September 23 2015
ECOWAS triumphs in Burkina Faso as Gaskiya.net is vindicated again
The coup in Burkina Faso has collapsed unceremoniously under the weight of threats from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) backed by Nigeria. ECOWAS had insisted that the coup plotters—elements of the Presidential Guard Brigade of the Burkinabe Army—re-store constitutional order within a matter of days or face what it called “stiff penalties.”
Against that backdrop, President Michel Kabando, interim President of the Republic of Burkina Faso, returned triumphantly to power and praised the populace, especially the youths, for stoutly resisting the putsch. He particularly thanked all those States that unequivocally denounced the attempt by a section of the country’s military to return to power. Nigeria had been firm in its condemnation, although some West African diplomats had counselled for a tougher line.
In its last analysis, Gaskiya.net had predicted that “…While it is most likely that the mutinous brigands masquerading as the Presidential Guard of Burkina Faso will see reason and back down, the risk exists that, if they are not sufficiently put in their place, they could emerge later to assassinate the leadership to be freely elected, as they did to the late Thomas Sankara.”
It is incumbent on the ECOWAS leadership to ensure that all those in the renegade Presidential Unit are disarmed and contained in order that they might no longer be able to threaten both the ongoing electoral process in the country, and the leadership that would emerge from it.
The fact that the said Presidential Guard unit could stage such a brazen coup and incapacitate the regular forces, suggests that all may not be well within the defence and security establishment of Burkina Faso. Indeed, the regional bloc, in consultation with the Government of President Kabando, should immediately start the process of auditing the country’s security sector to determine if a sectoral reform would be necessary as a safeguard against threats to the democratic process now and in the future.
ECOWAS must also warn its member-States, Core d’Ivoire in particular, from meddling in the internal affairs of Burkina Faso as this has grave implications for not just the Burkinabes, but the entire West African region. The delicate balance between the Presidential Guard and the main Army could rupture if external forces intervene irresponsibly the way Cote d’Ivoire was alleged to have done.
Without any doubt, the reversal of this ill-advised adventure by power-drunk and status-conscious Burkinabe soldiers is a wake-up call to ECOWAS leaders that eternal vigilance should be maintained to ensure that the relative stability in the sub-region is not truncated by those who seek to further their vainglorious ambitions, utilizing unconstitutional means for that purpose.
Congratulations to all Burkinabes. Congratulations ECOWAS
ECOWAS triumphs in Burkina Faso as Gaskiya.net is vindicated again
The coup in Burkina Faso has collapsed unceremoniously under the weight of threats from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) backed by Nigeria. ECOWAS had insisted that the coup plotters—elements of the Presidential Guard Brigade of the Burkinabe Army—re-store constitutional order within a matter of days or face what it called “stiff penalties.”
Against that backdrop, President Michel Kabando, interim President of the Republic of Burkina Faso, returned triumphantly to power and praised the populace, especially the youths, for stoutly resisting the putsch. He particularly thanked all those States that unequivocally denounced the attempt by a section of the country’s military to return to power. Nigeria had been firm in its condemnation, although some West African diplomats had counselled for a tougher line.
In its last analysis, Gaskiya.net had predicted that “…While it is most likely that the mutinous brigands masquerading as the Presidential Guard of Burkina Faso will see reason and back down, the risk exists that, if they are not sufficiently put in their place, they could emerge later to assassinate the leadership to be freely elected, as they did to the late Thomas Sankara.”
It is incumbent on the ECOWAS leadership to ensure that all those in the renegade Presidential Unit are disarmed and contained in order that they might no longer be able to threaten both the ongoing electoral process in the country, and the leadership that would emerge from it.
The fact that the said Presidential Guard unit could stage such a brazen coup and incapacitate the regular forces, suggests that all may not be well within the defence and security establishment of Burkina Faso. Indeed, the regional bloc, in consultation with the Government of President Kabando, should immediately start the process of auditing the country’s security sector to determine if a sectoral reform would be necessary as a safeguard against threats to the democratic process now and in the future.
ECOWAS must also warn its member-States, Core d’Ivoire in particular, from meddling in the internal affairs of Burkina Faso as this has grave implications for not just the Burkinabes, but the entire West African region. The delicate balance between the Presidential Guard and the main Army could rupture if external forces intervene irresponsibly the way Cote d’Ivoire was alleged to have done.
Without any doubt, the reversal of this ill-advised adventure by power-drunk and status-conscious Burkinabe soldiers is a wake-up call to ECOWAS leaders that eternal vigilance should be maintained to ensure that the relative stability in the sub-region is not truncated by those who seek to further their vainglorious ambitions, utilizing unconstitutional means for that purpose.
Congratulations to all Burkinabes. Congratulations ECOWAS
July 15 2015
Nigeria’s automotive industry as a game changer 2
“Thus Leyland Nigeria (producing the Range Rover, Landrover and Rover cars) went comatose, as did VON (Passat, Jetta and the locally designed and popular Igala), FIAT and others. Fortunately for FIAT, it switched from producing cars to manufacturing agricultural tractors and managed to survive on that, becoming the largest producer of such vehicles in the country. Steyr became a military plant, building cross country and armoured vehicles for the military. The net effect of that collapse was that those ancillary industries feeding the plants, such as Isoglass, Triplex, Michelin etc. ran into trouble and either relocated from Nigeria, or completely shut down. Of course, the thousands of staff they had hired lost their jobs.”
The introduction of SAP by President Ibrahim Babangida began the process that eventually killed that industry. Given the large number of university and polytechnic graduates being produced by Nigeria and the millions more being turned out of Secondary Schools nationwide, it was rather shocking that subsequent regimes could not see the sense in reviving these auto plants (given their capacity to absorb a high labour force). Granted that some measures were undertaken by some regimes to revive them, corruption and greed frustrated those efforts and they were half-hearted at best. Some foreign concerns showed keen interest in buying into these firms but the erosion of the middle class as well as unfavourable and unstable economic policies combined to frustrate such interests.
Thus Leyland Nigeria (producing the Range Rover, Landrover and Rover cars) went comatose, as did VON (Passat, Jetta and the locally designed and popular Igala) followed as did FIAT. Fortunately for the latter, it switched from producing cars to manufacturing agricultural tractors and managed to survive on that, becoming the largest producer of such vehicles in the country. Steyr became a military plant, building cross country and armoured vehicles for the military. The net effect of that collapse was that those ancillary industries feeding the plants, such as Isoglass, Triplex, Michelin etc. ran into trouble and either relocated from Nigeria, or completely shut down. Of course, the thousands of staff they had hired lost their jobs.
The beauty of what is unfolding in Nigeria at the moment is that the bold plans encapsulated in this automotive policy have a better chance of succeeding under a Buhari Presidency, given the new President’s nationalistic and anti-corruption credentials. The bane of the Jonathan regime was a stupendous lack of capacity to confront corruption which in itself would have frustrated any bold plans at industrialisation. Though protective measures were put in place, they were already being sabotaged both by politicians and members of the previous federal parliament. For instance, the high tariff policy on imported vehicles, needed to encourage patronage of automobiles produced domestically, had to be reduced and then suffer delayed implementation under pressure from powerful vehicle importers.
The Buhari administration has thus been handed a wonderful opportunity to make a name for itself by ensuring stiffer implementation of this policy, just as the President has vowed to protect locally manufactured textiles and by extension, all products manufactured at home. This will have to be done in ways which do not attract punitive measures from regulators of international trade. It is however a given that President Buhari will stick to his guns, as doing so will not only be consistent with his latent attributes of patriotism, but will in any case be the right thing to do as well, especially if he wants to reduce the high unemployment rate in the country.
One way to take this forward could be for the new administration to urgently start consultations with the semi-autonomous governments of the 36 States of the Federation, on the need to standardise the use of certain automobiles. For instance, why should city buses in over 55 cities in the country not be the same? Many States use various vehicle types, ranging from Mercedes Benz to Ashok Leyland, to Marco Polo etc. Adopting one or two major brands that are necessarily produced in Nigeria will ultimately expand local capacity, create more jobs and enhance industrial know-how. Needless to add that it will significantly conserve foreign exchange. A situation today where every State imports various types of buses is prejudicial to national interest, frustrates domestic producers, and does not suggest that these governments are serious about fighting unemployment.
Thus, President Muhammadu Buhari has his job cut out for him. Should Mr. President need an informed perspective on this automotive plan, he would have the architect of the original policy to fall back to, as General Yakubu Gowon is still his ebullient and energetic self, despite being in his eighties. He should be more than willing to volunteer his extremely valuable opinion!
Nigeria’s automotive industry as a game changer 2
“Thus Leyland Nigeria (producing the Range Rover, Landrover and Rover cars) went comatose, as did VON (Passat, Jetta and the locally designed and popular Igala), FIAT and others. Fortunately for FIAT, it switched from producing cars to manufacturing agricultural tractors and managed to survive on that, becoming the largest producer of such vehicles in the country. Steyr became a military plant, building cross country and armoured vehicles for the military. The net effect of that collapse was that those ancillary industries feeding the plants, such as Isoglass, Triplex, Michelin etc. ran into trouble and either relocated from Nigeria, or completely shut down. Of course, the thousands of staff they had hired lost their jobs.”
The introduction of SAP by President Ibrahim Babangida began the process that eventually killed that industry. Given the large number of university and polytechnic graduates being produced by Nigeria and the millions more being turned out of Secondary Schools nationwide, it was rather shocking that subsequent regimes could not see the sense in reviving these auto plants (given their capacity to absorb a high labour force). Granted that some measures were undertaken by some regimes to revive them, corruption and greed frustrated those efforts and they were half-hearted at best. Some foreign concerns showed keen interest in buying into these firms but the erosion of the middle class as well as unfavourable and unstable economic policies combined to frustrate such interests.
Thus Leyland Nigeria (producing the Range Rover, Landrover and Rover cars) went comatose, as did VON (Passat, Jetta and the locally designed and popular Igala) followed as did FIAT. Fortunately for the latter, it switched from producing cars to manufacturing agricultural tractors and managed to survive on that, becoming the largest producer of such vehicles in the country. Steyr became a military plant, building cross country and armoured vehicles for the military. The net effect of that collapse was that those ancillary industries feeding the plants, such as Isoglass, Triplex, Michelin etc. ran into trouble and either relocated from Nigeria, or completely shut down. Of course, the thousands of staff they had hired lost their jobs.
The beauty of what is unfolding in Nigeria at the moment is that the bold plans encapsulated in this automotive policy have a better chance of succeeding under a Buhari Presidency, given the new President’s nationalistic and anti-corruption credentials. The bane of the Jonathan regime was a stupendous lack of capacity to confront corruption which in itself would have frustrated any bold plans at industrialisation. Though protective measures were put in place, they were already being sabotaged both by politicians and members of the previous federal parliament. For instance, the high tariff policy on imported vehicles, needed to encourage patronage of automobiles produced domestically, had to be reduced and then suffer delayed implementation under pressure from powerful vehicle importers.
The Buhari administration has thus been handed a wonderful opportunity to make a name for itself by ensuring stiffer implementation of this policy, just as the President has vowed to protect locally manufactured textiles and by extension, all products manufactured at home. This will have to be done in ways which do not attract punitive measures from regulators of international trade. It is however a given that President Buhari will stick to his guns, as doing so will not only be consistent with his latent attributes of patriotism, but will in any case be the right thing to do as well, especially if he wants to reduce the high unemployment rate in the country.
