By: Musa Aliyu
In another week of turbulence in the mortgage market, borrowers watched helplessly as rates on loans for the purchase of homes rose dramatically, with at least 14 lenders raising their rates. Halifax and RBS were among those whose decision would largely affect the faith of many people dreaming of getting on the mortgage ladder – especially those eyeing the fixed rate deals range.
A direct fall-out of this development is that the average cost of a two-year fixed rate for a 90 per cent loan has shot up to 6.75 per cent. And with this happening amidst increasing withdrawal of deals and the refusal by lenders to give out loans to borrowers, house purchase rate has declined sharply. This in turn has had a major toll on house prices and mortgage brokerage as an industry. Mortgage brokers Chase de Vere confirmed this, as Aaron Strutt said: “Things have not been this busy with the withdrawal of deals for a month or so.”
While figures from the Council of Mortgage Brokers (CML) said that fixed rate mortgages have recently become more popular with borrowers, the sad tale is that the deals are increasingly getting too expensive for borrowers to afford.
Although the CML revealed they accounted for 59 per cent of all new loans in April, which is the highest seen this year, the rising costs of this range of home loans gives a serious cause for concern. Analysts are wont to blame the rises on the cost of borrowing funds on the market. For example rates on the Swap market have continued to rise and lenders have had to struggle with this in addition to the scarcity of funds as the demand for home loans increases. In the space of 10 days swap rates rose from 5.80 per cent to 6.3 per cent. This prompted experts to predict that two-year fixed rate mortgages could hit 7 per cent very soon.
“If the recent rise in swap rates is sustained, two-year fixed mortgage rates could approach 7 per cent in the next few months. With demand in the market already so weak, that would represent another huge blow to the housing market outlook,” said Ed Stansfield, a property economist at Capital Economics, a forecasting house.
Mr Standsfield’s suggestion, a reflection of the reality as it is, would send cold shivers down the spine of many intending borrowers and even lenders. Yet it is the simple truth that must be acknowledged, somehow.
While borrowers are busy bemoaning their predicament, lenders are, however, fine-tuning strategies that would help them overcome the impacts of the credit crisis on them. Interestingly, one approach is to make sure they are not dragged down by risky borrowers.
Recently, the CML advised them to make sure they protect themselves in case the trend, as determined as it is, leads to further collapse in house prices. This would, obviously, have a number of implications. Lenders, perhaps heeding the warning, have been hitting back at suspected risky borrowers by introducing increases in borrowing costs as far as borrowers with small amounts of deposits are concerned.
This situation is best understood if the conditions imposed on borrowers with smaller deposits are compared to the ones those with larger deposits face. An example of such differential treatment is that those wanting to borrow 75 per cent or less of the value of their property, and who are considered a lower risk to lenders have, sometimes, had the cost of new loans reduced for them.
This is just one of the travails of borrowers in the midst of credit crunch. Many more may unveil as the crisis protracts.
Musa is an author of several articles pertaining to Mortgages. He is known for his expertise on the subject and on other Business and Finance related articles.
(This article was originally posted on http://www.articleclick.com/Article/As-Mortgage-Rates-Further-Take-Flight/1014414)
Thursday, 21 August 2008
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Kibaki, Odinga and the Old Kikuyu-Luo Rivalry
Five years ago President Mwai Kibaki was the darling of nearly every Kenyan as the opposition National Rainbow Coalition (Narc) swept power off the feet of the ruling party, Kenyan African National Union (Kanu). Sweet victory, as it were, many saw it as the dawn of a new era for a country that had been plagued by a litany of problems, including the cancerous corruption that has eaten deep into the heart of much of Africa. Also, it was a chance to try out new sets of policies to move the country forward and finally severe the cord that had been firmly entrenched by the then incumbent President Daniel arap Moi. More importantly, the attempt by Mr Moi to ‘install’ Uhuru Kenyatta, son of the country’s first president, as his successor had been effectively defeated as Kenyans loudly said they wanted no more of Kanu, which had ruled for nearly 40 years - Mr arap Moi, himself, had 24 of those. Indeed the elections were free and fair, and for Kenyans Mwai Kibaki’s victory marked the fresh beginning they had long waited for.
With the above pedigree, in addition to the fact that he had twice contested and lost elections when President Moi’s sit-tight drunkenness was at its peak, Mr Kibaki’s inception of office enjoyed the goodwill of all and sundry. And in turn he came with loads of promises, chief among which were to see the end of widespread corruption and revamp the country’s ailing economy. But like his big brother in Africa’s sleeping giant Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, his fight against corruption which took off well was soon accused of being one-sided and John Githiongo, the chief anti-graft officer of the regime was frustrated into quitting his job.
In an interview with the East African Standard over the controversy that trailed his resignation and conduct in office Mr Githiongo said: “If I am a traitor for fighting corruption so be it. I cannot apologise for that. A thief is not a lesser thief because he comes from your own tribe.” Turning to his Kikuyu kinsmen he warned that a few old men, courtesy of their arrogance and corruption, were fast turning them, Kikuyus, into a sort of pariah tribe in the country. Although many might have taken his words not as seriously as they should, his prophesy is fast becoming the reality.
One of the early signs that things were falling apart for Mr Kibaki’s government was the misunderstanding between him and some of his ministers and key figures in the coalition that helped defeat Daniel arap Moi. Particularly, Raila Odinga and some loyalists accused the president of betrayal following what they said was his failure to honour a pre-elections memorandum of understanding in respect of power-sharing. This tore through the coalition pitting the Odinga-led group against the president and his men. In what was to become a final straw in 2005, Mr Odinga, then a minister in President Kibaki’s government, took the battle too far when he, supported by his comrades, openly campaigned against and massively defeated his boss during the constitutional referendum in the country. And as if further daring him the rebels formed the Orange Democratic Movement – a new platform for waging opposition battles. Vexed by their action President Kibaki vindictively relieved the men of their positions. Thus, the rivalry took a new dimension at this point.
Whereas the ordinary onlooker sees this, possibly, as a normal rivalry between politicians seeking to win the mandate of electorate, the keen observer is, however, forced to look beyond the surface. Some analysts are of the opinion that the vicious opposition between President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga is a revisitation of the old rivalry between the Kikuyu and Luo tribes in the early 1960s. Then President Jomo Kenyatta, in spite of his charisma, yielded to tribal politics and fatally dealt with Odinga Odinga, a former ally, and even threw him in jail. He also declared the country a one-party state and outlawed opposition. It was his legacy, and by extension Kikuyu’s, that was carried on by Mr arap Moi until 2002 when, by some twist of faith, he was constitutionally barred from contesting the elections. Although his exit marked the end of Kanu’s sit-tight leadership, it also ushered in another Kikuyu politician, Mwai Kibaki.
Like Odinda Odinga in the first Kikuyu-Luo alliance that hastened the withering of colonial authority in Kenya, Raila Odinga’s contribution in the Narc alliance crucially helped in ending Kanu’s dynasty. And like the first alliance, the second also collapsed because politicians’ personal interests were elevated over and above those of the country and millions of its citizens.
Sadly, whereas in the days of the Kenyatta-Odinga bitter rivalry no blood was so heartlessly shed, this case is sharply different. The violence rages unabated. By conservative estimates nearly 1000 lives have been lost and more than half a million people displaced from their homes.
However, the multi-million question is will Kenya go the way of the Sudan, Uganda, Somalia, Congo etc? Will Africa ever get it right, especially if the Kenya that was once referred to as Africa’s most stable democracy collapses in this manner? Certainly Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, regardless of their past contributions, would never be absolved by history if they let this happen at their behest.
With the above pedigree, in addition to the fact that he had twice contested and lost elections when President Moi’s sit-tight drunkenness was at its peak, Mr Kibaki’s inception of office enjoyed the goodwill of all and sundry. And in turn he came with loads of promises, chief among which were to see the end of widespread corruption and revamp the country’s ailing economy. But like his big brother in Africa’s sleeping giant Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, his fight against corruption which took off well was soon accused of being one-sided and John Githiongo, the chief anti-graft officer of the regime was frustrated into quitting his job.
In an interview with the East African Standard over the controversy that trailed his resignation and conduct in office Mr Githiongo said: “If I am a traitor for fighting corruption so be it. I cannot apologise for that. A thief is not a lesser thief because he comes from your own tribe.” Turning to his Kikuyu kinsmen he warned that a few old men, courtesy of their arrogance and corruption, were fast turning them, Kikuyus, into a sort of pariah tribe in the country. Although many might have taken his words not as seriously as they should, his prophesy is fast becoming the reality.
One of the early signs that things were falling apart for Mr Kibaki’s government was the misunderstanding between him and some of his ministers and key figures in the coalition that helped defeat Daniel arap Moi. Particularly, Raila Odinga and some loyalists accused the president of betrayal following what they said was his failure to honour a pre-elections memorandum of understanding in respect of power-sharing. This tore through the coalition pitting the Odinga-led group against the president and his men. In what was to become a final straw in 2005, Mr Odinga, then a minister in President Kibaki’s government, took the battle too far when he, supported by his comrades, openly campaigned against and massively defeated his boss during the constitutional referendum in the country. And as if further daring him the rebels formed the Orange Democratic Movement – a new platform for waging opposition battles. Vexed by their action President Kibaki vindictively relieved the men of their positions. Thus, the rivalry took a new dimension at this point.
