Divine Wisdom: Changing the World in Six Months.

In the words of President Barack Obama, "the first piece of advice is this. Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. If you decide not to set yourself at the table, you have to make sure you have a say in who does. It matters. My second piece of advice is never to underestimate the power of your advice. The last one is simple, but perhaps the most important. Persevere. Persevere. Nothing worthwhile is easy." Commencement Speech at Barnard College, New York, 2012.

 The Definition of Hamilton-At-Large

We write this final Chapter in this series, confident that we have accomplished more than we envisaged when Hamilton-At-Large was conceptualized about a year ago. In the past six months, we developed copious public policy materials that will, no doubt, be of tremendous value to any President who is willing to embrace radical, but positive reforms in our political system. We are optimistic that these policies would create innovation in government, catalyze socio-economic development, and ultimately, ensure peaceful co-existence among the various ethnic and religious conscious groups in our - sad to say - troubled land.

The work is broad and stretches the full gamut of the Nigerian polity. When we started, there was in us, that intense passion to make a change in the governing process, with a view to invigorating new leadership consciousness within the power elite. In addition, we made a conscious effort to alter the tone of our national debate and tilt it towards political progressivism. Most importantly, we believe that communication is only effective if it achieves the intended result. That belief defines our goal: simplicity in our choice of words and the construction of sentences. If we have our facts, our ideas, and our thinking synthesized, and articulate them succinctly, we stand a better chance of making sustainable impacts in the management of our human and natural resources by our political leaders. We went to work and never looked back.

As progressive thinkers, we resolve to stay faithful to our core beliefs: economic freedom, egalitarianism, equal rights, and justice for all. We had two choices: (1) we could appear antagonistic and unduly critical of the government, without making any positive impact in policy design or implementation - unproductive intellectualizing, or (2) we could take a higher road and help to influence the adoption and implementation of progressive policies and shift public affairs debate towards what is real and achievable. We chose the latter. That explains the nature of the topics that we choose to cover, based on where we think we could make the most difference, or at least, create awareness for change.

Highlights

In hindsight, we never seek legitimacy or crave the validation of our work from outside sources, because, like Caesar's wife, we are above board. On a bigger scale, two of our articles on natural resources and sustainable development ("Stabilization Clause versus Human Rights" and "Bonga Oil Spillage: Niger Delta, and Sustainable Development") received tremendous hits globally. We brought new insights into the debate on how to balance the interests of foreign investors (IOCs) with those of the local communities where they do business. This makes it less complicated for mineral resources-rich nations, from South America to South East Asia, to take advantage and exercise full or partial control over the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in their respective countries. When you start receiving newsletters and highly productive materials on natural resources-related contracts from independent sources and international law firms you know you are going strong and making an impact.

(This Chapter was delayed for a few days, because we didn't want to close the series, without saying one or a few things about contemporary American politics. We did just that by taking a stand in support of President Barack Obama in an article that we are optimistic will transform the ongoing Presidential campaign and tilt it in favor of the President. The pundits said, "Wall Street and Bain Capital are "no go areas". We said no because they are vintage Romney. It is a no holds barred conversation and it is available at the following link. http://hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com/2012/06/invisible-resistance-citizen-united-and.html.) 

As events unfold within the Nigerian political system, a sizable percentage of the educated and elite groups who are into the social media phenomenon are presently adequately versed in the fundamentals as well as the overall nitty-gritty of the three systems of government - Unitary System, Federal System, and Confederacy arrangement. We made that possible. See Federalism, Presidential Succession, and Marginalization.  A majority of our opinion leaders are now conscious of the fact that Nigeria, even though a federation is actually practicing a unitary system of government. And we did more.

We gave progressivism in the Nigeria polity a new energy. We challenged contemporary southern columnists, intellectuals, and opinion leaders - who, most often, regurgitate or rehearse developing stories as opinion - to be more creative in their opinionating on national issues. See "The Search for a True Federalism: Balancing Feudal Interests with Southern Greed and Opportunism in Nigeria." 

Also, we called on northern academics, intellectuals, and mavericks to develop a new attitude and rebel in principle, against the antediluvian oligarchic approach to governance that creates two northerners - one imbued with bourgeois bearings, western culture, quality education, and refined lifestyle, and the other, deeply schooled in the most extreme and outrageous Islamic beliefs. See "Game Change: The Uncertainty of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) and A Case for Progressive Option."

We covered Constitutional Amendment and argued, inter alia, for the removal of federal character and quota system from our Constitution and divorce the President of the power of appointment of the Vice President in the event of a vacancy in that office as presently the case in Section 146 (3) of the 1999 Constitution. Instead, we suggest that the Constitution should specifically mandate either the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives to assume the vacated office in the event of a vacancy as specified in the Constitution. See "Memo to the Constitutional Review Committee," published April 3, 2012, available in the proceeding link.  http://hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com/2012/04/memo-to-constitutional-review-committee.html. 

In addition, contrary to popular opinion in the blogosphere and print media, we do not support the call for the amendment of Section 308 of our 1999 Constitution, because we do not consider the section of any inhibiting factor in the war against corruption. Simply put, it serves a good purpose, because, without it, there would be a deluge of lawsuits that are downright unmeritorious raining down on State Governors and their Deputies. See http://hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com/2012/06/immunity-section-308-of-1999.html.  In a similar vein, we called on the President and the National Assembly of Nigeria to enact a "Civil Asset Forfeiture Law" that would expedite the seizure and forfeiture of fruits of crime and corruption practices in Nigeria. See  http://hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com/2012/05/civil-asset-forfeiture-law.html 

On SNC and True Federalism

From all indications, there is no doubt, our position on the Sovereign National Conference, true federalism, resource control, and a considerable degree of autonomy for the component states within the Nigerian Federation is the right approach to ensuring sustainable progress and peaceful co-existence. In other words, the demand for disintegration is a non-starter, but the component states must be semi-autonomous while relieving the central government of some of its responsibilities. 

Our position is enjoying across-the-board acceptance. Presently, momentum is shifting towards true federalism, resource control, and a progressive agenda. Professor Wole Soyinka, in his address at the South-South Summit about a month ago, demanded some form of regional autonomy and resource control. See http://obajeun.com/2012/04/south-south-summit-wole-soyinkas-verbal-occupation/.  

Also, Mr. El'Rufai, the former FCT Minister, echoed the same reasoning in one of his articles published by numerous Nigerian Newspapers recently. See http://saharareporters.com/article/between-terrorism-and-corruption In a similar vein, Chibuike Amaechi, the Executive Governor of Rivers State is another prominent voice who has recently and on numerous occasions joined the call for true federalism and resource control mechanism. Also, Governor Raji Fashola (SAN) of Lagos State has joined the bandwagon for greater autonomy for the component states. It is our hope that the Constitution Amendment or Review Committee lends weight to the true concept of federalism as practiced in the US in their final report.

