the restrictions on education for women. In many communities here in Nigeria, from the very begining of their lives, women are already at a disadvantage in terms of schooling because they have no access or poor access to education. The situation is all the more dire in rural areas where educating boys is preferred to sending girls to school. In almost all Nigerian cultures, society seems more comfortable with a woman staying at home rather than being in the office or workplace.
Then, there is also the notion that women are not suitable for certain kinds of work. Although there is no law that prohibits women from working in certain sectors, save mining, the dictates of culture proscribes able females from venturing into many areas of work. But our different cultures and beliefs should not be an excuse for the subjugation of women who want to work. In many Asian countries, it is common to find women in leadership roles simply for the fact their society allows and encourages them. And it is not so much about cultural divide because the Asian community is just as authoritarian, religious and traditional as ours. Take Islamic countries that have had female presidents and prime ministers such as Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia, for instance.
I have heard the argument many times that the very nature of a woman limits and even prohibits her from being physically, emotionally and mentally built for work in an office or in a leadership position. When I have heard people speak in such a manner, I have never bothered to respond to them because I believe that such a notion is misguided at best. If one agrees with the fact that a woman is capable enough to withstand labour pain and bear children, clean the home, cook and pound yam or look after her husband, then, she is adept enough for the challenges in the workplace. Thinking clearly, making responsible decisions, whether in the office or the home, is a subjective matter determined by the personal responsibility of an individual; it has absolutely nothing to do with gender. If a woman can successfully participate in policy making and leadership in her own house, she can just as effectively exhibit those same leadership qualities and intelligence in the workplace or office.
The most erroneous and slighting notion of a woman who works is the one where a working woman is considered not to be respectable or responsible. Of all the beliefs and analysis of women, this is the most ridiculous because instead of encouraging the determination of a female who strives to succeed in a male-dominated field, she is odiously labelled. But the truth is that anybody who accuses a woman of indecency purely because she is dedicated to her work and career is simply ignorant and insecure.
The plight of single and divorced women is even worse. Unmarried women in Nigeria endure many forms of prejudice in and out of the workplace. Some years back, officials in one particular state released a directive requiring all single and divorced women working in the civil service to get married or lose their jobs. Pregnant married women in the workforce have also been victim to this kind of discrimination. It is a given that career women at some point in their lives may have to juggle and find a balance between work and family. However, some employers have been reported to dismiss female employees who become pregnant during the course of their employment. The situation was so bad that some banks required women employees to sign a bond specifying that they would not become pregnant or marry within the first three years of employment. Women who did either were usually dismissed on the theory of a breach of contract. Even in some private businesses, employers operate a get-pregnant-get-fired policy. Though labour law stipulates that all women are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave during which period they must receive at minimum 50% of their regular wages, bias against mothers and pregnant women in the workforce continues.
I once read that a human being must have occupation if he or she is not to become a nuisance to the world. By disallowing women to tap into their potential or discriminating against those who do, we limit the scope of our possibility as a people and create futility around us. The negative attitude towards women in the workforce is universally damaging with a ripple effect.
Women who have the knowledge and experience of work or career are in a good position to harness the benefits of that knowledge and exposure in educating their children, running their homes and contributing to their communities. We still have a long way to go before we can overcome the hurdles and misconceptions of women in employment. The first step must start with education because only education can change the social training that encourages our society to discriminate against women who are trying to improve their lot in life. Women have so much to offer, they should not be discriminated against. Not all women choose to work but, for those that do, they should be treated equally and with respect.
Hopefully, with exposure, social conditioning and law reform, the treatment of women in employment and leadership will keep changing in Nigeria. We should see the achievement of one woman at the Academy Awards ceremony in America as a victory for all women. I certainly do. And as women across the globe celebrate the centenary of our day, we hope the vision of that other great German woman leader 100 years ago will be a reality in every aspect of every woman's life. That way, come the next International Women's Day, we truly will be celebrating "equal rights, equal opportunities and progress for all women".
|
|
|
Written by Jerry Uwah
|
|
Monday, 08 March 2010 18:50 |
|
The economic cost of maintaining an infirm, substantive president and a healthy, acting president is mounting by the day. The fuel crisis has become a permanent phenomenon. Marketers fix the price of the product arbitrarily while the federal government stands around and doles out billions of naira in the name of subsidy to compensate the extortionists.
The militants are regrouping and have started punching holes into petroleum pipelines as the amnesty, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua's only legacy, falls apart. Capacity utilisation of the nation's ailing manufacturing arm has plummeted precipitously. By the last count in January, it had dropped to an all-time low of 27 per cent, down from 37 per cent in the last quarter of 2009. The darkness in the land has become even more extensive.
