These are not easy times for Nigerian Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland, Dr. Kemafo Nonyerem Chikwe. Caught in the web of a controversy in faraway Dublin, she is expected to defend herself over her denial of the existence of the spectre of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria. The whole saga began when a Nigerian illegal alien in Ireland, one Ms Pamela Izevbekhai, faced a threat of deportation back to Nigeria. She sued the Irish government, arguing that if she was forced back to this country, her two daughters, Naomi (7) and Jemima (6), would be subjected to female circumcision. She also claimed that another daughter, Elizabeth, died from blood loss as a result of the procedure.
Izevbekhai’s case caused a whirlwind of controversy, involving the media, human right groups, the government and the courts. The protracted legal battle raised a lot of many issues, all of which eventually defined what it means to be a Nigerian. Let’s start with Ambassador Chikwe’s defence of her country. In an interview she granted the Irish Times, published on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, the ambassador insisted that FGM was a “non-existent issue” in Nigeria and she accused Izevbekhai of “disparaging” her home country. Izevbekhai, she fumed, “has selfishly disparaged Nigeria. She has dented the image of the nation, making it look like a barbaric country . . . and she has also damaged the chances of people who may be seeking asylum through legitimate means by creating doubts in the minds of the authorities.” According to her, “FGM happens to be an ancient practice that is no longer in the consciousness of Nigerians. It is something that is completely insignificant in the present Nigerian culture.”
Now, that’s where Chikwe shot off the mark. The truth is that FGM is still prevalent in almost all communities in Nigeria, with differences only in the level of practice. While it is higher in some societies or sections of the country, it is less in others. Only yesterday I threw the question to a group of Nigerian journalists, who hailed from different cultural backgrounds, asking them if the FGM occurs in their communities. The answer was in the affirmative. They said even though the practice has reduced, it is still prevalent.
This confirms the official findings of the Federal Government last year, which told a United Nations committee that the prevalence rate of FGM in the country was 32 percent, and that in some regions the figure was as high as 65 percent. In a response to queries last May from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the government cited the findings of a survey carried out by its own National Bureau of Statistics in 2006. “The findings revealed that 32.6 percent was the prevalence rate of FGM in Nigeria. Surprisingly, the rate was higher in the urban (40.0 percent) than in the rural areas (29.0 percent) of the country,” the submission from the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development said. “It was also higher in the southern than in the northern states. While the South-South, South-West and South-East recorded 46.7 percent, 65 percent and 58.3 percent respectively, the North-Central, North-West and North-East recorded 14.5 percent, 2.0 percent and 1.7 percent respectively.”
Stressing its commitment to promote and protect women’s rights, the government pointed to several initiatives taken towards eliminating female circumcision. These included the passing of legislation in 11 states to prohibit the practice and training on prevention for nurse tutors. The report also mentioned that since 2004 the Federal Ministry of Health had marked the annual “FGM Day”, while information campaigns had increased public awareness on the issue.
Despite this commitment a separate report sent to the UN committee in October 2006 noted that the government’s aspirations that all citizens be treated as equal under the law were “limited in fulfilment” because of the complexity of the Nigerian legal system. “Even where statutory laws exist to outlaw some of these inimical customary and religious practices, practical experience and evidence abound that enforcement level is negligible,” it said, referring to practices such as early marriage, FGM and widowhood rites.
In its concluding observations, issued in July 2008, the UN committee noted the “continued high incidence of FGM in some areas of the country” and urged the government to prohibit the practice. A separate report published in 2007 by the World Health Organisation found that FGM was “widespread” in Nigeria, and varied from one state to another.
Where was Ambassador Chikwe when these official findings were compiled and published? Surprisingly, in her frantic effort to present Nigeria as a 21st century model of protecting women’s rights, she has questioned the veracity of the investigative reports cited above. “Whoever wrote that report is lying about Nigeria and is not patriotic. They are doing it for a purpose. I can assure you whoever wrote this report thought that it would be a way of attracting UN funds and that is the truth,” she told RTE’s ‘Would You Believe’ programme.
I agree with Amnesty International’s executive director Colm O’Gorman that these claims by Ambassador Chikwe are “bizarre and not credible”. It is clearly a case of an ostrich hiding its face in the sand, while leaving its rump in the air. This self-denial was couched in ignorance and supercilious pride in Chikwe’s Nigerianness. In an age of rebranding, our diplomats should research a position before making comments that could turn out to back-fire. Our ambassador in Ireland could have owned up to the truth about the actual existence of FGM in the country, which everyone knows about. Saying it doesn’t exist is a bare-faced lie, and to deny the veracity of the government’s own findings on the ugly practice is adding salt to injury.
This does not, however, mean that Pamela Izevbekhai has a water-tight case against her deportation. The fact of the existence of FGM does not necessarily support her claim of a direct threat to her daughters. First, she’s fighting her deportation because she wants to remain in Europe at all costs where, I assume, she would continue to lead an easy life, which is probably more laid-back than the harsh realities of living in Nigeria. But then her claims are full of bare-faced propaganda and lies. They exposed her desire to live in Ireland even while hiding under the canopy of lies.
In her defence, Izevbekhai claims that her daughters would be circumcised upon arrival, as if girls are being lined up for circumcision all along the streets. The practice exists, yes, but it does so in more traditional communities and among less “educated” or less “exposed” people. With increased awareness, thanks to government initiatives and campaigns of enlightenment by many NGOs, the practice is fast waning. A woman of Izevbekhai’s standing, leading a middle class life in the city, would not have her daughters seized from her by fuming relatives bent on mutilating them.
Proof that Izevbakhai is lying was her recent attempt to sway the Irish Supreme Court with fake documents. Boxed into a corner, she admitted that the documents used in a series of legal challenges had been forged. The counterfeit documents include one purporting to be her daughter Elizabeth’s death certificate, and an affidavit from one Dr Joseph Unokanjo, an obstetrician who purportedly treated the child. In a recently lodged affidavit, Unokanjo of the Isioma Hospital in Lagos confirmed that Izevbekhai was his patient but denied he had signed the previous affidavit or the death certificate. “I can confirm that no baby called Elizabeth Izevbekhai was delivered by me at Isioma Hospital and no baby of that name has ever been treated by me for any ailment, including post-circumcision complications,” the affidavit reads. As a result of this admission, Izevbekhai’s two lawyers withdrew from the case in frustration. They could not do it “the Nigerian way.”