On a related note, the unavailing attempt at convening a Sovereign National Conference, exemplifies the emptiness of the self-acclaimed intellectuals and separation enthusiasts in communication management and in the common complexities of government, especially on how to move the country forward. Truth is, Northern intellectuals, academics, and political and opinion leaders would not have had difficulties prevailing on the rest of us to convene a Sovereign National Conference if they were at the opposite or receiving end. That is a statement of fact. 

Be that as it may, there is a gentleman called Chido Onumah who has written so eloquently, and with a unique niche on the subject of Sovereign National Conference whose work I admire so much and will not be afraid to recommend. Why his writing on SNC is not receiving prominence or why the apostles of SNC have not rallied around him and his work for an effective start on the issue is quite obvious. There is another gentleman by the name of Remi Oyeyemi - he is a first-class intellectual, whose graphs of true federalism and Nigerian realpolitik are commendable. And like Chido, his work is not getting any mention by other writers or garnering national acceptance. Now you know the true state of things in Nigeria - unwillingness to recognize excellence in the works of others.

Every Southerner is an expert in every field. No one is willing to identify the expertise in others or see exceptionalism in the work of their peers. If Southerners really want an SNC that is the gentleman they have to talk to be able to develop a coherent framework for the takeoff of the concept. What is the essence of demand if you do not have a blueprint for actualization? 

I have deliberately excused myself from SNC and disintegration agitations because I still believe that leadership and corruptions are the major problems confronting Nigeria as a country. It is my belief, and I stand to be corrected, leadership, to a great extent, to define the attitude and behavior of a given society toward graft, bribery, and corruption. 

Indeed, Nigeria, as it is present, may be becoming too large and too complex due to religious and sociocultural issues for the leadership of today to manage and govern effectively as one independent sovereign. I am in full support of a semi-autonomous status for the federating units similar to what obtains in the US, short of a complete confederating option. Yes, Mr. Childo Onumah has come a long way on the subject, and his position and mine are getting closer. That is why I am recommending him and his work to those who only talk but cannot act.

RESOURCE CONTROL 

If Nigerians allow true federalism to evolve as envisaged by our Founding Fathers it would diminish the appeal for the control of Aso Rock. In other words, if we create the right framework for the federating states within the union to manage their own people and the natural resources within their geographical boundaries, and develop at their own pace, there would be less friction and animosity in the polity, and the "do or die" approach that encapsulates pursuit of power at the federal level would ebb significantly.

Furthermore, given that crude oil is the mainstay of our economy, it will be disingenuous on our part to demand or suggest that the oil-producing states take exclusive control and ownership of the mineral resources in their respective states at this stage. That would be economically suicidal, especially in some areas of the northern region of the country. As of now, most of the federating states do not have the means to successfully commence exploration and exploitation of mineral deposits in their respective states at sustainable and commercial levels. It requires massive capital infusion, an efficient labor force, and planning.

Therefore, we suggest that the oil-producing states take in equal proportion - 50/50 - of the Onshore Mineral deposits in their respective states with the federal government. The same standard should apply as well in other states in the federation where there are substantial deposits of mineral resources. On the other hand, Offshore Mineral deposits within a certain limit of our Economic Exclusion Zone or Continental Shelf should be under the exclusive control and ownership of the federal government.

The Nigerian Police Force (NPF)

Granted that the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria will remain under the control of the Federal Government, we want to warn the leadership and every Nigerian that the prevailing call for State Police is a call for disaster and would lead to a dictatorship of the State Governors. They (State Governors) will hijack the Police Command and transform it into guerrilla forces or an arm of State Power with a mandate to muzzle the press and emasculate opposing forces within the state.  To ensure security and neutrality in the deployment of Police, NPF should remain under the exclusive control of the Inspector General of Police.  We should revert to the three units as they were in the past - regular Police, Highway Patrol, and Mobile Police. This time, we recommend that (1) Mobile Police or “Mopo” should be transformed to the standard of a SWAT TEAM as it is in advanced countries. (2) The Highway Patrol should be merged with Federal Road Safety Corp and the new unit should be called Federal Trouper. The unit should be in charge of security and traffic control on Federal Roads, Government Institutions, NGOs, Foreign Organizations, and Embassies. 

On the other hand, with the call for true federalism (semi-autonomy for the federating states), State Police would be a welcome development. In that case, Mobile Police (the new SWAT TEAM) and Highway Patrol (Federal Trouper) should remain under the exclusive control of the Federal Government. I repeat, Highway Patrol should be re-introduced and merged with Federal Road Safety Commission to be known as Federal Trouper to manage Federal Institutions, Foreign offices and Institutions, and Federal Highways, while Mobile Police should be transformed into a SWAT TEAM for rapid response assignment nation-wide. Regular Police should only be introduced and under the control and command of the State Government only if we have true federalism. Certainly not under present development where State Governors are the law onto themselves - that would signal the demise of dissents and dissenting voices.

Insecurity, Boko Haram, and Corruption.

We want to reinstate that Boko Haram is a real threat to our corporate existence as one country. We support dialogue in the past, because we believe that it is easier to subdue and conquer enemies that you know in a bounded enclave than fighting an insurgent group with no fixed address or defined territory. Besides, a declaration of war on the sect is a declaration of war on innocent Nigerians who are in no way connected with the sect and their beliefs but happen to share close proximity with them. 

That being said, Boko Haram must realize that they are waging a war that they cannot win - a declaration of religious war on any group or any part of Nigeria is a declaration of war on Nigeria as a sovereign nation. 

As things are today, Government alone cannot wage a decisive battle against Boko Haram. Security Agencies alone cannot wage a decisive battle against Boko Haram. To be successful in dismantling the sect and its beliefs, our Security Agencies need the unflinching support of Local Chiefs, Community Leaders, Religious Leaders, and above all, the loyalty of other peaceful and law-abiding Muslims who do not share the jihadist philosophy, forceful indoctrination campaign, and mayhem characteristics of the Boko Haram sect.  

These are the people that government and Security Agencies need to work with to be able to overcome Boko Haram and everything that they represent. You cannot eat your cake and have it; if you love Nigeria and want to remain Nigerian, then it is beholden on your part to oust those in your midst who do not wish Nigeria and Nigerians any good. Government alone cannot do it. Right now, our freedom is held, hostage. Those who aid and abet the sect in their bombing and killing are as guilty as the sect.  The carnage has to stop. And it must stop. 

In addition, if it is true as argued in some quarters that the escalation is a rejection of President Jonathan's administration, we want to state on record that, if President Jonathan cannot rule Nigeria, no one, henceforth, can rule Nigeria. And if for any reason connected with the present state of insecurity in the northern part of the country, he ceases to function as President, Nigeria will come to a standstill. The outcome will be such that when it is all over, there won't be a country called Nigeria again. 

Therefore, as we have argued elsewhere on this blog, Nigerians should give President Jonathan a chance; he did not breach any law by stepping into the vacuum created by the death of President Musa Yar'Adua. He acted within the confines of the law and the constitution. Every Nigerian must have the right to aspire to the highest office in the land through a democratic process. Let's grow and develop our democracy in accordance with the trends in most developed countries of the World. A military coup is never a better option, it has never been and it will not be. If the Judiciary is independent and graft free, we will be able to manage the war against corruption, and at the same time, conduct a free, fair, and credible election.

