And Mr President fires back (2)

Aliyu Musa

In recent months the world witnessed some surprising prosecutions for corrupt practices and shocking convictions of former leaders/presidents. In April 2018, Brazil and South Korea, notably, did the needful by respectively sending former presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Park Geun-hye to prison for abuse of office and corruption. Peru had, in July 2017, ordered its ex-president, Ollanta Humala, to begin an 18-month pre-trial detention for illegally accepting from a Brazilian construction company a campaign donation worth $3 million. In South Africa, former President Jacob Zuma, humbled out of office in February 2018, is facing criminal charges for his alleged role in an arms deal involving some European companies more than two decades ago.

Nigeria, in comparison to Brazil, South Korea or even South Africa, is a desperately poor country, on average. While Lula da Silva was accused of illegally accepting a gift (property) worth $755,000 from a construction company, Zuma’s corruption allegation involves $5 billion and Geun-hye’s is to do with amounts raging between $6.5 million and $72 million. Interestingly, none of these is anywhere near the $16 billion the Obasanjo power project is alleged to have gulped or the $6 billion Obasanjo’s political ally, Osuntokun, admitted was spent on the project.

But Nigeria is not like any of these countries, despite each claiming it’s experiencing a massively incremental corrupt practices involving top government officials and politicians. In Nigeria, unlike anywhere else, corrupt government officials and politicians are shielded from the consequences of their actions by petty sentiments often propelled to despicable heights by their victims, the desperately poor masses, intoxicated by tribal and religious allegiances.

This is why, even after Chief Obasanjo boldly dared the government or anyone to initiate another investigation and possible prosecution, it would be difficult for his bluff to be successfully called off. In fairness to the south-west, though, it remains the only region to have resisted the temptation to align forces behind kinsmen accused of corruption, something every other ethnic nationality is guilty of. So, will a resuscitation of investigations into how the $16 billions dollars were spent provoke a different reaction from people in the south-west?

In my previous commentaries in which I weighed Chief Obasanjo’s political capital in the the south-west, in particular, or Nigeria, in general, I argued that to rely on him to directly (numerically ) influence the outcome of an election, especially one involving the position of president, could result in a monumental failure. But his strategic importance, as was seen in the 2015 election, cannot be denied. However, it does not mean that things cannot suddenly turn around and an attempt to subject him to trial for corruption could backfire, as his constituency could perceive it as a political witch-hunt and kick against it.

Already, the government and its anti-corruption agencies are accused of selective justice, a charge they have not been able to successfully dispel, given the political affiliations of most of those being investigated or prosecuted for corruption.

Despite these possibilities, though, it is still unlikely that the south-west would massively rally round Obasanjo, were the investigations that the EFCC re-opened this week progress to criminal prosecution and possible conviction. Many south-westerners, firstly, have yet to forget the unfair and ruthless decimation of Alliance for Democracy (AD), a political party that was immensely popular in the south-west and the battles of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, being the only surviving governor, under Obasanjo’s watch. That Tibunu is today iconic in the politics of the region is largely due to his resistance and survival, in spite of Obasanjo’s relentless use of state powers to crush him and what was left of AD. AD has since reincarnated itself as Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), under Tinubu’s leadership (ACN is one of the key alliance partners that birthed APC).

Secondly, the ruling APC, despite its not so impressive performance, is still the party to beat in the south-west for various reasons, some of which were discussed in my recent commentaries on the political dynamics in the region and APC’s chances in 2019. Again, the people would rather not risk the current political and potential benefits of standing with the ruling party in spite of Obasanjo.

The above points, notwithstanding, Obasanjo is a hard and dirty fighter and would definitely fight to finish. And one of his strategies, as is already happening, is to steer ‘unignorable’ sentiments against the president and ruling party, possibly using religion. Religion is a very potent weapon, second or equal to ethnicity, in Nigerian politics. Time and again, it was used with precision and 2019 is not going to be an exception.

