Energy Law: Balancing Stabilization Clause with Human Rights and Sustainable Development of Host Communities!

An abridged version appeared on the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN) discussion Board on LinkedIn).

“The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.” - Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, John Ruggie. March 21, 2011.

Background

March 2011, I participated in a semester-long seminar on the Emerging International Framework for the Sustainable Development of Human and Natural Resources in Mineral Resources Rich Countries of the world. Towards the end of the workshop, one of the guest lecturers, during his presentation, told us a harrowing story of an agrarian community in Sub-Sahara Africa (name of the country withheld by this author) that was involuntarily relocated to a newly built settlement to provide land for a foreign mining company.

According to the speaker, the mining company compensated the dislocated villagers handsomely with a reasonable bank account and new homes – homes not roomier than they had before. Sadly, within a few years, most of the villagers depleted their savings and were left with nothing.

Only a few male adults trained by the mining company were offered jobs at the mine. It was a hopeless sight to behold; a once agrarian community, transformed into a mini town in the middle of nowhere, now in total want of essential means of livelihood.

Joblessness and social vices reign supreme and poverty enveloped the land. The sight of goats and cows rummaging the community shore and beyond - scavenging unhinged for nourishment - now flourishes only in the imagination of the settlers. And a much cherished communal lifestyle turned folklore told in tears and grief.

As the lecture continued and the video beamed pictures of helplessness and deprivations, it came to a point where I could no longer subdue the revulsion ravaging my inner soul.  I raised my hand and interrupted the lecture. I politely asked the gentleman, if, in addition to the bank account and brand new homes, they set aside new land at the newly built settlement for a continuation of their agrarian lifestyle given the fact that they were primarily into farming and husbandry at their ancestral homes before the forced relocation. He stared at me and didn’t vouch for a response instantly. It was a long pulse, to say the least.

The gentleman walked toward me with a steady focus, and said: 'If I have to do it again, that would be my first priority.' ‘But to answer your question, we did not do that.’ He went further to add: “The point you just raised is the situation all over the world, where, in pursuit of the development of natural resources, communities have been evacuated and involuntarily resettled at a new location.”

In the instant case, what we saw was that a substantial part of the settlers’ heritage and their inherent identity were permanently erased following relocation. 

Also, the native landowners were forced into a world of an endless new beginning; languishing in hopelessness, where things may never be the same again or change for the better. An agrarian community that used to be self-sufficient in food production is now a beggar community in a new world that they never bargain to beat. It was a hopeless situation through and through.

In this essay, we will, first, give a historical highlight of some of the decided cases that overwhelmingly benefited multinational oil companies, to be followed by the intervention of the United Nations (UN), imposing new responsibilities on foreign investors and asserting sovereign rights on behalf of host nations, and finally, we will touch on emerging trends that lay emphasis on “social license” and integrated contract.

Stabilization Clause: Cases and Places

Coming from a developing country that is very rich in natural mineral resources and where there is a never-ending conflict between IOCs and the local communities on one hand, and between the local communities and the central government on the other, my take on stabilization clause is transcendental of taxation methodology, and certainly, broader than most of the views expressed here. Based on empirical evidence surrounding the exploitation and exploration of natural resources in my country, and in most developing countries, a stabilization clause, no matter how well written, does not - standing alone - guarantee a continuous revenue stream for IOCs, nor provide adequate stability for investment in a host state/nation perpetually.  I will explain that in detail later. But first...

Stabilization clause refers to the provisions in a private contract between investors and the host nation that prohibits the host nation from changing the terms of the agreements,  for a specific period,  or for the duration of the project. The fundamental goal of the stabilization clause is to mitigate risks associated with sudden changes in the regulatory regime and to forestall outright regulatory appropriation (nationalization) by the host nation.

There are three basic types of stabilization clauses.

1. Freezing Clauses – As the name implies, aimed at freezing the laws that govern the contract from the day it was formed and throughout the project.
2. Economic Equilibrium Clauses – Cover payment of compensation in the event of changes in the existing contract, or applicable laws.
3. Hybrid Clauses – Safeguard against all changes in legislation, by requiring compensation or adjustments to the deal, including exemption from new laws.

Regulatory changes that most often catalyze protests on the part of foreign investors are the Introduction of a new tax regime and an increase in tax and royalty rates. A good example was the protracted dispute between Anadarko Petroleum and Sonatrach (Algeria State Oil Company) over the application of the 2005 Algeria Hydrocarbon Law, modified in 2006, which empowers the government to tax oil windfall profits. In 2007, the Algerian government introduced a new tax on exceptional profits made under existing contracts while Brent Crude prices exceeded $30 /bb/.  In 2011, Anadarko went to arbitration, arguing that the application was a violation of the PSA structured between it and the host nation.

Historically, some regulatory expropriations may be due to political changes or ideological shifts in the economic system. In the case of Libya American Oil Company (ARAMCO) v. Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, the stabilization clause was upheld according to the terms of the concession right granted under the Libya Petroleum Law No 251955. In the words of Arbitrator Mahmassani: “It is widely accepted in international law and practice that an arbitration clause survives the unilateral termination by the State of the contract in which it is inserted and continues in force even after that termination. This is a logical consequence of the interpretation of the intention of the contracting parties, and appears to be one of the basic conditions for creating a favourable climate for foreign investment.”

In Lena Goldfields, Ltd v. U.S.S.R 1930, the Concession Agreement entered into in 1925, granted the company exclusive rights of exploration and mining for 50 years. Adding to that, the Soviet government agreed not to make any alteration to the agreement by order or decree without Lena’s consent. However, in 1929 the Soviet government changed the entire economy and embraced the communist system under the Five-Year-Plan. The government became the only customer and supplier. Lena took the government to arbitration, arguing that the Government had made it impossible for the Company to perform its obligations and to enjoy its rights under the concession agreement. The tribunal held for Lena on breach of contract charges and on restitution for the full present value of its properties – unjust enrichment and for the confiscation of Lena’s properties.

However, some regulatory changes are non-related to a version of the Western political system or motivated by the need to benefit from profits windfall as we saw in Algerian (Sonatrach) v. Anadarko Petroleum. In Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Co, the issue here was simply not ideologically driven. Instead, it was a development influenced principally by an investment diversification drive - the creation of new markets and new trading partners.