Corruption

Indeed, corruption is endemic, but we can overcome it if the government is willing to adopt a radical approach and not be discriminatory in the exercise of its enforcement power. In a full-blown article, we call for the passage of a "Civil Asset Forfeiture Law" by the President and the National Assembly. If we adopt such a measure, ICPC and EFCC will no longer have to wait until thieving politicians or millionaire Civil Servants leave office before initiating seizure and forfeiture proceeding against them. Besides, Civil Asset Forfeiture Law saves time and money from protracted litigation, because the applicable burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence and not the time-wasting and unpredictable proof beyond reasonable doubt standard inherent in a criminal trial. 

Niger Delta and Sustainable Development  

“Bonga Oil Spillage: Niger Delta, and Sustainable Development”, published on this blog, on January 2, 2012, was a defining moment for us at Hamiltonatlarge. The article was originally written exclusively to address the environmental problem and sustainable development in the Niger Delta. Surprisingly, it received more hits or readership from the US, South America, and South East Asia. And it has helped most countries outside our shore to take control of the exploration and exploitation of their mineral resources in their countries. 

We must point out that the article was never written to be used as a tool for an appropriation of foreign investments by host nations, but to remind IOCs and host nations that it is also possible to meet the bottom line, without undermining the socioeconomic needs and interests of the local communities where they exploit mineral resources. It calls for sustainable development initiatives in oil and gas exploration in the region through the provision of scholarships to deserving citizens, infrastructural facilities, and job training as well as compliance with applicable local content regulations. 

Most importantly, we cannot emphasize the importance of social and commercial interactions between the local people and IOC field workers. The local people are not your enemies, if they are, then, you are in enemy territories. Only the Government and IOCs can make the Niger Delta a friendly territory.

Religion and Politics

On the issue of religion and politics, we hold the view, and firmly so, that Nigeria is a Secular State and must remain so in practice. Therefore, our government - at state, local, and federal levels - should stay clear of religion and religion-related issues in public places. Within that context, the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca, Medina, Israel, or Jerusalem as the case may be, should become a private affair. Every Nigerian or religious organization that desires pilgrimage to a Holy Land, should be prepared to bear the financial and logistics responsibilities associated with the trip. It is a commitment between you and your God or Allah. It is voluntary and it is a spiritual engagement. It shouldn't be a federal Government question or concern or responsibility.

In 'Game Change ...", we demand integration of Koranic or Islamic studies with western education in all the religious Schools in the Northern region in order to make it easier for those forgotten children to blend into the larger economic community as they become adults just as the Christian Missionaries did with religious studies and western education in the Eastern region decades ago.

A coalition of the Progressives? Not Yet.

Presently, there is a new attitude spreading across the nation in the political arena, especially in the northern region - new groups with anti-establishment and sociopolitical beliefs are evolving and positioning themselves on national issues unlike before. As expected, momentum is shifting towards a progressive coalition/talk and the "handshake across the Niger" that we demanded between southern progressives and northern mavericks and intellectuals is evolving gradually. See "Game Change: The Uncertainty of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) and A Case for Progressive Option" published March 16, 2012. The only setback presently is that the talk lacks a national touch.

Be that as it may, it is our fervent belief that Mr. Bola Tinubu and Muhammadu Buhari, though great men in their own right, do not represent the positive change that will be acceptable to a broad spectrum of Nigerian progressives at home and abroad. Fresh-start within the context of Nigerian polity connotes fresh ideas from contemporary and academically and socio-culturally diverse progressive Nigerians at home and abroad: fresh-start means those without a taint or blemish of the decade-old greed and corruption that ruined a supposedly great nation.   Both gentlemen have great followers, no doubt; nevertheless, we do not believe that their acceptance has a national spread that would inspire a popular mandate. Therefore, they should, with a clear conscience, collaborate with others to search for credible, ready, and electable candidates to represent the progressive groups. 

As an addendum, a progressive coalition between the west (Tinubu) and north (Buhari) is not the same as a coalition of Nigerian progressives. A coalition talk, without Igbo, Midwest, and South-South is only a regional affair.  A regional affair/coalition cannot produce a popular mandate. That is a challenge they definitely have to overcome. We want to reiterate the fact that the general disillusionment with President Jonathan's administration by most Nigerians does not translate to a wholesome acceptance of Mr. Tinubu and General Buhari by the generality of the Nigerian populace. Each has to make a case for acceptance. 

Signing off for Now

It's been a long and worthwhile journey. And we thank God for sustaining us while we put our ideas and thoughts on paper. We appreciate your visit because without you the message would be meaningless. Finally, always remember; it isn't about the semantics, it's all about the ideas, the thinking, and the ability to articulate them for easy comprehension for you and our readers all over the World, especially those who do not speak English as a first language. It is simply plain policy talk. It is Hamiltonatlarge.

As always, God Bless you wherever you are, God Bless Nigeria and the good people of our beloved country. We will be back in the spring of 2013. Meanwhile, we will be working behind the scene to ensure that the policies that we developed take root.

June 08, 2012.

OBAMA: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance, and the Hacking of American Democracy

Standing up for President Barack Obama!  

Taking a stand for President Barack Obama's re-election is a stand for what is right, just, and equitable, because he wants the very best for every American family judging by what he has done so far and attempted to do.  I stand for the President because it is the right thing to do. Above all, a stand for President Barack Obama is a stand for the truth, audacity, creativity, and innovation. Republicans want him to fail, not necessarily on account of what he is doing wrong, but because of resentment rooted in hatred and unwillingness to embrace the likelihood of American history recording the first of his kind as a "Great President". Now that the political system is overwhelmed with corporate money, Americans should brace for surprises, lies, and misinformation from Karl Rove and his plethora of Super PACs. 

KARL ROVE AND SUPER PACs

The Crusade to buy President Obama out of Power with Super PACs and Corporate money made possible by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the Citizen United case is analogous to the politics of money in Nigeria that has eaten deep into the fabric of our political culture and made popular democracy a travesty. There is no difference between the reactionary elements within the Republican Party in the United States and the reactionary elements that dominate the political culture in Nigeria – trust deficit, greed, lies, bigotry, homophobia, hatred, hypocrisy, and misinformation; tell me more. They profess family values and moral purity, yet they see the less-privileged in society as another category of the human species, deserving nothing and worthy of nothing. They wear patriotism on their shoulders but exploit political power and governments as investment tools on behalf of a selected few at the expense of the generality of the governed.

If I may ask, what the heck is the connection between Campaign Finance (political speech) and First Amendment rights?  Where is the nexus between the right to talk and express oneself as defined by the US Constitution under the First Amendment and the right to fund an election with an undisclosed amount of money, without disclosing your identity or the amount of money contributed as the US Supreme Court ruled in the Citizen United case? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all.  