Whereas the ordinary onlooker sees this, possibly, as a normal rivalry between politicians seeking to win the mandate of electorate, the keen observer is, however, forced to look beyond the surface. Some analysts are of the opinion that the vicious opposition between President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga is a revisitation of the old rivalry between the Kikuyu and Luo tribes in the early 1960s. Then President Jomo Kenyatta, in spite of his charisma, yielded to tribal politics and fatally dealt with Odinga Odinga, a former ally, and even threw him in jail. He also declared the country a one-party state and outlawed opposition. It was his legacy, and by extension Kikuyu’s, that was carried on by Mr arap Moi until 2002 when, by some twist of faith, he was constitutionally barred from contesting the elections. Although his exit marked the end of Kanu’s sit-tight leadership, it also ushered in another Kikuyu politician, Mwai Kibaki.
Like Odinda Odinga in the first Kikuyu-Luo alliance that hastened the withering of colonial authority in Kenya, Raila Odinga’s contribution in the Narc alliance crucially helped in ending Kanu’s dynasty. And like the first alliance, the second also collapsed because politicians’ personal interests were elevated over and above those of the country and millions of its citizens.
Sadly, whereas in the days of the Kenyatta-Odinga bitter rivalry no blood was so heartlessly shed, this case is sharply different. The violence rages unabated. By conservative estimates nearly 1000 lives have been lost and more than half a million people displaced from their homes.
However, the multi-million question is will Kenya go the way of the Sudan, Uganda, Somalia, Congo etc? Will Africa ever get it right, especially if the Kenya that was once referred to as Africa’s most stable democracy collapses in this manner? Certainly Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, regardless of their past contributions, would never be absolved by history if they let this happen at their behest.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Politicians Will Always Defeat You
Simon Kolawole Live
Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com
ThisDay Newspaper
After writing on the fate of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as EFCC chairman last week, I got loads of responses from readers. Most of the comments aligned with my argument, but there were those who disagreed with me, some very sharply. For those who disagreed, I could trace different lines of argument. One line argued that Ribadu started well but later missed his way by being selective and going after only those pointed out by the former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Ironically, this was also my view, especially before the April polls. I had written then that Ribadu had diluted his credibility by allowing Obasanjo to use the EFCC to whiplash his opponents.
There were also those who said Ribadu had been lawless in the anti-graft war. He failed to abide by “due process” and “rule of law” and was therefore deserving of his fate, they argued. Ironically, again, I was one of those who criticised Ribadu for sidestepping the rule of law, even though at the back of my mind I was arguing with myself if unusual ailments could be cured with normal dosages. But I just couldn’t stand the way the EFCC went about the impeachment of Joshua Dariye in Plateau State. How could six lawmakers out of 24 impeach a governor? I vividly remember severely criticising the EFCC over these issues on this page then.
However, while I shared most of the anti-Ribadu sentiments, I differed on one point: I advocated “reforming” Ribadu rather than throwing the baby away with the bath water. I believed EFCC became lawless because that was how the government of the day behaved. After all, Ribadu was “created” by Obasanjo. I noticed, however, that with the coming of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and his “due process” talk, the EFCC too changed its mode of operation. So why should I still be judging EFCC by its pre-Yar’Adua failings when there was a new reality on ground? On this point, I disagreed significantly with many anti-Ribadu lines of thought.
However, a key issue that was raised by many of those who disagreed with my article was that “Ribadu is not indispensable and the anti-graft war can continue without him”. One person even asked: “Why are you saying we cannot fight corruption without Ribadu?” I was forced to read my article again. This is what I wrote: “I have not heard a single person say Ribadu is the only Nigerian who can fight the anti-corruption war. (And I stand to be corrected.) But the timing of Ribadu’s sack, and the tricks that have been played by this government since May, suggest that there is more to the removal than we are being told.” Dear readers, how on earth does this suggest that I was saying Ribadu was indispensable? I may have to engage interpreters to help translate my articles into local languages because, even though I think I write simplified English, it is still a bit too difficult for some people to understand!
On a serious note, the issue of the supposed indispensability of Ribadu needs to be discussed. I have heard people say the fight against corruption should not be personalised; rather, we should focus on building institutions that endure. This is a perfect argument. I support it with the whole of my heart. The only snag, however, is that the sidelining of Ribadu doesn’t look like an attempt to build any institution. If Ribadu is being sidelined just to prove a point that we need to build institutions, then my family and myself are all for it! But you and I know that it is not as simple as that. The undercurrents are too glaring for anybody to play games on our intelligence.
Those who say we should build institutions and not “cult personalities” inadvertently support my view on Ribadu. For as long as the leadership of the anti-graft body – and other government institutions – is subject to the whims of politicians, you can never build enduring institutions. For any institution to be strong and enduring, it must not suffer political interference. It needs independence. For as long as the president or the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) can wake up one day and send the head of an anti-graft body on course under any pretext, it means, essentially, he is at the mercy of someone. How do you now expect such an agency to hurt the interests of the president or his IGP?
One of the reforms being canvassed for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is that the chairman would not be an appointee of the president. He should emerge through a neutral and fair process so that he will not be beholden to the president. His appointment can be terminated only by the National Assembly, it is suggested. Interestingly, many people who are canvassing this argument for INEC are on the other hand saying it should not apply to the EFCC. Institutions will never be strong for as long as the heads can be removed through a press statement from the president. The message is clear to the next occupant of the office: step out of line and I will sack you.
Heading an agency like EFCC is guaranteed to bring you enemies, of course. With competing interests in the society, you can never win on all fronts. You have to contend with the two big divides: the political class and the public. You are appointed by the top echelon of the political class, and naturally, you are beholden to them. Obasanjo appointed Ribadu. How could Ribadu fight corruption in a way that would hurt Obasanjo and his political associates and still hope to remain EFCC chairman? That is one dilemma. If he goes after Obasanjo’s friends, he could be sent to Kuru. If he doesn’t go after Obasanjo’s friends, he would lose out with a section of the public who will accuse him of being selective. This is a big dilemma for anybody, not just Ribadu.
He could damn the consequence and go after Obasanjo and friends and risk losing his job without achieving anything. But he could choose to pick his fights so that he could achieve some results in the meantime. He would then hope that one day the man who appointed him would leave office and set him free. But with this option, he would lose out with a section of the public. It’s a win-lose situation. And I am not referring strictly to Ribadu in this instance – I refer to anyone who is appointed by a politician to fight corruption. I don’t expect, for instance, that Ribadu’s successor will investigate Yar’Adua’s campaign funds or how Yar’Adua ran Katsina for eight years. Therefore, the same accusation that Ribadu was pelted with – that he was protecting Obasanjo – will bounce back on his successor who will be accused of protecting Yar’Adua.
After the exit of Obasanjo on May 29, the EFCC moved against some former governors – Rev. Jolly Nyame, Chief Orji Uzor Kalu and Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani, to name a few. Some sections of the public were not satisfied. They shouted: “Go after the big ones! Go after James Ibori! Go after Peter Odili! Stop beating about the bush!” The EFCC must have felt challenged by this. Perhaps Ribadu wanted to prove a point that nobody was above the law. That was his mistake. He failed to read body languages. After the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael “I Don’t Care”, had applied all the tricks in the book to stop the prosecution of Ibori, EFCC finally went for the “big fish”. Two weeks later, Ribadu found himself on the way to Kuru so that the war against corruption would not be “personalised”.
As I was saying, if Ribadu had gone after Andy Uba when Obasanjo was in power, he would have gone to Kuru since. (“Going to Kuru”, by the way, is not necessarily about the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS). It means, henceforth, being sidelined for stepping on big toes.) If Ribadu’s successor steps out of line, he will find himself in Kuru too. It is all about self-interest. It is not about Nigeria. It is not about building institutions.
However, it is very sad that the whole work of EFCC is being rubbished on the altar of politics. It has fought gallantly against economic and financial crimes. The Nigerian banking sector is a major beneficiary of the work of EFCC. Nigeria had been blacklisted in the international financial community as a “419” country – a status that denied Nigeria big investments and certain levels of financial interactions. Today, the situation has improved. The entrance of Mastercard and Visa into Nigeria is a product of this fight. Even the restoration of direct US-Nigeria flights is partly as a result of EFCC’s relentless war against money laundering as it relates to drug trafficking. There are now five airlines designated for this route.
When Ribadu took on well-known 419 and drug barons who were being celebrated in those despicable society magazines, he was not sent to Kuru. The moment Ribadu began to take on politicians, his end was nigh. You cannot win with politicians. They put you there. They will crush you if you want to go after them. In the early days of this democracy, governors were stealing blatantly. They were wiring monies abroad with impunity. They were carrying loads of dollars across airports. They were stealing across the counter. Nigeria was being rubbished abroad. But EFCC came and put a stop to it. How could the political class be happy with this? They had to react. However, to rubbish all this work because of one person will be disastrous for Nigeria. The politicians may be gloating, but it is not Ribadu that has lost out – it is every Nigerian. The signals are sad. The world is laughing at us.