The blame for the persistent quagmire and power tussle in the presidency can be placed on the doorsteps of three major groups. The first to blame are the wise men who drafted the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The men who drafted the constitution might have mistaken Nigeria for the United States of America (USA) or the United Kingdom of Great Britain (UK). They handed a bunch of selfish employees (members of the president's cabinet) the impossible task of removing their ailing employer (the president). In the U.S., U.K. and other parts of the developed world that responsibility would have been well placed because those who take up public office have the interest of their country as their primary reason for offering to serve. When government policy conflicts with national interest their first reaction is to resign, no matter the consequence.
Cyrus Vance was America's secretary of state under former President Jimmy Carter. When Carter decided to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran through military means, the secretary of state considered the risk of a military rescue too high and pressed for diplomatic options. Vance was over-ruled by the cabinet. He resigned. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign secretary resigned in 2003 when the prime minister decided against all odds to join the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq. In those climes, people act to protect the state when government policy is in conflict with national interest.
The reverse is the case in Nigeria. The primary reason for taking up public office is the protection of personal interest. That is why the Executive Council of the Federation (EXCOF) is having problem carrying out the responsibility entrusted on it by the constitution. The constitution demands that under the circumstances that Nigeria currently finds itself, the EXCOF should declare the president incapable of carrying out his functions, thus opening the way for the National Assembly to take steps to swear in the vice president as acting president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Such a step would free the acting president from the encumbrances of inheriting a treacherous cabinet and service chiefs whose loyalty remain with the ailing substantive president.
But then, that constitutional provision places the weighty burden of firing the employer on the hapless employees. In the Nigerian concept, the president is the employer of the ministers. He is largely seen, in the words of the late Sunday Afolabi, former President Olusegun Obasanjo's one-time minister of internal affairs, as the one who 'invited them to come and eat'. Under that circumstance, only a mad man would dare to declare his employer incapable of running the shop, as the consequences could be unimaginable. In developed economies, the EXCOF would have willingly carried out its constitutional obligation and saved the country the political quagmire and its devastating economic consequences. But this is a society where personal interest overrides national interest.
The National Assembly would have seen the futility of asking an employee to sack his ailing employer when it initiated moves to amend the offending section of the constitution. I cannot blame the National Assembly for navigating the dangerous political minefield with extreme caution. The reason is that the constitution makes the process of removing an ailing president more of a relay than a sprint that depends solely on one person. The EXCOF has refused to execute the first leg of the relay by playing its constitutional role of declaring the president incapable of carrying out his functions.
That means the baton has not been handed over to the lawmakers to complete the race. The lawmakers therefore have nothing to work on. In fact the National Assembly eased the tension in the polity by slapping together what is now considered an unconstitutional mandate allowing Jonathan to act as president.
While the Senate relied on the controversial interview that ailing President Yar'Adua purportedly granted the BBC in January, the House of Representatives took the safer course of basing its resolution on the decision of the Federal High Court handed down by Dan Abutu.
It is on the basis of this that I refuse to listen to the Babel of voices bashing the House of Representatives over its handling of the crisis imposed on the nation by the selfish men and women in Yar'Adua's EXCOF. The House and its leadership have offered commendable service under very trying circumstances.
Most of the blame for the current power tussle in the presidency goes to the EXCOF itself. In the last three months, we have seen an unruly cabinet bent on self-preservation. Everything the cabinet has done is designed to maintain the status quo even at astronomical economic cost. The entire aim of the EXCOF is to be in a position to award huge contracts under an ailing president who cannot supervise their execution.
They want to keep the system lumbering along until the next election is conducted to usher in a new presidency.
The cabinet slapped together by the ailing president has committed a grave act of treasonable felony against the people of Nigeria by defiantly trampling upon the supreme law of the land. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), was once quoted as saying that the managing directors of the five banks he sacked on August 14, 2009, should be tied to the stake and shot for the mess they plunged their banks into. The CBN governor might have had Yar'Adua's cabinet in mind also.
The third to blame for the mess in which we have found ourselves is the amorphous body called Nigerian Governors’ Forum. The Forum, an unconstitutional contraption probably slapped together to check the tyranny of the Obasanjo presidency, has now become a collective presidency fashioned after the unwieldy system in the defunct Yugoslavia. The Forum arrogates power to itself and even lists its own 'no-go-areas' to the acting president. In fact, it is the Forum that truncated moves by the National Assembly to follow the constitutional process of installing Jonathan as the acting president.
The power play between the Forum and the acting president reminds me of the reaction of former Biafran leader Emeka Ojukwu to an interviewer's question. The former warlord had been asked why Biafran resistance collapsed two days after he fled Biafra. His response was that the resistance collapsed because people were able to tell Phillip Efiong, his next-in command, what they could not tell him. That probably explains the virtual seizure of the presidency by the Forum. The governors are able to tell Goodluck Jonathan what they could not tell Olusegun Obasanjo. The option is for the acting president to be more assertive and put the meddlesome governors where they belong.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 25 |
|
|
|
COMING SOON!!!!!
CHECK BACK LATER
COMING SOON!!!!
CHECK BACK LATER
|