Connect with us

Opinion

True Federalism And Labour Issues

Published

on

Ethnic and Religious Hatred and the Deceitful Campaigns in Nigeria By Salihu Moh. Lukman

By Salihu Moh. Lukman

Background

After its March 2, 2021 National Executive Council (NEC) meeting, Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) announced that ‘should the need arise, it has empowered the National Administrative Council (NAC) to declare and enforce a national strike action especially if the legislators continue on ruinous path of moving the National Minimum wage from the Exclusive to the Concurrent Legislative List.’ In addition, the Communique of the meeting signed by the NLC President, Comrade Ayuba Wabba and Acting General Secretary, Comrade Bello Ismail also ‘condemned and rejected in its entirety the ploy to decentralise Nigeria’s judiciary through the establishment of State Judicial Councils describing the move as unpatriotic, self-serving and an attempt to throw Nigeria into judicial and social chaos.’

It is important that as a nation we are able to engage these issues with the democratic understanding that these are negotiable items based on recognising that every interested Nigerian has the inalienable right to express and canvass for positions as provided under the 1999 Constitution as amended. It is however worrisome that both the language and content of the NLC Communique fall far below the standard of NLC and smacks of undemocratic posture of intolerance and imposition. This is partly because, there is hardly any attempt to provide any justification of why minimum wage should be retained in the Exclusive List or the disadvantages of establishing State Judicial Council beyond some claims to entitlements and condemning people promoting these changes. The threat to go on strike is needless and to allege ‘attempt to throw Nigeria into judicial and social chaos’ is simply cheap blackmail. Besides, while Nigeria may not be said to be in any judicial chaos today, are we not already in some form of social chaos in the country?

Minimum Wage Challenges

No one can dispute that as a nation, we are faced with the challenge of developing a framework for minimum wage review, which should be indexed with workers productivity as well as cost of living realities. The mere fact that often it takes upward of five years for minimum wages to be reviewed in the country is both an anomaly and a reflection of our stagnant labour relations reality which also is a reflection of the weakness of the labour movement. If workers have been able to contribute their role in the nation’s revenue, why should it be difficult to ensure annual or even quarterly review of minimum wage? Part of the distortion so far is that the question of workers’ productivity is hardly a reference point in matters of wage determination especially in the public sector.

It may be convenient for the leadership of labour, including the NLC, to retain current framework of determining minimum wage based on the capacity of federal government. Unfortunately, our union leaders have weakened themselves so much that their negotiating power is hardly oriented based on knowledgeable disposition about workers input in the production process at all levels in the country. The only weapon they seem to use so often to win concessions and agreements is strike. Blackmails and muscle flexing have become an important integral strategy to discredit perceived opponents. Name calling and campaigns by the NLC leadership aimed at blocking any consideration of proposals to change our harsh realities as a nation are now very common.

Today, we have a minimum wage of N30,000, which unions have been unable to achieve implementation in many states and many private sector establishments. In fact, even at the time of negotiating the minimum wage of N30,000, there were problems of getting the old minimum wage of N18,000 in many states and private establishments implemented. Some of the states that were able to implement the minimum wage are barely surviving. Rather than objectively reviewing our challenges, our labour leaders imagined that name calling and threatening political leaders with strikes is the way to go. This is most unfortunate. NLC leadership may want to share the full picture of status of implementation of the N30,000 minimum wage, both in the public and private sectors, with Nigerians.

Elementary analysis would caution against the consequence of continuing with a centralised framework for minimum wage legislation based on using the financial capacity of the Federal Government to fix national minimum wage that is hardly informed by economic indices of work output across the country and reflecting all sectors of the economy. Such a framework can only result in either shortchanging workers in high-revenue states/areas or over-stretching employers in low-revenue states/areas. Certainly, a review of wage fixing theories would highlight these challenges and perhaps dangers.

It needs to be stated emphatically and unequivocally that although there is increased revenue in the country, which has resulted in improved financial profile of especially states and federal governments in the country, it has not favourably altered the structure of government finances. Some of the underlying factors would include factors of corruption, which the APC government of President Muhammadu Buhari is committed to fighting and has been taking initiatives. While we may debate about the level of success, it should be a welcome development to have input from our leaders of non-governmental organisations such as the NLC in terms of what needs to be done at all levels in order to strengthen our fight against corruption and therefore increase the financial capability of all governments especially at state levels to be able to accommodate increased wages for workers. In all these, beyond the lamentation against political leaders in the country on the issue of corruption, what are the specific demands of NLC on fighting corruption in the country given that it is a problem that have ravaged all sectors and all levels of society, including the labour movement?

Besides, given characteristically unstable international oil market, current levels of oil revenue are on decline. It is to the credit of the Federal Government that non-oil revenue is increasing and in the case of many states, capacity to mobilise internally generated revenue has increased. What all these suggest is that the nation should be able to assess these emerging realities and accordingly reconfigure wage determination process in recognition of revenue realities of the constituent units of our federal system and as well as ensuring that our national capacity to affirm the ability of private sector employers to operate and therefore create more employment are not undermined. Therefore, to use the capacity of the Federal Government as determining variables for minimum wage fixing would be almost suicidal.