It is clear that one illegal alien’s lie, concocted to gain asylum in a rich country, was countered by a diplomat’s lie to puncture the first lie. Both have not done good to the image of Nigeria, which the government is bent on “rebranding.” They have both shown to the world that Nigerian citizens, at every level, can trade in untruth in order to score a cheap point, which is always self-serving. They consider it a duty. That is one way to define what it means to be a Nigerian.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Bashir Sanda, sabon jagoran tace finafinai a Zamfara
Gwamnatin Jihar Zamfara ta nada sabon Babban Shugaba (wato Executive Chairman) na sabuwar Hukumar Tace Finafinai da Dab'i ta Jihar Zamfara. Wanda aka nadan shi ne wani abokin mu, marubuci, mai suna Alhaji Bashir Sanda Gusau.
Wasun ku za su tuno da cewa Bashir marubucin littattafan hikaya ne, wadanda su ka hada da "Auren Zamani." To kuma ya k'ware a fagen aikin jarida, inda har ya kai matsayin Manajan Darakta a kamfanin jarida mallakar jihar su, wato "The Weekly Legacy."
Can kwanan baya Gwamna Mahmud Aliyu Shinkafi (MAS) ya tsige Bashir a kan dalilin wai ya yi rubutu a jaridar inda ya soki Shugaban Kasa Yar'Adua. Hakan ya bakanta ran 'ya'yan kungiyar mu ta editocin Nijeriya (wato Nigerian Guild of Editors) inda mu ke ganin an yi haka ne don a hana Bashir fadin albarkacin bakin sa.
To yanzu dai Gwamna MAS ya gane kuskuren sa, ya dawo da Bashir a jikin sa, ya dora shi kan sabuwar kujera. Sakataren gwamnatin jihar, Alhaji Mamman Bawa Gusau, shi ne ya sa hannu a takardar nad'in Malam Bashir. To, addu'ar mu ita ce: Allah Ya taya riko, kuma Ya kad'e fitina, sannan Ya hana sabon shugaba aikata duk wani nau'i na zaluntar bayin Allah, amin summa amin.
Wasun ku za su tuno da cewa Bashir marubucin littattafan hikaya ne, wadanda su ka hada da "Auren Zamani." To kuma ya k'ware a fagen aikin jarida, inda har ya kai matsayin Manajan Darakta a kamfanin jarida mallakar jihar su, wato "The Weekly Legacy."
Can kwanan baya Gwamna Mahmud Aliyu Shinkafi (MAS) ya tsige Bashir a kan dalilin wai ya yi rubutu a jaridar inda ya soki Shugaban Kasa Yar'Adua. Hakan ya bakanta ran 'ya'yan kungiyar mu ta editocin Nijeriya (wato Nigerian Guild of Editors) inda mu ke ganin an yi haka ne don a hana Bashir fadin albarkacin bakin sa.
To yanzu dai Gwamna MAS ya gane kuskuren sa, ya dawo da Bashir a jikin sa, ya dora shi kan sabuwar kujera. Sakataren gwamnatin jihar, Alhaji Mamman Bawa Gusau, shi ne ya sa hannu a takardar nad'in Malam Bashir. To, addu'ar mu ita ce: Allah Ya taya riko, kuma Ya kad'e fitina, sannan Ya hana sabon shugaba aikata duk wani nau'i na zaluntar bayin Allah, amin summa amin.
Will Yar'Adua ever become popular?
It is no longer news that our president’s popularity rating is very low. You don’t need a pollster to tell you that Malam Umaru is gaining a rating lower than Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s was between 1999 and 2003. Which means that Nigerians preferred Obasanjo during his first term than they do Yar’Adua during his own first term. And that’s bad enough for a leader whose coming onto the scene happened through a controversy. Amazingly, the environment was virtually similar. In 1999 when Obasanjo was drafted into the presidential race, the country was smarting from its biggest political catastrophe since the civil war–the threat of break-up following the June 12 debacle. Those that put their trust in Obasanjo did so largely because they saw in him a chance to appease the Yorubas and bring the country back from the precipice. I do not have to argue that Obasanjo later betrayed that trust, barely two years into his first term.
Yar’Adua didn’t have any shred of luck to begin with. Like Obasanjo, he was drafted into the presidential race most likely against his rumoured wish of retiring into farming, where he would nurse his ill-health. He became president through a heavily rigged election. Because of that, he was unpopular from day one. The fact that the man he was said to have defeated, Muhammadu Buhari, is a disciplinarian and incorrigible did not help his image. Those that cautiously trusted him hoped that he would prove his adversaries wrong by turning the nation’s ill-fortune around. They are now pained to realise that, legitimacy problem apart, the president is simply a hard sell. Many have accused him of “sleeping on duty,” a euphemism for inaction. Not without some justification. The country appears to be static, with the marriage of the president’s two daughters to state governors being counted as some of the administration’s major achievements.
Meanwhile, the sticking problems that the past government failed to solve have worsened. All the points in Yar’Adua’s de facto holy mantra–the Seven-Point Agenda–have become pointless because nothing substantial has been achieved in executing them. They are: education, power and energy, land reforms, food security, wealth creation, transportation, and security of life and property. One of them, electricity generation, is at its all-time low, leading to the collapse of businesses and unspeakable discomfort to citizens. Yar’Adua’s vow to declare an emergency in the power sector has not been fulfilled.
An issue that is not in the Agenda but is nonetheless a major thumb for the administration–the war against corruption–appears to be stuck in legalese and propaganda. Graft is endemic in spite of the EFCC’s struggle to fight it. Nigeria remains one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. While many do not regard Yar’Adua as personally corrupt, but the fact that he is surrounded by characters that are regarded as corrupt has put a question-mark on his government’s sincerity to fight corruption.
Let’s look at the basics. Nigerian roads are still death-traps. Hospitals are mere consulting clinics. Our refineries are not functioning. Armed robbery is on the increase. Prices of foodstuff have shot through the roof. As the ruling Peoples Democratic Party forces its winning streak forward, insisting on winning all the states and ruling for 60 years, the next general election has been programmed to be more heavily rigged than the last one.
The poverty index has jumped, threatening to wipe out the middle class. Majority of Nigerians hold Yar’Adua responsible for their economic woes even though this country is blighted by the global financial crisis. The world recession is, indeed, responsible for the fall in the price of oil to an abject $50 a barrel today, but what concrete achievements were made with the windfall of the past year when, by July 2008, oil sold for as high as $147 a barrel? Many believe that the windfall was frittered away on white elephant projects that have not lessened our woes.