One way to take this forward could be for the new administration to urgently start consultations with the semi-autonomous governments of the 36 States of the Federation, on the need to standardise the use of certain automobiles. For instance, why should city buses in over 55 cities in the country not be the same? Many States use various vehicle types, ranging from Mercedes Benz to Ashok Leyland, to Marco Polo etc. Adopting one or two major brands that are necessarily produced in Nigeria will ultimately expand local capacity, create more jobs and enhance industrial know-how. Needless to add that it will significantly conserve foreign exchange. A situation today where every State imports various types of buses is prejudicial to national interest, frustrates domestic producers, and does not suggest that these governments are serious about fighting unemployment.
Thus, President Muhammadu Buhari has his job cut out for him. Should Mr. President need an informed perspective on this automotive plan, he would have the architect of the original policy to fall back to, as General Yakubu Gowon is still his ebullient and energetic self, despite being in his eighties. He should be more than willing to volunteer his extremely valuable opinion!
June 22 2015
Nigerian Senators—Changing into the Past!
The election of Senator Bukola Saraki as President of the Nigerian Senate—the upper chamber in the bi-cameral Federal Legislature—has created a disequilibrum in the affairs of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC). He was allegedly elected while a meeting summoned by President Muhammadu Buhari to resolve the disquiet caused by the very process of picking principal officers of the Federal Parliament, the National Assembly, were on-going.
Interestingly, while the APC publicly disowned the election (it later recanted), Buhari kept his cool and even said he welcomed the decision of the National Assembly. Of course, from indications in recent time, it is becoming increasingly clear that neither President Buhari nor the APC leadership is happy with Saraki. That saw the Senate President running to Abeokuta to consult with former President Olusegun Obasanjo, asking him, according to domestic media reports, to intervene in the matter. Whether Obasanjo would actually do so is another matter.
The behaviour of Saraki, alledged to have entered into an alliance with the ousted People Democratic Party (PDP) in order to outfox his own party and clinch the Senate Presidency, rekindles the crass lack of principle by many Nigerian politicians. Party discipline and party supremacy seemed to have gone out of fashion. Indeed, the only party that still had anything close to that was the Unuty Party of Nigeria (UPN) of the irrepressible Obafemi Awolowo, one of Africa’s most colourful and successful political administrators. Those who claimed to have succeeded Awolowo, including Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his allies, have managed to maintain that virtue but not a few have also accused them of doing so to further their own selfish ends.
Still, Tinubu and his group, who played an important role, as did many other groups, in the formation of the APC and the eventual success of the party in the Presidential election that saw the defeat of an incumbent party for the first time in Nigeria, are peeved at the turn of events. Whether they are right or not, the fact remains that party discipline ought to be enforced in Nigerian politics. The lack of it is one of the reasons the country’s politicians are bereft of any principles. For instance, rather than re-group and analyse their failure at the polls with a view to re-strategising and trying to regain relevance, many PDP members are increasingly defecting to the APC!
That mentality—which sees a failed politician turncoat and bail out of a party whose defeat he or she is partly responsible for—is already at play in the Nigerian Senate. It suggests that Saraki, if indeed he made a deal with the PDP Senators to frustrate his own party, is a reflection of a political elite that is morally bankrupt. It explains a cardinal problem in the psyche of the Nigerian political leadership which has seen several politicians change parties and loyalties at the drop of a hat, simply to feather their personal ambitions and satiate a bloated ego. A majority of the country’s politicians are guilty of this behaviour.
Is it any surprise therefore that the huge emoluments accruable to Nigeria’s Federal lawmakers remain huge when most of the citizens are struggling under a presently suffocating economic environment? Not one single State –of all the country’s 36 States—saved up for the rainy day, regardless of which political party was in control. The decline in oil revenues was foreseen but no one prepared for it. Likewise, in the Federal legislature, not even APC members are providing any indication that they will seek a drastic reduction in the unrealistic reward package that they all enjoy.
Whether Saraki has the pedigree to be Nigeria’s Senate President is another matter. There are pending issues relating to the management of a bank in which his father—the late Senator Olusola Saraki—has interests and which he himself was alleged to have mismanaged. It makes more sense for him to clear his name before seeking the highest Senate position. Indeed, all politicians, whether in parliament or not, in the APC or in other parties, who have questions to answer from the anti-graft agencies should dutifully invest more of their time and energy in clearing their names before seeking public office or higher positions. Otherwise the change Nigerians voted for would turn out a mirage. President Buhari’s government will find that not getting that done will significantly undermine his efforts at revamping the economy and moving Nigeria forward. As for the Nigerian Senate and its leadership, it is doubtful if they are aware of what the fundamental issues that drove the change in the last Presidential elections were. That indeed, is the tragedy of it all!
Nigerian Senators—Changing into the Past!
The election of Senator Bukola Saraki as President of the Nigerian Senate—the upper chamber in the bi-cameral Federal Legislature—has created a disequilibrum in the affairs of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC). He was allegedly elected while a meeting summoned by President Muhammadu Buhari to resolve the disquiet caused by the very process of picking principal officers of the Federal Parliament, the National Assembly, were on-going.
Interestingly, while the APC publicly disowned the election (it later recanted), Buhari kept his cool and even said he welcomed the decision of the National Assembly. Of course, from indications in recent time, it is becoming increasingly clear that neither President Buhari nor the APC leadership is happy with Saraki. That saw the Senate President running to Abeokuta to consult with former President Olusegun Obasanjo, asking him, according to domestic media reports, to intervene in the matter. Whether Obasanjo would actually do so is another matter.
The behaviour of Saraki, alledged to have entered into an alliance with the ousted People Democratic Party (PDP) in order to outfox his own party and clinch the Senate Presidency, rekindles the crass lack of principle by many Nigerian politicians. Party discipline and party supremacy seemed to have gone out of fashion. Indeed, the only party that still had anything close to that was the Unuty Party of Nigeria (UPN) of the irrepressible Obafemi Awolowo, one of Africa’s most colourful and successful political administrators. Those who claimed to have succeeded Awolowo, including Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his allies, have managed to maintain that virtue but not a few have also accused them of doing so to further their own selfish ends.
Still, Tinubu and his group, who played an important role, as did many other groups, in the formation of the APC and the eventual success of the party in the Presidential election that saw the defeat of an incumbent party for the first time in Nigeria, are peeved at the turn of events. Whether they are right or not, the fact remains that party discipline ought to be enforced in Nigerian politics. The lack of it is one of the reasons the country’s politicians are bereft of any principles. For instance, rather than re-group and analyse their failure at the polls with a view to re-strategising and trying to regain relevance, many PDP members are increasingly defecting to the APC!
That mentality—which sees a failed politician turncoat and bail out of a party whose defeat he or she is partly responsible for—is already at play in the Nigerian Senate. It suggests that Saraki, if indeed he made a deal with the PDP Senators to frustrate his own party, is a reflection of a political elite that is morally bankrupt. It explains a cardinal problem in the psyche of the Nigerian political leadership which has seen several politicians change parties and loyalties at the drop of a hat, simply to feather their personal ambitions and satiate a bloated ego. A majority of the country’s politicians are guilty of this behaviour.
Is it any surprise therefore that the huge emoluments accruable to Nigeria’s Federal lawmakers remain huge when most of the citizens are struggling under a presently suffocating economic environment? Not one single State –of all the country’s 36 States—saved up for the rainy day, regardless of which political party was in control. The decline in oil revenues was foreseen but no one prepared for it. Likewise, in the Federal legislature, not even APC members are providing any indication that they will seek a drastic reduction in the unrealistic reward package that they all enjoy.
Whether Saraki has the pedigree to be Nigeria’s Senate President is another matter. There are pending issues relating to the management of a bank in which his father—the late Senator Olusola Saraki—has interests and which he himself was alleged to have mismanaged. It makes more sense for him to clear his name before seeking the highest Senate position. Indeed, all politicians, whether in parliament or not, in the APC or in other parties, who have questions to answer from the anti-graft agencies should dutifully invest more of their time and energy in clearing their names before seeking public office or higher positions. Otherwise the change Nigerians voted for would turn out a mirage. President Buhari’s government will find that not getting that done will significantly undermine his efforts at revamping the economy and moving Nigeria forward. As for the Nigerian Senate and its leadership, it is doubtful if they are aware of what the fundamental issues that drove the change in the last Presidential elections were. That indeed, is the tragedy of it all!
June 21 2015
President Buhari's adoption of Oyo Empire strategy to confront Boko Haram
The recent directive by the President of Nigeria and Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces, Muhammadu Buhari, for the Chiefs of Army and the Air Staff to re-locate to Maiduguri, the epicenter of the campaign against Boko Haram, generated mixed reactions.
A local newspaper reported, in the aftermath of the order, that the top brass of the military were unhappy at the directive. Quoting unnamed sources, the publication alleged that the top brass were unhappy at the directive as they felt it was intended to humiliate them. They were quoted as saying that asking them to move to the north east was akin to trying to equate them with the GOC (General Officer Commanding) Nigerian Army’s 7th Division (which holds sway over that area).
Upon actually relocating to the city however, the service chiefs that had been said to be unhappy about the move appeared quite cheerful and confident. That caused some to wonder whether the report published by the newspaper in question was actually true. Furthermore, the assertion by the chiefs that they have always paid regular visits to the area of operations to get a first hand experience of how things were proceeding and also to boost the morale of the troops and fighter pilots suggested that they did not equate the relocation with any unsavoury intentions by the President.
Indeed, the directive by President Buhari brings to mind the position of some African historians that modern African States do not apply the good practices in African history to contemporary efforts at state building. It is suggested by these scholars that there are many good practices that obtained in pre-colonial Africa that could help improve political administration today.
In the case of President Buhari’s directive to his military chiefs, it resonates with the practice in the old Oyo Empire—that thrived in present day Western Nigeria and spread all the way to the border between Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire. Given the fact that the two most powerful people in the Kingdom were always the Alaafin (Oba or King) and the Aare Ona Kakanfo (Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces), both could not stay in the capital. In fact, the Aare was required to always remain deployed in that part of the Empire that was most likely to suffer from an attack from external forces.
Scholars suggest that this was in order that he might be kept busy and also to ensure he is distracted from interfering in political matters. Furthermore, such permanent deployment served as a deterrent to the Empire’s enemies, who, knowing that the Aare was based in the location where their attack was most likely to originate from, would think twice before launching it. This would explain the location of Aare Afonja (in Ilorin) to checkmate Fulani encroachment into Yorubaland during the 19th Century Jihads (though he later invited them in when he fell out with the Alaafin—an act that explains the origins of the socio-political and demographic reality of Ilorin vis-à-vis mainstream Yorubaland today).
The celebrated Yoruba civil wars, or, more appropriately, the “Ekiti Parapo” wars, would appear to have profited from a dysfunction in the system that fed that policy, albeit indirectly. It all began when Aare Kurunmi—who, perhaps remains the most feared Aare in Yoruba history—was stationed in Ijaiye to checkmate threats from that direction, to the well-being of the Oyo Empire. Everything went on well until the Alaafin in power died and was replaced—against tradition—by his own son. He had gotten the Oyomeesi (Council of Chiefs) to swear on oath to allow this to happen. Kurunmi however refused to accept it—some experts say because he was quite old and conservative and preferred the old order—and so he refused to recognise the new King. The internal schism that thus resulted, seemingly with two monarchs in the Empire, fractured the political order. It also fractured the army, as the eventual civil war that resulted saw Oyo forces fighting against a fractured Ibadan and Egba confederate army. The Ekitis—another Yoruba group—saw that as an opportunity to break off the sovereignty of the Alaafin over them and so instituted what would later be described as the Ekiti Parapo wars. This was the situation when the British arrived and sought to impose indirect rule, using an Alaafin whose political power and clout had been considerably weakened. Of course it failed!