READ ALSO: Abuja Doctors, Nurses Become First To Take AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine

Be that as it may, there are certainly challenges that need to be addressed. The challenges border on ensuring the availability of enough financial resources to guarantee higher levels of wages in the country, in the context of which issues of minimum wage can be correctly computed taking both production and cost of living indices into account. NLC should approach this based on a strategy of strengthening its own organisational capacity to negotiate improved conditions in the country and not look for easy approaches of centralised minimum wage fixing that are not sustainable, which include retention of a faulty constitutional provision such as the provision of item 34, Part 1 of Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

As it stands, item 34 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule is not sustainable and could only expose Nigerian workers to greater risks and danger. Being conversant with the internal logic influencing leadership thinking in the Nigerian trade movement, it is quite worrisome that NLC is approaching these matters less objectively. It has never been the case that workers will get justice on matters of employer/employee relations bordering on pay and entitlements with simple reference to the law. Had that been the case, there would be no need for unions. The business of unions will always be to develop strategies and carry out actions that can result in improved working conditions and better pay. These are issues bordering on workers input to the process of revenue generation.

The big worry is when matters of pay and benefits are delinked from these factors, which appears to be the logic of the NLC argument with respect to national minimum wage legislation in Nigeria. Of course, it could be argued that this has been the case, perhaps since the 1970s. That it has been the case does not make it right. What has been the tradition of NLC and Nigerian trade unions is the courage to campaign for what is right especially in relation to workers benefits and welfare. It is a matter that requires a good measure of intellectual and political capacity. The position of NLC with respect to minimum wage fixing in Nigeria is weak intellectually and politically unfounded.

Informed by the need to respond to our national challenges bordering on operating a centralised minimum wage fixing framework, the APC Committee on True Federalism argued that ‘each state should be free to decide on its level of remuneration based on its resources and productivity. In fact, the committee is of the view that all labour relational issues should be federalised, and each state is free to determine its own labour laws.’ With all our challenges, which are reflected in the failure to enforce a minimum wage legislation in many sections of the country, ideally, the leadership of the Nigerian Labour Movement should be effectively preparing itself to develop new strategies of ensuring the emergence of a new framework to strengthen a mechanism for justice in the workplace, covering issues of wages, benefits and other entitlements. They should be able to ensure that negotiations for states labour laws are properly guided by relevant international standards, including International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions.

A major difficulty is that the Nigerian Labour Movement represented by NLC and TUC are operating a centralised model of organisation whereby every issue regarding labour relations is concentrated at the national level. This has inadvertently weakened the capacity of state councils of both NLC and TUC to successfully negotiate issues affecting workers at state levels. This is also why there is so much difficulty in getting state leaders of NLC to achieve the implementation of the minimum wage even when it has become law.

It is important we recognise that our current challenges as a nation require a complete overhaul of existing frameworks. Whether in relation to minimum wage or all the other issues affecting all sectors of our national economy, we are faced with a reality that questions all the existing frameworks. Any suggestion to hang on to all the frameworks that have become source of our national pain and crisis in the country can only create more problems. In many respects, it can be argued that the question of negotiating new proposals aimed at addressing these challenges is a democratic obligation. If at all our democracy can prove its relevance and capacity to move our country forward, it is dependent on how much openness and tolerant Nigerians, including all our interest groups, can be.

Against all these, one wonders, what is the position of NLC regarding all the debate on True Federalism? Proposals of moving minimum wage to Concurrent List is only an integral part of the debate. NLC prides itself, being part of organised labour, as ‘about the only truly pan Nigerian organisation with diverse membership that cuts across tribal, ethnic and religious affiliations which has continued to speak and champion for the rights of Nigerians regardless of creed and breed.’ With all these claims why is the NLC unable to speak or intervene on the issue of blockade of supply of food items from the North to the South by Amalgamated Union of Foodstuff and Cattle Dealers of Nigeria (AUFCDN)? With AUFCDN being an affiliate of NLC, which at the time of the NLC NEC meeting (March 2) was going through very difficult times and Nigerians also going through difficult times as well, is it that the issue of blockade of food supply to the South is not an important matter requiring the attention of the NLC and perhaps a resolution in the Communique of its March 2nd NEC meeting? It is not only on the issue of minimum wage that NLC should demonstrate its nationalist credentials. Nigerians want to see a pan Nigerian NLC actively providing a united rallying point for the resolutions all our divisive challenges.

Establishment of State Judicial Council

So far, the recommendation for the establishment of State Judicial Council as contained in the report of the APC Committee on True Federalism is informed by the need to correct the anomaly of a federation that has a more or less unitary judiciary. If we are to operate a truly federal system, why should we have a critical sector such as our judiciary being over centralised? Mallam Nasir El-Rufai who was the Chairman of the APC Committee on True Federalism made this point very clear during the 50th Anniversary Lecture of Arewa House on October 31, 2020 when he stated that ‘State Judicial Councils should be established, while the National Judicial Council should be limited to the federal and appellate courts.’