In contrast, most Americans do not blame President Barack Obama for the poor state of the U.S. economy. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published last Tuesday, 80 percent of Americans in the poll blamed banks, financial institutions and corporations for the economic meltdown. Some 70 percent also blamed consumers for taking on too much debt and the former Bush administration for lax regulation. Only 26 percent said the Obama administration was not doing enough to turn the situation around, and this is in spite of the clear action Obama is putting in a-righting the wrongs in the U.S. economy. Still, because of his action, 64 percent said they were confident Obama’s policies will improve the economy, down from 72 percent just before he took office in January. Forty-two percent said the country was now heading in the right direction, a five-year high. Late last year, when the government of then-President George W. Bush was in its final months, as many as nine in 10 Americans said the country was heading in the wrong direction.
What would a Nigerian poll say about Yar’Adua’s role in our economy? Your guess is as good as mine. Today most Nigerians are groping in the dark, unsure of what tomorrow may bring. Almost all hope in this administration has been lost. Apart from those that benefit from the spoils of power, every other Nigerian does not see Yar’Adua as a saviour or capable of taking the country out of the present miasma. That is the verdict even in his home state of Katsina.
Does our president care about his plummeting popularity? Hardly. If he did, he would have done some things to correct his image. He would have been taking some actions, even if they are unpopular, as long as they are in the interest of the nation. But the sad fact is that the president does not seem to care about his unpopularity. Almost every step he takes is unpopular and appears self-serving. One such step was the recent rejection of the key recommendations of the Political Reform Committee. Another is the manner his rule of law jargon has given further metallic protection to high-wire criminals, many of whom are thumbing their noses at the EFCC.
To answer the question whether the president would ever become popular, we must look back on his antecedents. When he was governor, Malam Umaru did not do much in terms of performance during his first three years. That disappointed many indigenes of the state. It was only in the final year of his first term that he began to mobilise the billions of naira he had saved to develop the state. Securing a second term, he used the four years to continue with his development projects. Katsina, as a result, became a showpiece in many facets of life.
But the tiny Katsina State, almost mono-cultural, is not Nigeria. The vastness of the nation’s problems and their complexity appear to be too overwhelming for Yar’Adua. The health situation of the president does not help matters, too. If at all he harbours a secret plan to repeat the Katsina magic, it is high time he got cracking. There is no time to waste. Nigerians cannot afford to wait till his second term (which he is determined to get at all costs) before he could begin to address their problems. In the absence of that determination–and there is no evidence that anything of such nature is in the works–most Nigerians would be more comfortable with the president starting to implement just one agenda for the nation–his leaving office at the end of his first term in 2011.
---
Published in LEADERSHIP on Friday.
Pix above shows a rather unpresidential Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, his wife Turai and their daughter many decades ago
Friday, 20 March 2009
Iyan-Tama: Matters Arising
Hamisu Lamido Iyan-Tama, the famous Hausa actor and producer jailed for three months by a magistrate court in Kano, was released from prison on Monday. He had been jailed for allegedly releasing a feature film without government approval and running a filmmaking company without registration. In an open letter to the Governor of Kano State, published in this column two days after Iyan-Tama was sent to prison, I pointed out that the two charges were false and a concoction of the Kano State Censorship Board which has been waging a war of attrition against Hausa filmmakers and authors, based on a dubious claim of cleansing them of all immoralities. In that piece, I called on His Excellency, Malam Ibrahim Shekarau, to, as a matter of utmost urgency, investigate that act of gargantuan injustice and enter a no-case submission in the appeal Iyan-Tama filed at a Kano High Court, paving the way to the freeing of the actor.
A government functionary told me a day later that Malam (as the governor is widely known) had read my letter. But Iyan-Tama was left to languish in prison for almost three months until Wednesday last week when the government did exactly what I and many other folk beseeched it to do: file a no-case submission. Obviously, the governor has shown a soft heart here, but the wheel of justice in Kano, as it is everywhere else in Nigeria, is very slow. And that’s sad, considering what the actor suffered during this period. For during his incarceration, Iyan-Tama was made to suffer a lot of indignity, including a psychological warfare waged against him by the Kano State Censorship Board headed by Malam Abubakar Rabo Abdulkarim. The Director-General of the board, Rabo, whose stock in trade is a blitzkrieg of propaganda against movie practitioners, embarked on media interviews in which he justified what he clearly knew to be a travesty of justice against Iyan-Tama; he knew quite well that the plot to deal with Iyan-Tama was conceived, hatched and executed by him and a few of his cohorts, and his wish was granted by the magistrate who had proved in more ways than one that he was a willing tool to be used against anyone connected to the movie industry.
Iyan-Tama’s family was attacked at midnight by a colony of thugs, who held his wife and children hostage, threatening to kill them. The family had to flee the house in the morning. About a month later, another house connected to Iyan-Tama’s family was attacked by a group of thugs (widely thought to be the same as the first group). During this attack, the thugs even raped a female house-help, thinking she was a member of the actor’s immediate family.
Be that as it may, Iyan-Tama is now half-free. He was let out of prison this week, following a prayer to the High Court by the Kano State Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice that the court should grant him bail and order for a retrial of the case. According to the Attorney-General, Barrister Aliyu Umar, the first trial was besmirched by irregularities. Due process was not followed in the trial that led to the conviction, he said. He used very uncomplimentary terms to describe the trial conducted by a senior magistrate, Alhaji Mukhtari Ahmed, such as “improper,” “incomplete,” “a mistake,” summing up by insisting that a “more competent magistrate” should be given the case to try again. Umar told the court presided over by Justice Tani Umar: “I am not in support of the conviction in this trial. It is obvious that the trial was not completed before judgement was delivered but there and then the presiding magistrate went ahead and delivered a judgement.”
Now, these words are proof that my argument that Iyan-Tama was punished by some conspirators because of his political views (he contested the state gubernatorial seat for the 2007 election), not because he had broken any law, have been vindicated. The learned commissioner would not have made this submission flippantly, without carefully examining the facts of the case that played itself out in the magistrate court. And as a government official charged with superintending the legal field in Kano State, he must have endeavoured to discharge his duties with utmost responsibility.