The Ribadu saga has set me thinking again: it will be very, very difficult – but certainly not impossible – to bring about a fundamental change in Nigeria. The system is controlled and serviced by those who benefit and profiteer from its deficiencies. When a change agent comes along, displaying all kinds of zeal and skills, promising to change the way things are done, you can only wish him good luck, tongue-in-cheek. He can only go as far the top echelon of the political class wants him to go. If he steps out of line, he will go to Kuru. Quote me: the political class will always have the upper hand in the struggle for the soul of Nigeria.
Nigerian Journalists as Blackmailers
The Ribadu saga has again brought Nigerian journalism into the spotlight. The press, which, predominantly, is traditionally radical in its approach to issues that have to do with the struggle between the state and the society, was accused by the federal government of being a tool in the hands of the EFCC. FG believes we were tools of media intimidation, blackmail and propaganda while the saga lasted. To be sure, those are familiar accusations, from the colonial era through military regimes and now a democratic dispensation.
You can accuse Nigerian journalists of arrogance, corruption, ignorance and incompetence, but ultimately, I think we still have the interest of the larger society at heart. This may sound like self-praise, but we mean well for Nigeria. We are patriots, most of us. The fight for EFCC was not a fight for Nuhu Ribadu. It was a fight for the preservation of an institution that is doing well. Allowing political intrigues to determine the fate of an anti-graft Czar can never be in the interest of the public. Yes, you can call that blackmail and intimidation, but there is no personal interest involved.
In fact, when the president’s brother, Shehu, was arrested by Gen. Sani Abacha over the phantom coup of 1995, the media took up the battle. We fought and fought and fought for him, such that some of our colleagues were arrested, jailed or killed in the process. The Abacha government, as well, accused us of “blackmail, intimidation and propaganda”. Eventually, Shehu was eliminated in prison. Blackmail is not always a negative word then. It may soon become a compliment.
(http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=99722)
Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com
ThisDay Newspaper
After writing on the fate of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as EFCC chairman last week, I got loads of responses from readers. Most of the comments aligned with my argument, but there were those who disagreed with me, some very sharply. For those who disagreed, I could trace different lines of argument. One line argued that Ribadu started well but later missed his way by being selective and going after only those pointed out by the former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Ironically, this was also my view, especially before the April polls. I had written then that Ribadu had diluted his credibility by allowing Obasanjo to use the EFCC to whiplash his opponents.
There were also those who said Ribadu had been lawless in the anti-graft war. He failed to abide by “due process” and “rule of law” and was therefore deserving of his fate, they argued. Ironically, again, I was one of those who criticised Ribadu for sidestepping the rule of law, even though at the back of my mind I was arguing with myself if unusual ailments could be cured with normal dosages. But I just couldn’t stand the way the EFCC went about the impeachment of Joshua Dariye in Plateau State. How could six lawmakers out of 24 impeach a governor? I vividly remember severely criticising the EFCC over these issues on this page then.
However, while I shared most of the anti-Ribadu sentiments, I differed on one point: I advocated “reforming” Ribadu rather than throwing the baby away with the bath water. I believed EFCC became lawless because that was how the government of the day behaved. After all, Ribadu was “created” by Obasanjo. I noticed, however, that with the coming of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and his “due process” talk, the EFCC too changed its mode of operation. So why should I still be judging EFCC by its pre-Yar’Adua failings when there was a new reality on ground? On this point, I disagreed significantly with many anti-Ribadu lines of thought.
However, a key issue that was raised by many of those who disagreed with my article was that “Ribadu is not indispensable and the anti-graft war can continue without him”. One person even asked: “Why are you saying we cannot fight corruption without Ribadu?” I was forced to read my article again. This is what I wrote: “I have not heard a single person say Ribadu is the only Nigerian who can fight the anti-corruption war. (And I stand to be corrected.) But the timing of Ribadu’s sack, and the tricks that have been played by this government since May, suggest that there is more to the removal than we are being told.” Dear readers, how on earth does this suggest that I was saying Ribadu was indispensable? I may have to engage interpreters to help translate my articles into local languages because, even though I think I write simplified English, it is still a bit too difficult for some people to understand!
On a serious note, the issue of the supposed indispensability of Ribadu needs to be discussed. I have heard people say the fight against corruption should not be personalised; rather, we should focus on building institutions that endure. This is a perfect argument. I support it with the whole of my heart. The only snag, however, is that the sidelining of Ribadu doesn’t look like an attempt to build any institution. If Ribadu is being sidelined just to prove a point that we need to build institutions, then my family and myself are all for it! But you and I know that it is not as simple as that. The undercurrents are too glaring for anybody to play games on our intelligence.
Those who say we should build institutions and not “cult personalities” inadvertently support my view on Ribadu. For as long as the leadership of the anti-graft body – and other government institutions – is subject to the whims of politicians, you can never build enduring institutions. For any institution to be strong and enduring, it must not suffer political interference. It needs independence. For as long as the president or the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) can wake up one day and send the head of an anti-graft body on course under any pretext, it means, essentially, he is at the mercy of someone. How do you now expect such an agency to hurt the interests of the president or his IGP?
One of the reforms being canvassed for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is that the chairman would not be an appointee of the president. He should emerge through a neutral and fair process so that he will not be beholden to the president. His appointment can be terminated only by the National Assembly, it is suggested. Interestingly, many people who are canvassing this argument for INEC are on the other hand saying it should not apply to the EFCC. Institutions will never be strong for as long as the heads can be removed through a press statement from the president. The message is clear to the next occupant of the office: step out of line and I will sack you.
Heading an agency like EFCC is guaranteed to bring you enemies, of course. With competing interests in the society, you can never win on all fronts. You have to contend with the two big divides: the political class and the public. You are appointed by the top echelon of the political class, and naturally, you are beholden to them. Obasanjo appointed Ribadu. How could Ribadu fight corruption in a way that would hurt Obasanjo and his political associates and still hope to remain EFCC chairman? That is one dilemma. If he goes after Obasanjo’s friends, he could be sent to Kuru. If he doesn’t go after Obasanjo’s friends, he would lose out with a section of the public who will accuse him of being selective. This is a big dilemma for anybody, not just Ribadu.
He could damn the consequence and go after Obasanjo and friends and risk losing his job without achieving anything. But he could choose to pick his fights so that he could achieve some results in the meantime. He would then hope that one day the man who appointed him would leave office and set him free. But with this option, he would lose out with a section of the public. It’s a win-lose situation. And I am not referring strictly to Ribadu in this instance – I refer to anyone who is appointed by a politician to fight corruption. I don’t expect, for instance, that Ribadu’s successor will investigate Yar’Adua’s campaign funds or how Yar’Adua ran Katsina for eight years. Therefore, the same accusation that Ribadu was pelted with – that he was protecting Obasanjo – will bounce back on his successor who will be accused of protecting Yar’Adua.
After the exit of Obasanjo on May 29, the EFCC moved against some former governors – Rev. Jolly Nyame, Chief Orji Uzor Kalu and Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani, to name a few. Some sections of the public were not satisfied. They shouted: “Go after the big ones! Go after James Ibori! Go after Peter Odili! Stop beating about the bush!” The EFCC must have felt challenged by this. Perhaps Ribadu wanted to prove a point that nobody was above the law. That was his mistake. He failed to read body languages. After the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael “I Don’t Care”, had applied all the tricks in the book to stop the prosecution of Ibori, EFCC finally went for the “big fish”. Two weeks later, Ribadu found himself on the way to Kuru so that the war against corruption would not be “personalised”.
As I was saying, if Ribadu had gone after Andy Uba when Obasanjo was in power, he would have gone to Kuru since. (“Going to Kuru”, by the way, is not necessarily about the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS). It means, henceforth, being sidelined for stepping on big toes.) If Ribadu’s successor steps out of line, he will find himself in Kuru too. It is all about self-interest. It is not about Nigeria. It is not about building institutions.
However, it is very sad that the whole work of EFCC is being rubbished on the altar of politics. It has fought gallantly against economic and financial crimes. The Nigerian banking sector is a major beneficiary of the work of EFCC. Nigeria had been blacklisted in the international financial community as a “419” country – a status that denied Nigeria big investments and certain levels of financial interactions. Today, the situation has improved. The entrance of Mastercard and Visa into Nigeria is a product of this fight. Even the restoration of direct US-Nigeria flights is partly as a result of EFCC’s relentless war against money laundering as it relates to drug trafficking. There are now five airlines designated for this route.
When Ribadu took on well-known 419 and drug barons who were being celebrated in those despicable society magazines, he was not sent to Kuru. The moment Ribadu began to take on politicians, his end was nigh. You cannot win with politicians. They put you there. They will crush you if you want to go after them. In the early days of this democracy, governors were stealing blatantly. They were wiring monies abroad with impunity. They were carrying loads of dollars across airports. They were stealing across the counter. Nigeria was being rubbished abroad. But EFCC came and put a stop to it. How could the political class be happy with this? They had to react. However, to rubbish all this work because of one person will be disastrous for Nigeria. The politicians may be gloating, but it is not Ribadu that has lost out – it is every Nigerian. The signals are sad. The world is laughing at us.