Specifically, the APC True Federalism Committee recommendation is that states should have State Judicial Council, which should take over ‘the functions of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in relation to state courts. This will be more in tune with our federal system. At the same time, it will preserve the independence of the judiciary in the states through the State Judicial Council similar to the function of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in relation to federal courts.’

The APC Committee specifically argued that ‘After very careful deliberation, the committee notes that of the three arms of government, the judiciary is the most centralised. The committee therefore recommends that each state should have and control its own judiciary including appointment, promotion, discipline, transfer and remuneration of judges. The function of the National Judicial Council, NJC, should be limited to federal courts only while the constitution should be amended to establish states judicial committees to be responsible for state courts. Their powers in relation to the state courts shall be analogous to the powers of NJC in relation to federal courts. This of course will be without prejudice to inter-service transfer in which case such transferees will come under the relevant judicial service. Section 6(5)(K) should be amended to make it clear that states can establish courts to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which the states can make laws.’

What is the position of NLC regarding reforming the nation’s judiciary? The standard of NLC is that it always has a comprehensive position. If it is going to object to any proposal, it will always be within the context of advancing its own position. It is difficult to situate NLC’s objection to the establishment of State Judicial Council based on a clear proposal of how we should proceed as a nation with the task of reforming our judiciary. Or is the NLC suggesting that reforming our judiciary is not needed? It is therefore very disappointing that the voice of NLC is missing in all the debates on True Federalism or Restructuring. Perhaps on account of its absence in all these debates, all manner of divisive campaigns is going on in the country.

APC’s Response to our National Challenges

No one should deny the fact that Nigeria is going through existential challenges. What is required in the circumstance is for all patriotic citizens, organisations and leaders to step forward with proposals on how to respond to these challenges. As a party, APC Manifesto is very clear regarding its commitments to the critical challenges facing the country. Although it can be argued that it has its internal challenges, it is important to restate that unlike in the past, APC leaders and governments controlled by the party never respond to these challenges based on the strategy of imposing its positions on Nigerians. If anything, internally, there is a consultative process. It is on account of that, given the national challenge of resolving issues around the campaign for true federalism or restructuring and in line with commitments as provided in its manifesto, the APC in 2017 set up the Mallam Nasir El-Rufai-led Committee on True Federalism.

 

The committee reviewed the reports of the 2005 National Political Reform Conference and the 2014 National Conference based on which it identified thirteen (13) issues requiring some responses. The thirteen issues are – Creation of States, merger of States, Derivation Principle, Devolution of Powers, Federating Units, Fiscal Federalism & Revenue Allocation, Form of Government, Independent Candidacy, Land Tenure System, Local Government Autonomy, Power Sharing & Rotation, Resource Control and Type of Legislature.

Memoranda from Nigerians were invited and public hearings in all the six geopolitical zones of the country held. Dedicated public hearings for labour, women, youth, civil society and physically challenged groups were held. Unfortunately, both NLC and TUC did not honour invitations to the dedicated public hearings. But in many of the zonal public hearings State Councils of NLC and TUC participated. Based on all the submissions from the public hearings, the committee adopted the following recommendations:

Creation of state – creation of state is not expedient given the bureaucracy and attendant cost but recommended the need to attend to the isolated case of South East zone where there is the demand to balance states to be equal to other zones.

Merger of states – recommended constitutional provision for legal and administrative frameworks for states that may consider merger provided it does not threaten the authority or existence of the federation.

Derivation principle – recommended amendment to section 162 (2) of the constitution to allow for upward review of the current derivation formula and its adoption in respect of solid minerals and hydro power.

Fiscal federalism and revenue allocation – recommended amendment of Allocation of revenue Act 2002 to ensure upward review of current revenue sharing formula to states.

Devolution of powers – recommended the transfer of some items on the exclusive legislative lists to concurrent and residual, which include foods, drugs, poison, narcotics and psychotropic substances, fingerprints and identification of criminal records, registration of business names, labour, mines and minerals including oil field, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas, police, prisons, public holidays, railways and stamp duties be transferred to concurrent list.

Federating units – recommended retention of current political arrangements with states as federating units. In order to continue to manage constant agitation to make geo-political zones federating units, recommended that group of states can cooperate on a regional basis in line with section 5 (3) of the constitution.

Form of government – recommended continuation of the presidential system but concerns about corruption and high cost of governance should be addressed with all seriousness.

Independent candidates – recommended that anybody who wishes to contest as independent candidate can do so provided that such a person shall not be a registered member of a political party at least six (6) months before the date set for the elections, his/her nominators must not be members of registered political party, he/she pays a deposit to INEC in the same range as the non-refundable deposit fee payable to candidates sponsored by political parties to their parties, which should be determined by Act of the National Assembly and the candidate must meet other qualification requirements provided by the constitution.