This is one major reason why Obasanjo could remain an untouchable for as long as possible, even if his ostensible sacrileges are too obvious to not fail to proceed to a criminal prosecution or a likely conviction, like those of Brazil’s Lula da Silva, South Korea’s Geun-hye, Peru’s Humala and South Africa’s Zuma.

(Concluded)

Police recruitment test, Jamb and the CAN campaign

The recent police recruitment computer-based test (CBT) is a subject of religious controversy, once again, in a country this has no shortage of such animosities. The Nigeria Police Force had reportedly contracted the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB) to conduct the test on its behalf and only one subject were the applicants to be examined on. But JAMB, according to a statement by its head of media, Fabian Benjamin, has a system whose software only accepts four modules at a time.

To get round this obstacle, Dr Benjamin said, JAMB had to upload three other dummy tests (questions) and, logically, modules were uploaded alphabetically, which was why Arts, Arabic and Agriculture were the ones added on. He argued further that instructions were clearly given, in addition to several announcements, that candidates for the recruitment exercise were to attempt only English Language test and no other. They were given 45 minutes, in total.

Anyone that ever sat any JAMB exams knows that 45 minutes are barely sufficient for one test. Asking students to attempt questions on four different modules in 45 minutes is, therefore, bizarre, insane and alien to reality. But it later emerged that some of the candidates claimed Arabic was imposed to, as part of a supposed Islamisation agenda, give Muslim applicants an undue advantage.

What is more troubling is that some enlightened, highly educated and strategically positioned Nigerians, who should know better, have chorused the claim. For example, a well-respected organisation of no less standing than CAN (Christian Association of Nigeria) rather than verify the allegation amplified it, regardless of the polarising repercussions. But even more baffling is the fuel some highly placed individuals, including respected journalists, have added to the controversy by using their traditional media and social media advantage to strategically peddle the misinformation.

Objectivity, balance and truth are essential principles of journalism. Any journalist that do does not know that stories must be double checked before going to press has no business in the profession.

This piece also appears in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, June 2, 2018.

And Mr President fires back (1)

Aliyu Musa

In the concluding part of my commentary titled “2019 and Obasanjo’s threat” last week, I commended President Muhammadu Buhari and the ruling APC for not publicly joining issues with former President Olusegun Obasanjo. I reminded that responding to Obasanjo’s similarly provocative attacks was one of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s major miscalculations in the run up to the 2015 election.

Despite repeated attempts to provoke a dirty fight, the president impressively avoided it, until earlier this week, when he charged at not only Chief Obasanjo but also Obasanjo’s immediate successor, the late Umar ‘Yar’adua and his (Buhari) immediate predecessor, Mr Jonathan. So, the dirty fight I warned of has just begun.

In his comment at the Presidential Villa while receiving members of the Buhari Support Organisation, the president said that a former president bragged about spending $16 billion on power projects during his (the former president) tenure, yet there’s nothing to show for the huge spending. Although the president did not mention any name, it was obvious that he was referring to Obasanjo.

In 2008, a House of Representatives committee probing power projects had indicted Obasanjo and recommended that he should be held to account for the reckless spending of $16 billion in the power sector during his tenure as president. The committee further recommended the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate him.

In the report the committee also indicted Chief Obasanjo’s minister of power and steel, Liyel Imoke, for over-costing the project and recommended him for investigation too. Also named in the report and recommended to EFCC and ICPC for further actions were: Alhaji Abdulhamid Ahmed, a minister of state (energy) in Obasanjo’s government; Dr Olusegun Agagu, who had served as minister of power and steel; Engineer Joseph Makoju, a former managing director of PHCN (Power Holding Company of Nigeria), among others.

Following the release of the report, as is typical of Nigeria and Nigerians, citizens across the country seemed furious, especially as it emerged that some prominent Nigerians, including former presidents/heads of state were among the beneficiaries of what was termed “fruit of mischief”. But the anger eventually fizzled out and the matter was laid to rest.

This was why, perhaps, President Buhari used the opportunity to hit back at Obasanjo, his former boss and backer in the 2015 election. In fairness to the president, Obasanjo’s attacks had become too frequent and ferocious. But, like I opined in my commentary last week, he should have been ignored, at least for now.