Mr. Karl Rove and his PAC American Crossroads and other Super PACs are raising millions of dollars from unknown sources every day and every night in preparation for war against change and civilization. When President Obama, on January 27, 2010, during his State of the Union Address, seemingly took exception to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Citizen United Case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-rJb8G15I), some people considered the President's remarks condescending. Now we know better. Governor Mitt Romney decimated Newt Gingrich politically in Iowa and Florida during the just-concluded Republican primaries, thanks to  PACs money. They've only just begun. And the whole world is watching! Watching what they would do against President Barack Obama with the Millions they are stockpiling presently.

In the words of Vice President Al Gore, "our democracy has been hijacked." See "View Point with Governor Elliot Spitzer" on Current TV, http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/al-gore-takes-on-scott-walker-romneys-health-care-record-voter-suppression-and-citizens-united/   

President Obama did more for this country in three years than what Karl Rove and his administration did in eight years. President Obama revived a comatose economy and stabilized a dysfunctional financial industry, in spite of the filibuster ammunitions ceaselessly and shamelessly deployed by Republican members of Congress to frustrate his administration. In addition, thanks to the patriotic and unpretentious support of his Security team, President Obama decimates terrorism and terrorist cells all around the World, without risking the precious lives of our men and women in uniform. A development that's in sharp contrast with the enormous wastage and mass casualties incidents that characterized Karl Rove's incubated administration. 

Power is not only about winning an election, as Mr. Karl Rove is reputed of. It is more about purposeful governance - empowerment. It is about raising the standard of living of the middle class and support for the less privileged, which Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows do not know how to do. It calls for synergy realignment for growth, making capital available to entrepreneurs, and creating opportunities for businesses and economically dislocated/disadvantaged Americans. 

Mr. Karl Rove and his numerous Super PACs failed Americans abysmally when they were there for eight years. They squandered the surplus left behind by President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), and watched helplessly as Wall Street degenerated into a mob scene where inside trading and indiscriminate betting on taxpayers' money turned out to be the hallmarks.

Now, they are fighting to reinstate the inglorious past; hoping to buy out President Obama from power through corporate money and campaign finance loopholes by any mean possible.  That's what the election is about on the part of Republicans - resentment of change and sending President Obama back to Chicago as some of them boasted. It won't happen. Because Americans know better. 

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY, AUTO BAILOUT, AND BAIN CAPITAL

Governor Mitt Romney wants American voters to elect him President because he has a better grasp of Economics and Management than President Obama. That argument is anchored on his exploit at Bain Capital and as Governor of Massachusetts. Surprisingly, American pundits and TV anchors do not want the President and Democrats to talk about Bain Capital. Bain Capital is Governor Romney's bargaining chip. You cannot discuss Governor Romney's management credentials, without integrating a discussion of his years at Bain Capital as well as the pains and sufferings unleashed by Bain Capital on the management and employees of their affiliates.    

There is no denying the fact that Bain Capital is a very successful firm using "returns on investment" indices. They achieved that liquidity status through over-leveraged capitalism - borrow large, acquired companies, fire existing workers, cash-out big, and laugh their way to the banks, while the companies are left embroiled in massive debts, contending with bankruptcy as the last option. 

That of course is what most venture capital and private equity firms do: making money for themselves and their investors/shareholders. Which is cool. But that is not the same as governance or being the Governor of a State or President of a country. That explains the magnitude of the uninspiring performance that Governor Mitt Romney recorded as Governor of Massachusetts. Because he couldn't replicate Bain Capital's model in his management of the affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I want to reiterate, I do not nurse any grudge against Bain Capital or its business model. However, suffice it to say that managing a venture capital or private equity firm is not in any shape or form analogous to managing the affairs of a state - governance is about the people, rich or poor. Governor Romney's performance in Massachusetts lends credence to that assertion. Therefore, applying that standard, he lacks what it takes to be a successful President and cannot perform at the level of President Obama, despite GOP intransigence. 

President Obama did not aspire to the Oval Office/White House to enrich himself and his management staff. Governance is about the people, all the people, and not for a privileged few or shareholders. President Obama is on the side of the people. That includes the rich and the famous, the multinationals, the small business, as well as millionaires who do not have any economic need for a tax break. The programs and policies that he introduced and pursued since the beginning of his Presidency support those claims. And that, my friends, is the difference between being a President of a country and being a CEO of venture capital or private equity firms. 

A few days ago, Mr. Romney inadvertently revealed his true intent when he tried to make a pejorative remark about the recent statement credited to President Obama 'that the private sector is doing fine. Governor Romney declared: "Is he really out of touch? He wants to hire more government workers, he wants to hire more Teachers, more Policemen, and more Fire Fighters ..." In a quick rebuttal, when has it become sacrilegious or an aberration to hire Teachers, Fire Fighters, and Policemen! Are they not eligible for the American  Dream? 

The truth is, most Republicans never hide their disdain for Teachers and their plan to eliminate the Department of Education. For Mr. Romney, a Presidential candidate for that matter, to have a problem with hiring more Teachers, Fire Fighters, and Policemen is blatantly absurd. It shows how unconnected Governor Mitt Romney is from American realities.

By the way, the few Democrats who have expressed some reservations about the position of the President on Bain Capital and Wall Street are missing something. With due respect, I beg to disagree with them. It's all about interest; Obama's Campaign should know that. The fact that an argument is good for some guys - career-wise, business network, budding or future political career - doesn't mean it is good for the President's campaign. In addition, Governor Mitt Romney's claim to managerial superiority over his political opponents is his activities at Bain Capital and stewardship in Massachusetts as the Executive Governor. That's it. So why won't Democrats and President Obama's campaign team talk about Bain Capital?  

Yes, we must talk about Bain Capital and Massachusetts. We must talk about 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' because it is vintage Mitt Romney. And it is his resume. See Governor Mitt Romney's op-ed article published in the New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1.

Left for Mr. Romney, Detroit would have been history by now. 

Today, General Motors is back to business and it is once again on top of the Auto industry. In addition, there is a boom in the ancillary sectors all around Ohio, thousands of jobs saved, thousands of jobs created, and unquantifiable smiles in many American homes: thanks to President Obama's initiative and foresight. Mr. Romney cannot undo that. Republican and Karl Rove's Super PACs cannot rewrite credible history. 

Yes, we must talk about Bain Capital and General Motors. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was once a victim of the "I am a job creator" campaign and slogan; American voters shouldn't for fall that bait.

Given the emergence of bonanza madness on Wall Street once again, President Obama has proved that it is possible to regulate Wall Street and position it to make a profit, without undermining the interest and protection of the middle class and the less privileged in society. But Wall Street is not taking the regulation lightly, in spite of the huge bonuses they are enjoying presently. That is what this election is about: Standing for the truth. 

For Wall Street and Big Business to cast the Obama Administration as unfriendly is a mockery of objective judgment. We must set the record straight as plainly as we could.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, WALL STREET, AND BIG BUSINESS

President Barack Obama did more for Business and Wall Street than any President before him. He bailed out AIG, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, and much more. Yet, American pundits will never stop deafening our ears with 'President Obama not being friendly with Business and Wall Street'. Which business? And which Wall Street? What we are witnessing is a blatant mischaracterization of the President and his true intent, and outright misrepresentation of facts. It is analogous to giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it. 