Governor Shekarau deserves commendation for the confession by his government that Iyan-Tama was unjustly imprisoned. But then, there are questions that the day’s hearing brought up. One, was Barrister Umar’s submission not a clear indictment of the magistrate who jailed Iyan-Tama? By questioning the competence of Ahmed, going to the extent of asking the high court to reassign the case to another magistrate, he has clearly shown that the judge was not qualified to sit over all such cases. In this situation, does Ahmed merit serving as a judge in the service of the Kano State Government, having committed an injustice that can be successfully argued even by a baby lawyer to be a travesty of justice? Is it not more honourable to the magistrate to resign immediately or be sacked by the government? And how many more such magistrates are working in the Kano State courtrooms, handing down selfish judgements?
And what of Rabo’s war? Is it justified anymore? Is it truly meant to sanitise the filmmaking business or kill it, using weapons of emasculation at the disposal of a punitive, merciless government agency? For me, Rabo has been discredited as much as Ahmed was, and should, therefore, embrace the same fate: resign or be sacked. In more civilised climes, Rabo and Ahmed would have simply thrown in the towel, having been proved to be fraudulent.
What of the proposed retrial? Is it normal to try an accused person twice for the same charge? I am not learned, therefore, I will not question her lordship’s discretion in this. But suppose after going through the whole hog of a retrial in another court, Iyan-Tama is adjudged guilty again, would he be sentenced again (maybe for ten years!) in prison? Would that be justice?
Will Iyan-Tama be compensated for his recent illegal imprisonment? Or did he suffer for nothing? Iyan-Tama’s lawyer, Suleiman Abdulkadir, SAN, had stated that if at all a retrial was to be ordered, the government should pay N100 million as compensation to his client. I hear that the Shekarau government had feared that Iyan-Tama would demand a compensation for his unjust arraignment, hence the decision to jail him. Now the word going round is that they have dangled the sword of Damocles of the retrial option over his neck for the same purpose. If these claims are true, I doubt if that’s the best way to institute Shari’ah law in our society.
---
Published in LEADERSHIP today
A government functionary told me a day later that Malam (as the governor is widely known) had read my letter. But Iyan-Tama was left to languish in prison for almost three months until Wednesday last week when the government did exactly what I and many other folk beseeched it to do: file a no-case submission. Obviously, the governor has shown a soft heart here, but the wheel of justice in Kano, as it is everywhere else in Nigeria, is very slow. And that’s sad, considering what the actor suffered during this period. For during his incarceration, Iyan-Tama was made to suffer a lot of indignity, including a psychological warfare waged against him by the Kano State Censorship Board headed by Malam Abubakar Rabo Abdulkarim. The Director-General of the board, Rabo, whose stock in trade is a blitzkrieg of propaganda against movie practitioners, embarked on media interviews in which he justified what he clearly knew to be a travesty of justice against Iyan-Tama; he knew quite well that the plot to deal with Iyan-Tama was conceived, hatched and executed by him and a few of his cohorts, and his wish was granted by the magistrate who had proved in more ways than one that he was a willing tool to be used against anyone connected to the movie industry.
Iyan-Tama’s family was attacked at midnight by a colony of thugs, who held his wife and children hostage, threatening to kill them. The family had to flee the house in the morning. About a month later, another house connected to Iyan-Tama’s family was attacked by a group of thugs (widely thought to be the same as the first group). During this attack, the thugs even raped a female house-help, thinking she was a member of the actor’s immediate family.
Be that as it may, Iyan-Tama is now half-free. He was let out of prison this week, following a prayer to the High Court by the Kano State Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice that the court should grant him bail and order for a retrial of the case. According to the Attorney-General, Barrister Aliyu Umar, the first trial was besmirched by irregularities. Due process was not followed in the trial that led to the conviction, he said. He used very uncomplimentary terms to describe the trial conducted by a senior magistrate, Alhaji Mukhtari Ahmed, such as “improper,” “incomplete,” “a mistake,” summing up by insisting that a “more competent magistrate” should be given the case to try again. Umar told the court presided over by Justice Tani Umar: “I am not in support of the conviction in this trial. It is obvious that the trial was not completed before judgement was delivered but there and then the presiding magistrate went ahead and delivered a judgement.”
Now, these words are proof that my argument that Iyan-Tama was punished by some conspirators because of his political views (he contested the state gubernatorial seat for the 2007 election), not because he had broken any law, have been vindicated. The learned commissioner would not have made this submission flippantly, without carefully examining the facts of the case that played itself out in the magistrate court. And as a government official charged with superintending the legal field in Kano State, he must have endeavoured to discharge his duties with utmost responsibility.
Governor Shekarau deserves commendation for the confession by his government that Iyan-Tama was unjustly imprisoned. But then, there are questions that the day’s hearing brought up. One, was Barrister Umar’s submission not a clear indictment of the magistrate who jailed Iyan-Tama? By questioning the competence of Ahmed, going to the extent of asking the high court to reassign the case to another magistrate, he has clearly shown that the judge was not qualified to sit over all such cases. In this situation, does Ahmed merit serving as a judge in the service of the Kano State Government, having committed an injustice that can be successfully argued even by a baby lawyer to be a travesty of justice? Is it not more honourable to the magistrate to resign immediately or be sacked by the government? And how many more such magistrates are working in the Kano State courtrooms, handing down selfish judgements?
And what of Rabo’s war? Is it justified anymore? Is it truly meant to sanitise the filmmaking business or kill it, using weapons of emasculation at the disposal of a punitive, merciless government agency? For me, Rabo has been discredited as much as Ahmed was, and should, therefore, embrace the same fate: resign or be sacked. In more civilised climes, Rabo and Ahmed would have simply thrown in the towel, having been proved to be fraudulent.
What of the proposed retrial? Is it normal to try an accused person twice for the same charge? I am not learned, therefore, I will not question her lordship’s discretion in this. But suppose after going through the whole hog of a retrial in another court, Iyan-Tama is adjudged guilty again, would he be sentenced again (maybe for ten years!) in prison? Would that be justice?
Will Iyan-Tama be compensated for his recent illegal imprisonment? Or did he suffer for nothing? Iyan-Tama’s lawyer, Suleiman Abdulkadir, SAN, had stated that if at all a retrial was to be ordered, the government should pay N100 million as compensation to his client. I hear that the Shekarau government had feared that Iyan-Tama would demand a compensation for his unjust arraignment, hence the decision to jail him. Now the word going round is that they have dangled the sword of Damocles of the retrial option over his neck for the same purpose. If these claims are true, I doubt if that’s the best way to institute Shari’ah law in our society.