The Saudi authority simply reneged on the existing agreement it had with Arabian American Oil Co that prohibits Saudi Arabia from dealing with other investors. In the ensuing suit, the tribunal held among other things, that the “stabilization” clause in the 1935 concession, by which Saudi Arabia had undertaken not to modify or restrict ARAMCO’s right, was binding on the host state. In other words, the Saudi authority is prohibited from dealing with different partners, except Arabian American Oil Co.

In sum, what is at stake as revealed in all the cases decided above is the interest of foreign investors in having a favorable investment climate in the host nation throughout the investment. Disappointingly, these protective mechanisms in the agreement are unconscionable, and lopsidedly structured to circumscribe the lawmaking power inherent in the sovereignty of host nations. The concessionaire agreement between the National Transition Government of Liberia and Mattel Steel Holdings AG (a Mining company) calls into question the sincerity of some Western multinationals in their dealings with developing countries.

Part of the original agreement reads, courtesy of Global Witness: “Any modifications that could be made in the future to the law in effect on the effective date shall not apply to the concessionaire and its associates without their prior written consent, but the concessionaire and its associated may at any time elect to be governed by the legal and regulatory provisions resulting from changes made at any time in the law as in effect on the effective date. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the rights, obligations, and duties of a Party under this agreement, and any other law, including administrative rules and procedures and matters relating to procedures, and applicable international law, then this agreement shall govern the rights, obligations, and duties of the parties”. 

The agreement was subsequently modified following a concerted global outrage and protest, especially from Global Witness, some MBA students from Columbia University in New York City, and concerned Liberians at home and abroad. There are numerous instances like this where some countries resorted to legislative expropriation (nationalization) rather than litigate or renegotiate the unconscionable agreement.

In hindsight, it is no longer fashionable for multinationals to take undue advantage of their financial strength and superior bargaining power to undermine human rights, environmental concerns of local communities as well as the sovereign status of a given nation-state. Therefore, we suggest that stakeholders dilute stabilization clauses with ecological and human rights exceptions while providing foreign investors and IOCs with adequate leeway to negotiate if the promulgation of new laws or new tax regimes adversely impacts the substantive agreement.

Below, are two stabilization clauses of the nation-state of Angola and the People's Republic of China that are seemingly in sync with the position of this paper concerning balancing the interests of IOCs against those of the host nation and communities. Also, they are in accord with the 1962 UN declaration as well as modern trends in natural resources agreements, reproduced here courtesy of International Petroleum Transactions – Ernest E. Smith. 

1. “If any change in the provisions of any law, decree, or regulation in force in the Republic of Angola occurs after the signing of this Agreement which adversely affects the obligations, rights, and benefits hereunder, then the Parties shall agree on amendments to the Agreement to be submitted to the competent authorities for approval, to restore such rights, obligations, and forecasted benefits”. 
2. “If a material change occurs to the Contractor’s economic benefits after this contract becomes effective [the 1990s] due to the promulgation of new laws, decrees, rules, and regulations, made by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Parties shall consult promptly and make necessary revisions and adjustments to the relevant provisions of the Contract to maintain the Contractor’s normal economic benefits hereunder”. 

Statehood, Human Rights Protection, and Integrated Contract

Statehood demands of every sovereign nation, Nigeria inclusive, the right to develop a fundamental framework for natural resources conservation, to ensure sustainable use for and on behalf of the governed, and specifically, for and on behalf of the local or host communities and the unborn generations in the natural resource-rich regions.

Most importantly, host governments shouldn't abdicate their sovereign rights to enact new laws or have their rights to make new laws preempted. So, the power to modify the existing tax regime should withstand stabilization clauses in every investment agreement. Of significant relevance here is the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources." Parts of that declaration read:

The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.

The exploration, development, and disposition of such resources, as well as the import of the foreign capital required for these purposes, should be in conformity with the rules and conditions which the peoples and nations freely consider to be necessary or desirable concerning the authorization, restriction or prohibition of such activities.

In cases where authorization is granted, the capital and the earnings on that capital shall be governed by the terms thereof, by the national legislation in force and by international law. The profits derived must be shared in the proportions freely agreed upon, in each case, between the investors and the recipient State, due care being taken to ensure that there is no impairment, for any reason, of that State's sovereignty over its natural wealth and resources.

From the preceding, it is quite apparent that sovereign rights and the protection of human rights in the host state are as necessary as the protection of foreign investments. In hindsight, where human rights and environmental protection are missing in current contracts, or where compliance with a given agreement imperils the host state’s ability to legislate on human rights protection and the environment, the commitment, most often, becomes operationally problematic. Therefore, investors and the government of the host state must ensure that both competing interests are adequately protected.

That fundamental framework involves the integration of human rights and human resources development concerns within the body of the various international investment agreements negotiated between host Nations and local and foreign investors. It requires balancing the investment interests of the investors against those of the host nations, without undermining the environmental impacts associated with the activities of the investors, as well as the human rights and sustainable development of the host communities. That is the current trend in the development of mineral resources around the World - balancing the investment interests of foreign multinationals with the interests and expectations of the host communities within the body of the original contract or agreement. Not being treated as an ancillary or a collateral issue.

It requires the establishment of Land Reclamation Funds or Water Restoration Funds, created at the inception of the exploration agreement to be funded by the Federal Government, IOCs, and LOCs with a certain percentage of estimated yearly earnings agreed upon by the parties. The contracting parties must deposit the funds in an escrow account during each calendar year, specifically to offset environmental cleanup (Gulf of New Mexico), oil spillage as was the case in Bonga Field, the Ogoni land, and most recently, the Kogi minefield. That is an emerging trend globally.

It also involves land reclamation and decommissioning costs whenever the need arises or whenever the investor ceases operations. (Shell departure, for example). The land reclamation funds, the escrow account, as well as water restoration obligations are essential and mandatory components of an integrated contract. It means transforming the water (river) or the land to its pristine natural state before exploratory activities. 

It requires honest and transparent negotiations between the government, IOCs, and the local communities where natural resources are located. IOCs should endeavour to engage and interact socially and economically with the local people regularly by buying local produce and attending community affairs, and cultural festivals. It is called a social license, which is more important than any PSA.

Besides, the divide and rule system (setting up one community against another or one interest group against another as was the case in the trial and execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa) is counterproductive and should be avoided by the stakeholders, the central government, and the IOCs.