Establishing regulatory mechanisms in the financial sector with a view to eliminating inside trading and reckless betting with taxpayers’ money that almost paralyzes Wall Street on the eve of President Obama's inauguration is consistent with good governance and real leadership. We do not want a repeat of the uncontrollable state of affairs in the financial industry created by the disappearance of oversight that unavoidably culminated in the Wall Street meltdown a few years back.

This baloney about President Obama's animosity towards business, capitalism, and Wall Street, especially in the news media has racist undertones. It has no support in fact or reality. We do not want another Lehman Brothers fiasco. Wall Street has to be regulated, for the good of Wall Street, for the good of American Business, and for the good of the American people. Period.

Furthermore, President Obama and his administration create a favorable investment culture/climate and engineered numerous incentives that made it possible for Wall Street and the private sector to rake in much more profits unlike a few years back. What they did in return is provocative disbelief. Instead of spending, reinvesting, and hiring new workers as expected, they sat on their wealth and profits in order to stultify job growth, frustrate the President's economic expansion drive, and imperil his presidential campaign. 

The profit that Businesses are sitting on was accumulated under President Obama's administration and the bailout that he selflessly pumped into the Auto industry and into the financial sector. How then could pundits and politically biased TV anchors find grace in justifying the refusal of Businesses and Wall Street to reinvest their profits and escalate hiring on the pretext that President Obama is hostile to business? 

The much-hyped hostility or not-so-friendly relationship between President Obama and Business is unsubstantiated. How could you reasonably state that the President is hostile to Business when he is the one who made it possible for Business and Wall Street to be back to a profits-making position and bonus bonanza madness? 

The President's ideas on reviving Wall Street, the auto industry, Manufacturing, the development of Green Energy, Technological innovations, and infrastructural renewal are well-thought-out and well-embracing. Yet, Republicans, Christian Right, and Tea Party want to pigeonhole the President in an attempt to reinforce their "out of touch" and "want to redistribute wealth" vibes.  

Let the pundits or the tea party members name one policy or one program introduced by this administration that tends to favor some groups at the expense of others. From Health Care Reform to Student Loans, Mortgage Refinancing, Auto Bail-out, and Small Business Loans - they favor everyone across the board and equally, too. 

In addition, President Obama did allow Bush Tax cuts for Millionaires and the rich to continue, even when the facts on the ground do not support continuation. Without any Economic explanation, on Christmas Eve of 2010, Republican members of Congress shamelessly conditioned the extension of unemployment benefits for the poor and displaced workers to the continuation of Bush Tax cuts for the rich. As we all know, the tax cuts did not create jobs as intended since their inception. President Bill Clinton balanced the national budget, without Tax cuts for Millionaires. What then is the justification or economic explanation for continuing with the tax holiday for those who do not really need it, given the fact that it did not create new jobs or catalyze economic expansion? It is politics. And it is class warfare.  And it is Republican at its best.

When has it become an aberration or crime to the police and regulate market manipulation and financial recklessness? President Obama, as any President, has every right to put in place an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure sanity, transparency, and accountability in the financial sector. That is the difference between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney who want a repeat of the past - a past that created the recklessness that doomed the housing market and almost paralyze Wall Street. Taxpayers do not want a repeat of the infamous past that Governor Mitt Romney is romanticizing with.

SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL AND ONE-TERM PRESIDENT 

Since the arrival of President Obama in the White House, the goal of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Leader is to make President Obama a one-term President. He declared on the floor of the House and on other occasions that his goal is to make President Obama a one-term President. For the first time in the history of America, a supposedly honorable member of Congress, TV Anchors, and Talk Radio personalities declared, time and time again, that their desire is for President Obama to fail. Please see the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8a_msdw9VQ&feature=related.   

Oftentimes, to the chagrin of most liberal Democrats, the President veered from his liberal position, and moved to the right of center on most issues - yes, right of center - anticipating that Republicans will reciprocate in order to engender common ground for collaboration and purposeful governance. What did they do in return? They moved further to the right; and with ignominy, filibustered a significant percentage of new appointments and economic initiatives introduced by the President. 

The same people that never stop celebrating President Reagan's virtues are unwilling to embrace Reagan's policies introduced by President Obama who, unfortunately, is not one like them. If President Obama is a Socialist as GOP wants the World to believe, invariably, President Reagan and most Republicans who espouse his ideas and policies are Socialists. Because there is no significant political or ideological difference between Reaganomics and Obama's ideology. It has never been about the policy or the program. It's all about the name and the man. Let's call a spade a spade.

The President and his Security team made substantial progress at home and abroad rooting out enemies of civilization and dismantling terrorism and terrorist networks all around the globe because Republican members of Congress do not participate in the attack process or preparation. The deployment or approval for the deployment of Navy Seal and Drone attacks on 'flighty enemies' is exclusively a decision for the President and his Security team to make. If the takedown of Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were subject to Congressional vote or debate, both men would still be walking free today. The attacks were successful because Republican members of Congress did not participate and did not have the opportunity to filibuster rapid-response attacks. The President and his Economic team are not making the intended progress in reviving the economy because of Republicans involved in the process. They gave filibuster a new meaning in order to stagnate the economy and kill job growth.

Now, they are fishing for scandal in the name of "classified documents". This is a White House that humbled Osama Bin Laden, after months of planning and strategizing, without a hint of it coming into the public domain. The same man that Karl Rove and his hawkish bedfellows couldn't trace for years is now a dead man. If Osama Bin Laden was captured or killed under a Republican White House, that would have signaled the demise of Democrats for a run for the White House for many years to come. 

Now, they don't want Democrats to talk about Security. They want to blemish the White House over an immaterial issue (fast and furious) in order to cloud President Obama's success stories and accomplishments in the war against terrorism! They will fail. Americans are smarter and they know better. The Attorney General deserves better treatment from Republican members of Congress.

CONCLUSION 

America is not a dictatorship - there are rules and there are regulations. There is a Separation of Powers as well as Checks and Balances. President Obama can only do what the law permits. Republicans, Tea Party, Christian Right and the numerous talk heads on Radio and TV would rather the economic collapse than work with the President to save it. 

They know he is patriotic and has the requisite vision and intellectual wherewithal to revive the economy and make America great again. But the deep-seated resentment that they harbor against the President makes collaboration a Herculean task. They are befuddled by his virtues, stultified by his stoicism, and peevish by his innovative ideas and decision-making skills. They would rather Americans starve to death than subscribe to a collaborative productive engagement with a President who is a person of color. It is a sheer display of resentment and hatred rooted in racism and fear of history recording President Obama as one of the few 'Great Presidents' in the history of America. 

American electorates are not in exile, they are living witnesses to Republican intransigence and vicious attack on the poor and the middle class, while they vehemently promote and protect tax loopholes for those who do not need them.