Thankfully, the Nigeria of today is a Republican democracy and not a monarchy, where political power and headship of all military forces is vested in one person—the President and Commander-in-Chief. However, the policy of stationing top military commanders in locations harbouring potent threats to the well-being of the state, perfected by the Oyo Empire, appears logical and sound. This may be why President Buhari, a strategic expert in his own right, may have been influenced by it and thus went ahead to apply this strategy.
From the foregoing therefore, President Buhari may have become the first African President to adopt a well-known and historically documented pre-colonial policy in African strategic reality to address a modern day military threat, even if threats to the well-being of the state are not a preserve of pre-colonial societies. His action is likely to re-open the debate on the need for modern African states to revisit their past and adopt sound polices initiated by their forebears to advance the well being of their peoples and drive the development of their societies.
President Buhari's adoption of Oyo Empire strategy to confront Boko Haram
The recent directive by the President of Nigeria and Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces, Muhammadu Buhari, for the Chiefs of Army and the Air Staff to re-locate to Maiduguri, the epicenter of the campaign against Boko Haram, generated mixed reactions.
A local newspaper reported, in the aftermath of the order, that the top brass of the military were unhappy at the directive. Quoting unnamed sources, the publication alleged that the top brass were unhappy at the directive as they felt it was intended to humiliate them. They were quoted as saying that asking them to move to the north east was akin to trying to equate them with the GOC (General Officer Commanding) Nigerian Army’s 7th Division (which holds sway over that area).
Upon actually relocating to the city however, the service chiefs that had been said to be unhappy about the move appeared quite cheerful and confident. That caused some to wonder whether the report published by the newspaper in question was actually true. Furthermore, the assertion by the chiefs that they have always paid regular visits to the area of operations to get a first hand experience of how things were proceeding and also to boost the morale of the troops and fighter pilots suggested that they did not equate the relocation with any unsavoury intentions by the President.
Indeed, the directive by President Buhari brings to mind the position of some African historians that modern African States do not apply the good practices in African history to contemporary efforts at state building. It is suggested by these scholars that there are many good practices that obtained in pre-colonial Africa that could help improve political administration today.
In the case of President Buhari’s directive to his military chiefs, it resonates with the practice in the old Oyo Empire—that thrived in present day Western Nigeria and spread all the way to the border between Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire. Given the fact that the two most powerful people in the Kingdom were always the Alaafin (Oba or King) and the Aare Ona Kakanfo (Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces), both could not stay in the capital. In fact, the Aare was required to always remain deployed in that part of the Empire that was most likely to suffer from an attack from external forces.
Scholars suggest that this was in order that he might be kept busy and also to ensure he is distracted from interfering in political matters. Furthermore, such permanent deployment served as a deterrent to the Empire’s enemies, who, knowing that the Aare was based in the location where their attack was most likely to originate from, would think twice before launching it. This would explain the location of Aare Afonja (in Ilorin) to checkmate Fulani encroachment into Yorubaland during the 19th Century Jihads (though he later invited them in when he fell out with the Alaafin—an act that explains the origins of the socio-political and demographic reality of Ilorin vis-à-vis mainstream Yorubaland today).
The celebrated Yoruba civil wars, or, more appropriately, the “Ekiti Parapo” wars, would appear to have profited from a dysfunction in the system that fed that policy, albeit indirectly. It all began when Aare Kurunmi—who, perhaps remains the most feared Aare in Yoruba history—was stationed in Ijaiye to checkmate threats from that direction, to the well-being of the Oyo Empire. Everything went on well until the Alaafin in power died and was replaced—against tradition—by his own son. He had gotten the Oyomeesi (Council of Chiefs) to swear on oath to allow this to happen. Kurunmi however refused to accept it—some experts say because he was quite old and conservative and preferred the old order—and so he refused to recognise the new King. The internal schism that thus resulted, seemingly with two monarchs in the Empire, fractured the political order. It also fractured the army, as the eventual civil war that resulted saw Oyo forces fighting against a fractured Ibadan and Egba confederate army. The Ekitis—another Yoruba group—saw that as an opportunity to break off the sovereignty of the Alaafin over them and so instituted what would later be described as the Ekiti Parapo wars. This was the situation when the British arrived and sought to impose indirect rule, using an Alaafin whose political power and clout had been considerably weakened. Of course it failed!
Thankfully, the Nigeria of today is a Republican democracy and not a monarchy, where political power and headship of all military forces is vested in one person—the President and Commander-in-Chief. However, the policy of stationing top military commanders in locations harbouring potent threats to the well-being of the state, perfected by the Oyo Empire, appears logical and sound. This may be why President Buhari, a strategic expert in his own right, may have been influenced by it and thus went ahead to apply this strategy.
From the foregoing therefore, President Buhari may have become the first African President to adopt a well-known and historically documented pre-colonial policy in African strategic reality to address a modern day military threat, even if threats to the well-being of the state are not a preserve of pre-colonial societies. His action is likely to re-open the debate on the need for modern African states to revisit their past and adopt sound polices initiated by their forebears to advance the well being of their peoples and drive the development of their societies.
June 10 2015
President Muhammadu Buhari—Beware of Nigeria’s ‘new’ friends!
The recent ‘rapprochement’ between Nigeria, under new President Muhammadu Buhari and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is sending what some observers of Nigeria’s foreign policy see as dangerous signals. These observers, Nigerians themselves, believe that, in the words of one of them, ‘Britain is trying to reap where it did not sow,’ and has deftly positioned itself as a ‘friend’ of the new President. Recall that President Buhari visited 10 Downing Street before he was even sworn in and had discussions with Cameron in the course of that visit.
While Gaskiya.net does not believe that Britain is Nigeria’s ‘enemy,’ it nevertheless accepts that Whitehall has not been there for Nigeria in her hour of need. As it was during the unfortunate Nigerian civil war (1966-1970) so has it been in recent time. Indeed, Britain exhibited the same behavior in the Boko Haram insurgency, which Nigerian forces have significantly curtailed—without help from the UK and the USA—since a plea to both countries by the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan was turned down by Obama and Cameron. These duo refused to sell much needed weapons to Nigeria, frustrated efforts of other friendly countries like Israel to assist the country, and mounted unnecessary psychological pressure on the leadership of the Nigerian Armed Forces.
While it is true—going by internal investigations and court martials undertaken by the Nigerian military—that some of its forces violated the rules of engagement in the prosecution of counter-insurgency operations, these were not sufficient grounds for Cameron to have frustrated Nigeria’s efforts to bolster the capacity of her forces to neutralise the extremists terrorising the country’s north-east by obtaining weapons and platforms best suited to prosecuting the campaign. There are just too many examples of countries committing worse atrocities than the Nigerians were accused of—and this is by no means an endorsement of violations of any sort by Gaskiya.net—but such countries were never subjected to the type of pressure Nigeria was made to endure.
Indeed, some of the strongest allies of Britain and the US, in North Africa and the Middle East, North America and Asia, have committed and are still committing severe violations of national and international laws. Some have harsh domestic laws which not only cause body parts of offenders to be decapitated but also treat women harshly. Others have killed and keep killing civilians in a so-called drug war with impunity and without justification. Yet they receive training, the ‘best’ weapons and advanced fighting systems from the West. Nobody accuses them of Human Rights violations.
To digress a bit but nevertheless strengthen this thesis, the United States, Britain’s ‘permanent’ ally, flatly refused to provide the Ebola vaccine to Nigeria on request, when Abuja had asked for it in order to be able to treat some of the medical personnel who had bravely treated Patrick Sawyer, the American citizen who imported the virus into Nigeria. Was that refusal also because Nigeria ‘violated Human Rights? Thankfully and to their chagrin, Nigeria beat the Ebola virus single-handedly!
It is thus against this backdrop that Gaskiya.net believes that President Muhammadu Buhari has to be circumspect in his relations with the United Kingdom, in particular, and to some extent, the United States too. Nigeria has always been an independent country in her foreign policy and Nigerians particularly abhor any administration that becomes too close, and without justification for that matter, to both of these countries. The botched Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact of 1963 remains a credible reference point—it collapsed under the weight of protests that students mounted against it. Buhari himself will attest to the huge popularity he enjoyed from Nigerians while he was military Head of State (between 1986-1987) and sought to repatriate all stolen wealth that some rogue Nigerians had stashed away in the UK at the time. The administration of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher had backed those rogue politicians!
Cameron and Obama might have sought to frustrate Jonathan’s government, which candidly speaking, had become rudderless and seemingly sympathetic of corrupt officials and corruption itself, but refusing to assist by selling (not even gifting) required weapons to the Nigerian Armed Forces with which to keep the generality of Nigerians safe from Boko Haram went way beyond the top. Not a few Nigerians believed that both countries expected the country to collapse after the March elections held within the context of an insurgency she would not have been able to contain but were proven wrong by the determination of citizens of Africa’s most populous country to take their own destiny in their own hands. The Nigerian Armed Forces too, with support from Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, as well as cooperation (even if reluctantly) by her neighbours, rose to the occasion to the shame of Britain and the US. The latter countries cannot now claim to be Nigeria’s friends and President Buhari will do himself a world of good by relating with both states in a circumspect manner.
What President Buhari ought to be doing now is to request Britain and the United States to spare no effort in proving to Nigerians that they are true, and not fair weather friends. Let the President’s handlers commission an unbiased poll of Nigerians and gauge the perception of his own citizens on their perception of the attitude of these two countries to Nigeria. We wager a bet with Mr. President that we will be right. Nigeria does not owe the Euro-Atlantic powers any favours. In today’s world, where the economic ‘centre of gravity’ has shifted East, Nigeria will be foolhardy to keep all her eyes focused westwards. We know that Nigeria, and Nigerians are much smarter than that.
President Muhammadu Buhari—Beware of Nigeria’s ‘new’ friends!
The recent ‘rapprochement’ between Nigeria, under new President Muhammadu Buhari and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is sending what some observers of Nigeria’s foreign policy see as dangerous signals. These observers, Nigerians themselves, believe that, in the words of one of them, ‘Britain is trying to reap where it did not sow,’ and has deftly positioned itself as a ‘friend’ of the new President. Recall that President Buhari visited 10 Downing Street before he was even sworn in and had discussions with Cameron in the course of that visit.
While Gaskiya.net does not believe that Britain is Nigeria’s ‘enemy,’ it nevertheless accepts that Whitehall has not been there for Nigeria in her hour of need. As it was during the unfortunate Nigerian civil war (1966-1970) so has it been in recent time. Indeed, Britain exhibited the same behavior in the Boko Haram insurgency, which Nigerian forces have significantly curtailed—without help from the UK and the USA—since a plea to both countries by the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan was turned down by Obama and Cameron. These duo refused to sell much needed weapons to Nigeria, frustrated efforts of other friendly countries like Israel to assist the country, and mounted unnecessary psychological pressure on the leadership of the Nigerian Armed Forces.