In Nigeria, environmental compliance is not given a commensurate premium despite the enormity of the inherent hazards in the industry and is hardly regulated. This phenomenon is least connected with the want of applicable laws or regulations in the sector, but due to logistics-related problems and the lackadaisical approach to regulatory mechanisms by those vested with the authority to regulate. As expected, oil companies often take advantage of the vacuum in the regulatory regime and laugh all the way to the bank with impunity. Consequently, leaving the peasants and aquatic farmers (the owners of the land) who depend solely on ecological resources as a means of sustenance in a dire state of hopelessness.

Environmental abuse and unbridled human rights violations compelled the UN to initiate Ruggie’s Study and Report, which has come to define the new global approach to the exploitation of natural resources. It is anchored on Protect, Respect, and Remedy. These obligations – human rights protection, environmental and regulatory compliance, grievance mechanisms, and prompt resolution of disputes - are independent of and separated from the ability or willingness of the host nation to provide the same to its people, specifically, to the communities in and around the location of the investment. 

Social License and Dispute Resolution

Based on empirical evidence surrounding the exploitation/exploration of natural resources in Nigeria and in most developing countries of the world, the stabilization clause, no matter how well written or structured, does not - standing alone - guarantee a continuous revenue stream for IOCs or domestic investors. 

Presently, it cost Shell and the Nigerian Federal Government much more to provide security for expatriate workers and facilities in the Niger Delta in comparison to what other oil companies, similarly situated, pay to maintain production at the same capacity elsewhere.  The facts are whenever Shell declares force majeure; both Shell and the federal government suffer substantial financial setbacks, running into millions of dollars in revenue, royalties, and taxes. When those are factors into the huge security budget and the replacement cost resulting from recurring expenses associated with burning and looting, you would have had much more than enough to finance the demands of the local communities before grievances escalate out of control into kidnapping and vandalism.

According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), “Before disputes escalate to the settlement at an international level, companies must ensure that they have in place adequate mechanisms for dispute resolution between its stakeholders and the communities. A grievance mechanism should provide a way for the communities to hold the company accountable, to be sure it takes community inputs seriously, deal with them through a clear and transparent process, follow through with actions, and communicate with the community.”

Given the restive situation in the Niger Delta, it is reasonable to conclude that stabilization clauses standing alone, cannot guarantee the stability that investors desire in an economy. Presently, Anglo-Dutch Shell BP and AGIP have been downsizing operations in Nigeria, because of the upsurge in vandalism, kidnapping, and the indiscriminate destruction of pipelines and construction facilities by the militants in some parts of the Niger Delta.

In fact, the Nigerian government did not introduce a new tax regime or change the dynamics of the regulatory framework governing any PSA. The civil society created an unpleasant investment climate that made the performance at the projected level commercially impracticable; thus, making it difficult comparatively for Shell to remain in operation as it was about 15 years ago. So, a stabilization clause as an investment protection mechanism is an illusion. 

There must be in place, mechanisms for resolving and promptly so, of disputes and disagreements between IOCs and local communities before they escalate to mass protests.

Similarly, stakeholders should take cognizance of the fact that investment treaties and stabilization clauses do not provide the kind of stability that developing some forms of relationship (social license) with the community offers. Susan Joyce put it better, "the governments define the scope of legal compliance, but the broader scope of the responsibility to respect is defined by social expectations – as part of the company’s social license to operate.”

Moving Forward!

The demand for the integration of human rights, human resources development, and sustainable development within the framework of every investment agreement in the extractive sector, is not just an an intellectual exercise. It is real and achievable if diligently pursued. Investment Treaties and Stabilization Clauses do not provide the kind of stability that developing some forms of relationship (social license) with the community offers.

Based on indisputable facts, social license trumps stabilization clauses as far as investment stability goes on foreign soil. More emphasis should be on the office of the Director of Public Affairs – an office with a decisive and social mandate, with the ability to project a positive social image of IOCs before the local communities.

Therefore, all the super Lawyers, Accountants, and Geologists holding briefs for some of these multinationals having investments or contemplating investments in the Middle Belt and North East or in developing countries should be cognizant of these developing trends, when structuring natural resources agreements. In other words, they should be mindful of the fact that the stabilization clause has its limitations.

The earlier nation-states and foreign investors embrace and acknowledge the interests and concerns of Indigenous people and inculcate those concerns into their final investment agreements, the closer we are to peace and sustainable human development in the mineral-producing areas anywhere in the World. Nothing enriches shareholders' values more than sustainable income. But first, there must be peace and tranquillity at the job site.

It is our firm belief that any IOC that values life, liberty, freedom, and fundamental human rights of others, especially of people living in and around mines and rigs should not prevaricate on these measures.

The United Nations has over the years developed numerous papers and articles on this very issue of integration of human rights and investors’ interests in natural resources agreements with host nations to ensure sustainable peace and development. The one that I find most revealing is the Rio Declaration of 1992. Four of the articles are reproduced below.

• “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
• “The right to development must be fulfilled to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.”
• “To achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”
• “Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture, and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.” UN RIO DECLARATION: Principles 1, 3, 4, & 24

Therefore, we firmly hold that the number one problem facing multinationals in the extractive sector, especially in developing countries, Niger Delta, in particular, is a failure of corporate social responsibility and the greed and betrayal of the representatives of the central government. Also, the host nation should hold IOCs liable for any financial loss resulting from the declaration of force majeure unconnected with natural disasters, or unforeseeable catastrophic occurrences. In other words, you cannot declare force majeure over foreseeable and preventable grievances. It is that simple. Also, we firmly believe that the health and environmental hazards prevalent in the oil-producing areas and Niger Delta, in particular, are preventable, and the economic deprivations and financial losses inherent in oil spillage and pollution are compensable. Host nations, as well as host communities, working through the proper channel, should demand punitive damages where catastrophic occurrences are foreseeable, egregious, and preventable. I beg to move. 

Thank you and God Bless.

Mr. Alex Aidaghese. (LL.M)

[i] Susan Joyce: “Human Rights and the Extractive Industries: the Ruggie Framework and Human Rights Impact Assessments.

[ii] IFC: International Finance Corporation. Good practice Note: Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities. Guidance for projects and companies on designing grievance mechanisms.

[iii] Susan Joyce: “Human Rights and the Extractive Industries: the Ruggie Framework and Human Rights Impact Assessment.

Straight Talk: Of Boko Haram, Amnesty, and Egalitarianism.

