Genderizing corruption: Dieziani would not be harshly judged if she was a man

Daily Post of 22nd Sept. 2017 reported that Nigerian frontline novelist, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, took a swipe at Nigerians for criticising former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Dieziani Alison-Madueke over fraud allegations. According to her, Dieziani’s case would not be capitalised if she was a man because stealing money is a norm practised by Nigerian politicians.

It's a great surprise that this is coming from someone in the calibre of Chimamanda Adichie who is operating at the global arena and should, ipso facto, imbibe global standards and exhibit zero-tolerance against corruption. It shows that we've got a long way to go as far as corruption war is concerned. 

Corruption is an unwanted beast-of-no-gender in a progressive society. Corruption took the deep egocentric plunge into the muddy lake and got itself messed up with stolen black gold, but someone is telling us from a high gender ground that we should just wash it clean, cloak it back in a new attire, worry less about the black gold, and give it a pat on the back on account of gender sensitivity that has no precedent whatsoever.

Ngozi, Nigerian youths are looking up to you as a literary leader but you have just disappointed them by simply genderizing a big case of corruption the same way that important public issues are normally ethnicized and religionized by unscrupulous politicians. My sister, if you argue that the system is unfair to Dieziani because she's a woman, is Col. Sambo Dasuki - for example - a man or a woman? Please don't jump into that murky political water with your presumably white regalia.

You may wish to tender apologies to the millions of Nigerian youths for disappointing them, and to the millions of corruption-averse men and WOMEN in Nigeria for offending their sensibilities.

Nigeria: Who can be considered to have committed an act of terrorism?

Following our previous post on the definition of terrorism according to the Nigerian law, let us now reason as to who can be considered, legally speaking, to have committed an act of terrorism.

According to Section 1 Subsection 2 of Nigeria's Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 and in tandem with the definition of "act of terrorism" given by Section 1 Subsection 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011:

"A person or body corporate who knowingly in or outside Nigeria directly or indirectly willingly -

(a) does, attempts or threatens any act of terrorism,

(b) commits an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

(c) omits to do anything that is reasonably necessary to prevent an act of terrorism,

(d) assists or facilitates the activities of persons engaged in an act of terrorism or is an accessory to any offence under this Act,

(e) participates as an accomplice in or contributes to the commission of any act of terrorism or offences under this Act,

(f) assists, facilitates, organizes or directs the activities of persons or organizations engaged in any act of terrorism,

(g) is an accessory to any act of terrorism, or

(h) incites, promises or induces any other person by any means whatsoever to commit any act of terrorism or any of the offences referred to in this Act,

commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to maximum of death sentence."

That's the law! What do you think in practical terms concerning the Nigeria of today?

Here is the definition of “terrorism” as provided by the Nigerian law

In the context of prevailing challenges of insecurity in all parts of Nigeria, people have been asking for the definition of “terrorism” and what exactly constitutes “terrorism”.

Different people have come up with different refractions of terrorism based on their own prisms of understanding and judgment.

Without any attempt to join issues with arguments or counter-arguments on the subject, here is the definition of “terrorism” as provided by the Nigerian law:

Section 1 Subsection 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states that: 

In this section, "act of terrorism" means an act which is deliberately done with malice, aforethought and which:

(a) may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organization;

(b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to -

(i) unduly compel a government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act,

(ii) seriously intimidate a population,

(iii)seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization, or

(iv) otherwise influence such government or international organization by intimidation or coercion; and

(c) involves or causes, as the case may be -

(i) an attack upon a person's life which may cause serious bodily harm or death;

(ii) kidnapping of a person;

(iii) destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(iv) the seizure of an aircraft, ship or other means of public or goods transport and diversion or the use of such means of transportation for any of the purposes in paragraph (b) (iv) of this subsection;

(v) the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological and chemical weapons without lawful authority;

(vi) the release of dangerous substance or causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(vii) interference with or disruption of the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(d) an act or omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within the scope of a counter terrorism protocols and conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.

Having seen the definition of terrorism from the perspective of the law of the federation, what's your view on the application of this definition to contemporary issues and happenings in the land?