The Ribadu saga has set me thinking again: it will be very, very difficult – but certainly not impossible – to bring about a fundamental change in Nigeria. The system is controlled and serviced by those who benefit and profiteer from its deficiencies. When a change agent comes along, displaying all kinds of zeal and skills, promising to change the way things are done, you can only wish him good luck, tongue-in-cheek. He can only go as far the top echelon of the political class wants him to go. If he steps out of line, he will go to Kuru. Quote me: the political class will always have the upper hand in the struggle for the soul of Nigeria.
Nigerian Journalists as Blackmailers
The Ribadu saga has again brought Nigerian journalism into the spotlight. The press, which, predominantly, is traditionally radical in its approach to issues that have to do with the struggle between the state and the society, was accused by the federal government of being a tool in the hands of the EFCC. FG believes we were tools of media intimidation, blackmail and propaganda while the saga lasted. To be sure, those are familiar accusations, from the colonial era through military regimes and now a democratic dispensation.
You can accuse Nigerian journalists of arrogance, corruption, ignorance and incompetence, but ultimately, I think we still have the interest of the larger society at heart. This may sound like self-praise, but we mean well for Nigeria. We are patriots, most of us. The fight for EFCC was not a fight for Nuhu Ribadu. It was a fight for the preservation of an institution that is doing well. Allowing political intrigues to determine the fate of an anti-graft Czar can never be in the interest of the public. Yes, you can call that blackmail and intimidation, but there is no personal interest involved.
In fact, when the president’s brother, Shehu, was arrested by Gen. Sani Abacha over the phantom coup of 1995, the media took up the battle. We fought and fought and fought for him, such that some of our colleagues were arrested, jailed or killed in the process. The Abacha government, as well, accused us of “blackmail, intimidation and propaganda”. Eventually, Shehu was eliminated in prison. Blackmail is not always a negative word then. It may soon become a compliment.
(http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=99722)
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Democracy is more than just fair elections -Benazir Bhutto
This interview, conducted by me and Tadaferua Ujorha with late Mrs Benazir Bhutto in March 2003, was published in the Daily Trust newspaper of Friday, March 28, 2003.
Democracy is more than just fair elections -Benazir Bhutto
Recently, H.E. Benazir Benazir Bhutto, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan, was in Nigeria for the recent Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Memorial lecture. This exclusive interview conducted by Musa Aliyu and Tadaferua Ujorha, coursed around the contemporary political struggle in Pakistan, women in Islamic societies, Al-qaeda, as well as the stormy situation in the Middle East and the Gulf. Benazir Bhutto made the insightful remark that democracy is much more than the occasional conduct of fair elections. Excerpts:
You recently said that Islam brought democracy into the world long before any western country, yet today democracy is championed by the West. At what point did the reversal of roles take place, and who or what encouraged it?Now, one would have to look at Islamic history, and how roles started changing, but certainly in the modern era, we had a long period of colonial rule, we found ourselves in a bipolar world and I think it was the superpower rivalry that encouraged dictatorship in most countries.
With the end of the bipolar world the dawn of democracy began again. Democracy is still in its infancy and there are still many chances ahead to strengthen it as part of a process of ensuring a pluralistic society. But I do feel when I look around the world today that the developed countries, the countries that are at peace with each other, are the democratic countries, and I think that is very important for us for the sake of peace, as well as human dignity, and the rule of law, to go back to the elements of democratic society based on consultation and consensus.
It seems to me that over the years, the context of democracy has changed in terms of its definition.
It depends on the various ways people look at the situation and that certainly is different, and sometimes paternalistic society is the same as the democratic society, and each one of us must make our own ways for a democratic structure. I think the basic element of the democratic society is the empowerment of the ordinary people, and of course the world belongs to God, and God appointed his people as agents, and for us democracy is very much the ingredient as well as the basic political concept, and for us this is the best form of government. For me, democracy is certainly fair elections held by an independent election commission. But democracy is much more than a fair election, it is a pluralistic society in which different parties get hold of power in different districts or states or regions.
As the first woman Prime Minister of an Islamic country, can you reflect on your tenure in power?
The first time that I became Prime Minister, there was a huge hysteria that a woman could not be elected Prime Minister, and we did not have any example on the world scene of a woman ever being elected Prime Minister. I remember when I was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, a fatwa was given by the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia against me, saying that Pakistan’s position in the Islamic world was now endangered. Yemen gave another fatwa saying that the Holy Quran has made reference to the Queen of Sheba.
So, there was a big debate within the Muslim world during my election. But after we crossed the barrier, other Muslim countries also followed suit. We had the election of a woman Prime Minister in Bangladesh, and the election of a woman in Turkey.
Then there was the election of Mrs. Megawati of Indonesia, and now for the first time in some of the states, some of the women are coming out to participate. So, I believe that in a very short time, within the Muslim world, a transformation began to take place following my election, and it is an important transformation. For me, it now promotes gender equality, and I think it’s wrong that the Muslim society should be judged by the state of their women. There has been this continuing question relating to whether the state of the woman is contrary to Islamic principles.
What is the particular agenda your party is following in terms of seeking power in Pakistan?
My party is fighting both inside the parliament and outside, to promote democracy, and we are in discussion with other groups and so on.
Our goal is to get fresh elections, and the election commission is constituted of human rights activists, because the judiciary has been intimidated and pressured by the military regime, and it is important for us for fair elections to have an election commission which has human rights activists, and which should hold elections which ensure a prompt vote count and announcements, and not just to count, but the announcement of their count. Because what happened in the last elections was that the count was not announced and it’s the delay that took place that allowed the results to be changed. We would like to see a transfer of power from the military to the civilians. In the two times that I became Prime Minister, we lacked the transfer of power from the military to the civilians. The military did have enormous power though the president who could sack the government, and therefore not a single government of Pakistan since 1985 has completed a term.
So the military must stop being the arbiter of the state of the nation. The people of a country must be the arbiter of their fate, and I know that there are many young officers who share this vision, who would also like to see a professional military, and it’s only a handful of ambitious generals that sometimes act contrary even to the desires of their own institution strive to be in power.
In 1977, as a young woman, you watched your father being hanged, and later in your life you became a Prime Minister, and watched your government being overthrown. What would you say about these experiences?
My father’s government was overthrown, and twice my government was overthrown. We faced either imprisonment, torture, exile or assassination. So in the military almost the same thing happens after each overthrow. Sometimes I feel that unless democracy takes root it’s going to happen again and again. And now we are calling for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because crimes that are committed have never been recorded, they’ve never been exposed, and the public is unaware of what happens when a government is overthrown. There are some little bits that come in the newspapers, but it is too little, and to protect future generations, I would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I think that your government took a very bold stand when the president retired all those officers who had been involved in political activities, but in Pakistan no civilian government has had the power to retire military officers, because the constitution has been made in such a way that it simply lacks the power to do so. You see there are military officials who have got enough money to buy people to switch sides. Some of my people have refused to switch sides. This is not the job of the military. The military must be a clean, good, professional institution.
Earlier you referred to the referendum in Pakistan, and it seems to me that it has certain ridiculous aspects.
You see, under the constitution there’s a procedure of how the president can be elected by the House of Parliament, and there is a procedure that the Army Chief cannot be involved in politics, and that the army chief cannot run for the office of the president. General Musharraf wanted to give himself the level of legitimacy or level of democracy without having it. So he announced a referendum at polling stations without polling agents. When he saw that the political parties were boycotting it, and the turnout was going to be low, then he decided he’s going to have mobile polling stations, and over 93 of these stations were in colleges, hospitals and mobile work, and the television screen will show it that these polling stations were all empty. Without any check it was a very expensive public relations exercise that cost our poor people so much money. The New York Times called it a deeply flawed exercise.
One of the reasons General Musharraf accepted the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was that the Palestinian issue was next to be resolved. But the contrary has been the case. If you were in power would you have seen that as an opportunity for revenge on the Taliban?
If I had been the Prime Minister of Pakistan the people of Afghanistan would have been saved the bombing. Their lives would not have been destroyed, but the people of Pakistan after my overthrow, became hostages of the Taliban. During my entire time due to my foreign policy, al-Qaeda never appeared. I know that if they take on the west, the west would take on the Muslim world, and I wanted to save the Muslim world. If I had been Prime Minister of Pakistan, Pakistan would have played a role that could have promoted the brotherhood and understanding between the western and the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the dialogue has broken down and the situation that is now developing is one of great crises. We Muslims need to transform our own society so that we can have leadership and representatives that can conduct world affairs. General Musharraf and his men supported the Taliban till the last minute. They only broke this link when there was an ultimatum to stand up and be counted as friend or foe. But my party in 1998, three years before the World Trade Centre bombing, broke relations with the Taliban.
There is no sympathy today for the Palestinian people in the World community and that pains my deeply when we see casualties. I want to tell you I don’t believe in revenge. I believe in Bismillah-Rahmani-Raheem, which means" In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful." I think that what we ought to always show is compassion and not revenge.
You mentioned that there should be a distinction between terrorism and Islam, perhaps you could explain this point?
From the media and the public response, we hear a lot of talk about Muslim terrorists. We hear about militant Islam, and I think that this is a misunderstanding about Islam. Islam is not about terrorism and there is an important need for us to distinguish them. For example if there is a problem in Northern Ireland you do not start condemning a religion because some people are using religion as the basis for their political ideals. And I think it is important for us to distinguish between those who use violence to promote their politics, and those whose lands have been occupied, who have a right to fight for their freedom.