Land tenure system – recommended that the land use act be retained in the constitution in the greater interest of national security and the protection of Nigeria’s arable land from international land grabbers.

Local government autonomy – recommended that LGA should be removed from the constitution and states be allowed to develop local administrative system that is relevant and peculiar to respective states.

Power sharing and rotation – recommended that the complexity of power sharing and rotation be managed at party level rather than in the constitution.

Resource control – recommended amendment of Petroleum Act, LFN 2004, Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007, Land Use Act, 1978 and Petroleum Profit Tax Act, 2007 so that states can exercise control over natural resources within their respective territories and pay taxes or royalties therefrom to federal government.

Type of legislature – recommended retention of current system but with downward review of running cost.

Other issues

Beyond the 13 issues, the committee made additional recommendations on 11 issues, which are considered necessary to strengthen Nigeria’s democracy and make it functionally appealing to wider sections of Nigerians. The two issues of minimum wage and establishment of State Judicial Council are part of the 11 recommendations, all of which came from the submissions received from Nigerians from all the public hearings across the six geo-political zones. The 11 additional recommendations are:

 

Demand for affirmation of vulnerable groups – recommended that vulnerable groups (women, youths and physically challenged persons be given adequate attention in terms of appointment in government jobs and political positions, including creating dedicated advisory role at all levels.

Citizenship – recommended a comprehensive review of all constitutional provisions on indigeneship and residency status to eliminate all the pervading primordial sentiments on citizenship and indegineship so that ethnic affiliation begin to give way to birth and residency.

Ministerial appointment – recommended amendment to section 147 (3) of the constitution to remove requirement on the president to appoint ministers from every state who must be indigene of the states.

State constitution – recommended that state constitution is not a priority.

Role of traditional rulers – recommended that each state explore ways of incorporating traditional institutions into their governance models based on which respective House of Assembly enact appropriate laws.

Community participation – support all efforts to promote increased community participation in governance within the framework of two-tier federation.

Minimum wage legislation – recommended that each state should be free to decide its remuneration based on its resources and productivity

Elections – recommended that every tier of government should have autonomy in conducting its own elections

Governance – recommended the review of scope of immunity granted to governors and deputy governors

Judiciary – recommended the creation of State Judicial Council to exercise the function of National Judicial Council in relation to state courts.

State alignment and boundary adjustment – recommended that section 8 (2) and (4) of the constitution be amended in order to subject any request for boundary adjustment to a referendum as the case with the creation of states and local governments under section 8 (1) and (3) of the constitution.

The full report of the committee was submitted to the APC National Working Committee on January 25, 2018 organised in four volumes are:

 

Volume 1: Main Report. – http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-1-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism/

Volume 2: Legislative, Executive and Other Action Plans http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-2-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism-action-plan/

Volume 3: Project Communications Report & Online Survey – http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Volume-3-Project-Communication-and-Online-Survey.pdf

Volume 4: Summary of Memoranda and Analysis of Data – http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Appendix.pdf

Volume 2 of the report contained proposed legislative bills for either constitutional amendments or changes in all the relevant laws based on the recommendations contained in the report of the APC Committee on True Federalism.

In all of these, the APC is not approaching these issues with the classic arrogance of a governing party. If anything, it can be argued that the matter is still being debated internally within the party. It can also be argued that the APC’s approach is to allow for engagement such that in the end, both with reference to minimum wage, establishment of State Judicial Council and all the other recommendations, the democratic process of negotiating these issues should determine the eventual agreement that should emerge.

No decision is made on all these issues. As far as the APC is concerned, it is Nigerians that should decide based on the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended. This should mean that the National Assembly will have the leading role and representatives of Nigerians in the National Assembly will drive the process. No doubt members of the National Assembly truly reflect our diversity as a nation. Some members of the National Assembly are as passionate as most Nigerians in terms of fast-tracking the process of resolving our challenges. Across all our parties, there are representatives who are taking initiatives to facilitate the process of resolving our challenges.

 

Certainly, Hon. Mohammed Garba Datti, member of the House of Representatives, representing Sabon Gari Federal Constituency of Kaduna State, is one person that has demonstrated abiding commitment to ensure that we are able to move our nation forward by sponsoring a bill to move minimum wage to the Concurrent Legislative List in the 1999 Constitution in line with recommendations of the report of the APC Committee on True Federalism. Being a member of APC and also one of the representatives of the 10th House of Representatives in the National Executive Committee of the APC, it is within his competence to initiate a legislative process on any of the recommendations in the APC True Federalism Committee report. Any Nigerian who disagreed with him should take advantage of the legislative process to ensure that the bill is not passed. Part of the democratic logic is that all interest groups including the NLC can activate the process of lobby and advocacy to mobilise members of the National Assembly to adopt their positions.