Nigeria’s Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF) - Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

The Nigerian health sector has, for quite some time, been advocating for improved funding of the sector. Inadequate funding of the health sector is not peculiar to Nigeria. It was against this background that African Heads of State and Government, under the auspices of the African Union (AU), met in April 2001 in Abuja and pledged to set a target of allocating at least 15% of their annual budget to improve the health sector. The situation has not significantly improved in Nigeria and in most African countries as Nigeria sometimes allocates as low as 5% of its annual budget to health and spends about that same percentage on General Government Health Expenditure (GGHE) in relation to General Government Expenditure (GGE). Moreover, past Nigerian National Health Accounts (NHA) studies conducted (1998-2002, 2003-2005, 2006-2009, and 2010-2014) have revealed that the burden of health expenditure on the household through out-of-pocket expenses is generally as high as 70% of Total Health Expenditure (THE).

It is heartwarming to note that the efforts of stakeholders yielded dividends with the enactment and signing into law of the National Health Act 2014 The Act provides under Section 11 (1) that: “There is established the Basic Health Care Provision Fund ….” According to Section 11 (2) of the Act, the Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF) shall be financed from the following sources:

• Federal Government annual grant of not less than one percent of its Consolidated Revenue Fund;
• Grants by international donor partners; and
• Funds from any other source.

It has been almost three (3) years now since the BHCPF was established but funds are still being awaited. We appreciate the fact that Government’s revenue situation has been very weak especially in the last two years and we patriotically look forward to significant improvements soon. However, we hope that Government will make allocation of requisite funds for the Basic Health Care Provision Fund a top priority in the 2018 Annual Budget.

In anticipation of funds, the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH), the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), and the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA) have collaborated to develop Guidelines for the Administration, Disbursement, Monitoring and Fund Management of the Basic Healthcare Provision Fund 2016 This proactive action is very commendable.

While fully supporting and optimistically looking forward to the statutory transfer and release by the Federal Government of not less than one percent of the Consolidated Revenue Fund into the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, we must remember – as a popular saying goes – that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. We must not be like pro-democracy groups and NGOs who fought for democracy and subconsciously went to sleep when the return to democracy became a reality in 1999. We must be very vigilant of the administration, disbursement, utilization, and management of the Fund by relevant agencies and bodies such as the NHIS, NPHCDA, State and Federal Capital Territory Primary Health Care Boards, Local Government and Area Council Health Authorities, and the Committee to be appointed by the National Council on Health.

It is important that funds are released into the BHCPF, but of great importance also is the transparent, effective and efficient management of the funds to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Eternal vigilance is the price expected from all of us as stakeholders. 

Thank you.

Support for NIMASA’s proposed stoppage of vessels that violate Marine Pollution Annex VI ratified by the International Maritime Organisation

The Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), through its Director-General, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, disclosed on Monday, 21^st August 2017 that it would bar vessels with unacceptably high amount of sulphur in fuel that allow for emission of carbon monoxide into the air from calling at Nigeria’s seaports. Technical reports have revealed that ships contribute to emissions of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere which in turn contribute to climate change with potential negative cumulative effect on the atmosphere and the environment. It was in realization of this that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ratified Marine Pollution (Marpol) Annex VI that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from ships.

NigerianDocuments notes that NIMASA’s plan is in the right direction and that the agency is empowered to handle maritime issues like this by the enabling Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency Act 2007 that established it. We also note that NIMASA’s proposed action against such vessels that violate the Marine Pollution Annex VI is in conformity with Sustainable Development Goal 13 which aims at taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts in line with agreements made by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Forum. In the same vein, we believe that NIMASA has chosen to take the proposed action within the context of International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships which has been ratified by Nigeria’s National Assembly, viz: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and 1978 Protocol (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2007

While supporting the proposed action, we align with the concerns expressed by NIMASA and maritime stakeholders on the impacts of marine pollution and the need to address the problem with a view to improving the living conditions and standards of the people as well as conserving and maximizing Nigeria's abundant marine resources.

Preventing ‘Domino Effect’ of corruption in Nigeria through integrity-based public appointments

Preventing ‘Domino Effect’ of corruption in Nigeria through integrity-based public appointments

The dominoes are compromising! The dominoes are falling! Where is that happening? It’s on the field of play in the course of a game between the Nigerian government – represented by public officials – and corruption. And the stakes are very high. In the meantime, the dominoes are compromising, and they are falling under the weight of selfish interest, greed, narrow-mindedness, peer pressure, and primitive accumulation of wealth. Yes, more and more dominoes are compromising and falling in turns. They are indeed “corrupt dominoes” of our society. And the cumulative effect of such chain reactions of the dominoes is what one can borrow a term to refer to as the ‘Domino Effect’ of corruption in the Nigerian public space. What we are saying, in other words, is that corruption has risen to a contagious dimension.