Predictably, the president’s statement drew Chief Obasanjo’s feral response within hours. His spokesman, Kehinde Akinyemi, dismissed President Buhari’s allegation by describing it as one “rooted in ignorance”. And in an attempt to debunk the president’s claim that there is nothing to show despite spending the amount, Obasanjo stated: “The answer is simple: the power is in the seven National Integrated Power Projects and eighteen (18) gas turbines.”

He also pointed the president “and his co-travellers” in the direction of his autobiography, My Watch, where he said he had cleared the allegation in some chapters, including 41, 42, 43 and 47. And, further spoiling for a fight, Chief Obasanjo offered to “inform the uninformed” (presumably Buhari) that he did not brag about spending $16 billion on power, arguing that it was a mere allegation against his regime.

The statement by the former president again dismissed the claim as an allegation that was started by his successor, the late Umar Yar’adua, whom he accused of failing to clear from the ports the gas turbines purchased with some of the money.

Chief Obasanjo concluded by daring anyone who doubted the outcome of the EFCC and the Hon. Aminu Tumbuwal ad hoc committee’s probing of the matter to initiate another investigation. With that, he threw the ball in President Buhari’s court.

Whether the president will take on the challenge now or at some point in the future, remains to be seen. But what is obvious is that power supply in Nigeria has continued to be embarrassingly erratic despite several claims, by different governments, of spending humongous amounts to fix the numerous problems. What is also certain is that former president did not completely deny spending any money on power during his tenure.

Another political ally and spokesman for the Obasanjo-led Coalition for Nigeria Movement (CNM), Akin Osuntokun, also staunchly defended the former president. Osuntokun, like Obasanjo, accused the late Yar’adua’s government of concocting the ‘rumour’. But in the same breath, the CNM spokesman admitted the Obasanjo government actually spent $6 billion on the power sector.

So, with a consistently erratic or often non-existent power supply, what has happened to the money?

(To be concluded)

This article was also published in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, May 26, 2018.

2019 and Obasanjo’s threat (2)

Aliyu Musa

Since writing his damning but not totally unexpected letter in January 2018, Obasanjo scarcely misses the opportunity to attack Buhari’s government. He has accused the government of incompetence and the president of ineptitude and nepotism. He has also accused the president of diverting the most important security positions in his government to the north and of being insensitive to the killings going on in the country, allegedly perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen, the president’s kinsmen.

When Obasanjo fired the first salvo, it was expected that President Buhari’s media team would respond. But the presidency shocked everyone, particularly Obasanjo, by simply ignoring him for some days. And when the response came, it was a polite reminder to the former president that, despite his criticisms, the government has some achievements to it credit. The achievements were listed out by the information minister, Dr Lai Mohammed.

Last week, under the aegis of Foundation for Good Governance in Nigeria (FGGN), I, alongside four colleagues, had the opportunity of meeting the president during his visit to London to see his doctor. In a brief encounter in his lodge he told us why he initially didn’t want to respond to Chief Obasanjo’s tirade. According to him, when his special adviser on media, Femi Adesina, came to him to say he wanted to reply the former president, he told him not to. He said because Adesina is much younger than him (Buhari) and Obasanjo, he did not want to him be involved in the matter. He also said, given that Adesina, was from the same constituency as Obasanjo, it could have a consequence on Adesina.

But when Dr Mohammed came to him and explained what he wanted to do, the president said he reasoned with him and let him. The outcome was impressive, because President Buhari said he received calls from people commending the government for the constructive response. I personally think it was a brilliant one! Obasanjo, with the way he has carried on with attacks on the government and Buhari, was hoping for a dirty fight. So far, the president has refused to let him have his way. This is disappointing to Obasanjo, I believe, which is why he has refused to relent, promising to kick the president out of power, the way he brought him in.