PART ONE: PREAMBLE

"If Mr. Jonathan was in the past disinclined to negotiate with Boko Haram’s faceless hounds, why is he now hearkening to entreaties to do so? And if members of the sect had preferred to operate in anonymity, what are the odds that, with an amnesty dangled in their faces, they will peel off their masks and show their faces? Is it the case, perhaps, that the Sultan and others championing amnesty have been in conversation with the Haramists? If so, can the Sultan and other pleaders guarantee that members of the sect will consent to lay down their weapons and integrate themselves into society the moment amnesty is pronounced?" Professor Okey Ndibe: “Dancing With Ghost, Ignoring The Dead” – Sahara Reporters, April 08, 2013.

... and his fear came to pass. The "Haramists" rejected the unconditional offer of amnesty from the President. And the "Sultan and other pleaders" were not able to prevail on the sect to "peel off their masks" and "lay down their weapons ..." This morning, April 17, 2013; it was reported by Sahara Reporters that “two Police Officers were gun down in Kaduna.” Once again, it’s deja vu all over again.

President Jonathan may have won strategically by ceding ground on the amnesty debate – preempting ACN, CPC, Northern Governor Associations, the Northern Elders, and the Emirs in their calculated resolve to cast him the enemy of peace in the region - but there are situations where a leader must not only be politically strategic, but at the same time, be seen to be adamantly resolute in the face of 'clear and present danger.' The lingering lawless state of our union is an ideal situation. Our President should have stood by his "Borno Declaration”, where he told the distinguished audience that “unless they put their house in order and talk to the sect members who are their children to lay down their arms and embrace peace, the Federal Government will not grant them amnesty, not to talk of withdrawing the men of the JTF.”  As you all know, few days after that profound declaration, our President capitulated. Earlier today, the President inaugurates a 26 man Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of Security Challenges in the North. Nigerians, where we go from here is as fluid as unraveling boko haram’s next target.

Renouncing violence and agreeing to dialogue should precede amnesty, if at all, but not the other way round. All the concerned parties must be willing to participate, without compulsion or appeasement.  Today, we are exerting undue pressure on the Presidency to compromise as if we have forgotten what boko haram's demands are. In other words, we are willing to extend financial support to the same people who willfully and knowingly participated and continue to participate in unconstitutional religious crusade, to wit indoctrinate and conquer the unwilling by the use of force. As I write, perfection and deployment of IED are virtual reality every where in the northern part of the country.  

From all indications, we have forgotten the victims and their families who hadn't the slightest knowledge of who Yusuf Mohammed was, what he stood for or how he died? And for the sake of peace, the Presidency has abdicated in its inherent responsibility to protect the defenseless in the face of threatened rights. President Jonathan and his advisers are now willing to compensate the sects for attempting to kill the Emir of Kano, for bombing UN Official Complex and killing innocent souls. We are now pandering to enemies of civilizations for ravaging the entire Middle Belt region with merciless daring. We are now appeasing bunch of heartless mercenaries, masquerading as victims, for ruthlessly transforming the once cosmopolitan Maiduguri into a ghost town. And for killing and maiming innocent unarmed women and children, and burning places of worship, as if life has no meaning, we have set up committee to compensate them for daring to subvert our emerging democracy and transform a secular nation-state into one where Sharia Law is the order of the day.  Where is our conscience? Where is the collective outrage? This is the time, Nigeria, to stand with your President - pressuring him to do what is noble and Presidential, and not to capitulate in the face of tyranny.  

All of us feel victimized when government treat criminals as protected species. Bogus Petroleum Marketers are living free and living large at our expense. Police Pension Fund Raiders are using our money they stole to pervert our justice system, buying themselves freedom in the process. Governors of Obasanjo's years are yet to account for the Billions of Dollars they stole from the people. Today, one can no longer explain the insurgency on the basis of vengeance for the death of Mr. Yusuf Mohammed, as it was originally. 

Historically, religion has always been a weapon of political power game in Nigeria. Prominent leaders who should have step up to stem the tide of the insurgency at inception, feign ignorance, arguing that it is a war that would bring down the Jonathan's government. They were wrong. Commentators in the social media who called on elder statesmen and political leaders in northern region to intervene were labeled ethnic chauvinists. It is a Jonathan's problem, we were told. Not any more. "We should not wait for the Federal Government to start the process of making peace with Boko Haram. We must stop the blame game of saying 'it is Abuja' (that should end the insurgency), because Abuja is only to complement the efforts of the state governments while the actual decision and the mobilisation of the people rests with the state governors." That was Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State, while addressing the 24th Forum of Speakers of Northern States Houses of Assembly, on April 17, 2013.

When did the irrepressible Governor, the Sultan, and the Elders realize that the insurgency is no longer a Jonathan's war to win or to lose? Just pause and reminisce on the scale of the carnage, the bombing, the indiscriminate killing and maiming that the boko haram sect unleashed on this nation in the past three years, and wonder if the Sultan, the Emirs, the Governors, and the Elders and the Statesmen were in a different planet.

With the inauguration of yet another committee by the Presidency this morning, we are down the same road once again. And to those of us writing, publishing, and fighting to keep Nigeria undivided, that is the Nigerian question we must not hesitate to unravel. First, we must not relent in hammering on those policies and programs influenced by religious and ethnic considerations that perpetuate division and hatred. That awareness is necessary to prevent a repeat of the past and strengthen national cohesion  - a road map, perhaps, to a new Nigerian. (You may also call it a national conference by other means).

PART TWO: HOW DID WE GET HERE?

There is no denying the fact that boko haram is chicken coming home to roost. The educational policy selfishly designed and openly implemented at the national level to impede educational advancement in the south, with a view to eliminating the educational gap between north and south, boomerang in a magnitude unimaginable by the proponents of the policy. It succeeded in creating generations of uneducated, easily manipulated religious extremists in northern region – a cesspool for boko haram adherents and recruitment reservoir for those who want to impose a state religion on the rest of us.

Today, free education at all levels, though practicable, is an aberration at the national level, because Dr. Jubrin Aminu now Professor (Senator) Jubrin Aminu was of the view that a nationally implemented free education at all levels has the potential to widen the already educational gap between the North and the south. In his own words: “In the Universities themselves, the Federal Government is now contemplating introducing free education. Whatever may be the merits of this considered step, its likely effect on University population must be mentioned. It is going to result in an even greater imbalance in enrolment  for the simple reason that at the moment, there are a fair number of highly eligible candidates for University education, mainly from the educationally advanced states, [west, east, and Midwest] who unfortunately cannot enter University simply on financial grounds.” That was Professor Aminu in his memo, titled “Educational Imbalance: Its Extent, History, Dangers and Correction in Nigeria” - National University Commission.