Who are the corrupt dominoes in this circumstance? They are the paradoxical heroes of their poor and/or illiterate followers, the shameful “brides” and warlords of their communities, ethnic and religious groups, the sticky-fingered public officials, and the negative role models of backward-thinking members of the middle class. They are largely the players who constitute the government team on the field of play in a critical must-win game against corruption. They come from different places, play different parts, and operate in different ways at different frequencies. They occupy positions here and there in a strategic row of corruption in such a way that enables free flow and passage of the cankerworms and loot of corruption from one domino to the other, falling over one another, and creating a negative Domino Effect, while neutralizing, checkmating and frustrating the efforts of the non-corrupt ones who are playing to win the game. Although corrupt dominoes play on the side of government and are supposed to key into the government’s game plan against corruption, they fall easily to pressure from corruption. And as EFCC, ICPC and allied anti-corruption agencies run after the fallen dominoes, the dominoes somehow get off the hook, get dusted, and re-positioned back in the game to create the next round of Domino Effect, and the vicious cycle of corruption continues.

But, has government been quiet and lackadaisical about this scenario? No! Government has indeed established structures such as ICPC and EFCC to beam searchlights on corruption and wage war against it. Needless to say that relevant laws have been enacted by the National Assembly towards sustaining Transparency, Accountability and Anti-corruption  Government has also established, as a constitutional duty, the Code of Conduct Bureau [See Section 153 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria]. Moreover, Government has put in place a number of systems including e-payment, Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS), Treasury Single Account (TSA), Bank Verification Number (BVN), Whistleblower Policy, and Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC).

However, Government needs to do more in terms of strengthening and autonomization of existing anti-corruption agencies such as EFCC. In view of the economic, financial, political, social, moral, developmental, and other dimensions of corruption beyond the legal dimension, the influence of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation on the EFCC and any other anti-corruption body should be curtailed particularly to the extent that any such influence conflicts with the anti-corruption war and dispensation of justice.

In addition, Government needs to begin to rely on other structures, systems or strategies apart from EFCC and ICPC which mainly fight the anti-corruption war as a reactive post-mortem investigation and control. Government will gain more mileage by introducing new strategic and preventive measures to minimize corruption and reduce the burden on ICPC and EFCC. One of these measures is to ensure that people that are appointed into public posts are people of high integrity in addition to merit. We need to do away with the unproductive system of allowing individuals with serial records of corruption to get rewarded with another public post sometimes even at a higher and more sensitive level. We possibly always think that such people have changed or will change, but leopards do not change their skins. Before anybody is appointed into a public post, it would be more beneficial if we can beam light on his/her official pedigree and conduct due diligence, candidate profiling, and 360 degree performance appraisal involving his/her current and previous supervisors, superiors, subordinates, peers, trade unions, and other stakeholders. We can give this all-important responsibility to an existing agency or, at the risk of adding to the multitude of government agencies already in existence, establish a brand new Integrity Commission to be manned by people of proven integrity.

The demonstrated integrity and anti-corruption stance of President Muhammadu Buhari and those of Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo constitute enormous strengths and opportunities which must be latched on to in practical terms. In order to succeed in the anti-corruption war, beyond the great efforts of the EFCC, the President and the Vice-President will need to ‘clone’ themselves down the ladder of governance by ensuring that all public appointments they make are not only merit-based but also integrity-based. Integrity should form part of the critical yardsticks in future appointments of Ministers, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Permanent Secretaries, Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments, Chief Executives of Parastatals, Chairmen and Members of Governing Boards, and other public posts. By the time this is done, progressive state governors will also lay good examples in their states and ensure that integrity is given its pride of place and elevated as the new public order not only in public appointments but also in everything we do. The issue of integrity is a shared core value that a nation with a vision of development must not joke with. Fortunately, integrity is one of the core values of the Nigerian civil service and is also one of the seven (7) national ethics stipulated under Section 23 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria   

At this auspicious moment of the arrival of Mr. President from medical vacation, about which we are excited and grateful to God Almighty, we expect that Mr. President will change the gear, raise the bar, and begin to inject fresh blood into Government.

Reassuringly sirs, our leaders at the national and sub-national levels, Nigeria is a country of good people and, unlike the falling dominoes who have been managing our public affairs over the years, there are many qualified and credible Nigerians who believe in transparency and accountability, abhor corruption, and are willing and ready to enlist their services behind you to achieve good governance and socio-economic development. May God help us!