But Chief Obasanjo, methinks, is mistaken. Like I mentioned last week the former president played an important role in President Buhari’s victory, but it was not sufficient to bring him to power, as the former president claims. He has, clearly, exaggerated his importance because, while he is strategically influential he is does not have the numerical influence to singlehandedly decide who comes to power or who does not. He, no doubt, contributed significantly to Jonathan’s defeat in 2015. But Mr Jonathan’s tumble from power was only waiting to happen. So, Obasanjo only acted as a catalyst.

Besides, despite repeatedly threatening the president and the ruling party Chief Obasanjo has been unable to put in place the political machinery that can realistically dislodge the ruling party and, especially, candidate Buhari in 2019. This is in spite of the inability of the president to meet the expectations of most of those who supported him in 2015.

With the election only months away, the opposition PDP is yet to put its house in order. It has yet to come to terms with its defeat and, therefore, it’s unable to decide how best to tackle the ruling APC. The other opposition parties, practically, do not have the clout to dislodge the ruling party and Buhari, at the minute. Obasanjo’s talks with Chief Olu Falae’s SDP has since fallen through and the former president’s National Intervention Movement (NIM) has only succeeded in raising plenty of dust, but has now calmed down, without any prompting. So how does Chief Obasanjo hope to defeat an incumbent President Buhari?

Obasanjo’s privileged access to strategic information was what Buhari needed in 2015 to bring down Goodluck Jonathan’s already crumbling government. And this, alone, explains why Jonathan should not have shot himself in the foot by openly and impolitely paying back Obasanjo, when the letter wrote a similarly damning letter about his (Jonathan’s) regime. Not that ignoring Obasanjo would have solved the problem, as it were. But it would have given him no ammunition to ferociously tear the regime to shreds, like he did by strategically helping the APC campaign team to counter every move the former President Jonathan, with his loyalists in PDP, made.

At least that support helped to put the pressure on the PDP and Jonathan’s withering power. And, although they did not want to go into an election they were doubtlessly unprepared for, they were nonetheless forced. The only time they controlled the situation was when they, with the help of the then National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki and support from service chiefs, blackmailed the Professor Attahiru Jega-led Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) into postponing the election by six weeks. That, still, did not stop the impending defeat they were eventually handed.

Candidate Buhari is, presently, the only candidate with a realistic chance of winning the 2019 election. Other candidates may only be able to send a message; one that may not take them beyond the actualisation of their dream of merely contesting. But the situation could change if, for instance, all the other parties form a powerful coalition and present one candidate. But it’s a remote possibility because time is fast running and they would hardly be able to convince all the various political ‘heavyweights’ jostling for the president’s job to dump their ambition.

So, regardless of Obasanjo’s threat and ceaseless attacks, Buhari could coast to victory, once again, in 2019.

(Concluded)

This article was published in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, May 19, 2018.

2019 and Obasanjo’s threat (1)

Aliyu Musa

As the 2019 election draws nearer political forces are forming alliances just as alliances are collapsing. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is, at the minute, taking the heat as some of its alliance partners issue subtle or direct threats and a few others withdraw their support. The opposition People’s Democratic Party, which lost power to APC, is far worse hit, as it fails to shape up since losing out in 2015.

Nigeria’s political turf is usually dicey. But it is dicier as each election approaches. The 2015 election is phenomenal in the country’s history. It was the first occasion an incumbent at the centre was handed a humbling defeat. Towards the end of his tenure as president, Goodluck Jonathan fell out with many of his allies, including those who played key roles in his election. So, it was obvious that the contest was not going to be a walk in the park for him, despite the ‘advantage’ of power of incumbency.

After repeated failed attempts to unseat the then ruling PDP candidates, the then opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, began to look like a real threat. Reasons were the withering support base of President Jonathan, general disenchantment with the PDP whose 16 years in power had brought the dividends of democracy to only a few, the worrying security situation in the country, particularly the monstrous Boko Haram insurgency, and, above all, the surprising unity of opposition parties that birthed the APC.

APC’s conception, birth and survival, especially in its early days, came at a costly price. But the choice of Buhari as its presidential flag bearer was its hallmark. The primaries had been, as unusual as it was for party politics in Nigeria, extremely transparent. The losers were, in defeat, sportsmanly. The winner was, in victory, magnanimous. The amazing show of unity profoundly unsettled the PDP, making its defeat, something that was hardly previously envisaged, almost certain, long before votes were cast.