While it is true—going by internal investigations and court martials undertaken by the Nigerian military—that some of its forces violated the rules of engagement in the prosecution of counter-insurgency operations, these were not sufficient grounds for Cameron to have frustrated Nigeria’s efforts to bolster the capacity of her forces to neutralise the extremists terrorising the country’s north-east by obtaining weapons and platforms best suited to prosecuting the campaign. There are just too many examples of countries committing worse atrocities than the Nigerians were accused of—and this is by no means an endorsement of violations of any sort by Gaskiya.net—but such countries were never subjected to the type of pressure Nigeria was made to endure.
Indeed, some of the strongest allies of Britain and the US, in North Africa and the Middle East, North America and Asia, have committed and are still committing severe violations of national and international laws. Some have harsh domestic laws which not only cause body parts of offenders to be decapitated but also treat women harshly. Others have killed and keep killing civilians in a so-called drug war with impunity and without justification. Yet they receive training, the ‘best’ weapons and advanced fighting systems from the West. Nobody accuses them of Human Rights violations.
To digress a bit but nevertheless strengthen this thesis, the United States, Britain’s ‘permanent’ ally, flatly refused to provide the Ebola vaccine to Nigeria on request, when Abuja had asked for it in order to be able to treat some of the medical personnel who had bravely treated Patrick Sawyer, the American citizen who imported the virus into Nigeria. Was that refusal also because Nigeria ‘violated Human Rights? Thankfully and to their chagrin, Nigeria beat the Ebola virus single-handedly!
It is thus against this backdrop that Gaskiya.net believes that President Muhammadu Buhari has to be circumspect in his relations with the United Kingdom, in particular, and to some extent, the United States too. Nigeria has always been an independent country in her foreign policy and Nigerians particularly abhor any administration that becomes too close, and without justification for that matter, to both of these countries. The botched Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact of 1963 remains a credible reference point—it collapsed under the weight of protests that students mounted against it. Buhari himself will attest to the huge popularity he enjoyed from Nigerians while he was military Head of State (between 1986-1987) and sought to repatriate all stolen wealth that some rogue Nigerians had stashed away in the UK at the time. The administration of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher had backed those rogue politicians!
Cameron and Obama might have sought to frustrate Jonathan’s government, which candidly speaking, had become rudderless and seemingly sympathetic of corrupt officials and corruption itself, but refusing to assist by selling (not even gifting) required weapons to the Nigerian Armed Forces with which to keep the generality of Nigerians safe from Boko Haram went way beyond the top. Not a few Nigerians believed that both countries expected the country to collapse after the March elections held within the context of an insurgency she would not have been able to contain but were proven wrong by the determination of citizens of Africa’s most populous country to take their own destiny in their own hands. The Nigerian Armed Forces too, with support from Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, as well as cooperation (even if reluctantly) by her neighbours, rose to the occasion to the shame of Britain and the US. The latter countries cannot now claim to be Nigeria’s friends and President Buhari will do himself a world of good by relating with both states in a circumspect manner.
What President Buhari ought to be doing now is to request Britain and the United States to spare no effort in proving to Nigerians that they are true, and not fair weather friends. Let the President’s handlers commission an unbiased poll of Nigerians and gauge the perception of his own citizens on their perception of the attitude of these two countries to Nigeria. We wager a bet with Mr. President that we will be right. Nigeria does not owe the Euro-Atlantic powers any favours. In today’s world, where the economic ‘centre of gravity’ has shifted East, Nigeria will be foolhardy to keep all her eyes focused westwards. We know that Nigeria, and Nigerians are much smarter than that.
June 3 2015
Muhammadu Buhari—What does he bring to the job? Part 2
Nigeria has endured an agonising energy problem. It manifests in unpremeditated fuel shortages and in poor domestic power generation and distribution (despite being Africa’s largest oil producer). Though Obasanjo in his second term as civilian President built new power plants—Papalanto, Geregu, Omotosho—his successors have not been able to firm up a transmission infrastructural backbone that should give fillip to the generating system. President Jonathan was however able to complete the unbundling of the erstwhile National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) but the problem of gas shortages and poor distribution have seemingly refused to go away.
While Buhari did not serve in any office that had to do with power generation and distribution, he comes to the job with experience garnered managing Nigeria’s oil industry. That industry provides the energy that runs Nigeria’s power plants. Indeed, the Murtala-Obasanjo military regime (1975-1979) had embarked on an aggressive construction of power plants that relied on gas—which the country has an abundance of. In fact, Nigeria has two and half times gas reserves than she has crude oil deposits and this was what informed the decision to concentrate on building thermal-fired power stations.
Muhammadu Buhari will thus understand the nexus between oil, gas and power. This is against the backdrop of the fact that he served, also under Obasanjo’s military regime, as the Federal Commissioner (Minister today) of Petroleum. Under his watch, the then Nigerian National Oil Company (NNOC) was restructured into the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The foundation of what later became joint venture partnerships (which gives Nigeria more control over oil drilled on its territory) was laid at that time, while Buhari oversaw the construction of most the last three of the country’s refineries. He left that job with his integrity intact, not dipping his hands into the till. That reputation was largely responsible for his winning this year’s election.
Buhari thus understands the threats to Nigeria’s security, the likely shenanigans surrounding the oil industry and the nexus between the oil industry and power generation. Additionally, in these days of low demand for OPEC and Nigeria’s crude oil, and the implications of that for the domestic economy, Buhari, being very familiar with global trends in the spot market, would not be tricked by either corrupt industry officials or the shylock petroleum importers (nee marketers).
That Buhari is incorruptible is incontestable. The ‘lucrative’ appointment he held as Nigeria’s oil czar—for three and a half years—without soiling his hands, is a record unprecedented not just in Nigeria but in the entire world. He is thus expected to vigorously fight corruption and plug loopholes in the public service. It is however in executing this particular anti-corruption task that he might find his will and resolve tested. This is because it is true that some of the politicians who fought for Buhari’s electoral victory have questionable credentials themselves, and how he tackles them will go a long way in defining his anti-corruption profile.
The above is however not sufficient enough to blight the high credentials he brings to this position nor is it enough to deter many Nigerians from backing him to the hilt in this renewed crusade to take Nigeria back from the criminals and unpatriotic elements who have held the country prostrate for decades. It is indeed a new Nigeria with a new President who comes to the job qualified, experienced and willing to turn things around.
Muhammadu Buhari—What does he bring to the job? Part 2
Nigeria has endured an agonising energy problem. It manifests in unpremeditated fuel shortages and in poor domestic power generation and distribution (despite being Africa’s largest oil producer). Though Obasanjo in his second term as civilian President built new power plants—Papalanto, Geregu, Omotosho—his successors have not been able to firm up a transmission infrastructural backbone that should give fillip to the generating system. President Jonathan was however able to complete the unbundling of the erstwhile National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) but the problem of gas shortages and poor distribution have seemingly refused to go away.
While Buhari did not serve in any office that had to do with power generation and distribution, he comes to the job with experience garnered managing Nigeria’s oil industry. That industry provides the energy that runs Nigeria’s power plants. Indeed, the Murtala-Obasanjo military regime (1975-1979) had embarked on an aggressive construction of power plants that relied on gas—which the country has an abundance of. In fact, Nigeria has two and half times gas reserves than she has crude oil deposits and this was what informed the decision to concentrate on building thermal-fired power stations.
Muhammadu Buhari will thus understand the nexus between oil, gas and power. This is against the backdrop of the fact that he served, also under Obasanjo’s military regime, as the Federal Commissioner (Minister today) of Petroleum. Under his watch, the then Nigerian National Oil Company (NNOC) was restructured into the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The foundation of what later became joint venture partnerships (which gives Nigeria more control over oil drilled on its territory) was laid at that time, while Buhari oversaw the construction of most the last three of the country’s refineries. He left that job with his integrity intact, not dipping his hands into the till. That reputation was largely responsible for his winning this year’s election.
Buhari thus understands the threats to Nigeria’s security, the likely shenanigans surrounding the oil industry and the nexus between the oil industry and power generation. Additionally, in these days of low demand for OPEC and Nigeria’s crude oil, and the implications of that for the domestic economy, Buhari, being very familiar with global trends in the spot market, would not be tricked by either corrupt industry officials or the shylock petroleum importers (nee marketers).
That Buhari is incorruptible is incontestable. The ‘lucrative’ appointment he held as Nigeria’s oil czar—for three and a half years—without soiling his hands, is a record unprecedented not just in Nigeria but in the entire world. He is thus expected to vigorously fight corruption and plug loopholes in the public service. It is however in executing this particular anti-corruption task that he might find his will and resolve tested. This is because it is true that some of the politicians who fought for Buhari’s electoral victory have questionable credentials themselves, and how he tackles them will go a long way in defining his anti-corruption profile.
The above is however not sufficient enough to blight the high credentials he brings to this position nor is it enough to deter many Nigerians from backing him to the hilt in this renewed crusade to take Nigeria back from the criminals and unpatriotic elements who have held the country prostrate for decades. It is indeed a new Nigeria with a new President who comes to the job qualified, experienced and willing to turn things around.
May 31 2015
Muhammadu Buhari—What does he bring to the job? Part 1
The recent change in power at the Federal level in Nigeria, precisely in the position of the Presidency, revealed two interesting facts. One, no President in Nigeria’s 54 year history was ever intent on seeking that position. No one will be guilty of exaggeration too if he or she submitted that no President has been better prepared for this job than the newly-sworn in incumbent, Muhammadu Buhari.
General Yakubu Gowon—war time ruler of Nigeria (1966-1975) was co-opted into the position of Head of State by the young officers who toppled the regime in power at the time. General Murtala Muhammed who replaced him came to power by the same way—put there by the Lt.-Colonels (Yar’Adua, Ibrahim Taiwo, Joseph Garba et al) who staged the coup that toppled Gowon. Olusegun Obasanjo who replaced Mohammed did so because his colleague was killed in an abortive coup on February 13 1976. Then came Shehu Shagari, who won the 1979 Presidential Election in controversial circumstances. He had been drafted by hawks in the then National Party of Nigeria (NPN). Shagari had only fancied himself as a Senator. General Muhammadu Buhari came to power in the coup that toppled Shagari on December 31 1983 on the strength of the insistence of the planners of that coup (Idiagbon, Abacha et al). In came General Ibrahim Babangida, who allegedly staged a coup because there were rumours that he was going to be retired by his colleagues.
Chief Ernest Shonekan who headed an ‘interim Government’ that was crafted to pave the way for Babangida’s contentious exit was no different, as he never understood how he found himself in power! After Shonekan came Abacha, an Infantry General who assumed office because a Court pronounced Shonekan’s ING illegal. Abacha died in mysterious circumstances and was succeeded by Abdulsalami Abubakar who was not the most senior General at the time. Indeed, Obasanjo’s second coming was no different from his first, as he was released from prison and unceremoniously drafted into the political arena. Obasanjo himself ‘drafted’ his successor, the late President Umaru Yar’Adu to becoming his party’s candidate and eventual President of the country. With the unfortunate death of President Yar’Adua, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan acted in that position and eventually assumed it, winning the next election to consolidate his role as President.