 

Negotiation Versus Imposition

Ultimately, the question is, are we going to negotiate these issues and emerge with agreements that reflect the choices of Nigerians? Or are we going to just dance around the issues and scheme for overpowering contending interests? If negotiation is our choice, why should disagreement become reason for condemnation? Are we negotiating to contract agreements based on capacity to win support? Or is it that we can only win the support of fellow Nigerians if we threaten perceived opponents?

Be that as it may, as democrats, we have no option but to negotiate. As far as is known, the NLC is a democratic organisation and the capacity of its leadership to negotiate is never in doubt. However, to move into the over drive mode and threaten representatives in the National Assembly with strike because individual members such as Hon. Garba Datti Mohammed, have sponsored a bill in the House of Representative on the need to move minimum wage to Concurrent List is simply unacceptable. Why should NLC reduce itself and Nigerian workers into disparaging lawmakers and calling them ‘hireling in the plot by … sponsors to disorient, injure, and exterminate Nigerian working class’?

 

This is not the NLC that is pro-active and progressive. It smacks of intolerance and project an organisation that is only interested in imposing its position. As far as NLC and its leadership are concerned, it is either you agree with them or you are against the working class. Once you disagree with them, you are declared a sell-out or anti-working class. No evidence, factual or imagined, is required. This is certainly not the NLC that used to be a true reflection of the progressive aspirations of Nigerians and to that extent therefore open to engagement based on which it is able to unconventionally provide leadership in a way that accommodates the diversity of our nation and society.

 

Is the proposed bill seeking to move minimum wage to the Concurrent Legislative List in the Nigerian Constitution not going to be subjected to public hearing? Why is the NLC not preparing to engage the public hearing? May be the best form of engagement is to prevent any public hearing from taking place with the threat of a strike. But with or without the public hearing, why is the NLC not able to deploy the strike weapon to compel resolution of all our democratic problems, including the achievement of true federalism, however it chooses to define it?

 

Conclusion

Somehow, it is difficult not to conclude that NLC and its leadership have a misplaced priority. As a union federation, its primary responsibility should be to ensure that Nigerian workers are able to have all it takes to guarantee maximum production. Wages are supposed to be the share paid to workers for their role in production. As things are in Nigeria, at all levels, production is low and in many cases wages, especially in the public sector, are hardly a function of workers’ productivity. Part of the difficulty, which our democracy must address is the question of developing the labour market. With more than 200 million population, could NLC be contented with its current low membership of far less than 20,000?

 

Beyond creating jobs, the quality of those jobs is important. The whole notion of decent jobs is compromised so long as workers don’t earn living wages. Living wages will be a far cry if the current low productivity indices are retained. The implication of what NLC is campaigning for is that current unacceptably high levels of unemployment and low wages should be retained. If the truth is to be told, the minimum wage of N30,000 in the present-day Nigeria for any family is an apology. In terms of potential, if our workers are optimally productive, minimum wage should not be anywhere less than N100,000. What is the proposal of organised labour, including NLC regarding how to increase employment, have decent wage that is indexed with both workers productivity and cost of living realities? Is it even an issue for concern for our labour leaders that workers productivity in the country is low?

 

We need to take responsibility where it matters most. Nigeria is faced with a lot of problems and the earlier we come to terms with the reality that the only way we can solve our problems is to think out of the box, the better. Resolving these issues requires a holistic approach, which should be about reviewing all our existing frameworks. If we want to be a federalist nation, centralised frameworks will completely undermine the capacity of our institutions to meet our national needs. Thinking out of the box requires that we first accept that part of why we have most of our problems, including low wages, in the country is because of existing distortions in our federal system. We need to develop our democracy and we need to ensure that as a nation we operate a truly federal system.

 

Dr. Lukman is the Director-General of the Progressive Governors Forum. But this position does not represent the view of any APC governor or the Progressive Governors Forum

Read more authentic news on our social media platforms

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Opinion

Kemi Badenoch’s Bad Knocks  On Nigeria 

Published

on

By  Hope O’Rukevbe Eghagha

One of the interesting proverbs I picked up in our General African Studies (GAS 201) course with the late Professor Jabez Olowo Ojoade in the University of Jos in 1979 was ‘it is a bastard child that points at his homestead with his left hand! The Akan people of Ghana put it this way: a bastard child points to his father’s house with his left hand’. The Yoruba say that ‘a person who points to their homestead with the left hand is not a good person’, while the Luhya of Kenya say that ‘when pointing to your village, use your right hand’. It is in the Swahili language that a sort of generalised use of the left hand is concretised when it says ‘the left hand is for personal hygiene, not for pointing!

Bastard child! Homestead! Pointing with the left hand! These three constituents and functional parts of the proverb tickled my teenage imagination to no end. What is it about the left had that it should not be used to refer to one’s family? Why is this metaphor common across the continent? Indeed, there must be something about the family, about the homestead, about one’s origins that deserves respect no matter the circumstances.