Following the Professor’s memo, our federal government did not only jettison the idea of free education at all levels as he canvassed, they went as far as removing government subsidy on students’ feeding - more money is being spent on southern children given their larger population in Nigerian Universities. Think about the “Ali Must Go” era, and you will remember what they did.

His retrogressive logic was that if federal government implements free education, southern parents already handicapped by financial problems and who would not have been able to take their Children through the university due to the financial problems would now be able to do so. Such a development, he argued, would ultimately add to the existing education gap between north and the south. It was his view that poor families in the north will not take advantage of the program like poor parents in the south, because of their resentment towards western culture and values. That was Dr. Aminu’s argument in the memo, not mine. Based on that calculation, he concluded that the idea of free education should be a non-starter. And they did. Obasanjo was the Military Head of State. And that remains the policy till today. In other words, if it is not good for his own people, it is not good for Nigeria. He was wrong. How he came to that conclusion is beyond common sense. Did he or any of his collaborators make any attempt to impress it upon their "anti-western culture people" the importance of popular education? They never did. As at then, his people needed free education more than the rejected tribes of the south.

The educational gap between north and south that Dr. Aminu wanted to bridge by all means possible did not happen overnight in the south. It was made possible by the embrace of Christian Missionaries in the East - integration of religious studies with scholarly pursuit - by the Ndigbo, and the free education program of Action Group in the western region as well as the acceptance and embrace of western culture and values side by side with the Yoruba creeds by the people of the Western Region. Dr. Aminu acknowledged these facts in his 53-page memo, rather than strive to adopt the same programs nation-wide, he embarked on a futile war, demanding that the rest of the country stand still for the north to catch up educationally, whether or not his northern administrators, governors and commissioners for education thought it prudent to embrace the same values and programs that made educational advancement possible in the south.

In similar vein, when President Obasanjo came into office, thanks to IBB and his fellow northern power brokers, most of the Governors in the north feel no scruple introducing Sharia Law in their respective states. Going by the facts on the ground, there was no compelling reason, whether social or religious, that could explain the Governors’ motive for the Sharia initiative. It was done to spite a President who is from the south, and at the same time, a Christian – the same President, who, of course, was not, and has never been in the good book of his own people. It doesn't matter; they want you to buy into their machination that they are protecting their beloved region and religion from infidels. My friends, it’s all farcical – a diabolical contrivance to cloak their wastage and poor performance in office.

Today, it is a different story; Boko haram sect has taken the Sharia initiative to a level unprecedented in the history of religious war in Nigeria. Also, for the first time in the history of the creation of Nigeria, it is the un-celebrated and overtly lampooned “clueless intruder from Utuoke”, who thought it fit to extend popular education to the forgotten and the rejected talakawa and the almajiri of the north.  His name is President Jonathan, the same guy every political strategist is scheming to throw out of Aso Rock, come 2015. Guys, you don’t have to like this man, you don't have to be a member of his political party (I am not), but you cannot take that unprecedented accomplishment away from him.

It is sad, very sad that a country and a people so blessed, who were few years back, categorized as the happiest people on earth, are now in a state of anomie. Thanks, of course, to the smartness of perverts and apostates who are never shy of deploying religious and ethnic propaganda to divide and conquer the majority of us under the guise of “protecting my people”. This time, no one is safe. Not even the Emir of Kano, of all person. If Nigeria must move forward as a progressive nation-state, if Nigeria must move forward as one indivisible nation-state, these are the people we must never vote into national office. It’s all about common sense. Something must be different come 2015.

PART THREE: MOVING FORWARD

A child growing up should have a home, a government that cares, and the opportunity to make a choice about what to make of every religious doctrine contrary to the trends within the Muslim faith in the northern part of the country. There are Muslims in Yoruba land; most of them are well educated, while others are fairly educated. The same is true of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Indonesia, and Iran, just to name a few. Why must northern Nigeria be an exception?

What is called for is a coherent national education policy, with full support of the federal government, similar to what Action Groups did in the Old Western Region. It was a similar educational program that late Governor Abubakar Rimi implemented in Kano State during the second republic – a grass root educational campaign that won for his administration, a UNICEF Award. The Almajiri educational initiative of the present federal government is a good start, but it must be all embracing – every child, whether from Christian, Muslim, or Animist background should have access to early and free education in every part of the country. (If I am not mistaken, the Northern Chapter of Christian Association of Nigeria also espouses this view). A compulsory, free, and popular education for all children of school age – from Elementary School to Grammar School level - would go a long way in shaping the attitude of the children and how they embrace religious doctrine as adult.

Education is a right, and it is the best investment in the life of a child. Religion is a choice, and should be treated that way. In most part of northern region of Nigeria, religion, and not education, is a right - the only known avenue to emancipation. A child capable of imbibing and reciting Quran verses verbatim is capable of digressing quadratic equations in a Mathematics class, if given the opportunity. Don’t ask me how. The proof is glaring. No matter how you look at it, it’s all about effort and the leadership that you have and what their views are on educational advancement, and specifically, on egalitarianism.

In addition, the Holy book does not forbid integration or teaching of popular education - English Language, Arithmetic, Social Studies, and Integrated Sciences - side by side with Islamic studies. Christian Missionaries in the Eastern Region, before and after our independence from Great Britain, perfected the integration model perfectly well – Bible on one hand, English, Mathematics, Civic, and Social Sciences on the other. Same can be replicated in Northern region with respect to religious studies.

We must not give up on educating these children, because informed citizenry is the most potent and decisive weapon against false beliefs and extorted indoctrination. No one would buy into the western education is “haram” baloney, if regular education was part of his or her adolescence. There must be a distinction to be made between social/moral purity and survival instinct through purpose engagement in the economic sector.

God and Allah help those who help themselves. That is a fact and not just a saying. Our Islamic scholars, teachers, and leaders should be willing to embrace changes and accept the fact that religious freedom is most ennobling when combined with economic freedom. The current helplessness of the less privileged in that part of our World is disgraceful and cannot be sustained for too long. Therefore, government intervention in the academic sector at the very early stage in the lives of the affected children would go a long way in shaping their perception and understanding of religion, its social and moral impacts, and the extent of its limitations in the context of economics – creation, distribution, and consumption of wealth." We must start early.