The above chronology is critical to explaining that Nigeria’s past rulers had all gotten to the headship of the nation with little or no interest in the office. Buhari’s election has however changed all that. He had contested three times before eventually winning the last elections which saw him sworn in on 29th May 2015. His past experience seems to suggest that there may have been divine preparation for his coming to power to confront current challenges facing Nigeria since the most challenging issues in Nigeria today are security, energy-related problems and corruption. Let’s start with the first—security.
Buhari is a soldier and trained in Nigeria, India, the UK and the United States. As General Officer Commanding Nigerian Army’s 3rd Armoured Division, Rukuba, Jos, he led a military operation against Chadian rebels who often encroached on Nigeria’s territory in the north-east at that time. He not only drove them out of Nigeria, he pursued them until he almost got to Ndjamena, that country’s capital before he was ordered back by Lt-Gen Alani Akinrinade, then Chief of Defence Staff. He therefore has some understanding of not just internal security issues, but also threats around Nigeria’s north east—where the current Boko Haram insurgency has been most felt.
Furthermore, he stoutly resisted the disrespect for Nigeria’s territorial integrity by her neighbours (especially Cameroon and Chad) at the time he took over as military Head of State. He conducted one of the most daring military manoeuvres ever undertaken by any Nigerian administration. Known as “Operation Seadog,” it saw the deployment of several Nigerian warships including the MEKO 360 Frigate, NNS Aradu, and thousands of amphibious forces in the Atlantic Ocean close to Cameroon in a live-wire exercise that allegedly saw President Paul Biya flee to France amidst fears that Nigeria was on the verge of overrunning his country. That action typifies Buhari’s patriotism and sense of national pride.
Muhammadu Buhari—What does he bring to the job? Part 1
The recent change in power at the Federal level in Nigeria, precisely in the position of the Presidency, revealed two interesting facts. One, no President in Nigeria’s 54 year history was ever intent on seeking that position. No one will be guilty of exaggeration too if he or she submitted that no President has been better prepared for this job than the newly-sworn in incumbent, Muhammadu Buhari.
General Yakubu Gowon—war time ruler of Nigeria (1966-1975) was co-opted into the position of Head of State by the young officers who toppled the regime in power at the time. General Murtala Muhammed who replaced him came to power by the same way—put there by the Lt.-Colonels (Yar’Adua, Ibrahim Taiwo, Joseph Garba et al) who staged the coup that toppled Gowon. Olusegun Obasanjo who replaced Mohammed did so because his colleague was killed in an abortive coup on February 13 1976. Then came Shehu Shagari, who won the 1979 Presidential Election in controversial circumstances. He had been drafted by hawks in the then National Party of Nigeria (NPN). Shagari had only fancied himself as a Senator. General Muhammadu Buhari came to power in the coup that toppled Shagari on December 31 1983 on the strength of the insistence of the planners of that coup (Idiagbon, Abacha et al). In came General Ibrahim Babangida, who allegedly staged a coup because there were rumours that he was going to be retired by his colleagues.
Chief Ernest Shonekan who headed an ‘interim Government’ that was crafted to pave the way for Babangida’s contentious exit was no different, as he never understood how he found himself in power! After Shonekan came Abacha, an Infantry General who assumed office because a Court pronounced Shonekan’s ING illegal. Abacha died in mysterious circumstances and was succeeded by Abdulsalami Abubakar who was not the most senior General at the time. Indeed, Obasanjo’s second coming was no different from his first, as he was released from prison and unceremoniously drafted into the political arena. Obasanjo himself ‘drafted’ his successor, the late President Umaru Yar’Adu to becoming his party’s candidate and eventual President of the country. With the unfortunate death of President Yar’Adua, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan acted in that position and eventually assumed it, winning the next election to consolidate his role as President.
The above chronology is critical to explaining that Nigeria’s past rulers had all gotten to the headship of the nation with little or no interest in the office. Buhari’s election has however changed all that. He had contested three times before eventually winning the last elections which saw him sworn in on 29th May 2015. His past experience seems to suggest that there may have been divine preparation for his coming to power to confront current challenges facing Nigeria since the most challenging issues in Nigeria today are security, energy-related problems and corruption. Let’s start with the first—security.
Buhari is a soldier and trained in Nigeria, India, the UK and the United States. As General Officer Commanding Nigerian Army’s 3rd Armoured Division, Rukuba, Jos, he led a military operation against Chadian rebels who often encroached on Nigeria’s territory in the north-east at that time. He not only drove them out of Nigeria, he pursued them until he almost got to Ndjamena, that country’s capital before he was ordered back by Lt-Gen Alani Akinrinade, then Chief of Defence Staff. He therefore has some understanding of not just internal security issues, but also threats around Nigeria’s north east—where the current Boko Haram insurgency has been most felt.
Furthermore, he stoutly resisted the disrespect for Nigeria’s territorial integrity by her neighbours (especially Cameroon and Chad) at the time he took over as military Head of State. He conducted one of the most daring military manoeuvres ever undertaken by any Nigerian administration. Known as “Operation Seadog,” it saw the deployment of several Nigerian warships including the MEKO 360 Frigate, NNS Aradu, and thousands of amphibious forces in the Atlantic Ocean close to Cameroon in a live-wire exercise that allegedly saw President Paul Biya flee to France amidst fears that Nigeria was on the verge of overrunning his country. That action typifies Buhari’s patriotism and sense of national pride.
May 11 2015
SPECIAL ANALYSIS
NIGERIA OR SOUTH AFRICA---WHO WILL CHECK NKURUNZIZA?
One of the major weaknesses of the international system is the unwillingness to initiate preventive diplomacy when signs suggestive of an acute breakdown in the order of things are latent and undeniable. Those signs are now manifesting in Burundi but neither the East African countries (where Tanzania and Kenya are the only real democracy) are rather keeping mute.
Burundi is the ‘twin’ State to Rwanda. In colonial times, both were one country and known as Ruanda-Urundi and were subjected to the worst form of exploitation by Belgium. In 1959 Burundi sought to be freed from the union with Ruanda and the granting of that request by the Belgian authorities freed her from that forced merger. Independence saw their parting of ways but the tragic history of cyclical genocides affected both until the restoration of sanity by Paul Kagame and Pierre Nkurunziza.
Burundi, a country of 10 million people is one of the smallest on the African continent and indeed, one of the poorest too. She had suffered political turmoil right from independence, undergoing a harrowing political process underlined by what was akin to a game of musical chairs that had seen power go from the likes of Michel Micombero, to Pierre Ngendandume, to Prince Ntare, Jean-Baptiste Bagaza and Pierre Buyoya. The latter became quite popular across Africa for some inexplicable reason but Burundi never really grew and her political and economic development appeared stunted.
Events in the 1990s suggested that there could be progress but Melchior Ndadaye’s reign changed little in the country, as did Cyprien Ntaryamira’s. The country would later be wracked by an acrimonious civil war until Pierre Nkurunziza—once a warlord—got hold of the reins of power. He battled rebels for a while but somehow seemed to have finally brought the country under control and imposed some measure of peace. However, his quest to undermine the very peace he installed by tampering with his country’s constitution in order to be eligible to run for a third term may ultimately become his undoing—and harbinger of another tragedy for Burundi. Already, there have been worrisome rioting and some deaths on account of his unbridled ambition.
Those States that should call Nkurunziza to order are seemingly playing the ostrich. Tanzania pretends she is a Southern African country, while Kenya has her hands full with Al Shaabab terrorists and with her military and diplomatic commitment to Somalia. Uganda’s Mr. Museveni appear uninterested, underscored perhaps by over-commitment to Somalia and the elusive chase for Joseph Kony and his band of murderers through the forests of South Sudan, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo.
That leaves the continent’s two powerful States—Nigeria and South Africa. The latter does not like getting involved in any situation beyond her backyard and a foray into Central African Republic where the Seleka dealt her troops a fatal blow may have reinforced that posture. Nigeria then remains the only African country that has consistently sought to lobby or impose some level of order when everyone else seemed to have given up. From Liberia, to Sierra Leone, to Guinea Bissau to Cote d’Ivoire to Sao Tome, it was always the Nigerians who got warring factions and quarrelling families to bury the hatchet. Perhaps it’s time once again for its President or the President-Elect to sound a word of caution to Mr. Nkurunziza. Should Burundi get out of hand, the entire region could become destabilised and another round of bloodletting spews forth in the Great Lakes. We pray it does not get to that but with everyone keeping quiet, it just may happen once again!
SPECIAL ANALYSIS
NIGERIA OR SOUTH AFRICA---WHO WILL CHECK NKURUNZIZA?
One of the major weaknesses of the international system is the unwillingness to initiate preventive diplomacy when signs suggestive of an acute breakdown in the order of things are latent and undeniable. Those signs are now manifesting in Burundi but neither the East African countries (where Tanzania and Kenya are the only real democracy) are rather keeping mute.
Burundi is the ‘twin’ State to Rwanda. In colonial times, both were one country and known as Ruanda-Urundi and were subjected to the worst form of exploitation by Belgium. In 1959 Burundi sought to be freed from the union with Ruanda and the granting of that request by the Belgian authorities freed her from that forced merger. Independence saw their parting of ways but the tragic history of cyclical genocides affected both until the restoration of sanity by Paul Kagame and Pierre Nkurunziza.
Burundi, a country of 10 million people is one of the smallest on the African continent and indeed, one of the poorest too. She had suffered political turmoil right from independence, undergoing a harrowing political process underlined by what was akin to a game of musical chairs that had seen power go from the likes of Michel Micombero, to Pierre Ngendandume, to Prince Ntare, Jean-Baptiste Bagaza and Pierre Buyoya. The latter became quite popular across Africa for some inexplicable reason but Burundi never really grew and her political and economic development appeared stunted.
Events in the 1990s suggested that there could be progress but Melchior Ndadaye’s reign changed little in the country, as did Cyprien Ntaryamira’s. The country would later be wracked by an acrimonious civil war until Pierre Nkurunziza—once a warlord—got hold of the reins of power. He battled rebels for a while but somehow seemed to have finally brought the country under control and imposed some measure of peace. However, his quest to undermine the very peace he installed by tampering with his country’s constitution in order to be eligible to run for a third term may ultimately become his undoing—and harbinger of another tragedy for Burundi. Already, there have been worrisome rioting and some deaths on account of his unbridled ambition.
Those States that should call Nkurunziza to order are seemingly playing the ostrich. Tanzania pretends she is a Southern African country, while Kenya has her hands full with Al Shaabab terrorists and with her military and diplomatic commitment to Somalia. Uganda’s Mr. Museveni appear uninterested, underscored perhaps by over-commitment to Somalia and the elusive chase for Joseph Kony and his band of murderers through the forests of South Sudan, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo.
That leaves the continent’s two powerful States—Nigeria and South Africa. The latter does not like getting involved in any situation beyond her backyard and a foray into Central African Republic where the Seleka dealt her troops a fatal blow may have reinforced that posture. Nigeria then remains the only African country that has consistently sought to lobby or impose some level of order when everyone else seemed to have given up. From Liberia, to Sierra Leone, to Guinea Bissau to Cote d’Ivoire to Sao Tome, it was always the Nigerians who got warring factions and quarrelling families to bury the hatchet. Perhaps it’s time once again for its President or the President-Elect to sound a word of caution to Mr. Nkurunziza. Should Burundi get out of hand, the entire region could become destabilised and another round of bloodletting spews forth in the Great Lakes. We pray it does not get to that but with everyone keeping quiet, it just may happen once again!