In spite of everything, Americans are wiser and they can read the handwriting on the wall. Today, the news is about hiring, construction of new plants, and revitalization of old ones. It is no longer stories of the closure of companies and retrenchment of workers that used to be the major headline news prior to the arrival of President Barack Obama at the Oval Office. 

We are making progress and we are moving forward. President Obama will be vindicated and he will triumph over the Mitch McConnells of American politics. 

God is on the side of the meek and the peacemakers. And God is on the side of President Barack Obama because he wants the very best for every American family. That is why I am standing for him. And that is why I am asking that you stand with me to stand for him. 

God Bless America. 

Disclosure: the term "Invisible Resistance" was used recently by Professor Mike Eric Dyson on his appearance on "The ED Show": MSNBC 

Reps probe report indicts NNPC, CBN, NEITI, audit firms

Reps probe report indicts NNPC, CBN, NEITI, audit firms

 As always, every morning, I read Nigerian Newspapers on the web, looking for the unusual, but substantive stories that people might not care about. The instant article is a good example. Nigerians, especially those in the social media concentrate essentially on two main issues: the north-south divide and re-enactment of stories of corruption from other news sources, without actually doing any serious independent research. That’s what makes this story unique. This is serious journalism.

If you read the attached story, you will find out or likely to conclude with me that there is a common thread in all of the corruption and squandering of our riches over the years - it has no ethnic label. Corruption transcends geography, race, tribe, and culture. For those of you crying for disintegration, though you may have valid points, chances are that your uncle or your brother is part of the wastage. NNPC, CBN, NEITI, and the Audit firms mentioned in the article above are made up of Nigerians from every corner of our troubled country.  

My only suggestion this time is that EFCC needs to clean itself up – it’s all about organization and strategy. I do not think President Jonathan is controlling the entire EFCC as an independent corruption fighting organization or telling it who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. If that is the case, which I do not think it is, then they have no business remaining on the job. 

In addition, granted that the Bench has its peculiar problems, it is nevertheless, more improved than the Bar presently in terms of efficiency and activism. If Prosecutors, EFCC, and their celebrated Lawyers are not willing to prosecute those indicted of unjust enrichment, there is nothing members of the Bench can do. They cannot simply convict any suspect or an accused brought before them on the basis of the allegation - overwhelming or not. The State or the Prosecutor must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard and that is what EFCC and the AGF office are not doing presently in most of the cases.

And that is the reason no one from the institutions mentioned above is facing prosecution. There is no doubt; the leadership crisis some of us have been emphasizing permeates every gamut and every sector of our beloved country.  The President cannot run or manage every agency, but he must be very willing to fire anyone lacking in integrity and effective management. It's all about results. If it is lacking, it is obvious. You don't need other indices to gauge performance. Therefore, the President needs little or no counsel on who to fire or when to fire someone. EFCC is comatose beyond redemption. 

IMMUNITY: THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF SECTION 308 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - By Mr. Alex Aidaghese

Synopsis:

The much-derided Executive Immunity inherent in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, is not applicable once the individual protected under the section ceases to function in an official capacity. Immunity, for all intents and purposes, is office-specific. It is neither perpetual nor inalienable. Therefore, in rendering our judgment on whether to amend or expunge the section from our constitution, we must take cognizance of the fact that not all Presidents, Vice Presidents, Governors, and Deputy Governors are corrupt. Executive Immunity enhances harmony in a democratic political system that would, no doubt, be eroded if our Presidents and Governors were exposed to the vagaries of our judicial system. Arrest and trial of those protected under the section would paralyze activities in the affected states or at the federal level, as the case may be. That was the rationale and legislative intent of section 308 of the 1999 Constitution - defined as the thinking of the drafters based on public policy considerations. On the question of whether the immunity follows a former Governor to the Senate or the House of Representatives, the answer is a capital NO. An ex-governor or ex-deputy who is presently a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives is subject to investigation, indictment, or prosecution to the full extent of the law for any fraudulent conduct authorized by him or executed at his behest while in office as Governor or Deputy Governor. In addition to that, the section does not protect or immunize serving members of the National Assembly from criminal or civil prosecution for unlawful conduct perpetrated while serving as a legislator. Section 308, as written and intended, does not extend to Legislative or Parliamentary Immunity, referred to as Speech and Debate protection. That is the most misunderstood aspect of the section. It does not cover members of the National Assembly. In sum, corruption, embezzlement of public funds, and squandering of riches in Nigeria are seemingly insurmountable, because of the unwholesome and unwritten collaborative resolve of those in the judiciary. A monumental national crisis compounded by the inability of those vested with law enforcement power (AG, Police, EFCC, and ICPC) to develop aggressive mechanisms focused intently on combating abuse of discretionary power (adjournments and injunctions) by judges, as well as, the procedural rigmarole (delay tactics) perfected by defence counsels. Injunctive relief or ex parte order is a discretionary (equitable) remedy - it is not a final judgment on merit. In Nigeria, both equitable reliefs are issued indiscriminately, irrespective of the position of the movant in the lawsuit. In other words, in Nigeria, injunctive reliefs and ex parte orders are defence mechanisms, openly canvassed by lawyers and, most often, granted by judges without evidence or proof of immediate and irreparable harm or injury to the defendant. Availing your client with the defense of interim or permanent injunction in a clear-cut case of embezzlement of public funds, without proof of immediate and irreparable harm to your client if the case continues, is overtly aiding and abetting malfeasance. The Immunity Clause or Section 308 does not apply to that. Therefore, the section should be left intact. The Prosecutor, EFCC, ICPC, and the Police Force must be bold, resolute, and creative in their search for real justice. Our approach to asset forfeiture and recovery of stolen public funds must be aggressive, purposeful, and non-discriminatory. I beg to move.

To Amend or Not to Amend:

At the just-concluded retreat organized by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Constitutional Reform in Port Harcourt in Rivers State, on May 27, 2012, section 308 of the 1999 Constitution that deals with immunity came up for discussion. And as expected, there were strident demands for its review, amendment, or total repeal.  

One, section 308 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, does not by any stretch of the imagination shield or immunize any serving member of the National Assembly from indictment or prosecution for any crime committed before and during his or her term of office.

The over-hyped immunity allegedly enjoyed by serving members of the National Assembly from criminal or civil prosecution for criminal wrongdoing or fraudulent engagement is complete fiction. Because, the protection, in the context in which it is perceived by Nigerians, is non-sequitur - it does not exist as such. Therefore, the brouhaha surrounding the alleged immunity enjoyed by "lawmakers" is grossly misplaced, and the assault on section 308 is unwarranted.

And two, the culture of Governors who have already completed their two terms in office as Gveornors, rigging and buying their way to the Senate or the Lower House for the purpose of evading civil or criminal prosecution for the crime committed as Governors is outright ludicrous. Because there is no immunity covering past misconduct. 

Simply put, immunity as it is under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is not about the person or the conduct. It is, explicitly speaking, about the office. In other words, the beneficiary of the immunity clause is subject to investigation at the cessation of the protected period as long as there is probable cause for indictment. 