One of former President Jonathan’s major miscalculations in the run up to the election was his inability to hold back his anger in the face of provocations. For example, trading words with former President Olusegun Obasanjo immensely contributed to his defeat because Obasanjo fired back with full vengeance, deploying every weapon at his disposal. Suffice to say, therefore, that Obasanjo’s support for President Buhari was a significant lubricant to the latter’s navigation to victory.

But, as important as Chief Obasanjo’s support was, it was not a sufficient factor for Buhari’s victory. Candidate Buhari was, among other reasons, the most trusted of the contestants to get Nigeria out of the woods. But his support, especially in northern part of the country, was unprecedented and, surprisingly too, the south-west soon caught the bug.

Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State, is arguably the most formidable politician from the south-west. His popularity and strategising capabilities are ever reliable. He was one person whose backing of candidate Buhari had a profound effect on the election. Starting with the APC primaries in Lagos, he calmly but humiliatingly humbled former vice president Atiku Abubakar, who had strategically readied himself for victory. Tinubu matched the former VP tactic for tactic and the outcome shockingly placed Abubakar a distant third in the race.

It was this feat and Tinubu’s ability to rally the south-west behind candidate Buhari in the main election in March 2015 that made him a far more important factor in President Buhari’s victory. The south-west was (and still is) the beautiful bride, whose nod made or marred the two main rivals’ sail to victory. But the victory dance has, somehow, since given way to grief and not a few grumbles have rented the air. This, perhaps, is why the battle for Aso Villa in 2019 could be a lot fiercer and, maybe, messier. Whoever gets the bride’s nod comes out merrier.

But Tinubu is no novice and knows his onions; 2019 is as crucial as 2023. And, based on the gentleman’s agreement that power should be rotated every eight years between the north and south, 2023 would be a payback time; a time only those who sowed would reap, most probably.

But, in fairness to the south-east, it has yet to produce a president since Gen Aguyi Ironsi’s short but ghastly reign. So, as Chief Obasanjo argued not long ago, 2023 could be a time to compensate and pacify them to drop their secession plan. But there has to be, beyond mere sentiments, a basis for such concession.

In 2015, despite the APC reserving the Senate President position for the region, it massively voted for the PDP, and eventually aligned with rebelling members of the ruling APC to settle for the Deputy Senate President position. Up until now, although there is increasing support for the ruling party, the south-east is predominantly pro-PDP. This means if it remains with the opposition and the APC candidate is re-elected in 2019, the south-east would have little or no legitimate claim to bearing the ruling party’s flag in 2019.

For Asiwaju Tinubu and the south-west, therefore, supporting President Buhari’s reelection bid would be in their best interest, for a number of reasons. First, it would consolidate Tinubu’s political relevance in the region over and above Obasanjo’s claim, despite the latter being a two-term president. Second, it would be the second time the region is producing a president after Obasanjo’s two terms since the country’s return to democracy in 1999. Third, President Buhari’s victory, with the support of the region Obasanjo comes from, regardless of his threat, would permanently perish the former president’s claim to being a ‘power broker’.

But Obasanjo is not a man that makes empty threats. He makes good his promises and could fight really dirty.

(To be continued)

This article was published in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, May 12, 2018

London gang killings and community-based solutions (II)

Aliyu Musa

There is no single or commonly accepted definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). It varies in meaning to various people and in different places. But what it does focus on is the resolution of conflict or disagreements or disputes between two parties (or more) without resorting to court proceedings or adjudicative processes.

It is a method of mediation in which a neutral mediator brings together the two parties and gets them to agree on a common solution. While it is applied more in disputes involving consumers and traders, it is, nonetheless, applicable in other situations, including the feuds among youth in London.

In the first part of this article two weeks ago, I mentioned DCS Michael Gallagher’s suggestion of a community-based solution in which parents, government and community groups would play a central role.