---
Published in LEADERSHIP today
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Between The Guns And Our Souls
Would you want to carry grenades in your pockets instead of groundnuts? This question was inspired by the recent proposal of an influential pressure group, the Christian Association of Nigeria, which said adult Nigerians should be allowed to carry guns. It revealed that it was considering sending a bill to the National Assembly asking lawmakers to enact a law that would permit every adult to carry arms as a way of checking "unwarranted attacks." CAN spoke against the backdrop of the "religious" crisis that rocked the otherwise calm city of Bauchi last month. Reviewing the crisis, which caused a heavy death toll, its Secretary-General, Mr. Samuel S. Salifu, thundered at a news conference: "We met this morning and we are considering sending a bill to the National Assembly to facilitate adults who are twenty-one years and above to make it legal to own arms and weapons." His expatiation of this stance, thus, "Everybody should buy his own gun," has upped the antennae of many concerned people, raising questions about his exact motive.
Anybody following the story on the Bauchi crisis would recall the anger and frustration that clouded people's perception of the ugly situation. Innocent persons on both sides of the Christian-Muslim divide were murdered in cold blood, while places of worship were desecrated. Tension grew high as insecurity pervaded the city and its environs. Many fled in search of safe havens. While the mayhem lasted, the people paid to provide security were for long nowhere to be seen. In trading blame, adherents of the two religions pointed accusing fingers at each other, even cooking up casualty figures. They ignored the fact that all "religious" crises had a double-edged knife of complicity.
CAN had a right to feel aggrieved, likewise the Muslims. What is baffling is the proposal by an otherwise intelligent man like Salifu for the further militarisation of the Nigerian society. The country is already awash with illegal weapons of all type, thereby making the crime rate to shoot through the roofs. CAN's proposal, therefore, flies in the face of good reasoning. Is the possession of guns by everyone the real solution to the violence in our country, a violence that was borne out of mundane reasons rather than any sense of religiosity? Which country solved its crime rate by giving a gun to anyone above 21?
In many American states, guns can be purchased off the counter, with minimum requirements. Now even school children own guns, even if illegally. Why? The founding fathers of America enshrined the right to own guns in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dictating that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." But that's only because they had, at the back of their mind, the challenges of frontier life in America's first 100 years. Today in the U.S., "pro-gun culture" advocates are, however, talking like Mr. Salifu; even though they do not claim to be campaigning for the right to bear arms simply because they want to protect themselves from a racial, religious, or political group, they share a belief in the fact that owning guns gives them a sense of security. Erik Luna, Associate Professor at the University of Utah College of Law, says those activists generally see people as trustworthy and believe that citizens should not be prevented from having guns unless they have proven otherwise. "They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it is good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny."
Unfortunately, America, the world's "freest" nation, has become one of the most dangerous places on earth (forget Iraq, Afghanistan or the Niger delta) because gun ownership has become a sacrosanct culture for many Americans. Examples of the negative consequences of lax or zero gun control in the West are legion. The most celebrated in recent times used to be the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999. In that tragedy, 12 students and a teacher were shot dead in a dramatic orgy of bloodletting, ending in the two young killers shooting themselves dead. Just this Wednesday, a man wiped out his family (including his mother and four relatives) and nine others in America. On the same day, a 17-year old gunman opened fire in south-western Germany, killing 16 people, including nine students, in his former high school. Back in 2006 a similar bloodbath occurred when a teenager killed 16 people and himself in another school in Germany. Compare this with Japan, where lawful ownership of firearms is rare and difficult, thereby making the violence level much lower.
We are not there yet, but we are already at the crossroads. CAN's reasoning is that religious (read: Christian) adherents would be able to defend themselves against "Muslim aggression" if they are armed. But what if you put it another way round, i.e. Muslims should own guns in order to defend themselves against "Christian aggression"? Would that not exacerbate the already fragile ties between the followers of the two major religions in the country? Besides, how can we know for sure that a gun legitimately obtained and owned by Mr. Salifu would be used purely for defensive purposes and not for aggression, robbery or assassination of a business associate? Nigerians being what they are, be sure to find many "legalised" arms being used for horrendous acts.
Understandably, CAN's suggestion was borne out of the frustration that engulfed us all in the wake of the recurrent killings in the North. The elites on both sides, wearing the toga of religiosity, are behind those ungodly acts. They have divided the nation along religious fault-lines. Today in Jos and Kaduna, for instance, people choose where to live based on their religious faith - just like in the Lebanon of old. But we were not like this before. None of the two religions supports violence against the other. A mixture of ignorance and politics created the volatile situation. Let everyone search their souls and see if their deeds and utterances are permitted by the holy books they profess to represent. A deep search would reveal that those calling themselves the soldiers of God were not appointed by Him, for God does not deal in the blood of the unknowing and the innocent. The solution is in our souls rather than in any gun we might acquire.
---
This piece was published in LEADERSHIP last Friday
Anybody following the story on the Bauchi crisis would recall the anger and frustration that clouded people's perception of the ugly situation. Innocent persons on both sides of the Christian-Muslim divide were murdered in cold blood, while places of worship were desecrated. Tension grew high as insecurity pervaded the city and its environs. Many fled in search of safe havens. While the mayhem lasted, the people paid to provide security were for long nowhere to be seen. In trading blame, adherents of the two religions pointed accusing fingers at each other, even cooking up casualty figures. They ignored the fact that all "religious" crises had a double-edged knife of complicity.
CAN had a right to feel aggrieved, likewise the Muslims. What is baffling is the proposal by an otherwise intelligent man like Salifu for the further militarisation of the Nigerian society. The country is already awash with illegal weapons of all type, thereby making the crime rate to shoot through the roofs. CAN's proposal, therefore, flies in the face of good reasoning. Is the possession of guns by everyone the real solution to the violence in our country, a violence that was borne out of mundane reasons rather than any sense of religiosity? Which country solved its crime rate by giving a gun to anyone above 21?
In many American states, guns can be purchased off the counter, with minimum requirements. Now even school children own guns, even if illegally. Why? The founding fathers of America enshrined the right to own guns in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dictating that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." But that's only because they had, at the back of their mind, the challenges of frontier life in America's first 100 years. Today in the U.S., "pro-gun culture" advocates are, however, talking like Mr. Salifu; even though they do not claim to be campaigning for the right to bear arms simply because they want to protect themselves from a racial, religious, or political group, they share a belief in the fact that owning guns gives them a sense of security. Erik Luna, Associate Professor at the University of Utah College of Law, says those activists generally see people as trustworthy and believe that citizens should not be prevented from having guns unless they have proven otherwise. "They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it is good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny."