Our law enforcement agencies (the Attorney General, ICPC, the Police, and EFCC) should wake up to their responsibilities. Section 308 does not shield any member of the National Assembly from civil or criminal prosecution. Period. This is not a matter of debate; it is a statement of fact. Executive immunity is unrelated to Speech and Debate related to Parliamentary Immunity. Also, it does not preclude law enforcement agencies from investigating those protected under the section, for instance, the President, Vice President, Governor, and Deputy Governor for involvement in unjust enrichment. I will address this part shortly in the addendum.

At this juncture, it is worth restating that Section 308 protects only serving President, Vice President, Governor, or Deputy Governor when they are in office. MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY DO NOT ENJOY ANY IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 308. THE ONLY IMMUNITY THEY ENJOY IS SIMILAR TO WHAT OBTAINS UNDER THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - THAT IS IMMUNITY BASED ON WHAT THEY SAY DURING DEBATES OR DELIBERATIONS IN THE HOUSE OR IN THE SENATE OR IN THE PREPARATION THEREOF. IT DOES NOT COVER THEIR UNJUST ENRICHMENT OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OR INSIDE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

For ease of understanding, I would like to reproduce the entire section 308 of the 1999 Constitution verbatim. The Section provides:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section.

• a. No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office; 
• b. A person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and
• c. No process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies shall be applied for or issued: Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.

(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to "period of office" is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.

Specifically, Sec 308 (3) reads: “This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to "period of office" is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.”

The Section applies to the “period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.” Not after. In other words, a Senator or a member of the House of Assembly is not that "person" defined under subsection 3 of 308. Therefore, the immunity clause does not by any stretch of the imagination shield any of them from prosecution for criminal wrongdoing that took place while they were in office as Governors or Deputy Governors.

The same is true of the President and Vice President if you have probable cause to indict them after leaving office, based on a prima facie case for unjust enrichment. That's it. It doesn't take rocket science to accomplish that, knowing full well the antecedents of thieving Nigerian Governors.

Rationale and Public Policy Arguments for the Retention of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution:

In spite of everything, the immunity under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution is well-intended. The individuals protected under the section (President, Vice President, Governor, and Duty Governor) are not suitably placed to enjoy the luxury of time, defending lawsuits, whether frivolous or meritorious, while on active duty.

Our proclivity for filing lawsuits knows no bounds. Removal of that immunity clause from our constitution would in all probability end up jeopardizing our fragile constitutional democracy. Every Ademola, Usman, and Okechuku, as well as members of the opposition parties, would, through frivolous lawsuits and spurious petitions, incapacitate a sitting President or Governor, as the case may be, without regard to judicial ethics or the concerns of Nigerian voters. And in the process, take them off course from real and purposeful governance.

In essence, executive immunity enhances harmony in the political process that would, no doubt, be eroded, if Presidents and Governors are exposed to the vagaries of our judicial system. Adding to that, the arrest and trial of those protected under the section would paralyze activities in the affected states or at the federal level, as the case may be. That was the rationale and legislative intent of section 308 of the 1999 Constitution - defined as the thinking of the drafters based on public policy considerations.

There is no doubt that the benefits of the Immunity Clause outweigh the defects. The defects, if at all, are traceable to the inability of those empowered with law enforcement obligations to make our Constitution live up to its real purpose as the supreme law of the land.  To that extent, it requires diligent prosecution as expected of true fiduciaries (EFCC, the Police, ICPC, and the AG). It's all about interpretation ability, audacity, and genuine intent to fight and surmount the ills of corruption and unjust enrichment that irredeemably wrecked a supposedly great nation-state.

We should not act on the impulse of the moment and abrogate a constitutional framework that is imbued with the right ingredients to serve notable national goals - growing our democracy and simultaneously, ensuring stability in the political system.

Granted, our core leadership team is made up of some of the most unprincipled, shameless, and unrepentant opportunists you could ever find on the face of the earth; be that as it may, we cannot embark on a constitutional amendment campaign just to accommodate our idiosyncrasies and every unfortunate aberration. That's retrogressive political evolution. What would you do, if God willing, we are fortunate to have selfless and honest leaders at the helm of affairs? Amend the Constitution once again to align with the new reality? No. We can do better.

We must be proactive, creative, and sincere in our approach to the war against corruption and the pursuit of asset recovery and forfeiture. Those who are known to be corrupt should be apprehended, prosecuted, and made to forfeit their illegally acquired wealth to the state as soon as they cease to function under the protection of section 308. That is the best approach - trace and seize the funds or their bank accounts immediately. By taking that measure, you have automatically rendered them morally bankrupt and financially incapacitated. Without the stolen funds, they cannot fight the criminal justice system by hiring and deploying an arsenal of the best and brightest in the legal profession to impede prosecutorial flow. 

According to the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), "Many criminals are motivated by greed and the acquisition of material goods. Therefore, the ability of the government to forfeit property connected with criminal activity can be an effective law enforcement tool by reducing the incentive for illegal conduct. Asset forfeiture takes the profit out of crime by helping to eliminate the ability of the offender to command resources necessary to continue illegal activities."

Today, there are thousands of fraudulent Nigerians out there on the street, including former Governors and former Deputy Governors, as well as former Presidents and former Vice Presidents, known to have fraudulently enriched themselves with public funds. They are living free and living large on our wealth, even though they are no longer under any protection of the immunity clause. Section 308 is office-specific. It is over at the end of the protected period. 

Therefore, the Section should be strengthened to serve the intended legislative purpose. Any dilution will erode its efficacy. Immunity and unjust enrichment are mutually exclusive. The rationale was to engender purposeful governance, to ensure uninterrupted governmental activities at the state and federal levels, consistent with fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. That is the thesis of this essay. The major constraint is the nonchalant culture prevalent within the judicial branch, which borders on procedural rigmarole - unnecessary adjournments and various injunctive orders, without reasonable excuse or a show of irreparable harm or injury to the defendant.

Moving Forward:

Fellow Nigerians, whatever we do, we must not lose sight of the underlying imperative, designed to engender consistency and robust democratic values in our troubled political system that Section 308 represents. Therefore, we must be bold about consolidating those democratic values, without regard to the race or the social status of the culprits before and during a trial. That is the first step to renewing Nigeria. It is about equal rights and justice.

Availing your client with the defence of interim or permanent injunction in a clear-cut case of embezzlement of public funds as perfected by our reputable and highly respected lawyers is overtly aiding and abetting malfeasance. In Nigeria, both equitable reliefs are issued indiscriminately irrespective of the position of the movant in the case. In other words, in Nigeria, Injunctive relief is a defence mechanism. 

And that, my friends, is our real problem; not Section 308. If your hands are clean, and you rightly believe that you are innocent as charged, then, be willing to stand trial and defend the allegation of unjust enrichment instituted against you. This is the time we should all stand up and demand curtailment in the grant of injunctions and other discretionary reliefs by our Judges. There is a threshold that the movant must meet to sustain any motion for injunctive relief. That, of course, is outside the scope of this essay.