This approach, in a practical sense, would involve negotiation or mediation. The Cambridge English dictionary defines mediation as “the process by which someone tries to end a disagreement by helping to talk about and agree on a solution.”

Realistically, the sides in the feuds in London are diverse and amorphous and, therefore, difficult to identify prior to committing the crimes. But, pragmatically, they could be drawn out and identified by means of strategically planned and executed campaigns.

Like I explained in the first part of this article, the Nigerian Diaspora in the UK are the most affected. This, therefore, means they should be in the forefront of proffering a solution, which will require putting on a thinking hat on a (united) head.

Acting as a body such groups could begin a serious campaign whose objectives could be two-pronged: first, to get families to identify and address problems that affect parenting and; second, to identify the youth that are affected or likely to be affected and begin a process of sensitisation and rehabilitation in order to steer them off the path of crime and violence.

A potential challenge for any group trying to work towards achieving these goals is funding. This is where the government, charities and others stakeholders could step in. Already, bereaved families of the victims sometimes, although informally, organise rallies in which they speak out against the crimes. Such groups could become formally recognised and funds set aside to support the cause.

But for them to succeed some fundamental problems, like the collapse of the family as a primary unit of socialisation, needs to be addressed. This collapse, directly linked to the changing political economy of the family, started with parents abdicating their roles and leaving children, more often, on their own to do as they please.

While in some cases it could be because of absenteeism due to long hours of work, in a situation where both parents work full time, in many other cases it be due to a longer or even permanent absence of one or both parents. The latter happens more in broken homes, which leaves one of the parents struggling to bring up the children.

A victim’s father, Patrick Boyce, believes the problem has spiralled out of control because families are now dysfunctional. This, he argues further, is because, most of the youth involved in such crimes come from single parents, and do not have fathers around them. He also blamed poor schooling.

So, the first thing to address is how families could be reorganised and encouraged to take their responsibilities seriously. And where one of the parents is absent, the communities and could consider means by which they could help the lone parent cope with the challenges of parenting.

This could mean, somehow, overcoming some of the barriers imposed by the individualistic nature of the society. Thus, the campaign could focus on educating parents, especially those in the most deprived areas, to realise the importance of working with community groups to address common problems. In this way, such parents, could take ownership of the campaign and work fully for its success.

With the help of experts, such communities could be armed with ADR skills, which they could pass on to their members. This will, in turn, help them identify urgent situations and provide the required supports.

It is important to understand that these young people, the victims and the perpetrators, are victims of this dysfunctional system; a system in which they have lost confidence, which is why they often resort to violence at the slightest provocation.

The system, the family and the community, must win back these youth. They must empathise with them and make them realise they are as important as everyone else and begin the process of rehabilitating them and addressing their needs. This could break down the barriers and, possibly, be the turning point. The alternative is to sit down and do nothing while the problem amplifies.

(Concluded)

This article was published in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, March 5, 2018.

London gang killings and community-based solutions (1)

Aliyu Musa

London’s gang-related violence has claimed yet another victim. On this occasion Sami Sidhom, described as an 18-year-old A-star History and Law student of Queen Mary University, is the victim. He had been ambushed and stabbed by a gang of youth in two cars, and left lying in a pool of blood.

Within seconds the assailants fled the crime scene before anyone had the chance to identify any of them. And, although, help soon came it was not enough to save their victim’s life.

Sidhom is one of many victims of violent attacks and or gang-related crimes resulting in fatalities in the boisterous city. Since the beginning of this year no fewer than 50 lives have been lost and many fatally wounded in the attacks.

Most of the victims were either from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups (BMEG) or young men and women between the ages of 17 and 30 or both. And, often, the causes of the violence ranged from social media spats, postcode disagreements to gang wars.

Victims may not be in any way connected to the original causes of the violence, but may just, unfortunately, be caught in the crossfire. Many innocent persons, for instance, could be caught up in postcode wars simply because they live within a particular postcode that is at war with the youth of another postcode.

An unsuspecting victim who was accosted and asked by a couple of teenagers if he lived in a particular postcode ended up with life-threatening injuries after he answered in the affirmative. Such attacks could provoke revenge attacks by youth of the victims’ postcode.