By the way, some Nigerians in the diaspora also point to Nigeria with their left hand. ‘That country’, is often used to describe the place where some spent eighteen or thirty of their lives as they tried to find their feet. So, in a sense, Kemi is simply doing what some full-blooded Nigerians do in reaction to the anomie which currently rules the land. Kemi stands out because of her delicate and prominent position in the world. We all took offence when Bully Donald Trump referred to ours as ‘shithole countries! At that level, who said what becomes very important, that is, the message is given prominence because of the stature and calibre of the messenger.

            The proverb, according to Wikipedia, is ‘often used to convey that someone who is not respectful or grateful to their roots or heritage will eventually be rejected or ostracised by their community! The left hand, we are told, is for personal hygiene. We don’t use it to give or receive gifts; we don’t use it to serve drinks or for traditionally important functions.

             In the African context, a bastard child is not one who was born out of wedlock or whose father is not known to the family. Bastard child represents a person who is disconnected from their family. Pointing to the family house with the left hand is indicative of disrespect.

            These thoughts flooded my mind when I read recently elected leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, Kemi Badenoch, gave some hard and bad knocks to Nigeria, the Nigeria Police, and governance in her Nigeria, her ancestral home. To be sure, nobody who has encountered some men of the Nigeria Police in action can fault Kemi. Her chemistry of being brutally frank is what has taken Kemi to the heights in Conservative Party politics. Whether she can indeed lead the Party to victory in an election is a different kettle of fish. As the potential leader of the British government, all cards will count when push gets to shove. Which is why Kemi should remember that no well-trained child points to the family house with the left hand.

            Nigeria is in process. It is a building site. And we started this project of disparate and different cultures fused together when the British pounced on our ancestors to create Nigeria. We look back to the years when a British monarch, King Henry VIII (1491 to 1547), who ate two of his six wives for breakfast and dinner. Wives Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed by beheading. Jane Seymour died under mysterious circumstances. Perhaps if Diana had emerged in the 15th century as wife to a British monarch, the reigning king would have sent her to the guillotine instead of the tunnel in Paris! Some British monarchs actively participated, supported, and profited from the transatlantic slave trade. British monarchs oversaw the colonisation of indigenous lands in Africa, North America, and Australia sometimes through genocide! No where in Africa, our dear left-handed and grandly insolent Kemi, would a Prime Minister allow his wife to remain in an adulterous relationship for decades as Harold Macmillan did with wife Lady Dorothy Macmillan did with the bisexual Bob Boothby in the 20th Britain!

            We may need to remind Kemi that racism still dominated policing in Britain as it does in much of the Western world. Yet, we have not painted the entire police system as being racist. Indeed, Kemi, without officialdom around her can still be profiled by a police officer if she were found driving alone in some areas of London! Her skin colour, is not typically British, I dare say. Yet, we have not said that Britain is racist. The ‘how dark’ racist discussions which precipitated Harry and Meghan fleeing the British monarchy is still very fresh and raw in our consciousness; yet, Nigeria’s Vice President has not called the British monarchy a racist institution.

            Time will fail me to discuss the Damilola Taylor case in year 2000 when the Metropolitan Police handling of Taylor’s murder was seen as slow and inadequate due to racial bias. By the way, Damilola was both British and Yoruba like our illustrious and petulant Kemi who believes in giving hard knocks! What about the Stephen Lawrence 1993 murder case which the Metropolitan Police badly handled owing to racial bias? In 1999, Roger Sylvester, a Black man, died in police custody and an inquest showed that the police used excessive force. In 2009, newspaper vendor Ian Tom died after being struck by a police officer during the G20 protests in London. The 1999 Macpherson Report, which investigated the Stephen Lawrence case, concluded that ‘the Metropolitan Police as institutionally racist! As late as 2017, the Lammy Review which was led David Lammy (MP) concluded that “black and minority ethnic individuals were more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested, and imprisoned than their white counterparts! Need I say more?

So, our dear daughter and bright star Kemi in the British firmament, we shall not point to you with our left hand, because in spite of you, you are our daughter. We can only say that the Nigeria Police is in good company of the Empire of the Police system which was created in 1820 by your progenitors from the other side! Colonial vestiges are not easy to shake off!

Continue Reading

Opinion

Afe Babalola And Dele Farotimi: On Justice, A Just Society And The Nigerian State

Published

on

Prof. Tunji Olaopa

By Tunji Olaopa

The feud between elder statesman, Chief Afe Babalola and civil rights activist, Mr. Dele Farotimi, is perhaps the most significant discourse that postcolonial Nigerian state has thrown up for the moment, one in a class of those grand defining disputations that surely will gather dust which will take some time to abate. And it is one case that is fraught with all sorts of legal, jurisprudential, moral and political traps and complexities that speak to more than the trivial interventions—leveraged around the David and Goliath motif—that are attending the matter. Those who have been able to go beyond the surface of the case will agree that it goes to the very foundation and founding of the Nigerian society, and the fundamental objective of crafting a good and just society for Nigerians. That the issue revolves around the dispensation of justice immediately alerts us to the deep insinuation about the idea of social justice itself, and how the conception of fairness could be written into the very fabric of the Nigerian society. And yet, the complexity of the case is what makes it a case that is too critical for a public servant like me to dabble in.