PART FOUR: A WORD OF CAUTION

Any attempt by any one group or groups to engage in forceful indoctrination of the unaffiliated should be treated the way it is - an act of war against the sovereign. For Nigeria to live up to its promise of one nation one destiny, it must be willing to apply every resources at its disposal to defend threatened rights.

We want to reinstate that Boko Haram is a real threat to our corporate existence as one country. We support dialogue in the past, and we still do, because we believe that it is easier to subdue and conquer enemies you know, and in a bounded enclave than fighting an insurgent groups with no fixed address or defined territory. Besides, a declaration of war on the sect is a declaration of war on innocent Nigerians who do not espouse forceful incrimination,  but happen to share common boundary or close proximity with them.

As things are today – dialogue or no dialogue - it is our belief that 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 their 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, and the forceful indoctrination campaign characteristics of the Boko Haram sect.  

In addition, if the unrest is a rejection of President Jonathan and his 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 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. You cannot continue to sponsor and fund lawlessness, with a view to destabilize the country, and at the same time find grace in labeling the President weak. 

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 our constitution. Every Nigerian must have the right to aspire to the highest office in the land through democratic process. Let's grow and develop our democracy consistent with the trends in most developed countries of the World. Military coup is never a better option, it has never been and it will not be. If our Judiciary is independent and graft free, we will be able to manage the war against corruption, and at the same time, be able to conduct a free, fair and credible election, and ultimately, elect leaders of our choice.  If President Jonathan and his government remain nonchalant about recouping our stolen oil wealth from bogus petroleum marketers and from police pension funds raiders, then, come 2015, we should come together and rally around and vote for a credible candidate who is ready, and in a better position to protect and manage our wealth.

Make no mistake; Nigeria is not for sale and will not suffer any extinction come rain or shine, but we must be willing to point fingers at the real infidels in our midst - those who steal and those who use religion to divide us. They are the real enemies of one strong Nigeria. We must be able to say it the way it is, without equivocation. We must must be persistent in our collective resolve to educate our voters on the credibility and otherwise of every prospective political leaders. For instance, every Governor who did introduce Sharia Law in his or her State should say bye bye to Presidential ambition.

(If I may digress, we must endeavor to communicate or write in clear English to make it easier for our audience to grasp every bit of our message. That is the fundamental goal of communication - the ability to reach your readers, without placing them in a situation where they would have to guess the meaning of your message. For a start, consult the Editorial page and the Op-Ed Columns of The New York Times. Be smooth).

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION

As we sign off, we want to remind Nigerians that our desire for one cohesive entity, our love for the good life, our intellectual and educational drive, our freedom to worship what we want and how we want shall never be compromised. Similarly, our pursuit of happiness, the need for equal rights, justice, and egalitarianism must be pursued with every fiber of our being - never, never; we will never compromise on those things that we hold dear to our heart as a free people. We will never bargain away our fundamental rights to associate and worship the way we want, or bargain away our inherent rights to educate our kids in any part of Nigeria that we chose. Not now, not any time. We will never surrender.

Every faithful adherent of the Islamic faith in Nigeria must stand up to rescue the faith and the Quranic studies from the stranglehold of those with perverted doctrinaire. Every community must rise to protect itself. Every vigilante group must reorganize to protect their women, their children, and the helpless. I empathize with the sect for the death of their leader, but remember, two wrongs don’t make a right. Every struggle has a meaning. This one has gone too far.

At this juncture, I would like to remind every insurgent group and those behind them that negotiating peace with your enemies is not a sign of weakness; it takes greatness to accomplish that. We shouldn't forget the Camp David Accord between Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, brokered by President Jimmy Carter in 1978. No one consider it realistic given the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It did. Today the two neighboring countries live in peace. Why not us?

Boko haram and their supporters should remember that, and do the right thing: Surrender your weapons and embrace peace. Nigeria is a secular, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural sovereign nation-state. Amnesty, the way is currently being dangled before you is a complete travesty - an absurdity of a dismal proportion. Every Nigerian should reject it. You do not deserve it, and you know you don't deserve it. If boko is haram, as you have been propagating for years, where and how did you learn to develop IED? That explains the fallacy of your demand and the shallowness of your propaganda.  I wish the Sultan and his team the best of luck.

May God bless the good people of Nigeria.

To be continued.

Alex (Ehimhantie-Aiyo) Aidaghese

Williams: Prayers That Work

Williams: Prayers That Work, The Guardian Nigeria

Digging Trenches?

"FREDERICK Fasehun, medical doctor and founder of the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) is a very serious mind. He is not the sort of person you would associate with political mischief. Fasehun has decided to seek the resurrection of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), the party that gave the Southwest states and Bendel (Edo and Delta) some measure of good governance during the Second Republic. Those who witnessed UPN at work between 1979 and 1983 will agree that it was a great party and the leader, Obafemi Awolowo was a great man. In terms of organisation, UPN was first among equals, having a following that is disciplined and deeply committed. In terms of programmes, Awolowo ensured that the party put on paper what it could achieve. Free education was not just on paper; it was real and full time. There are other positive sides of the UPN experience you cannot exhaust in a hurry."

"It is indeed a lifetime experience for many, which perhaps, is why Fasehun has embarked on a process to reactivate it. But it is not going to be an easy process and times have changed. The UPN era was one when men were godly, at least relatively. Today, men are too busy to seek God. In fact, they are now godfathers. The point is that it will take a lot to have back those good old days and if Fasehun is serious, there should be men who will be willing to go down memory lane with him, not to dig trenches for 2015, but to give back to life a meaning politicians have stolen."

"But there are already darts here and there. Why not? You cannot resurrect UPN without ruffling feathers. You must touch the soul of the Southwest and all those who genuinely trace their lineage to that beautiful political experience. As the facts emerge, this narrative will surely resume."

How Nigerians Collude With IOCs To Frustrate PIB, By Former NNPC’s Chief

How Nigerians Collude With IOCs To Frustrate PIB, By Former NNPC’s Chief

How the idea of new UPN was mooted – Frederick Fasehun

How the idea of new UPN was mooted – Frederick Fasehun

Is it only a resuscitation of name or the ideals of the party as it were those days? Vanguard

"It is not the cap, or the spectacle, but the ideologies that is expressed in the welfarism and social democracy of the people. That is Awoism." - Fasehun, the Vanguard - April 12, 2013.