Some of the victims are, sometimes, known to their assailants. In 2016 Jamel Boyce, for example, reportedly had an argument with a former schoolmate who promised to kill him. Afterwards, Jamel, who was said to have never carried a knife or belonged to a gang, was attacked and stabbed in the heart and leg.

Although the teenager miraculously survived, he is, presently, in a semi-vegetative state and, doctors say, will never recover the use of his brain.

A female victim killed in a drive-by shooting was only caught up in a gang feud due to her closeness to a target, who had, himself, been shot. Soon after, the killers were on social media mocking their victims.

Over the years, these gang-related killings have continued to steadily rise, almost overwhelming efforts to tackle them. One of the attempts made was the introduction of increased stop and search, which gave the Metropolitan Police more powers to stop people and search them if they suspected they were carrying weapons.

In 2011 and 2012, the Met reportedly carried out more than half a million stops a year. But it was said to have disproportionately targeted people of African-Caribbean backgrounds. The fact that most of the searches yielded no evidence of crime fuelled allegations of deliberate black targeting, further impacting community relations.

This development and the government’s belief that increased stops have not resulted in fewer gang-related crimes or violence led to a cut in the number of searches and a search for more community-based solutions.

In view of this a senior Scotland Yard officer, DCS Michael Gallagher, recently advocated a radical societal change. Emphasising a need for more focus on the needs of young people, Gallagher posited: “What we need is a societal change where young people, as the perpetrators and victims, feel valued and protected.”

He further argued that the problem was beyond the police and that it was impossible for them to prosecute their way out of it. Rather, it was something that required a collective problem-solving approach, in which parents, government and community groups would be involved. So how could this suggestion be translated into reality?

Most migrant communities in the UK are close knit. Nigerians, for example, have various cultural, political and religious unions through which they interact and connect with their people and country of origin.

Among the victims, from January 2018 up until now, are about 10 Nigerians. They, like many of the other victims, were caught up either in the wrong place or time or both. For example Abraham Badru was killed in late March 2018 just outside his family home in Hackney.

He, like most Nigerian migrants’ children, was well educated and ambitious. He had a Masters degree and was working as a football coach. He had been given an award for bravery after rescuing a sex attack victim and following up by appearing in court as a prosecution witness. He was, clearly, of good character and had no links with gangs.

Even beyond altruism these various Nigerian groups, being directly affected, should be able to come together and, possibly, present a common front to take up the initiative towards proffering an alternative means of resolving the problem.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is increasingly gaining currency especially where crises defy commonly applied solutions.

(To be continue)

This piece also appears in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, April 21, 2018.

Will tension over Syria escalate to another world war?

Aliyu Musa

Rival blocs, reminiscent of the cold war era, are massively pilling up forces and weapons around Syria. On the one hand are Russia, President Bashar al-Assad’s strongest ally and backer in the civil war that engulfed the Middle Eastern country since 2011, and Iran. On the other are the US and its prominent NATO allies, Britain and France.

Before Russia fully threw its massive weight behind al-Assad, regime change was almost certain, as the rebels increasingly gained ground, propelled by support from the west. Attempts by the UN to broker a peace deal failed on all occasions because regime change was always on the table, which President al-Assad and his backers vehemently rejected. But that has since changed because Russia’s military backing has since neutralised the rebel forces and helped the embattled Syrian regime regain control.

But the war is far from over, as pockets of rebels are still fighting to the death. And al-Assad, desperate for a resounding victory, is willing to use every means, foul or fair, to defeat them. This is why the latest imbroglio over Douma does not come as a surprise.

Douma, a city in eastern Ghouta, is the last rebel stronghold. The battle to oust the rebel from their remaining strongholds of eastern Ghouta began in February, 2018. Relentless assaults from al-Assad forces left hundreds of civilians dead. But the rebels were undaunted, up until the end of February.