Unfortunately, America, the world's "freest" nation, has become one of the most dangerous places on earth (forget Iraq, Afghanistan or the Niger delta) because gun ownership has become a sacrosanct culture for many Americans. Examples of the negative consequences of lax or zero gun control in the West are legion. The most celebrated in recent times used to be the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999. In that tragedy, 12 students and a teacher were shot dead in a dramatic orgy of bloodletting, ending in the two young killers shooting themselves dead. Just this Wednesday, a man wiped out his family (including his mother and four relatives) and nine others in America. On the same day, a 17-year old gunman opened fire in south-western Germany, killing 16 people, including nine students, in his former high school. Back in 2006 a similar bloodbath occurred when a teenager killed 16 people and himself in another school in Germany. Compare this with Japan, where lawful ownership of firearms is rare and difficult, thereby making the violence level much lower.
We are not there yet, but we are already at the crossroads. CAN's reasoning is that religious (read: Christian) adherents would be able to defend themselves against "Muslim aggression" if they are armed. But what if you put it another way round, i.e. Muslims should own guns in order to defend themselves against "Christian aggression"? Would that not exacerbate the already fragile ties between the followers of the two major religions in the country? Besides, how can we know for sure that a gun legitimately obtained and owned by Mr. Salifu would be used purely for defensive purposes and not for aggression, robbery or assassination of a business associate? Nigerians being what they are, be sure to find many "legalised" arms being used for horrendous acts.
Understandably, CAN's suggestion was borne out of the frustration that engulfed us all in the wake of the recurrent killings in the North. The elites on both sides, wearing the toga of religiosity, are behind those ungodly acts. They have divided the nation along religious fault-lines. Today in Jos and Kaduna, for instance, people choose where to live based on their religious faith - just like in the Lebanon of old. But we were not like this before. None of the two religions supports violence against the other. A mixture of ignorance and politics created the volatile situation. Let everyone search their souls and see if their deeds and utterances are permitted by the holy books they profess to represent. A deep search would reveal that those calling themselves the soldiers of God were not appointed by Him, for God does not deal in the blood of the unknowing and the innocent. The solution is in our souls rather than in any gun we might acquire.
---
This piece was published in LEADERSHIP last Friday
Thursday, 26 February 2009
The Slumdog Of Hope
Global audiences can be captured through local production of movies
It is the most unlikely movie to win the mythical and glorious slot of Best Film at the Oscars. But when it did, last Sunday at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, Slumdog Millionaire raised the hopes of many filmmakers around the world that their hope to make it big in the big screen business is not, after all, a vain one. They saw in producer Christian Colson and director Danny Boyle’s millennial feat that they too can attain any possible heights in moviedom.
But wait, what the heck is Slumdog Millionaire? It is a movie that tells the story of Jamal Malik, an 18 year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai, who is about to experience the biggest day of his life. With the whole nation watching, he is just one question away from winning a staggering 20 million rupees on India’s version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” But when the show breaks for the night, police arrest him on suspicion of cheating; how could a street kid know so much?
Desperate to prove his innocence, Jamal (played by Dev Patel) tells the story of his life in the slum where he and his brother grew up, of their adventures together on the road, of vicious encounters with local gangs, and of Latika, the girl he loved and lost. Each chapter of his story reveals the key to the answer to one of the game show’s questions. Intrigued by Jamal’s story, the jaded Police Inspector (played beautifully by Irfan Khan) begins to wonder what a young man with no apparent desire for riches is really doing on this game show? When the new day dawns and Jamal returns to answer the final question, the Inspector and 60 million viewers are about to find out.
Shot in Mumbai, India, with virtually amateurish cast playing side by side with Bollywood star Anil Kapoor, the two-hour-long movie was produced in the United Kingdom by Celador Films and Film4. It was released there last November 12 by Fox Searchlight Pictures and in the U.S. on January 23, 2009.
The movie wasn’t given a chance by almost all the bookmakers. It couldn’t boast of a star-studded cast. The company that first agreed to fund it withdrew at the last minute. There wasn’t even a budget for top-rate advertising blitz. Seeing their weaknesses in the hideously dog-eat-dog competitive market, the producers even considered shooting it straight to DVD and selling it in stores rather than showing it in theatres. Then, slowly and unstoppably, the word spread (mostly by word of mouth): here was a small budget movie that could challenge the big guns of Hollywood.
Audiences around the world are seeing themselves in the movie. With the global recession eating deeper into pockets and economies, people want to be reassured about life; they want to know that there is still hope. The hope of a better tomorrow does not have to come through winning promos and rafle draws, but the reflection on Jamal’s ghetto life, his battles that led him to “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?,” are in us all.
Then came the 81st Academy Awards. The underdog movie went ahead to clinch eight awards out of 10 nominations, including Best Picture, Directing, Adapted Screenplay (Simon Beaufoy), Cinematography (Anthony Dod Mantle), Sound Mixing (Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty), Film editing (Chris Dickens), Original Score (A.R. Rahman) and Original Song (A.R. Rahman). Even though it was made on a comparatively shoe-string budget (about $10 million), the film beat such productions by Hollywood heavyweights as its closest competitor, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, whose budget was ten times that of Slumdog.
This film, also known in India as Slumdog Crorepati, has proved or rather disproved so many points and demystified a lot of hitherto long-held “truths.” First, it showed that it is no longer big-budget productions that are necessary requirements for quality of a movie, its aesthetics, thematic correctness, and or audience empathy. Secondly, it dispelled the notion that to make it big in movie-making you must have the right amount of money. Slumdog was made for less than $10 million, a far cry from the budget of its nearest competitor, which was made for over $100 million.
How do we relate all these to our own home-grown movie industry? Movies in Nigeria are made in both English and local languages, principally Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. In fact, because of the plurality of language, there is no single film industry in the country; instead, we have a cacophony of cultures coming out of productions. Up north, where the Hausa movie industry’s growth has been stymied by censors, the main worry is about standardisation of production and impact on cultural mores. These are of more concern to an emerging society like ours, one which is bothered with the negative consequences of alien values. But the censorship regime in Kano has been less than honest with its declared war to sanitise the industry, often trading in doublespeak and incredible judicial violence, riding on the crest of popular sentiments.