Our Comment: 

Since the start of this Blog, we have, without any reservation,  treated the name, Awo, as well as the Awo philosophy; otherwise referred to as Awoism, with unparalleled reverend and admiration.  So, coming by this story earlier today, April 12, 2013, it is expected that we will post it on our Blog. The UPN ideological bent is totally in sync with our definition of politics. The Awo philosophy, in other words, his leadership style, is people focused - populist. Unfortunately, the present leadership cadre in Nigeria lacks the courage to develop a coherent and robust framework for people oriented planning and development. I used to interpret that shameful abhorrence of populism by present day Nigerian leaders in the context of intellectual deficiency or audacity deficit. Not any more. They know exactly what they are doing. It's all about the bottom line - how much they will be able to take home for their personal use, if free education and affordable healthcare provisions are taken off the table. Let's hope and pray that Mr. Fasehun and the new breed Awo disciples at home and abroad are ale to register the party. 

Below you will find some highlights of his leadership virtues culled from this Blog.

"I reject the ‘destroying this temple’ (Nigeria) narrative of our bloggers, opinion leaders and writers. I would rather we focus on a unifying and nation building narrative - doing exactly what Chief Obafemi Awolowo did – educate everyone and provide for everyone the right incentives for empowerment, for industrialization, and entrepreneurship and simultaneously, do exactly what Mallam Nassir El’Ruffai did at FCT- clean up the Temples, without regards to race, religion, and class and make it (Nigeria) WHOLE again, without bloodshed."

"We might not have a Bill Clinton or another Awo, but if we could gather enough wisdom, enough foresight and look beyond our present anger and resolve to jettison ethnic and religious considerations when making leadership choices, if we could stand and remain objective in our assessment of our potential leaders, I am optimistic that we will find greatness again very soon."

"When Awo left for England for his law degree he made a commitment that every child of school going age, will never walk a long distance to school again, when he is back in office. On his return from England and back in government, he accomplished that dream in the magnitude that defied human imagination. There were elementary schools and grammar schools within walking distance for every eligible candidate. As at the creation of Midwest region on August 9, 1963, my village, Ewohimi, had about thirteen Primary Schools, Three Modern Schools and a Grammar School. All built before 1960 under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his Action Group political party. In a nutshell, every child wanting to go to School, did so without sweat."

"PDP, as a political party is personification of everything that is resentful about Nigeria. The party does not stand for something that you and I could easily relate to as trademark of what is real and noble in a political party. Same is true of other political parties. Awo and UPN stood for Free Education at all Levels. President Shehu Shagari and NPN stood for Quality Education. Republican Party in the U.S espouses limited government and lower taxes."

"I stand to be corrected, PDP, ACN, Labor, and CPC do not have any ascertainable or easily understood policy or manifesto that one could readily relate to or attribute to the brain child of any of the top brass of the parties - be it on education; be it on healthcare; be it on how to manage our federal system and making it more efficient; or be it on real economy with a view to creating more jobs and improving public service."

"For instance, the fact that you wear an Awo hat doesn't make you an Awoist or imbue you with Awo's values and his leadership virtues. Do you profess Awoism and be willing to apply them to the best of your ability relative to the volume of resources within your control - pragmatism? That is the test."

"You don’t have to be an Afenifere to wear the crown. After all, Professor Claude Ake who introduced “Awo” as a course of study in his Faculty at the University of Calabar, was not in any shape or form a politician or of the Yoruba race. He was simply an authentic Awoist and a true witness to the accomplishments of the late sage. That he decided to propagate the message to the younger generations via classroom setting was quite understandable. Awoism shouldn't be about slogan and rhetoric, but action and performance. Right now, there are no traces of Awoism in any of the political party in the country."

"In similar vein, the fact that you exude an Aminu Kano's populist activism image doesn't make you a lover of the talakawa or a talakawa sympathizer. Do you have what it takes to organize with righteous intent, designed exclusively to serve the under-class? Are you willing to practice egalitarianism? How many people have you liberated from poverty, decadence, illiteracy, and mental slavery? Are you willing to accept that there are people in your community deserving of emancipation? Those are the test."

...bits and pieces from the length and breadth of our Blog! You cannot find them in one spot. 

Of State of Origin, Amnesty, and Sovereign National Conference in Nigeria!

On April 03, 2012, in an article titled "Memo to the Constitutional Review Committee" we had this to say on the issue of Citizenship or State of Origin in Nigeria - A Practical Approach:

Section 15 (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, provides:

(1) The motto of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be Unity and Faith, Peace and Progress.

(2) Accordingly, national integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.

(3) For the purpose of promoting national integration, it shall be the duty of the State to:

(a) Provide adequate facilities for and encourage free mobility of people, goods and services throughout the Federation.

(b) Secure full residence rights for every citizen in all parts of the Federation.

"Today, and as it has always been, Section 15(3) (b) [of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria] is not given effect consistent with the legislative intent of the drafters. In Nigeria, a child born and nurtured in Lagos State, or River State, or Sokoto State whose parent migrated from Either Imo, Ogun or Edo State is not considered native of River, Lagos, or Sokoto State as the case may be. For instance, why must a child who has never spent more than a weekend at Ewohimi, or Abeokuta, or Owerri where his parents originally came from, be made to write Edo, Imo, or Ogun State as his State of origin during competitive exams? By doing so, that child is going to be assessed using the same benchmark as students born and schooled at Ewohimi, Abeokuta, and Owerri who sat for the same exams and happened to be products of the higher educational standard available in those cities."

"Unless the argument for introduction of state of origin in our admission application is a generic/biological factor, which to all intent and purposes, is not. If a particular state is educationally disadvantaged, for instance, Lagos state, invariably, every student in that state, no matter the state of origin of his or her parents, is a product of the quality of education available in that particular state (Lagos). In that case, in a competitive exam that child or candidate should be assessed using Lagos standard, and not the standard applicable in the state of origin of his or her parents - Edo, Imo, or Ogun."