April 28 2015
Nigerian Elections - Implications for Africa
The much awaited Nigerian elections have come and gone. The highly tense Presidential election, one of the four elections in the general poll recently concluded in Africa’s largest country and biggest economy, passed off with much less violence and malpractice than was expected. Indeed, the concession of defeat by incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan—unprecedented in the developing world—completely upturned the prediction of many observers and set Nigeria on the course of what could turn out to be the smoothest of transitions ever witnessed in Africa.
President-elect Muhammadu Buhari was himself magnanimous in victory but steadfast in his position that it will not be business as usual in Nigeria. He has begun preparing to assume office in earnest, and many expect that his impeccable public life, sterling military career and incorruptible mien sets the stage for an overhaul of the way things were being done in Nigeria. Not a few expect that the in-coming administration will affect Africa positively, especially given the fact that there are still some 16 more countries going to the polls on the continent this year.
Of the anticipated elections, those of Algeria, Burundi, Chad, Burkina Faso, DRC, Egypt, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Morocco, South Sudan and Tanzania stand out. Rather comically, Angola is unsure if she would conduct local elections this year or in 2017—such could be the games that some African leaders play with the destiny of their nations and the future of its peoples. Algeria will also draw international interest because of the latent threat posed by Islamic extremists to the stability of the country, while Egypt, a country that endured a transition without a constitution (that had brought deposed President Mohammed Mosi to power), will also be attracting extra-continental interest on account of the on-going efforts to consolidate on the gains made recently in stabilising the country.
Cote d’Ivoire’s election could touch a raw nerve in West Africa’s body politic. With the acrimony and subsequent bloodbath that greeted her last polls still alive in the memory of her citizens and the international community, there is palpable tension around what the next polls could throw up, especially since the pervasive question of ‘Ivorite’ still looms large in the country’s psyche. President Alassane Outtara has his job cut out for him as he tries to midwife a genuinely popular election amidst the bad blood already created with the on-going trial of former President Laurent Gbagbo and his now jailed wife. Both still enjoy considerable support in the south of the country.
South Sudan, a country whose elite dashed the collective goodwill of the many countries who guided her through independence, ought to be holding elections too but there is hardly anyone who would expect those to take place in view of the mindless killings and inexplicable armed conflict that those elites have visited on the hapless population. Perhaps common sense could still prevail that would cause the country not necessarily to organise the polls but at least to ceasefire and return to the path of sanity, peace and stability.
Nigeria has turned the corner. Often hardly given credit for anything, she is once again causing the world to pause and take notice, not just of how its public health system defeated the dreaded Ebola virus, but of how its hitherto maligned military virtually wiped off Boko Haram from a conventional warfare that the insurgents seemed to have been winning, and in only six weeks, and have capped it with general elections adjudged free, fair and considerably credible by domestic and international observers. Whether this will pave the way for sit tight leaders in Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Uganda, Angola and Zimbabwe to sit back, reflect and give way to new blood will probably now constitute the subject of intense debate.
Nigerian Elections - Implications for Africa
The much awaited Nigerian elections have come and gone. The highly tense Presidential election, one of the four elections in the general poll recently concluded in Africa’s largest country and biggest economy, passed off with much less violence and malpractice than was expected. Indeed, the concession of defeat by incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan—unprecedented in the developing world—completely upturned the prediction of many observers and set Nigeria on the course of what could turn out to be the smoothest of transitions ever witnessed in Africa.
President-elect Muhammadu Buhari was himself magnanimous in victory but steadfast in his position that it will not be business as usual in Nigeria. He has begun preparing to assume office in earnest, and many expect that his impeccable public life, sterling military career and incorruptible mien sets the stage for an overhaul of the way things were being done in Nigeria. Not a few expect that the in-coming administration will affect Africa positively, especially given the fact that there are still some 16 more countries going to the polls on the continent this year.
Of the anticipated elections, those of Algeria, Burundi, Chad, Burkina Faso, DRC, Egypt, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Morocco, South Sudan and Tanzania stand out. Rather comically, Angola is unsure if she would conduct local elections this year or in 2017—such could be the games that some African leaders play with the destiny of their nations and the future of its peoples. Algeria will also draw international interest because of the latent threat posed by Islamic extremists to the stability of the country, while Egypt, a country that endured a transition without a constitution (that had brought deposed President Mohammed Mosi to power), will also be attracting extra-continental interest on account of the on-going efforts to consolidate on the gains made recently in stabilising the country.
Cote d’Ivoire’s election could touch a raw nerve in West Africa’s body politic. With the acrimony and subsequent bloodbath that greeted her last polls still alive in the memory of her citizens and the international community, there is palpable tension around what the next polls could throw up, especially since the pervasive question of ‘Ivorite’ still looms large in the country’s psyche. President Alassane Outtara has his job cut out for him as he tries to midwife a genuinely popular election amidst the bad blood already created with the on-going trial of former President Laurent Gbagbo and his now jailed wife. Both still enjoy considerable support in the south of the country.
South Sudan, a country whose elite dashed the collective goodwill of the many countries who guided her through independence, ought to be holding elections too but there is hardly anyone who would expect those to take place in view of the mindless killings and inexplicable armed conflict that those elites have visited on the hapless population. Perhaps common sense could still prevail that would cause the country not necessarily to organise the polls but at least to ceasefire and return to the path of sanity, peace and stability.
Nigeria has turned the corner. Often hardly given credit for anything, she is once again causing the world to pause and take notice, not just of how its public health system defeated the dreaded Ebola virus, but of how its hitherto maligned military virtually wiped off Boko Haram from a conventional warfare that the insurgents seemed to have been winning, and in only six weeks, and have capped it with general elections adjudged free, fair and considerably credible by domestic and international observers. Whether this will pave the way for sit tight leaders in Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Uganda, Angola and Zimbabwe to sit back, reflect and give way to new blood will probably now constitute the subject of intense debate.
March 29 2015
Africans show solidarity as Nigerians vote massively in Polls—Shame ethnicity and religious division
Nigerians turned out massively to vote in that country’s Presidential Election which was held on Saturday and Sunday 28-29 March 2015. From all the 36 States of the country, voters trooped out and waited patiently (in polling units where the electronic card readers had reportedly malfunctioned earlier in the process). The fears of many that there could be violence, especially from members of the Boko Haram sect in the north east where the military had recently recaptured all territory the sect had controlled or influenced did not materialise. True, there were one or two terrorist incidents but the north east was almost entirely peaceful which is a testimony to the Nigerian military’s assertion that it has the area under control.
In its analysis of the Presidential Election, Gaskiya.net had predicted that Nigeria’s urban elite will play a crucial role in this particular election and we were proven right. Nigeria, with over 50 cities nationwide, including all the 37 State Capitals and the Federal Capital Territory, is Africa’s most urbanised country and when this is factored to its high level of education and a 130million active mobile phone subscriber base, can rightfully claim that hers is increasingly attaining an undisputable level of electoral sophistication. This sophistication is built on the tenacity of a hitherto docile socio-economic elite who rather outsourced its role to civil society leaders. While the latter seemed to have gone into oblivion with the return to civil rule in 1999, the Nigerian masses—perhaps the most enlightened in Africa, even where they are not that educated—have been galvanised by this same elite, informally led by such intellectuals like Prof Pat Utomi , whose unending quest to make Nigeria rise to its potential, seemed to have finally jolted his kind to play similar roles.
Another credit ought to be given to the Nigerian media, especially the FM radio stations. Breakfast hosts / hostesses anchoring highly popular talk shows had often focused on social issues and thrown their lines open to the listener to ventilate her/his opinion. While on the one hand this was an exhibition of the lack of programme planning by these stations, the fact remains that by allowing the public to continuously use the airwaves to shape the public debate, many Nigerians were mobilised around specific issues and behind certain positions. As it was therefore in most high brow areas like Victoria Garden City on the Lekki Peninsula, Ikoyi, Victoria Island etc., so it was too across the country in such places as the Mafolukus, Ajegunles, Ekets, Lokojas, Gwaris, Sabon Garis, Eleme Junctions, Tudun Wadas, Rayfields, Mokolas etc.
Gaskiya.net spoke to some Africans in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Ghana and Zimbabwe. Many said they were praying for Nigeria to succeed as Africa has to begin to live up to its potential and because they wanted a strong united Nigeria to not only defeat terrorism and other threats and social ills, but to play its role in concert with the rest of the continent to lift Africa. While the elections were on-going, some of them said they were following developments closely via TV and the internet. Many Liberians and Sierra Leoneans, despite their recovering from the dreaded Ebola virus, said they were praying for Nigeria to succeed, given the role Nigeria played to help stabilise their own countries in their moment of trouble. This level of solidarity, where previously there had been envy and unhealthy rivalry, is unprecedented on the continent!
Nigerians in the diaspora were not left out as many in the key hubs of London, Atlanta and Houston, set up monitoring centres to follow unfolding developments regarding the poll. They backed this up with direct internet and telephone exchanges with families and associates back home in what would equally rank as an unprecedented interest and participation in the electoral contest. It will be recalled that Nigerians abroad had also played a big role in encouraging family and friends at home to register and vote, as well as support a national, rather than an ethnic or religious agenda.
On the election itself, the main problematic issues were the malfunctioning card readers and late arrival of polling materials (result sheets etc.). It is indeed a sad commentary on Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that logistical issues keep cropping up at every election in Nigeria, despite its best efforts. Not a few observers wonder at what would have happened had the elections been held on the previously scheduled date of February 14 2015, if the results of such poor planning could still be noticeable now. INEC however has the opportunity to correct any noticeable flaw in the State Governorship and Parliamentary elections scheduled to follow on April 11.
As the world waits with baited breath for the outcome of the polls, Gaskiya.net commends Nigerians for their commitment, tenacity and patriotism. Our Editorial Board however does not think the election will be close. If exit polls suggest anything, it is that a clear winner could emerge at the first ballot but that is for INEC to announce while Africa and the entire world anticipate that momentous announcement.
Africans show solidarity as Nigerians vote massively in Polls—Shame ethnicity and religious division
Nigerians turned out massively to vote in that country’s Presidential Election which was held on Saturday and Sunday 28-29 March 2015. From all the 36 States of the country, voters trooped out and waited patiently (in polling units where the electronic card readers had reportedly malfunctioned earlier in the process). The fears of many that there could be violence, especially from members of the Boko Haram sect in the north east where the military had recently recaptured all territory the sect had controlled or influenced did not materialise. True, there were one or two terrorist incidents but the north east was almost entirely peaceful which is a testimony to the Nigerian military’s assertion that it has the area under control.
In its analysis of the Presidential Election, Gaskiya.net had predicted that Nigeria’s urban elite will play a crucial role in this particular election and we were proven right. Nigeria, with over 50 cities nationwide, including all the 37 State Capitals and the Federal Capital Territory, is Africa’s most urbanised country and when this is factored to its high level of education and a 130million active mobile phone subscriber base, can rightfully claim that hers is increasingly attaining an undisputable level of electoral sophistication. This sophistication is built on the tenacity of a hitherto docile socio-economic elite who rather outsourced its role to civil society leaders. While the latter seemed to have gone into oblivion with the return to civil rule in 1999, the Nigerian masses—perhaps the most enlightened in Africa, even where they are not that educated—have been galvanised by this same elite, informally led by such intellectuals like Prof Pat Utomi , whose unending quest to make Nigeria rise to its potential, seemed to have finally jolted his kind to play similar roles.