Hausa movies are made on shoe-string budgets but many of them have shown promise of earning a global acclaim. All their makers require is further education on production expertise and finesse, as well as good money. With proper coaching, which foreign donors such as the French, the British and the American embassies in Nigeria have been willing to give (to the chagrin of local authorities), they could be made to capture the world and tell their own stories to it. This is because the Hausa society contains all the ingredients of the fairy tale notions that usually attract the global audiences of movies. If it can be done in other West African countries such as Benin, Senegal and Ghana where Suleyman Cisse and Sembene Ousmane proved their mettle, why not here?
Slumdog, which exports very many cultural baggage of contemporary India to the rest of the world, would never have been made in Kano, the hub of the Hausa moviemaking, even if its purpose was to deliver Hausa/Muslim culture to an enchanted audience abroad. The stultifying policies presently being rammed down the throats of the Hausa moviemakers are clearly meant to eliminate the moviemaking trade rather than reform it. The filmmakers are persecuted through arrests, fines and even jail terms.
This hidden target is futile, though. Its execution can only cause temporary pains for some and create great fear in the hearts of many others. At the end, however, the censorship regime will outlive its mandate and leave whatever remains of the industry. Reason: moviemaking is a global phenomenon aided by the new communication technologies. The best choice for authorities is to work on reforming it in order to conform to acceptable standards and local sensitivities rather than denigration and persecution. Let's stop the pretended slumber and wake up now.
---
This piece was published in LEADERSHIP today
Thursday, 19 February 2009
The Face Of Corruption
Where is Mr. Corruption domiciled? Is he to be found in an office, reclining in a cushion chair and enjoying air-conditioning, or in the garage sweating it out under the sun? Or does he reside in a palace with a big turban or other cultural regalia, being fanned by tireless courtesans? Or is Mr. Corruption sitting in our hearts, flowing within our veins, keeping us alive, manifesting out there in splendid mansions, vintage cars, exotic gardens and aromatic meals?
I decided to ask these questions, even if poetically, after listening to the chairman of EFCC, Mrs Farida Waziri, speak during the launch of her grand project (a la Dora Akunyili’s Rebranding Nigeria Project), called Anti-Corruption Revolution (ANCOR). The South-west zone of the ‘revolution’ kicked off on Tuesday in Lagos. The event was beamed live on prime television. It attracted dignitaries like former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku; former petroleum resources minister, Prof. Tam David-West; the colourful deputy governor of Lagos State, Mrs Sosan, and the indefatigable Prof. Dora Akunyili, information minister. It was an important event whose timing was apt. Brainstorming on the cankerworm of corruption is never a tautological task, given the fact that corruption is number one factor in the underdevelopment of this country and the way we are perceived abroad. Without corruption, Nigeria would have since attained a cardinal point of Vision 20-20-20 long ago without having to wait till 2020. But with it, it is idiotic to think that we will become one of the top 20 developed nations by that year unless, of course, if we mean to say the top 20 most backward nations.
Corruption is like a self-multiplying octopus in our national psyche. Barring predestination, it is responsible for almost all the mess that we are stuck in as a nation: bad roads, ill-equipped hospitals, under-funded educational institutions, political violence, imposition of bad rulers on the electorate, you name it. This nemesis is the reason for the loss of direction that we see in governance, the collapse of national institutions and the spiraling fall of moral values. Corruption is the ogre behind the sweeping poverty that pushes 70 percent of Nigerians below subsistence level. And poverty, which the visionary, albeit misguided, Poverty Alleviation Programme has failed woefully to reduce, thereby necessitating a Senate probe, has created cataclysms such as crime, squalor, disease and untimely death.
The questions I asked earlier on regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Corruption were predicated on Mrs Waziri’s apparent confusion when she stated, at the Tuesday event, that even though the millions of victims of corruption are well known, the face of corruption remains elusive as its perpetrators profit from obscurity and lack of transparency. By this, Madam Chairman is saying that she does not know who the corrupt Nigerians are even though she knows the victims of their criminal activities. This confession is surprising, coming from the person hired by the president to track down the perpetrators and drag them to face the law. To say that you do not know the perpetrators, in the kind of environment we have whereby ill-gotten wealth is wantonly displayed, means that the battle has been lost even before it starts.
The face of corruption is not elusive at all as the anti-graft czar claimed. The ugly face is very much available publicly, in broad daylight, gaunt and supercilious, daring anyone to touch it. What is the nickname of all those holders of public office who fearlessly display looted funds – saints or sinners? What is the source of some of the mind-boggling wealth we are seeing, owned by persons or groups that are otherwise incapable of amassing them through legitimate means?
Very often even the EFCC does come across some of the looters of the treasury. The media are awash, once in a while, with a story of such arrests and the usually hyped attempt to prosecute a suspect. After some time, the story is tucked into the inside pages and it eventually peters out. The news hawks then return to their shells to await yet another earth-shattering expose.
If Mrs Waziri is truly searching for the face of corruption, I’ll help her track it down. And it’s so simple that you’d consider it a push-over. First, she should begin by scrutinizing the face of anyone she has arrested. Since her coming on board, many high-velocity names have been nabbed by her operatives, but how many were successfully prosecuted? We were told that half a dozen state governors during the Obasanjo era were corrupt but they could not be prosecuted because of the constitutional immunity they were enjoying. Almost two years after they left office, and that privilege is gone, none of them is in jail. Instead, the ingenious minister of justice, Mr Aondoakaa, came up with the plea bargain option which the EFCC is applying in its work. According to the government, this method is cost-effective and saves time. But plea bargain, to most Nigerians, is like retrieving 10 bags from the loot of a big thief in exchange for his freedom and subsequent use of the remaining 90 bags. That, in effect, is a short cut to corruption. It further creates skepticism about the anti-corruption war and makes the citizenry to merely shrug in a resigned cynicism.
The truth is that corruption has become a national culture today, to the extent that those committing it no longer see it as an offence, while the victims of corruption regard it as a way of life. The keynote speaker at the Lagos event, Prof. David-West, had wondered why the faithful in a church or a mosque would collect donations from unscrupulous persons, knowing fully well that the source of the funds is not clean. The reason is that the faithful see such monies as normal, or as their legitimate share of the national cake. They usually reason that their “son of the soil,” the crafty donor, is bringing home the dividends of his/her contacts in high places. If they refuse to take the money, claiming some sense of purity, he would take it to a rival shrine.