"Adding to that, Section 15 (3) (b) provides automatic citizenship cover or protection to every Nigerian anywhere in the country irrespective of his or her original place of birth. In reality, that is not the case in Nigeria of today. Prospective employees or job applicants, whether in the private sector or in government, are made to enter, not their place of residence, but the state of their tribe - their parents. Why should a candidate who is applying to the Nigeria Police Force be made to get a letter from the Traditional Ruler and the Local Government Council of his or her parents before the application is deemed complete? The appropriate requirements should be proof of residence and verification of address in that particular state of residence and not proof of state of origin of the child’s parent." April 03, 2012

On June 09, 2012 in an article, titled "Divine Wisdom: Changing the World in Six Months",  we had this to say on the issue of Dialogue and Amnesty for Boko Haram. 

"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 an enemy who you know and is in a bounded enclave than fighting an insurgent groups with no fixed address or a 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."

"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 their 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."

"In addition, if it is true as argued in some quarters that the escalation is a rejection of President Jonathan 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 insecurity in the northern part of the country, he ceases to function as President, Nigeria will come to a standstill. The outcome would 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 democratic process. Let's grow and develop our democracy in accordance with the trends in most developed countries of the World. 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." June 09, 2012

On November 21, 2012, in an article, titled "Decentralization, without Disintegration: The Starting Point." we had the to say on the issue of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) and Leadership Deficit in Nigeria.

"Over the years, I have deliberately excused myself from the call for SNC, because I still believe that leadership, as well as, corruption epidemic are the major problems confronting Nigeria as a nation-state. My other fear is that when SNC is eventually convened, the same old political careerists who debased and wrecked this great nation would have control over the selection of potential delegates to the conference. And thirdly, the people making the call do not have a clear message. There is no existing coherent strategy for its actualization."

"Historically, the idea for an SNC was originally conceived by the progressives and social activists (not political careerists) in order to wrest power from the over bloated and under-performing power clique at the center headed by the Military. As it is today, the demand has been unduly politicized to the extent that any mention of SNC is perceived as a call for disintegration of Nigeria. And that is a misconception that must be corrected fast."

"In addition, SNC has no visible leadership at the moment. What is going on behind the scene is basically power play – political careerists, presently left out of power and influence, have resorted to agitating for SNC, making it a north versus south affair. They hijacked it and transformed it into a struggle for power between it and the often reviled northern power elite groups. That is an insider war that southern progressives and social activists must first win - taking the demand out of the reach and control of politicians."

"SNC, as originally created was not an exercise in vain. But it has to be refined and given a new meaning to sync with realities on the ground. There are fundamental national issues that need to be addressed - Nigerian secular nature, free education at all level, religion and the state, population, regional autonomy, the un-education of greater majority of northern children by successive northern administrators, and finally, land ownership and division of offshore mineral deposit between the coastal states and the central government."

"It is not enough to give a one liner argument, stating that you need a Sovereign National Conference, without actually saying why you need it. We had enough of the noise about the mistake of 1914 and the amalgamation brouhaha. Be substantive. Take a cue from conservative Northern Governors; they don't debate issues they consider sacrosanct or germane to their political, cultural, and religious interests with anyone outside of the geographical north. For instance, the promulgation of Sharia Law or the introduction of Native Police in most part of the northern region was never a subject of national referendum. It doesn't matter whether it benefits the generality of norther residents, provided that the ruling class are secured in their hold on power."

"From all indications, SNC is for progressives to lose. The untold truth is that there is no progressive agenda, as we have a northern and conservative agenda, headed by the Arewa Consultative Group or Forum, and supported by the Northern Governor Association. What we have in the south is a collection of political interest groups masquerading as concerned citizens and activists, without a clear purpose and mandate. Also, there is no marriage of thoughts existing between SNC advocates, Southern Governors, and members of the National Assembly from the region."

"That void must first be arrested for progressive agenda to evolve and given effect at the national level. The involvement of members of the National Assembly of southern heritage is sacrosanct to addressing the grievances underlying the demand for SNC."

"Therefore, you must first identify those issues and grievances succinctly and articulate them unambiguously to develop winnable argument and populist agenda. Finally, if you cannot articulate the issues, which in fact is true, set up a body to advice you on the subject similar to what the Northern Governors did few months ago with respect to the PIB - Petroleum Industry Bill. You cannot continue talking about change, if you cannot articulate the change or changes that you desire. Second step: Organize, organize, and organize. You don't have to wait for the President and the National Assembly to intervene and approve of your demand, before you start the briefing process through summit and conferences. Third step: Know your audience, and speak the English that people can easily understand."  November 21, 2012

We have always supported Dialogue, but not Amnesty. Dialogue should be the first step, except of course, those pushing for amnesty are already in contact with the leadership of the sects, with the understanding that they are willing to accept peace and renounce their bloody campaign to transform Nigeria into a Sharia Law State. On the issue of SNC, it is my firm belief that established writers need to do more; one sentence or one paragraph demand for talk, dialogue, or SNC is not enough. Let Nigerians know how you feel about the issue. 

Personality of the Year: How Amaechi, Aig-Imoukhuede were crowned

Personality of the Year: How Amaechi, Aig-Imoukhuede were crowned

Prayer For Today - Courtesy of Daily Prayer

Lord, let me not underestimate myself. Whenever I am tempted to do so, may I remember that you have made me after your own image, whole and sacred, beautiful and with infinite potentials! Amen!

Secret offshore firms - Premium Times Nigeria

Secret offshore firms - Premium Times Nigeria

Inspirational Prayer of the Day!

My God, help me remember that INTEGRITY is being aligned in what I say and do, may I always mean what I say, and may I always do as I preach. Amen. Courtesy of "Daily Prayer."

In the beginning was ‘celebration of mediocrity’

In the beginning was ‘celebration of mediocrity’. The Guardian, Nigeria - April 01, 2013

(You definitely have to read this article by The Guardian, by clicking on the link above. I have always argued that Yusuf Maitam Sule (aka The Polemic) would have made a better President than Alhaji Shehu Shagari. I say, with the utmost respect to the President I love and respect for his humility. Be that as it may, with Maitama at the Presidency, Umaru Dikko, Akinloye, Chuba Akadigbo, and Uba Ahmed, would not have had the unchecked opportunities they had, abused, and wasted, which culminated in the intervention of the Buhari/Idiagbon Military Coup).

Update: October 02, 2019.

I have seen that lots of you are clicking to read this essay. Unfortunately, I have not been able to pull it out from the website of the Guardian Newspaper. I have spent hours on it, but couldn't locate that edition, even from the Guardian site. Please, if anyone is able to locate it, do not hesitate to upload it here for our visitors.

Thanks,

Alex Aidaghese