In March, the regime launched a final onslaught and Douma, housing about 150,000 people, became a target mainly because the group controlling it, Jaysh al-Islam, had refused to give up. Following the failure of negotiations with the rebels last weekend, the Syrian government resumed air strikes on the city, culminating in the use of what was suspected to be chemical weapons.

While it cannot be claimed with definite finality that it was the handiwork of the forces loyal to the regime, the fact that air strikes had taken place, targeting civilians shelters, suggests the regime’s complicity. But Syria could as well be a sacrificial lamb.

The battle for the soul of the beleaguered country has been nothing short of a proxy war between old, formidable rivals. Russia, the United States of America, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have for various reasons, been deeply involved in the conflict.

Russia’s support for the al-Assad regime is not in any way altruistic. It is basically to defend its interests in the country, particularly its naval facility at the port of Tartous, the country’s only Mediterranean base for its black sea fleet. Another key interest is Russia’s air base in Latakia, where it has its forces.

To protect these interests Russia has done everything, from blocking resolutions at the UN Security Council not favourable to al-Assad to providing weapons to the Syrian forces, regardless of criticism from rivals in the west and the international community.

One excuse Russia gave for its military support to the government of Bashar al-Assad was an urgency to defeat terrorist groups like the Islamic State (IS) that were fighting in and had annexed parts of the country. But, often, Russian air strikes target rebels enjoying the backing of the west, which result in retaliatory air strikes that further affect civilians and compound the problem.

Directly opposed to Russia’s stance and leading the anti-al-Assad alliance is the US, which insisted from the outset that regime change was inevitable. In order to weaken the al-Assad regime the US gives what it describes as limited military support to moderate rebels. But, like it was in Libya, it is believed that the support is aimed at empowering the rebels to the point of being able to overthrow the regime. But that has, so far, failed to happen.

Yet, despite carrying out strikes on jihadist fighters, including the IS, the US is reportedly tactically refusing to hit such targets where it believes doing so would put President al-Assad’s forces at an advantage.

The Saudi-Iranian religious-cum-political rivalry also comes into play in the conflict. This explains why both are heavily involved. Iran is Russia’s key ally in backing the Syrian Shia regime. Being a regional Shia heavyweight, it is heavily providing military, political and financial aid to the al-Assad Alawite government.

Using its regional power, Iran has played a substantial role in mobilising Shia support from its (Iran) militias as well as from Iraq, who while protecting Shia holy sites fight alongside Syrian forces. Also, Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia movement loyal to Iran has fighters in western Syria, on the side of the regime.

Conversely, Saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons, is on the other side of the divide alongside the US. Like its military expedition in Yemen, where the Shia have been directly targeted, it is believed that the Sunni Saudi rulers want to oust President al-Assad more for religious and political reasons. Whereas Saudi forces were sent to Bahrain to crush a Shia uprising at the beginning of the Arab Spring in 2011, the Kingdom has consistently called for the forceful removal of the Syrian regime.

Following a similar chemical attack in 2013 that was blamed on al-Assad, Saudi Arabia wanted a swift military action but was disappointed when the Obama government chose not to. It is believed that, in order to undermine Iran’s regional dominance and weaken the Syrian regime, Saudi Arabia provides massive military and financial supports to different rebel groups in Syria.

The last filament to the conflict is the Turkish involvement, which like the others is also for its own interests. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a staunch critic of President al-Assad and has on various occasions accused him of being a dictator that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians.

Being a major supporter of the Syrian opposition, Turkey allows its borders to be used as a route for the shipment of weapons to the rebels. It has also played host to nearly two million Syrian refugees.

The significance of these divergent interests is that they have helped the conflict to endure with colossal damage to the people and country. By using Syria as a proxy these countries are either trying to assert their global or regional dominance, while directly avoiding direct confrontations with each other.

However, with the current tension over last week’s allegation of the use of chemical weapon against the government of al-Assad, will these global and regional powers escalate the conflict to a major war? It is unlikely. Already, the US President Donald Trump appears to have back-pedalled on his promise to hit Syria soon. But should he make good his promise, is Russia likely to hit back? That, too, remains to be seen.

This piece also appears in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, March 14, 2018.