Prof. David-West has poignantly put a finger on the culture of corruption in Nigeria. So much lip service has been paid to the problem to the extent that people see it as a waste of time to talk about it again. This is more so when the real perpetrators of corruption are allowed to go scot-free after being arrested. Others are enjoying the privilege of being untouchables in the war against the menace. You are punished for corruption only if you do not have the right pedigree or the right contacts. And in Nigeria, who doesn’t have powerful friends if he’s powerful enough steal? Many top shots in the country, I hear, are occupying their positions courtesy of some not-so-clean services they rendered in the past, including helping establish the government.
I wish Mrs Waziri all the best in reining in this monster. But to win the war, the EFCC chairman should begin to wage it from home, where charity usually begins. It will not help the Anti-Corruption Revolution if the citizenry see it as selective or a mere talk-shop. If you fight corruption sincerely, the people will know; if not, they will know. They have eyes and brains.
I decided to ask these questions, even if poetically, after listening to the chairman of EFCC, Mrs Farida Waziri, speak during the launch of her grand project (a la Dora Akunyili’s Rebranding Nigeria Project), called Anti-Corruption Revolution (ANCOR). The South-west zone of the ‘revolution’ kicked off on Tuesday in Lagos. The event was beamed live on prime television. It attracted dignitaries like former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku; former petroleum resources minister, Prof. Tam David-West; the colourful deputy governor of Lagos State, Mrs Sosan, and the indefatigable Prof. Dora Akunyili, information minister. It was an important event whose timing was apt. Brainstorming on the cankerworm of corruption is never a tautological task, given the fact that corruption is number one factor in the underdevelopment of this country and the way we are perceived abroad. Without corruption, Nigeria would have since attained a cardinal point of Vision 20-20-20 long ago without having to wait till 2020. But with it, it is idiotic to think that we will become one of the top 20 developed nations by that year unless, of course, if we mean to say the top 20 most backward nations.
Corruption is like a self-multiplying octopus in our national psyche. Barring predestination, it is responsible for almost all the mess that we are stuck in as a nation: bad roads, ill-equipped hospitals, under-funded educational institutions, political violence, imposition of bad rulers on the electorate, you name it. This nemesis is the reason for the loss of direction that we see in governance, the collapse of national institutions and the spiraling fall of moral values. Corruption is the ogre behind the sweeping poverty that pushes 70 percent of Nigerians below subsistence level. And poverty, which the visionary, albeit misguided, Poverty Alleviation Programme has failed woefully to reduce, thereby necessitating a Senate probe, has created cataclysms such as crime, squalor, disease and untimely death.
The questions I asked earlier on regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Corruption were predicated on Mrs Waziri’s apparent confusion when she stated, at the Tuesday event, that even though the millions of victims of corruption are well known, the face of corruption remains elusive as its perpetrators profit from obscurity and lack of transparency. By this, Madam Chairman is saying that she does not know who the corrupt Nigerians are even though she knows the victims of their criminal activities. This confession is surprising, coming from the person hired by the president to track down the perpetrators and drag them to face the law. To say that you do not know the perpetrators, in the kind of environment we have whereby ill-gotten wealth is wantonly displayed, means that the battle has been lost even before it starts.
The face of corruption is not elusive at all as the anti-graft czar claimed. The ugly face is very much available publicly, in broad daylight, gaunt and supercilious, daring anyone to touch it. What is the nickname of all those holders of public office who fearlessly display looted funds – saints or sinners? What is the source of some of the mind-boggling wealth we are seeing, owned by persons or groups that are otherwise incapable of amassing them through legitimate means?
Very often even the EFCC does come across some of the looters of the treasury. The media are awash, once in a while, with a story of such arrests and the usually hyped attempt to prosecute a suspect. After some time, the story is tucked into the inside pages and it eventually peters out. The news hawks then return to their shells to await yet another earth-shattering expose.
If Mrs Waziri is truly searching for the face of corruption, I’ll help her track it down. And it’s so simple that you’d consider it a push-over. First, she should begin by scrutinizing the face of anyone she has arrested. Since her coming on board, many high-velocity names have been nabbed by her operatives, but how many were successfully prosecuted? We were told that half a dozen state governors during the Obasanjo era were corrupt but they could not be prosecuted because of the constitutional immunity they were enjoying. Almost two years after they left office, and that privilege is gone, none of them is in jail. Instead, the ingenious minister of justice, Mr Aondoakaa, came up with the plea bargain option which the EFCC is applying in its work. According to the government, this method is cost-effective and saves time. But plea bargain, to most Nigerians, is like retrieving 10 bags from the loot of a big thief in exchange for his freedom and subsequent use of the remaining 90 bags. That, in effect, is a short cut to corruption. It further creates skepticism about the anti-corruption war and makes the citizenry to merely shrug in a resigned cynicism.
The truth is that corruption has become a national culture today, to the extent that those committing it no longer see it as an offence, while the victims of corruption regard it as a way of life. The keynote speaker at the Lagos event, Prof. David-West, had wondered why the faithful in a church or a mosque would collect donations from unscrupulous persons, knowing fully well that the source of the funds is not clean. The reason is that the faithful see such monies as normal, or as their legitimate share of the national cake. They usually reason that their “son of the soil,” the crafty donor, is bringing home the dividends of his/her contacts in high places. If they refuse to take the money, claiming some sense of purity, he would take it to a rival shrine.
Prof. David-West has poignantly put a finger on the culture of corruption in Nigeria. So much lip service has been paid to the problem to the extent that people see it as a waste of time to talk about it again. This is more so when the real perpetrators of corruption are allowed to go scot-free after being arrested. Others are enjoying the privilege of being untouchables in the war against the menace. You are punished for corruption only if you do not have the right pedigree or the right contacts. And in Nigeria, who doesn’t have powerful friends if he’s powerful enough steal? Many top shots in the country, I hear, are occupying their positions courtesy of some not-so-clean services they rendered in the past, including helping establish the government.
I wish Mrs Waziri all the best in reining in this monster. But to win the war, the EFCC chairman should begin to wage it from home, where charity usually begins. It will not help the Anti-Corruption Revolution if the citizenry see it as selective or a mere talk-shop. If you fight corruption sincerely, the people will know; if not, they will know. They have eyes and brains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)