How would you assess the political situation in Pakistan now, compared to when you were in power?
Well, my concern and worry about Pakistan is that my exile has led to the rise of religious parties. They could control more of Pakistan in the future, and I think that there is a danger that if this situation continues, then there will be a showdown between the military and the political parties. I say this because it is the military that created these groups. The time has come for those groups to turn on the military, and that confrontation between these parties and the General would be highly explosive. This is because religious parties also have warriors for them. They have irregular trained fighters with them, unlike political parties who don’t. So unless the strength is reversed, the situation in Pakistan will degenerate further, and I hope that it can be avoided because the people of Pakistan are hardworking. The people of Pakistan have made sacrifices and struggled to create a homeland of their own, and the people of Pakistan deserve a better future.
How would you assess the current face-off between the US and Iraq vis-à-vis the position of Pakistan?
Right now, Pakistan is very much against the war. General Musharraf would probably prefer to abstain, and I am not sure how much pressure he could withstand, because Pakistan also needs America. We have a dispute with India and each time there is conflict, America has intervened. So, it is a difficult situation, and I think that the present regime would do its best to try and abstain and resist the pressure.
How would you describe yourself?
I describe myself as a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, someone struggling to make our society better, so that our children can live in a safer world with more dignity.
Women are increasingly being segregated and subjected to unfair treatment in Pakistan, like the case of a woman councillor who was paraded naked, and another raped in a village square on the orders of some powerful men.
After my overthrow, there have been incidents where women have been subjected to the most barbaric treatment and it is tragic that the regime has refused to act. I think government has to protect the life, liberty, and honour of the citizens and women must stop being neglected. If men think that they can get away by committing such crimes, they would continue to do so. In my time the government stepped in whenever there was such a situation, and because we stepped in the women felt protected. We have a handful of men who feel that by committing such crimes that they would be punished, and so it was better for them. I feel very sad when I see my own government unable to protect the women of Pakistan who are the daughters of our land.
Do you think there is a link between terrorism and the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The ongoing violence in the Middle East is one that causes great pain and anguish to us in the Muslim world. The Palestinian issue is a matter that has continued for more than half a century, and it has radicalised the Muslim youths. There was a brief halt during the time of the Oslo accord, and there was a brief period of hope that a peaceful resolution would be found, but an assassin’s bullet cut down the life of Prime Minister Rabin, and after that the situation of the Palestinians and the Israelis deteriorated. Ever since the Second World War, international law has recognised the principles of the rights of the occupied people to resist oppression by any means possible including military rule. However, after the bombing of the WTC, the world community was unable to make a distinction between terrorism and occupation. After the inability of the community to make that distinction in the case of the Middle East, the case of the ongoing violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, is a destabilising factor in international politics. The Muslim people certainly condemn and criticise the suicide bombings that claimed the lives of innocent civilians. Since then, we see a lack of equal condemnation of the repeated Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory, and the Israeli demolition of homes.
(http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/2003/mar/29/0170.html)
Democracy is more than just fair elections -Benazir Bhutto
Recently, H.E. Benazir Benazir Bhutto, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan, was in Nigeria for the recent Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Memorial lecture. This exclusive interview conducted by Musa Aliyu and Tadaferua Ujorha, coursed around the contemporary political struggle in Pakistan, women in Islamic societies, Al-qaeda, as well as the stormy situation in the Middle East and the Gulf. Benazir Bhutto made the insightful remark that democracy is much more than the occasional conduct of fair elections. Excerpts:
You recently said that Islam brought democracy into the world long before any western country, yet today democracy is championed by the West. At what point did the reversal of roles take place, and who or what encouraged it?Now, one would have to look at Islamic history, and how roles started changing, but certainly in the modern era, we had a long period of colonial rule, we found ourselves in a bipolar world and I think it was the superpower rivalry that encouraged dictatorship in most countries.
With the end of the bipolar world the dawn of democracy began again. Democracy is still in its infancy and there are still many chances ahead to strengthen it as part of a process of ensuring a pluralistic society. But I do feel when I look around the world today that the developed countries, the countries that are at peace with each other, are the democratic countries, and I think that is very important for us for the sake of peace, as well as human dignity, and the rule of law, to go back to the elements of democratic society based on consultation and consensus.
It seems to me that over the years, the context of democracy has changed in terms of its definition.
It depends on the various ways people look at the situation and that certainly is different, and sometimes paternalistic society is the same as the democratic society, and each one of us must make our own ways for a democratic structure. I think the basic element of the democratic society is the empowerment of the ordinary people, and of course the world belongs to God, and God appointed his people as agents, and for us democracy is very much the ingredient as well as the basic political concept, and for us this is the best form of government. For me, democracy is certainly fair elections held by an independent election commission. But democracy is much more than a fair election, it is a pluralistic society in which different parties get hold of power in different districts or states or regions.
As the first woman Prime Minister of an Islamic country, can you reflect on your tenure in power?
The first time that I became Prime Minister, there was a huge hysteria that a woman could not be elected Prime Minister, and we did not have any example on the world scene of a woman ever being elected Prime Minister. I remember when I was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, a fatwa was given by the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia against me, saying that Pakistan’s position in the Islamic world was now endangered. Yemen gave another fatwa saying that the Holy Quran has made reference to the Queen of Sheba.
So, there was a big debate within the Muslim world during my election. But after we crossed the barrier, other Muslim countries also followed suit. We had the election of a woman Prime Minister in Bangladesh, and the election of a woman in Turkey.
Then there was the election of Mrs. Megawati of Indonesia, and now for the first time in some of the states, some of the women are coming out to participate. So, I believe that in a very short time, within the Muslim world, a transformation began to take place following my election, and it is an important transformation. For me, it now promotes gender equality, and I think it’s wrong that the Muslim society should be judged by the state of their women. There has been this continuing question relating to whether the state of the woman is contrary to Islamic principles.
What is the particular agenda your party is following in terms of seeking power in Pakistan?
My party is fighting both inside the parliament and outside, to promote democracy, and we are in discussion with other groups and so on.
Our goal is to get fresh elections, and the election commission is constituted of human rights activists, because the judiciary has been intimidated and pressured by the military regime, and it is important for us for fair elections to have an election commission which has human rights activists, and which should hold elections which ensure a prompt vote count and announcements, and not just to count, but the announcement of their count. Because what happened in the last elections was that the count was not announced and it’s the delay that took place that allowed the results to be changed. We would like to see a transfer of power from the military to the civilians. In the two times that I became Prime Minister, we lacked the transfer of power from the military to the civilians. The military did have enormous power though the president who could sack the government, and therefore not a single government of Pakistan since 1985 has completed a term.
So the military must stop being the arbiter of the state of the nation. The people of a country must be the arbiter of their fate, and I know that there are many young officers who share this vision, who would also like to see a professional military, and it’s only a handful of ambitious generals that sometimes act contrary even to the desires of their own institution strive to be in power.
In 1977, as a young woman, you watched your father being hanged, and later in your life you became a Prime Minister, and watched your government being overthrown. What would you say about these experiences?
My father’s government was overthrown, and twice my government was overthrown. We faced either imprisonment, torture, exile or assassination. So in the military almost the same thing happens after each overthrow. Sometimes I feel that unless democracy takes root it’s going to happen again and again. And now we are calling for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because crimes that are committed have never been recorded, they’ve never been exposed, and the public is unaware of what happens when a government is overthrown. There are some little bits that come in the newspapers, but it is too little, and to protect future generations, I would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I think that your government took a very bold stand when the president retired all those officers who had been involved in political activities, but in Pakistan no civilian government has had the power to retire military officers, because the constitution has been made in such a way that it simply lacks the power to do so. You see there are military officials who have got enough money to buy people to switch sides. Some of my people have refused to switch sides. This is not the job of the military. The military must be a clean, good, professional institution.
Earlier you referred to the referendum in Pakistan, and it seems to me that it has certain ridiculous aspects.
You see, under the constitution there’s a procedure of how the president can be elected by the House of Parliament, and there is a procedure that the Army Chief cannot be involved in politics, and that the army chief cannot run for the office of the president. General Musharraf wanted to give himself the level of legitimacy or level of democracy without having it. So he announced a referendum at polling stations without polling agents. When he saw that the political parties were boycotting it, and the turnout was going to be low, then he decided he’s going to have mobile polling stations, and over 93 of these stations were in colleges, hospitals and mobile work, and the television screen will show it that these polling stations were all empty. Without any check it was a very expensive public relations exercise that cost our poor people so much money. The New York Times called it a deeply flawed exercise.
One of the reasons General Musharraf accepted the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was that the Palestinian issue was next to be resolved. But the contrary has been the case. If you were in power would you have seen that as an opportunity for revenge on the Taliban?