(Un)fortunately, my intellectual maturation, my political science education and my professional endeavor in institutional reform advocacy have prepared me to intervene in this critical matter. I have always been involved with Nigeria, and with reflective thoughts about how to reconstitute her greatness. Three learning encounters with three world-historic icons configured my passion for wanting to see that Nigeria becomes a state we all can be proud of. The first came from my reading of Plato’s Republic. There is a reason that the entire treatise commenced with the question, what is justice? Justice was a fundamental issue in the decline of the ancient Athenian democracy that allowed Socrates to be judicially murdered. The second learning derived from Wole Soyinka’s dense prison memoir, The Man Died. And like most who have read it, Soyinka was troubled by the idea of justice: “For me, justice is the first condition of humanity.” By the time I would be coming to Thomas More’s Utopia, I was already apprised of the connections between my political science education, my professional endeavor as a public servant, and the key elements of institutional reform as a cogent framework for transforming Nigeria.

From Plato to Soyinka, we have a trajectory of political reflection that takes justice seriously as the basis for organizing a just society. This is part of the intellectual frameworks for my undergraduate and graduate studies at the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan. In one of those explosive seminar classes that played some fundamental role in my intellectual maturation in the graduate school, I had proposed an argument through a seminar paper titled: “Is a revolution an option to fix Nigeria?” The topic was meant to titillate the collective yearning for revolution that would serve as the ultimate mechanism for social change that would flush off all traces of corruption and degeneration in postcolonial Nigeria. Revolutions seem to possess some allure for the masses because they constitute a framework of justice that the constitutional justice mechanism might not be able to handle.

However, as Wole Soyinka, Thomas More, Martin Luther and even Galileo Galilei would realize, the need for radicalism is balanced by the force of establishment orthodoxy. The Nigerian predicament has, as a fundamental foundation, a lot to do with the connection between governance failure and injustice in terms of the persistent and protracted class strife between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, indeed, in the final analysis between the government and the governed. And in the case between Afe Babalola and Dele Farotimi, the issues boil down to the administration of justice and the entire edifices and institutions of social justice and the rule of law in Nigeria. And so, in outlining the key issues involved in the matter, we must be careful enough to read between the lines and the noises of analysts who are eager to queue behind their favored protagonists.

First things first. Let us remove the surface debris. Indeed, and in this case, the debris points us in the direction to look for the rot within the matter. First, there is the matter of civil defamation and its legal ramifications. And second, there is the issue of the legal and moral protocols involved in dealing with the pursuit of redress by someone who knows and understands the law. Barrister Farotimi has a legal right to seek redress in court. Chief Babalola has a legal right to defend his reputation in court. In raising the specter of legal prosecution against defamation, I see Chief Babalola as being at the forefront of gatekeeping the legal establishment in terms of what is and is not permissible or possible under the law and its conservative tenets. If you are hurt or an injustice has been done to your person, then the best place to seek redress is not the court of public opinion but the constitutional legal establishment.

Unfortunately for him, Barrister Farotimi’s book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, impugns the entire legal and judicial establishment up to its apex institution, the Nigerian Supreme Court. However, does radicalism preclude moral decency? A book could be written and allegations made without the complement of atrocious language. Or maybe the rot in the judicial system, and the need for a revolution preclude any niceties, especially with those who are allegedly at the forefront of perpetuating and protecting the rot. But then, how to prove what we all consider to be the norm in terms of legal prosecution of judicial corruption remains a hanging question.

No matter how we look at what we are calling the surface debris, we are redirected deeper and deeper into what lies beneath the surface. The ultimate question is that between Chief Afe Babalola and Barrister Dele Farotimi, what we are asked to contend with is the state of the Nigerian judiciary and the corrupt impediment of social justice, especially for an average Nigerian. What Barrister Dele Farotimi said about the Nigerian judicial system is not new. We are all familiar with the rot within the system. Indeed, this is not the first time an alarm would be raised about what we are all familiar with. Indeed, as far back as 1999, The News magazine carried a most unsalutary headline, “Crooks on the Bench: An Expose on the Rot in the Judiciary.” The magazine headlined the names of 47 judges indicted for judicial corruption. What is new is that Dele Farotimi dared to go so far as to mention specific names, and to confront the big players in the legal establishment. And he did this in a most scurrilous manner targeted at getting maximum traction and attention. It is as if Mr Farotimi, through the public sphere, is throwing the gauntlet to every Nigerian and challenging us on our collective responsibility to clean the Augean stable.