As an addendum, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not against capitalism, private ownership, or the private acquisition of wealth. However, I am unequivocally against over-leveraged capitalism and the prevailing culture of impunity and blatant abuse of political office by those vested with political power. To keep enriching yourself with public funds that you and your children cannot exhaust, buying cars you cannot drive, or landed property you barely use shows stupidity. It is not fair. It is not right. And it is morally repugnant. Therefore, it must stop for a resurgence of the true meaning of justice, equity, and the rule of law.

Thank you.

Mr. Alex Aidaghese, LL.M, MCSE June 04, 2012

Addendum:

Introduction to Judicial Activism

Making a Distinction between Criminal Wrong Doing and the Profits of Crime, Otherwise Known as Unjust Enrichment.

(By the way, what you are about to read is not part of the essay. It is merely an academic exercise for those who care. For a start, the likelihood of it happening in real life or in this generation in Nigeria is very remote).

The question is: Can we indict and prosecute a sitting President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors for fraudulent and unjust enrichment perpetrated while in office under the premise of "a nominal party" according to Sec 308(2)?

The answer is not absolute. But first, you must be ready to engage in the semantics war with the presiding judge and the defence counsel (the lawyer representing the defendant) concerning the definition or meaning of a nominal party.

We could, in all sincerity, institute a civil action to recover or recoup the fruits of crime or unjust enrichment, if we are, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, able to prove that the owner of a specific property or bank account (e.g., President, Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor) is only a nominal party - someone not directly involved in the case. But he or she is nevertheless connected to the case by his or her ownership of the property or bank account in question.

In other words, they are immune, but not their illegally or fraudulently acquired wealth. EFCC is within its power to seize and forfeit their properties and bank accounts to the State as long as we can prove that they are fruits of corrupt enrichment. Thus, it is probable to conclude that Sec 308 (2) does not shield or immune a sitting President, Vice President, Governor, or Deputy Governor from forfeiting to the Nigerian people, landed properties or Bank accounts fraudulently acquired if a civil action is instituted against such landed property and bank accounts.

Once again, Sec 308 (2) provides: “The provisions of subsection (1) of this section [that is the immunity] shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person [that is President, Vice President Governor and Deputy Governor] to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party [not directly connected].”  It is the same thing as arguing: since you are not directly connected (a nominal party), invariably your houses and bank accounts are not immune from seizure and forfeiture because the legal action is instituted against your property, and not you as a person.

To that extent, owners of a fraudulently acquired property or bank accounts - for example, President, Vice President, Governor, and Deputy Governor - cannot avail themselves of the defence of immunity under this section, if they are only indirectly or tangentially connected to the action - a nominal party. Thus, Subsection 308(2) provides cover for EFCC, ICPC, and AGF, if they want to go after the embezzled funds or landed properties of a serving President, Vice President, Governors, or Deputy Governor. Provided the action is in rem (property) and not in personam (the person).

I want to reiterate that the action is only after the fruits of crime and not the crime itself. Adding to that, the case is not against the perpetrators of the crime or fraud, but just against the fruits of corruption. If you want to call it prosecutorial activism, so be it. As I said earlier, you must be ready to do battle in the English Language about who "a nominal party" is. So it is not just establishing a prima facie case for unjust enrichment, but being able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the extent of the disconnect between the perpetrator and the unfair enrichment (bank accounts and property) that would justify civil trial or forfeiture.

Finally, given that it is a civil trial, you do not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if that is the standard (proof beyond a reasonable doubt), you do not need to crack your brain worrying if you can prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt, when trying to convict a Nigerian thief. The evidence is readily available. He is a stupid thief who rightly or wrongly believes that he cannot be condemned, even when caught in the act - he has a substantial accumulation of your money - our money - to hire the best of lawyers to pervert the justice system through ridiculous motions for adjournment or injunction.

(Be that as it may, it requires legal erudition and a willing court to be able to argue a motion based on the above premise. By the way, this is merely an intellectual voyage or a fishing expedition, because no Attorney General or IGP would in his right sense institute a case against a sitting President or Governor in Nigeria to recoup illegally acquired wealth).

Thanks once again for coming this far. June 2012.

Mr. Alex Aidaghese 

Blogger's Comment:

Celebrating a Rare Accomplishment, 

Posted, July 01, 2016. 

This essay is not a Term Paper; it is written with the understanding that every Nigerian, including those with a High School Diploma (Grammar School level), can read it and understand the arguments contained therein. What makes it so intriguing today is that at the time of its writing in June 2012, we did not anticipate the likelihood of it emerging as one of the most searched and the most-read pieces of legal analysis in the history of our involvement in social media. If you are still against the Immunity Clause, just pause and ask yourself, how come the very well-known "thieving Nigerians" who do not enjoy any modicum of Immunity are not apprehended, tried, or jailed. Ask yourself why ex-Governors who depleted their states' treasury and bogus Petroleum Marketers who deliberately and knowingly defrauded NNPC and PPPRA of the subsidy funds are still living large and living free on our wealth, despite the proof beyond reasonable doubt finding of culpability established by the Aigbojie Imoukhuede's Investigatory Pannell that was set up by President Jonathan. These are verifiable facts, and not legal or constitutional analyses by me. 

Writing this essay was not a daunting task. I was sure of my facts as well as the legal and constitutional issues implicated. However, organizing them coherently, editing and fishing for grammatical errors were enormously challenging. It took me months to coordinate the various sections for an easy read. 

The goal was to rebut the ignorance that was successfully perpetuated as the true meaning of the Immunity Clause by the news media and our political leaders, while the legal system remains helpless. 

One, the essay successfully put a stop to the celebrations of immunity in the wrong places in our political system - Ex-Governors, Deputy Governors, former Presidents, and former Vice Presidents as well as the members of the National Assembly are now aware that they do not enjoy immunity protection in our Constitution. If EFCC, ICPC, and the Attorney General of the Federation are not doing their job, that's a different matter entirely. 

And, two, the essay helps in identifying and defining the much-overlooked abuse of discretional power, and professional ethics at the Bench, and the Bar in Nigeria. Political leaders, columnists, and commentators didn't see them as the main issues. We did.  And we won the arguments. It's just about common sense.  
  
So, when in 2014, the Constitutional Review Committee set up by the National Assembly, voted unanimously for the retention of the section, it was, to me, a most welcoming development. Indeed so, because the Press Release issued by an influential Nigerian Bar Association Chapter following the vote for retention in the NASS, was a regurgitation of the arguments contained in the Rationale and Public Policy Arguments section of this very essay. Yes, it played a dominant role throughout the debate. 

We can now, at least agree on the main trouble with the Bar and the Bench in Nigeria. And on that, a consensus has emerged - indiscriminate and questionable granting of Interlocutory Orders, Injunctions, whether interim or perpetual by judges, and the deliberate delay tactics most often resorted to by influential lawyers via procedural rigmarole, cumulative evidence, and undecipherable legal mumbles-jumbles as argued by this author throughout the essay. 

May God Bless the Good People of Nigeria. 

Mr. Alex Aidaghese