Another credit ought to be given to the Nigerian media, especially the FM radio stations. Breakfast hosts / hostesses anchoring highly popular talk shows had often focused on social issues and thrown their lines open to the listener to ventilate her/his opinion. While on the one hand this was an exhibition of the lack of programme planning by these stations, the fact remains that by allowing the public to continuously use the airwaves to shape the public debate, many Nigerians were mobilised around specific issues and behind certain positions. As it was therefore in most high brow areas like Victoria Garden City on the Lekki Peninsula, Ikoyi, Victoria Island etc., so it was too across the country in such places as the Mafolukus, Ajegunles, Ekets, Lokojas, Gwaris, Sabon Garis, Eleme Junctions, Tudun Wadas, Rayfields, Mokolas etc.
Gaskiya.net spoke to some Africans in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Ghana and Zimbabwe. Many said they were praying for Nigeria to succeed as Africa has to begin to live up to its potential and because they wanted a strong united Nigeria to not only defeat terrorism and other threats and social ills, but to play its role in concert with the rest of the continent to lift Africa. While the elections were on-going, some of them said they were following developments closely via TV and the internet. Many Liberians and Sierra Leoneans, despite their recovering from the dreaded Ebola virus, said they were praying for Nigeria to succeed, given the role Nigeria played to help stabilise their own countries in their moment of trouble. This level of solidarity, where previously there had been envy and unhealthy rivalry, is unprecedented on the continent!
Nigerians in the diaspora were not left out as many in the key hubs of London, Atlanta and Houston, set up monitoring centres to follow unfolding developments regarding the poll. They backed this up with direct internet and telephone exchanges with families and associates back home in what would equally rank as an unprecedented interest and participation in the electoral contest. It will be recalled that Nigerians abroad had also played a big role in encouraging family and friends at home to register and vote, as well as support a national, rather than an ethnic or religious agenda.
On the election itself, the main problematic issues were the malfunctioning card readers and late arrival of polling materials (result sheets etc.). It is indeed a sad commentary on Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that logistical issues keep cropping up at every election in Nigeria, despite its best efforts. Not a few observers wonder at what would have happened had the elections been held on the previously scheduled date of February 14 2015, if the results of such poor planning could still be noticeable now. INEC however has the opportunity to correct any noticeable flaw in the State Governorship and Parliamentary elections scheduled to follow on April 11.
As the world waits with baited breath for the outcome of the polls, Gaskiya.net commends Nigerians for their commitment, tenacity and patriotism. Our Editorial Board however does not think the election will be close. If exit polls suggest anything, it is that a clear winner could emerge at the first ballot but that is for INEC to announce while Africa and the entire world anticipate that momentous announcement.
March 27 2015
Jonathan or Buhari—Are these the issues to decide the poll?
In the run up to an election, various issues might dominate the political space but only a few key ones tend to have any significant impact on voters to the extent that they influence how these would vote. Also, those issues which have a potential for influencing voters are often not static and could change severally between when electioneering began and when voting actually took place.
When he won the 1999 election, President Olusegun Obasanjo—who in Mandela’s absence appears to be Africa’s most visible statesman today—was essentially expected by voters to keep the country together, given the tendency of the country’s south-west to break away following the perceived injustice of the annulment of the 1993 election that was won by the late African business mogul and billionaire, MKO Abiola. He was also expected to lay the foundation of what would ultimately keep the military out of politics for good. In a rather unexpected turn of events, Obasanjo appeared to have indeed constrained the military, douse separatist tendencies, and by the time he left office, had also paid off the country’s external debt—which never even featured in any campaign manifesto!
The issues that tended to dominate the political space in the elections that have been held after Obasanjo’s exit often revolved around the poor quality of health care, growing unemployment and significantly embarrassing low power generation (which resulted in the shut down of many factories and contributed to worsening the unemployment situation). In the election that brought the late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua to power, one more item made up the list drawn up above—Niger Delta militancy as it was then called. That militancy led to reduced oil production that, for a spell, saw Angola overtake Nigeria as Africa’s biggest producer.
With just a few days to go to Nigeria’s re-scheduled Presidential election being contested by incumbent Goodluck Jonathan and very strong contender Muhammadu Buhari, Gaskiya.net can authoritatively report that from its own investigations, analysis of the prevailing situation in that country and interviews with knowledgeable Nigerians and foreigners with good knowledge of the country, it would appear as if those issues that will decide who gains access to Africa’s most fortified State House—the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, Abuja—are the ones identified and discussed as follows:
· Security
(a) Threats to Nigeria’s sovereignty—the insurgents who have made life a harrowing hell for many in Nigeria’s north-east invariably re-wrote the manifesto of the two main political parties (the ruling People’s Democratic Party and the opposition All Progressives Congress), firmly inserting threats to the nation’s existence into them. By seemingly adding conventional warfare to their doctrine, they played into the hands of the Nigerian military and were decisively routed in several campaigns, after usually and briefly occupying some territories. The initial setbacks of the army gave way to better organised operational assaults against them and the government came back looking good. The resurgent military action assuaged Nigerians who had been terribly aghast at the seeming lack of an appropriate response by the authorities—military and civilian—to the insurgency. It is a plus for President Jonathan who has had to contend with Gen Buhari’s rising electoral profile boosted by the perception by many Nigerians that as a retired army chief, Buhari would better secure the country.
(b) Internal security—terrorism, kidnappings, sundry crimes—In this area, many Nigerians still contend with a seeming lack of an answer from the Federal Government. Ironically, this would not have been a Federal issue, and therefore not a Jonathan problem if the police was not a Federal institution. True, domestic intelligence is squarely a Federal brief but the funding , re-equipping and training which the three armed services enjoyed seemed to have eluded the Department of State Security (DSS—domestic intelligence) and the investigative arms of the Nigeria Police Force. Failure to deal with even crimes that ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of States are usually considered a failure of the central administration. The President will go into the election carrying this blame, albeit unfairly. It appears to favour the opposition’s candidate even if he has not clearly articulated how he himself would solve the problem.
· Economy
(a) Devaluation of the Naira—Devaluation of the Naira, which in recent years had stabilised at around 155 to 160 against the US Dollar, came at a very wrong time—just before elections. With a few weeks to the polls, the same currency began exchanging for over 200 Naira to the dollar against a backdrop of the comments of the administration and what had appeared to be worrisome attempts to either cancel or shift the elections (which the Nigerian government vehemently denied). Such uncertainty also fuelled capital flight, further weakening the national currency, while comments from close Presidential aides that “Gen Buhari will never become President of Nigeria…He is unelectable...” etc. only served to make things worse and create panic for investors and the economy generally. Some foreigners with a fairly good knowledge of Nigeria that we spoke to wonder if such administration officials were working for the President’s good or actually boosting the chances of his opponent.
(b) Unemployment—This socio-economic index has remained recurring since 1999. Unfortunately, the administration is left carrying the can on the basis of the perception of many that it has not done anything meaningful to address the problem. The projection of unrealistic figures of employment spaces created by the regime only serves to make things worse. No Government can solve Nigeria’s unemployment problem in six years, though a progressive move towards doing so can be initiated for all to see and judge. Politicians have kept posting ridiculous figures of jobs they’ve created, instead of announcing measured successes. The ruling party will struggle to change perceptions as it goes into the polls.
· Corruption
The President of Nigeria created a stir when he sought, in public, to differentiate—not once but at least twice—between ‘stealing’ and ‘corruption.’ That singular action underscored the belief of those at home and abroad who argue that he is totally unserious about confronting the scourge. His position was apparently underlined and made worse by his own Finance Minister—a former Managing Director of The World Bank—who submitted, some six weeks to the elections, that “…Nigeria lacks the institutions to fight corruption.” That, in one fell swoop, was an indictment of even the institution of The Presidency, in addition to the traditional ones like the Police, economic police and the country’s judiciary. If there is one thing almost all Nigerians (irrespective of party affiliation) agree on, it is that the administration has failed to fight corruption and the opposition’s candidate may actually do a better job of that.
In effect, the issues of security, economy and corruption are likely to determine who wins Nigeria’s election. Religion and ethnicity appear significantly degraded as viable elements of influence but cannot be ruled out as they will also have some marginal impact on the chances of the candidates, especially in places with less ‘sophisticated’ voters. Considering that Nigeria is Africa’s most urbanised country, the choice of the elites and urban middle class may therefore (and for the very first time), influence the outcome of a major election. Signs of their potential were seen in the last election when they used mobile devices to bring electoral malpractice under control. The role they also played in employing the same devices to mobilise demonstrators nationwide against an ill-timed fuel hike on January 2 2012 spoke volumes of the increasing sophistication of a potentially astute civil movement. That movement will be on full display days to the election and how its army of faithfuls all over Nigeria feels about the performance of Mr. Goodluck Jonathan Sor the capability of General Muhammadu Buhari may very well determine its outcome.
Jonathan or Buhari—Are these the issues to decide the poll?
In the run up to an election, various issues might dominate the political space but only a few key ones tend to have any significant impact on voters to the extent that they influence how these would vote. Also, those issues which have a potential for influencing voters are often not static and could change severally between when electioneering began and when voting actually took place.
When he won the 1999 election, President Olusegun Obasanjo—who in Mandela’s absence appears to be Africa’s most visible statesman today—was essentially expected by voters to keep the country together, given the tendency of the country’s south-west to break away following the perceived injustice of the annulment of the 1993 election that was won by the late African business mogul and billionaire, MKO Abiola. He was also expected to lay the foundation of what would ultimately keep the military out of politics for good. In a rather unexpected turn of events, Obasanjo appeared to have indeed constrained the military, douse separatist tendencies, and by the time he left office, had also paid off the country’s external debt—which never even featured in any campaign manifesto!
The issues that tended to dominate the political space in the elections that have been held after Obasanjo’s exit often revolved around the poor quality of health care, growing unemployment and significantly embarrassing low power generation (which resulted in the shut down of many factories and contributed to worsening the unemployment situation). In the election that brought the late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua to power, one more item made up the list drawn up above—Niger Delta militancy as it was then called. That militancy led to reduced oil production that, for a spell, saw Angola overtake Nigeria as Africa’s biggest producer.
With just a few days to go to Nigeria’s re-scheduled Presidential election being contested by incumbent Goodluck Jonathan and very strong contender Muhammadu Buhari, Gaskiya.net can authoritatively report that from its own investigations, analysis of the prevailing situation in that country and interviews with knowledgeable Nigerians and foreigners with good knowledge of the country, it would appear as if those issues that will decide who gains access to Africa’s most fortified State House—the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, Abuja—are the ones identified and discussed as follows:
· Security
(a) Threats to Nigeria’s sovereignty—the insurgents who have made life a harrowing hell for many in Nigeria’s north-east invariably re-wrote the manifesto of the two main political parties (the ruling People’s Democratic Party and the opposition All Progressives Congress), firmly inserting threats to the nation’s existence into them. By seemingly adding conventional warfare to their doctrine, they played into the hands of the Nigerian military and were decisively routed in several campaigns, after usually and briefly occupying some territories. The initial setbacks of the army gave way to better organised operational assaults against them and the government came back looking good. The resurgent military action assuaged Nigerians who had been terribly aghast at the seeming lack of an appropriate response by the authorities—military and civilian—to the insurgency. It is a plus for President Jonathan who has had to contend with Gen Buhari’s rising electoral profile boosted by the perception by many Nigerians that as a retired army chief, Buhari would better secure the country.