If I had been the Prime Minister of Pakistan the people of Afghanistan would have been saved the bombing. Their lives would not have been destroyed, but the people of Pakistan after my overthrow, became hostages of the Taliban. During my entire time due to my foreign policy, al-Qaeda never appeared. I know that if they take on the west, the west would take on the Muslim world, and I wanted to save the Muslim world. If I had been Prime Minister of Pakistan, Pakistan would have played a role that could have promoted the brotherhood and understanding between the western and the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the dialogue has broken down and the situation that is now developing is one of great crises. We Muslims need to transform our own society so that we can have leadership and representatives that can conduct world affairs. General Musharraf and his men supported the Taliban till the last minute. They only broke this link when there was an ultimatum to stand up and be counted as friend or foe. But my party in 1998, three years before the World Trade Centre bombing, broke relations with the Taliban.
There is no sympathy today for the Palestinian people in the World community and that pains my deeply when we see casualties. I want to tell you I don’t believe in revenge. I believe in Bismillah-Rahmani-Raheem, which means" In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful." I think that what we ought to always show is compassion and not revenge.
You mentioned that there should be a distinction between terrorism and Islam, perhaps you could explain this point?
From the media and the public response, we hear a lot of talk about Muslim terrorists. We hear about militant Islam, and I think that this is a misunderstanding about Islam. Islam is not about terrorism and there is an important need for us to distinguish them. For example if there is a problem in Northern Ireland you do not start condemning a religion because some people are using religion as the basis for their political ideals. And I think it is important for us to distinguish between those who use violence to promote their politics, and those whose lands have been occupied, who have a right to fight for their freedom.
How would you assess the political situation in Pakistan now, compared to when you were in power?
Well, my concern and worry about Pakistan is that my exile has led to the rise of religious parties. They could control more of Pakistan in the future, and I think that there is a danger that if this situation continues, then there will be a showdown between the military and the political parties. I say this because it is the military that created these groups. The time has come for those groups to turn on the military, and that confrontation between these parties and the General would be highly explosive. This is because religious parties also have warriors for them. They have irregular trained fighters with them, unlike political parties who don’t. So unless the strength is reversed, the situation in Pakistan will degenerate further, and I hope that it can be avoided because the people of Pakistan are hardworking. The people of Pakistan have made sacrifices and struggled to create a homeland of their own, and the people of Pakistan deserve a better future.
How would you assess the current face-off between the US and Iraq vis-à-vis the position of Pakistan?
Right now, Pakistan is very much against the war. General Musharraf would probably prefer to abstain, and I am not sure how much pressure he could withstand, because Pakistan also needs America. We have a dispute with India and each time there is conflict, America has intervened. So, it is a difficult situation, and I think that the present regime would do its best to try and abstain and resist the pressure.
How would you describe yourself?
I describe myself as a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, someone struggling to make our society better, so that our children can live in a safer world with more dignity.
Women are increasingly being segregated and subjected to unfair treatment in Pakistan, like the case of a woman councillor who was paraded naked, and another raped in a village square on the orders of some powerful men.
After my overthrow, there have been incidents where women have been subjected to the most barbaric treatment and it is tragic that the regime has refused to act. I think government has to protect the life, liberty, and honour of the citizens and women must stop being neglected. If men think that they can get away by committing such crimes, they would continue to do so. In my time the government stepped in whenever there was such a situation, and because we stepped in the women felt protected. We have a handful of men who feel that by committing such crimes that they would be punished, and so it was better for them. I feel very sad when I see my own government unable to protect the women of Pakistan who are the daughters of our land.
Do you think there is a link between terrorism and the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The ongoing violence in the Middle East is one that causes great pain and anguish to us in the Muslim world. The Palestinian issue is a matter that has continued for more than half a century, and it has radicalised the Muslim youths. There was a brief halt during the time of the Oslo accord, and there was a brief period of hope that a peaceful resolution would be found, but an assassin’s bullet cut down the life of Prime Minister Rabin, and after that the situation of the Palestinians and the Israelis deteriorated. Ever since the Second World War, international law has recognised the principles of the rights of the occupied people to resist oppression by any means possible including military rule. However, after the bombing of the WTC, the world community was unable to make a distinction between terrorism and occupation. After the inability of the community to make that distinction in the case of the Middle East, the case of the ongoing violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, is a destabilising factor in international politics. The Muslim people certainly condemn and criticise the suicide bombings that claimed the lives of innocent civilians. Since then, we see a lack of equal condemnation of the repeated Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory, and the Israeli demolition of homes.
(http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/2003/mar/29/0170.html)
Ribadu, Nigeria and the rest of us
A couple of months ago I attended a lecture delivered by an astute scholar and expert on Gulf States, Professor George Joffe in Oxford on the future of Gulf States and their economies amidst America’s growing interests. The most important thing I took away was the story of UAE’s (Dubai) success, which, adopting the Hong Kong strategy of investment in property in addition to tourism, has been transformed into a modern economy that even Westerners envy. Mind you, of these countries Dubai has the least oil wealth. All through the lecture I kept asking myself why we have missed it all in Nigeria and why we are so devoid of visionary and patriotic leaders and even the complimentary followers to joggle our sleeping leaders to action. I am raising this issue because time and again we have had some Nigerians talking of our leaders’ patriotism and the zeal to transform Nigeria. Curiously, they have failed woefully after nearly 50 years of independence in one of the most endowed parts of the world. Instead, we have seen them metamorphosing from little known impoverished politicians to super-rich rogues who still can’t control their kleptomaniac hands. Take the case of Ibori, for instance, or even Dariye. I find it painfully curious that these same men, who have even been indicted by the police in the UK, are still being seen as saints. And activists are dissipating so much energy, wasting precious time advancing arguments in support of this. Ibori’s case, I was told by an old acquaintance and currently a PDP chieftain, is central to the removal of Ribadu. Not because anyone cares to ensure he, Ibori, does not remain in jail, but because there are too many oxen to be gored if the case is logically concluded, including Obasanjo, Yar’Adua himself, many former PDP and ANPP governors etc. The issue is, according to my source, in addition to what Ibori’s allegedly diverted from Delta’s fund, many of those governors were bullied into contributing to the Yar’Adua/Jonathan campaign fund. In some Northern states ANPP governors were said have been forcibly made to decamp to PDP overnight. Or, at the very least, they were compelled to sign an undertaking to deliver their states. In the end PDP won the elections long before votes were cast. What I am driving at here is that those governors were bullied, using the EFCC, simply because their cupboards were filled with skeletons, the advantage of which Obasanjo and PDP took.
I agree with those who argue that Ribadu is, himself, not a saint. But I also do no think he made no impact as EFCC chairman. At least there were instances when corrupt politicians were genuinely brought to book and many others were deterred. At a point, clearly, he acted as Obasanjo’s lap dog in that those dealt with were either adversaries or erring henchmen. Yet we can’t simply sweep his achievements under the carpet.
There’s no better time for Malam Nuhu Ribadu to prove his sincerity in tackling crippling corruption in Nigeria than now - a time when grounds on which Obasanjo, his family members and loyalists could be probed and possibly prosecuted are emerging.
By sacking him to shield Yar’Adua’s sponsors and their sponsors (past military and political leaders who looted our treasury) the president or whoever is responsible for this act is mortgaging our collective interests as Nigerians.
Like the robbery that was coldly perpetuated in the name of elections in April last year, this is tantamount to another war declaration, which, if we fail to respond to, would lead to more spiteful provocations. If the man who stole tubers of yam, to eat and survive, is prosecuted and put in jail, it’s a complete travesty of justice to let corrupt public officers walk the streets as free men, smiling happily to the bank.
I agree with those who argue that Ribadu is, himself, not a saint. But I also do no think he made no impact as EFCC chairman. At least there were instances when corrupt politicians were genuinely brought to book and many others were deterred. At a point, clearly, he acted as Obasanjo’s lap dog in that those dealt with were either adversaries or erring henchmen. Yet we can’t simply sweep his achievements under the carpet.
There’s no better time for Malam Nuhu Ribadu to prove his sincerity in tackling crippling corruption in Nigeria than now - a time when grounds on which Obasanjo, his family members and loyalists could be probed and possibly prosecuted are emerging.
By sacking him to shield Yar’Adua’s sponsors and their sponsors (past military and political leaders who looted our treasury) the president or whoever is responsible for this act is mortgaging our collective interests as Nigerians.
Like the robbery that was coldly perpetuated in the name of elections in April last year, this is tantamount to another war declaration, which, if we fail to respond to, would lead to more spiteful provocations. If the man who stole tubers of yam, to eat and survive, is prosecuted and put in jail, it’s a complete travesty of justice to let corrupt public officers walk the streets as free men, smiling happily to the bank.
Friday, 28 December 2007
Bhutto’s Assassination: A Tragedy Waiting to Happen
When shortly after her return from exile Benazir Bhutto narrowly escaped death in a suicide bomb attack that killed nearly150 others, something in me told me it was only a temporary near-miss. I had badly hoped she would change her mind about participating in the country’s politics, which had turned extremely violent, with General Pervez Musharraf’s government hardly succeeding in curbing the violence. But she was Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of the late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose government was ousted in 1977 by General Muhammad Zia-ul Haq, a military ruler who also put the prime minister to death in 1979 for allegedly masterminding the death of a political opponent while in power. At the age of 35 Mrs Bhutto was to become the first female prime minister of Pakistan, a largely Muslim country and the first woman to hold such position in any Muslim country. She was, in spite of being a reluctant convert, a vehement adherent to the game of politics regardless of the obvious risks. Although she was twice elected prime minister (in 1988 and 1993) and on both occasions her reign was marred by controversies leading to her sack, she remained confident and resolute in her bid to return to power in the interest of her supporters, Pakistan’s commoners, the down-trodden majority, whose support never wavered. Asked by a CNN reporter barely a week to her killing if she knew the risks she was taking, Mrs Bhutto replied that she was more concerned about Pakistani children than her own safety, whom she said were as dear to her as her own children.