If Barrister Farotimi cannot prove his allegations in court, it would not mean that his charges are false. It might only imply that the system which is supposed to guarantee justice has become too corruptly dense to achieve its mandate. But there is also the chance that since the entire judicial system cannot be tarred so broadly with the same brush, Farotimi’s allegation might receive a dispassionate hearing that might deliver justice as we expect it. This might be a tall expectation. Nigeria’s postcolonial predicament has inevitable consequences on the capacity of the judicial system to facilitate the delivery of justice. And this failure also complicates the capacity of the Nigerian state to deliver on its social contract to Nigerians. This is what makes the Babalola-Farotimi case too complex to be decided either in the constitutional court or the court of public opinion. The burdens of postcolonial disruptions that the Nigerian judiciary system carries are enormous: judicial corruption, miscarriage of judgments, executive lawlessness, delayed trial due to insufficient infrastructure, financial dependence on the executive arm of government.

To outline the fundamental challenges of the judicial system in Nigeria this way is not to give in to cynicism and a deterministic mindset that we might be caught in a vice that is inescapable. It is simply to say that the ongoing uproar between the two dramatis personae demonstrates that the court has been given a chance to reflect on the role that (in)justice plays in the fundamental understanding of the Nigerian postcolonial predicament and the capacity of a democratic system to correct itself. When Chief Afe Babalola and Barrister Dele Farotimi are given their day in court, we will have no choice but to trust that same judicial system to deliver unbiased judgment no matter our misgivings about how objective and untainted that judgment could be. This is just a way of saying that though our judicial system is not perfect; it is still the best that we have.

The last words on this reflection on the connection between the ongoing feud between Babalola and Farotimi and Nigeria’s postcolonial predicament must be given to Haile Sellasie, former emperor of Ethiopia: “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

Olaopa is the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission,Abuja, and Professor of Public Administration.
tolaopa2003@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

Fear Of Witchcraft And Politics In Zambia

Published

on

Witch Burning, Impunity And Abuses Linked to Witchcraft Beliefs In Benue State
Dr Leo Igwe

By Leo Igwe

The Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW) is concerned over the reported arrest of two men accused of being ‘witchdoctors’ in Zambia. The arrest underscores the potency of witchcraft fears and the connection between occult anxieties and the country’s politics. These individuals were accused of trying to bewitch the Zambian president, Hakainde Hichilema. The police claimed that they had charms. They planned to use the charms to harm the president. The report says the two persons have been charged under Zambia’s Witchcraft Act. The Act criminalizes “possession of charms”, “professing knowledge of witchcraft”, and “cruelty to wild animals”. The police found the two with assorted charms, including a live chameleon.

This development is utterly embarrassing and shows that the Zambian government is slowly losing its focus and bearing.The country has many socio-economic challenges. Suspicion of bewitchment or possession of charms should be the least of its worries at this time. There should be no place for witchcraft and possession of charms in modern politics because there is no evidence for these beliefs and practices. Zambian authorities should not weaponize the Witchcraft Act or use it to justify this incident. Zambian law does not recognize witchcraft. Zambia’s Witchcraft Act criminalizes naming or imputing witchcraft. It prohibits accusing or threatening to accuse any person of being a witch or a wizard. In this case, it is the police who are breaking the law.

Otherwise, how did they know the two individuals were ‘witchdoctors’? Did these persons identify as witch doctors? If not, the police are liable because they named and imputed witchcraft and have to prove that these individuals have witch-doctoring powers. The police claimed to have charged these individuals for possessing “assorted charms”, including a chameleon. Really?

The police in Zambia have questions to answer: What are charms? How did they know that what was in their possession were charms, not pets? Is a chameleon a form of charm? What makes possession of a chameleon possession of a charm? When and how does a chameleon become a charm? The police need to answer these questions and more before one takes them seriously.

Again, did the individuals describe what was in possession as ‘charms’? If they did, does confessing or designating something as a charm make it a charm? And if they did not, the police are liable because they need to prove how those possessions translated into charms.

In addition, the police claimed that the duo wanted to bewitch the president. What does that mean? How did they know? Are the police not contravening a provision under the Witchcraft Act by professing knowledge of witchcraft? Can one harm another person using a chameleon? They claimed that the two persons wanted to use the charms in their possession, including the chameleon to harm the president. How did they know that? What is the evidence for that?

The Advocacy for Alleged Witches calls for an end to this state-sponsored witch hunt. There is no evidence of harm through witchcraft or charms. The Zambian government should desist from witchcraft- related infractions and violations including arbitrary arrest, and detention of innocent citizens. These allegations are baseless and absurd. The arrest was politically motivated. This development demonstrates that Zambian authorities are out of sync with their duty and obligation to uphold the rule of law and protect accused persons.

Zambian authorities need to act in compliance with the 2021 UN resolution, which urged states to take measures to combat abuses linked to witchcraft beliefs and ritual attacks. End witchcraft allegations in Zambia. End witch hunts in Africa now!

Dr Igwe directs the Advocacy for Alleged Witches.

Continue Reading

Top Stories