I met Benazir Bhutto five years ago when she visited Nigeria. I was working with the Daily Trust newspaper and we had the singular honour of interviewing her. Tadaferua Ujorha, now a deputy editor with the newspaper, and I had a remarkable discussion with her that lasted nearly an hour. She, even though had been out of power nearly seven years then, was as obstinate as ever, insisting on continuing with the political march started by her father. She told of her experience as a young woman, in whose presence her own father was executed and how she coped with the trauma, which reached its climax with her tragic death yesterday. That trauma, worsened by her husband’s incarceration after her removal from office, was to toughen her and straighten her resolve not to be cowed even in the face of death. “Before we got married my husband was just an ordinary business man, who went about his business with a carefree attitude”, she said as she quickly added that Asif Zardari’s life changed completely after their marriage, particularly due to her political leaning. Time and again he was punished for her alleged crimes and was on several occasions offered a reprieve if he agreed to persuade her to give up politics. He, like she, remained defiant and chose, instead, to suffer it all with his beloved wife. Together, they lived in exile in far away Dubai with their three children. There they lived, although hundreds of miles away from their millions of supporters, in safety and shut away from the maddening fears of attack, including the kind that wrenched life out of her. But Mrs Bhutto risked it all and returned to serve her people.
Even as she defied her adversaries never once did she believe it was going to be so tragic an end. She once said she thought it was impossible for any true Muslim to want to kill her, a woman politician. “Islam forbids the killing of a fellow Muslim and Muslims know if they kill a woman they’ll burn in hell.” That was her belief and, in fact, an erroneous assumption as her killers thought nothing of this.
No one is sure who did it, but the slain politician had repeatedly warned of threats on her life from radical groups and forces aligned to Pakistan’s government, including the country’s intelligence organisations. Following the October attack on her convoy in Karachi she criticised the government’s handling of investigation on the matter without categorically accusing Genera Musharraf of any complicity. “The sham investigation of the October massacre,” she wrote in a commentary for CNN.com, “and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalise on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Mushsarraf.” More than the government’s failure to properly probe the assassination attempt, she was outraged by its refusal to accept international help in tracking down the perpetrators.
General Musharraf was, himself, a target of attack by assassins in Rawalpindi, where Mrs Bhutto was shot dead. Her plan to take her Pakistan People’s Party campaign train to the troubled garrison city was forced to be postponed by General Musharraf, citing security reasons. As she stood before her teeming supporters yesterday, with death a few moments away from her, perhaps betraying premonition she warned that she knew all was not well. “I put my life in danger and came here because I feel this country is in danger. People are worried. We will bring the country out of this crisis,” she said with a sense of conviction. No one could discourage her, yet no one could stop the assassins, as shortly afterwards she was felled by their weapon.
Today not only Pakistanis mourn her death, but also all lovers of democracy and peace worldwide, and particularly all those who believe women are equally at liberty to aspire to and win any political position.
While it will be too hasty and even counterproductive to blame or even suggest the government of General Pervez Mussharraf was directly involved in her assassination, there’s no denying that relations between them had been anything but cordial since her return. She returned to the country only after they had agreed a deal, widely believed to have been brokered and or encouraged by the US and Britain, to form a power-sharing government in which the two would lead the country. General Musharraf was to become the president and she the prime minister. As a gesture the general, who had faced increased uprising and criticisms from various interests in his country, granted her amnesty on all the corruption allegations levelled against her, paving the way for her safe home coming, at least.
Soon she joined forces with other opposition stalwarts making life miserable for the belligerent military ruler who’s hell-bent on clinging on to power. She was in the vanguard of calls on him to quit, which he found not only uncomfortable but equally very disturbing and, maybe, treacherous. Barely three weeks after the attempt on her life in Karachi, his government’s bid to clip her wings assumed a new dimension when the police, acting on orders from above, threw barbed wire around her house to stop her from attending anti-government rallies. She had been extremely outspoken, condemning the emergency rule imposed by the general. Thousands of her supporters were rounded up by security forces to forestall violent reactions from them. This cat and mouse relationship continued as she was put under house arrest twice in one week. But she remained her real self and refused to be browbeaten. She even went the extra-mile to, at one time, consider boycotting the January polls and, at another time, seriously ponder forging an alliance with the opposition, including former Prime Minister Nawaz Sherif’s party. Either of these posed a real threat to General Musharraf.
Now that Benazir Bhutto is out of the way, does it mean any relief for the military general who, incidentally, seized power from Nawaz Sherif the same year she went on exile? Methinks not. Reasons are Mrs Bhutto’s exit will create a very big leadership vacuum in her party, considered the largest political party that identifies with the grassroots in Pakistan. More so, her supporters believe the government has a hand in her death. At the moment they have gone on rampage and the violence has already claimed dozens of lives. There’s a chance that death toll will massively increase as the crisis escalates and spreads to other parts. Peshawar, Karachi, Lahore and Multan etc are notably flashpoint areas. It is only hoped it won’t degenerate to a civil conflict in which there will be complete loss of control by General Musharraf’s government, which at the moment is merely struggling to contain the violence. If it does, analysts argue that it will tear the entire fabric of the nation apart. Pakistan, which remains the biggest loser in the midst of all this, could very well be on the brink of collapse. Clearly, there’s nothing more dangerous than having a nuclear-armed Pakistan all out at war against itself, especially in a region with a long history of precariousness.
One final thing that could serve as a fuel to the whole crisis is former Prime Minister Sherif’s decision to boycott the polls. If he makes good his promise then General Musharraf will be left all on his own, battling for credibility for a lame-duck government that can’t even serve as Washington’s proxy in fighting al-Qaeda in their stronghold.
Lastly, as Mrs Benazir Bhutto is laid to rest in her home village in Sindh, Rawalpindi’s Liaquat Bagh Park will go down in history as the place where two former prime ministers of the country were assassinated. It was at this same location, named after him, that Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was slain in 1951. And 56 years later history repeated itself with the killing of the country’s first female prime minister.
She will sadly be missed. Adieu.
I met Benazir Bhutto five years ago when she visited Nigeria. I was working with the Daily Trust newspaper and we had the singular honour of interviewing her. Tadaferua Ujorha, now a deputy editor with the newspaper, and I had a remarkable discussion with her that lasted nearly an hour. She, even though had been out of power nearly seven years then, was as obstinate as ever, insisting on continuing with the political march started by her father. She told of her experience as a young woman, in whose presence her own father was executed and how she coped with the trauma, which reached its climax with her tragic death yesterday. That trauma, worsened by her husband’s incarceration after her removal from office, was to toughen her and straighten her resolve not to be cowed even in the face of death. “Before we got married my husband was just an ordinary business man, who went about his business with a carefree attitude”, she said as she quickly added that Asif Zardari’s life changed completely after their marriage, particularly due to her political leaning. Time and again he was punished for her alleged crimes and was on several occasions offered a reprieve if he agreed to persuade her to give up politics. He, like she, remained defiant and chose, instead, to suffer it all with his beloved wife. Together, they lived in exile in far away Dubai with their three children. There they lived, although hundreds of miles away from their millions of supporters, in safety and shut away from the maddening fears of attack, including the kind that wrenched life out of her. But Mrs Bhutto risked it all and returned to serve her people.
Even as she defied her adversaries never once did she believe it was going to be so tragic an end. She once said she thought it was impossible for any true Muslim to want to kill her, a woman politician. “Islam forbids the killing of a fellow Muslim and Muslims know if they kill a woman they’ll burn in hell.” That was her belief and, in fact, an erroneous assumption as her killers thought nothing of this.
No one is sure who did it, but the slain politician had repeatedly warned of threats on her life from radical groups and forces aligned to Pakistan’s government, including the country’s intelligence organisations. Following the October attack on her convoy in Karachi she criticised the government’s handling of investigation on the matter without categorically accusing Genera Musharraf of any complicity. “The sham investigation of the October massacre,” she wrote in a commentary for CNN.com, “and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalise on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Mushsarraf.” More than the government’s failure to properly probe the assassination attempt, she was outraged by its refusal to accept international help in tracking down the perpetrators.
General Musharraf was, himself, a target of attack by assassins in Rawalpindi, where Mrs Bhutto was shot dead. Her plan to take her Pakistan People’s Party campaign train to the troubled garrison city was forced to be postponed by General Musharraf, citing security reasons. As she stood before her teeming supporters yesterday, with death a few moments away from her, perhaps betraying premonition she warned that she knew all was not well. “I put my life in danger and came here because I feel this country is in danger. People are worried. We will bring the country out of this crisis,” she said with a sense of conviction. No one could discourage her, yet no one could stop the assassins, as shortly afterwards she was felled by their weapon.
Today not only Pakistanis mourn her death, but also all lovers of democracy and peace worldwide, and particularly all those who believe women are equally at liberty to aspire to and win any political position.
While it will be too hasty and even counterproductive to blame or even suggest the government of General Pervez Mussharraf was directly involved in her assassination, there’s no denying that relations between them had been anything but cordial since her return. She returned to the country only after they had agreed a deal, widely believed to have been brokered and or encouraged by the US and Britain, to form a power-sharing government in which the two would lead the country. General Musharraf was to become the president and she the prime minister. As a gesture the general, who had faced increased uprising and criticisms from various interests in his country, granted her amnesty on all the corruption allegations levelled against her, paving the way for her safe home coming, at least.
Soon she joined forces with other opposition stalwarts making life miserable for the belligerent military ruler who’s hell-bent on clinging on to power. She was in the vanguard of calls on him to quit, which he found not only uncomfortable but equally very disturbing and, maybe, treacherous. Barely three weeks after the attempt on her life in Karachi, his government’s bid to clip her wings assumed a new dimension when the police, acting on orders from above, threw barbed wire around her house to stop her from attending anti-government rallies. She had been extremely outspoken, condemning the emergency rule imposed by the general. Thousands of her supporters were rounded up by security forces to forestall violent reactions from them. This cat and mouse relationship continued as she was put under house arrest twice in one week. But she remained her real self and refused to be browbeaten. She even went the extra-mile to, at one time, consider boycotting the January polls and, at another time, seriously ponder forging an alliance with the opposition, including former Prime Minister Nawaz Sherif’s party. Either of these posed a real threat to General Musharraf.
Now that Benazir Bhutto is out of the way, does it mean any relief for the military general who, incidentally, seized power from Nawaz Sherif the same year she went on exile? Methinks not. Reasons are Mrs Bhutto’s exit will create a very big leadership vacuum in her party, considered the largest political party that identifies with the grassroots in Pakistan. More so, her supporters believe the government has a hand in her death. At the moment they have gone on rampage and the violence has already claimed dozens of lives. There’s a chance that death toll will massively increase as the crisis escalates and spreads to other parts. Peshawar, Karachi, Lahore and Multan etc are notably flashpoint areas. It is only hoped it won’t degenerate to a civil conflict in which there will be complete loss of control by General Musharraf’s government, which at the moment is merely struggling to contain the violence. If it does, analysts argue that it will tear the entire fabric of the nation apart. Pakistan, which remains the biggest loser in the midst of all this, could very well be on the brink of collapse. Clearly, there’s nothing more dangerous than having a nuclear-armed Pakistan all out at war against itself, especially in a region with a long history of precariousness.
One final thing that could serve as a fuel to the whole crisis is former Prime Minister Sherif’s decision to boycott the polls. If he makes good his promise then General Musharraf will be left all on his own, battling for credibility for a lame-duck government that can’t even serve as Washington’s proxy in fighting al-Qaeda in their stronghold.
Lastly, as Mrs Benazir Bhutto is laid to rest in her home village in Sindh, Rawalpindi’s Liaquat Bagh Park will go down in history as the place where two former prime ministers of the country were assassinated. It was at this same location, named after him, that Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was slain in 1951. And 56 years later history repeated itself with the killing of the country’s first female prime minister.
She will sadly be missed. Adieu.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
End of the Road for Ribadu?
Although considered a brute of the highest order Major General Musa Bamaiyi was a torn in the flesh of Nigeria’s ‘bad guys’ - fraudsters, drug peddlers and barons and indeed anyone whose source of sudden wealth defied any reasonable explanation. It was during his reign as the boss of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency that Nigeria had its image, darkened by the crimes of some of its citizens, laundered. It was then that there was a real effort to tackle the get-rich-quick syndrome that had eaten deep into our hearts like a virus and rendered young men and women too lazy to labour for success. But General Bamaiyi had his weaknesses, one of which was that he was a principal officer in the regime of General Sani Abacha, who until Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s 8 years of misrule and wasted opportunity, was considered Nigeria’s worst ruler. Another of his big crimes was that he made life unbearable for the lazy, get-rich-quick Nigerians, many of them very influential and powerful. So, no sooner than Abacha had been flushed out of Nigeria’s system Bamaiyi was shown the way down the trash bin of his history too, where he has since remained, enjoying the sort of obscurity that characters like him ‘deserve’.
In a few months from now, perhaps weeks, one other man who has caused so much trouble for politicians and past public officers and all those whose lives depend solely on ‘business as usual’ may get the boot. He is regarded by many, within and outside Nigeria, as the most dynamic and incorruptible man from a country that was voted twice in a row as the world’s second most corrupt. He rose from obscurity to international limelight by waging a courageous battle against fraud and corruption in Nigeria. Since the inception of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s government in May this year, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, a very senior police officer, has been under pressure from all fronts. One important reason for this is his promise to chase and bring immediate past state chief executives and other corrupt politicians to justice. He has been doing just that and many of them, panting with fear, have in turn put pressure on the presidency to do something about him before he brings down the whole edifice of corruption – their shelter.
If this story by the Nigerian Tribune is anything to rely on, then it’s time to say farewell to Malam Ribadu, a ‘Jolly Good Fellow’.
IG orders Ribadu to proceed on 1-yr course
(http://www.tribune.com.ng/25122007/news/news3.html)
IG orders Ribadu to proceed on 1-yr courseTHE battle to sack the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, may have been shifted to his immediate constituency where fresh plot to ease him out of office is allegedly coming from the top hierarchy of the Nigeria Police Force.
While politicians who are not comfortable with his activities are said to have been pressurising President Umaru Yar’Adua to sack the anti-corruption chief, the leadership of the police force, which is reportedly uncomfortable with his profile, is said to be spear-heading the new angle of “the war against Ribadu” project.
Nigerian Tribune gathered that the plot was designed to ease Ribadu out of office without raising any suspicion in the public. According to sources, Ribadu’s journey out of office, according to those behind the plot, would start with a year course in the Nigeria Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, in Jos, Plateau State.
While away in Jos, where he is expected to be fully engrossed in the course on a full-time basis while an acting chairman would be appointed from the police, with a commissioner of police from the SouthWest, already penciled in.
Sources further revealed that the leadership of the police moved to give vent to the plot when the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Mike Okiro, wrote to Ribadu, seeking a meeting with him on the planned course.
Ribadu reportedly got the letter on Thursday, December 13 and he reportedly honour-ed the call the same day, where Okiro was said to have told him of the plan to send him to a full-time course in Kuru, while at the same time enumerating the accruable benefits of such course to the EFCC boss.
The police boss was said to have hinted Ribadu that he was being picked for the course as a way of preparing him for eventual ascension to the post of the Inspector General of Police.
A senior police officer, who spoke with the Nigerian Tribune on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the development, but said that it was not a ploy to ease Ribadu out of the EFCC.
In a few months from now, perhaps weeks, one other man who has caused so much trouble for politicians and past public officers and all those whose lives depend solely on ‘business as usual’ may get the boot. He is regarded by many, within and outside Nigeria, as the most dynamic and incorruptible man from a country that was voted twice in a row as the world’s second most corrupt. He rose from obscurity to international limelight by waging a courageous battle against fraud and corruption in Nigeria. Since the inception of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s government in May this year, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, a very senior police officer, has been under pressure from all fronts. One important reason for this is his promise to chase and bring immediate past state chief executives and other corrupt politicians to justice. He has been doing just that and many of them, panting with fear, have in turn put pressure on the presidency to do something about him before he brings down the whole edifice of corruption – their shelter.
If this story by the Nigerian Tribune is anything to rely on, then it’s time to say farewell to Malam Ribadu, a ‘Jolly Good Fellow’.
IG orders Ribadu to proceed on 1-yr course
(http://www.tribune.com.ng/25122007/news/news3.html)
IG orders Ribadu to proceed on 1-yr courseTHE battle to sack the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, may have been shifted to his immediate constituency where fresh plot to ease him out of office is allegedly coming from the top hierarchy of the Nigeria Police Force.
While politicians who are not comfortable with his activities are said to have been pressurising President Umaru Yar’Adua to sack the anti-corruption chief, the leadership of the police force, which is reportedly uncomfortable with his profile, is said to be spear-heading the new angle of “the war against Ribadu” project.
Nigerian Tribune gathered that the plot was designed to ease Ribadu out of office without raising any suspicion in the public. According to sources, Ribadu’s journey out of office, according to those behind the plot, would start with a year course in the Nigeria Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, in Jos, Plateau State.
While away in Jos, where he is expected to be fully engrossed in the course on a full-time basis while an acting chairman would be appointed from the police, with a commissioner of police from the SouthWest, already penciled in.
Sources further revealed that the leadership of the police moved to give vent to the plot when the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Mike Okiro, wrote to Ribadu, seeking a meeting with him on the planned course.
Ribadu reportedly got the letter on Thursday, December 13 and he reportedly honour-ed the call the same day, where Okiro was said to have told him of the plan to send him to a full-time course in Kuru, while at the same time enumerating the accruable benefits of such course to the EFCC boss.
The police boss was said to have hinted Ribadu that he was being picked for the course as a way of preparing him for eventual ascension to the post of the Inspector General of Police.
A senior police officer, who spoke with the Nigerian Tribune on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the development, but said that it was not a ploy to ease Ribadu out of the EFCC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