(b) Internal security—terrorism, kidnappings, sundry crimes—In this area, many Nigerians still contend with a seeming lack of an answer from the Federal Government. Ironically, this would not have been a Federal issue, and therefore not a Jonathan problem if the police was not a Federal institution. True, domestic intelligence is squarely a Federal brief but the funding , re-equipping and training which the three armed services enjoyed seemed to have eluded the Department of State Security (DSS—domestic intelligence) and the investigative arms of the Nigeria Police Force. Failure to deal with even crimes that ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of States are usually considered a failure of the central administration. The President will go into the election carrying this blame, albeit unfairly. It appears to favour the opposition’s candidate even if he has not clearly articulated how he himself would solve the problem.
· Economy
(a) Devaluation of the Naira—Devaluation of the Naira, which in recent years had stabilised at around 155 to 160 against the US Dollar, came at a very wrong time—just before elections. With a few weeks to the polls, the same currency began exchanging for over 200 Naira to the dollar against a backdrop of the comments of the administration and what had appeared to be worrisome attempts to either cancel or shift the elections (which the Nigerian government vehemently denied). Such uncertainty also fuelled capital flight, further weakening the national currency, while comments from close Presidential aides that “Gen Buhari will never become President of Nigeria…He is unelectable...” etc. only served to make things worse and create panic for investors and the economy generally. Some foreigners with a fairly good knowledge of Nigeria that we spoke to wonder if such administration officials were working for the President’s good or actually boosting the chances of his opponent.
(b) Unemployment—This socio-economic index has remained recurring since 1999. Unfortunately, the administration is left carrying the can on the basis of the perception of many that it has not done anything meaningful to address the problem. The projection of unrealistic figures of employment spaces created by the regime only serves to make things worse. No Government can solve Nigeria’s unemployment problem in six years, though a progressive move towards doing so can be initiated for all to see and judge. Politicians have kept posting ridiculous figures of jobs they’ve created, instead of announcing measured successes. The ruling party will struggle to change perceptions as it goes into the polls.
· Corruption
The President of Nigeria created a stir when he sought, in public, to differentiate—not once but at least twice—between ‘stealing’ and ‘corruption.’ That singular action underscored the belief of those at home and abroad who argue that he is totally unserious about confronting the scourge. His position was apparently underlined and made worse by his own Finance Minister—a former Managing Director of The World Bank—who submitted, some six weeks to the elections, that “…Nigeria lacks the institutions to fight corruption.” That, in one fell swoop, was an indictment of even the institution of The Presidency, in addition to the traditional ones like the Police, economic police and the country’s judiciary. If there is one thing almost all Nigerians (irrespective of party affiliation) agree on, it is that the administration has failed to fight corruption and the opposition’s candidate may actually do a better job of that.
In effect, the issues of security, economy and corruption are likely to determine who wins Nigeria’s election. Religion and ethnicity appear significantly degraded as viable elements of influence but cannot be ruled out as they will also have some marginal impact on the chances of the candidates, especially in places with less ‘sophisticated’ voters. Considering that Nigeria is Africa’s most urbanised country, the choice of the elites and urban middle class may therefore (and for the very first time), influence the outcome of a major election. Signs of their potential were seen in the last election when they used mobile devices to bring electoral malpractice under control. The role they also played in employing the same devices to mobilise demonstrators nationwide against an ill-timed fuel hike on January 2 2012 spoke volumes of the increasing sophistication of a potentially astute civil movement. That movement will be on full display days to the election and how its army of faithfuls all over Nigeria feels about the performance of Mr. Goodluck Jonathan Sor the capability of General Muhammadu Buhari may very well determine its outcome.
March 25 2015
ECOWAS Calls for Free, Fair, Credible Polls in Nigeria
In view of the Saturday’s presidential election in Nigeria, Chairman of the Authority of Heads of State of the Economic Community of West African States and Ghanaian President, John Draman Mahama, on Monday called for a free, fair and credible election. Mahama made the call, when he met with President Goodluck Jonathan at the Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport, Abuja.
According to the Ghanaian president, ECOWAS was interested in the conduct of a peaceful and credible election in the country.“I am here in my capacity as the Chairman of the Authority of Heads of States of ECOWAS on election visit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As you are aware, our sub-region this year, has five countries that are going through elections and ECOWAS has been involved in ensuring that this elections are held in a peaceful and transparent environment.
“And so ECOWAS has undertaken in all these countries that are facing elections, to provide long term electoral observer missions. These missions have been monitoring the electoral process in the lead up to the elections not just before the elections, but from a longer period. We have received several monitoring reports and we are working together with the electoral commissions of the countries and the authorities of those countries
“We have tried to ensure that obstacles to free and fair elections are removed to ensure that election are free and fair, people would accept the results of those elections. As chair of the authorities of Heads of State of ECOWAS, I have extended my solidarity to the Nigerian people through my brother President Jonathan, to see that the whole of ECOWAS, not only ECOWAS, but the international community is in solidarity with Nigeria to have a very transparent election so that the democratic process in Nigeria will be better entrenched,” he said.
While indicating the significance of the election to the survival of the country, the ECOWAS chief added “This is a critical election for Nigeria and it will be one more indication for the world that Nigeria is a democratic country and ruled by tenets of good governance and the rule of law.
“And so, we want to wish you all the best. We are meeting with the INEC to look at the state of preparedness and we believe that following the postponement of the election, from February 14 to March 28 has given the INEC much more time to be able to meet all its processes and be in readiness to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised and that the results of the elections are accepted.
“We expect that there will be no post election violence and that all the parties involved in the election will accept the results of the election in good faith when INEC has announced the results of the elections.
“ECOWAS will continue to monitor the situation and will do everything possible to stand in solidarity with the Nigerian people to ensure that these elections pass on successfully and Nigeria continues in the role that it plays in our sub -regional bodies. As you know, Nigeria is a very important member of ECOWAS.
“The largest economy, the largest nation in the ECOWAS region and so Nigeria’s safety and security is the safety of and security of the whole of ECOWAS region and so I stand on behalf of all the presidents of ECOWAS and wish that all Nigerians will come out and express their votes and their votes will count towards electing who becomes the leader of this country for the next four years.”
Jonathan, who was on his way to Bauchi to commission some projects, thanked the ECOWAS boss for the body’s concerns about the nation’s electoral process even as he assured that there would be free and fair elections.
Written by Jaiyeola Andrews in Abuja . Culled from Thisday Newspaper, Tuesday 24 March 2015
ECOWAS Calls for Free, Fair, Credible Polls in Nigeria
In view of the Saturday’s presidential election in Nigeria, Chairman of the Authority of Heads of State of the Economic Community of West African States and Ghanaian President, John Draman Mahama, on Monday called for a free, fair and credible election. Mahama made the call, when he met with President Goodluck Jonathan at the Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport, Abuja.
According to the Ghanaian president, ECOWAS was interested in the conduct of a peaceful and credible election in the country.“I am here in my capacity as the Chairman of the Authority of Heads of States of ECOWAS on election visit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As you are aware, our sub-region this year, has five countries that are going through elections and ECOWAS has been involved in ensuring that this elections are held in a peaceful and transparent environment.
“And so ECOWAS has undertaken in all these countries that are facing elections, to provide long term electoral observer missions. These missions have been monitoring the electoral process in the lead up to the elections not just before the elections, but from a longer period. We have received several monitoring reports and we are working together with the electoral commissions of the countries and the authorities of those countries
“We have tried to ensure that obstacles to free and fair elections are removed to ensure that election are free and fair, people would accept the results of those elections. As chair of the authorities of Heads of State of ECOWAS, I have extended my solidarity to the Nigerian people through my brother President Jonathan, to see that the whole of ECOWAS, not only ECOWAS, but the international community is in solidarity with Nigeria to have a very transparent election so that the democratic process in Nigeria will be better entrenched,” he said.
While indicating the significance of the election to the survival of the country, the ECOWAS chief added “This is a critical election for Nigeria and it will be one more indication for the world that Nigeria is a democratic country and ruled by tenets of good governance and the rule of law.
“And so, we want to wish you all the best. We are meeting with the INEC to look at the state of preparedness and we believe that following the postponement of the election, from February 14 to March 28 has given the INEC much more time to be able to meet all its processes and be in readiness to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised and that the results of the elections are accepted.
“We expect that there will be no post election violence and that all the parties involved in the election will accept the results of the election in good faith when INEC has announced the results of the elections.
“ECOWAS will continue to monitor the situation and will do everything possible to stand in solidarity with the Nigerian people to ensure that these elections pass on successfully and Nigeria continues in the role that it plays in our sub -regional bodies. As you know, Nigeria is a very important member of ECOWAS.
“The largest economy, the largest nation in the ECOWAS region and so Nigeria’s safety and security is the safety of and security of the whole of ECOWAS region and so I stand on behalf of all the presidents of ECOWAS and wish that all Nigerians will come out and express their votes and their votes will count towards electing who becomes the leader of this country for the next four years.”
Jonathan, who was on his way to Bauchi to commission some projects, thanked the ECOWAS boss for the body’s concerns about the nation’s electoral process even as he assured that there would be free and fair elections.
Written by Jaiyeola Andrews in Abuja . Culled from Thisday Newspaper, Tuesday 24 March 2015
March 13 2015
New Agreement on River Nile: Three as majority—Eight as Minority
Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia last week announced that they had crafted a new agreement on how the waters of the River Nile—the world’s longest—would henceforth be shared. The agreement also assuaged Egypt’s fears regarding the supposed threat the damning of the Nile by Ethiopia (which is building the 6,000 MW Grand Renaissance Dam through the diversion of the Blue Nile from May 2013) would pose to socio-economic life in Egypt. According to Sudan’s Foreign Minister, Ali Karti, “A full agreement has been reached between our three countries on the principles of the use of the eastern Nile Basin and the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.”
While the Heads of State of the three countries are expected to ratify the agreement, the signatory States appear to be quite upbeat, with the Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri suggesting that the deal signposts the start of greater cooperation between the said States. Addis Ababa, whose construction of the dam had sparked great fears in Cairo, saw the agreement as the start of a new chapter between the States.
While it would appear as if this agreement only focuses on the implications of Ethiopia’s new dam on the waters of the Nile, a subsisting disagreement on the overall use and management of the river still exists. Other States with a vested interest in how this water resource is managed had challenged the so-called “historic rights” of Egypt enshrined in treaties signed in 1929 and 1959 allowed that country unilateral control over a significant proportion of the river. Indeed, 11 States (Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Burundi, Congo, Eritrea, Tanzania, Rwanda and Kenya) have their fortunes affected by the Nile—as some of these either have the river flowing through them, or feed the river with water from their Lakes and tributaries.
The risk here will be heightened if States unilaterally decide to use the resources within their individual territories any way they choose (guaranteed by international law which provides for States to have sovereignty over their territory, water, air and everything else including human beings and animals on their territory) . It will certainly make nonsense of the recent agreement signed by only three out of the lot (even if it basically addresses the flow of the Blue Nile which originates from Ethiopia).
The spirit and letter of this law allows States to determine how all resources (including water) on their territory will be used but this right is mitigated by the extent to which it infringes on that of other States within the provisions of international conventions. This is why the recent agreement gleefully announced by Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia should be set aside for a comprehensive agreement with all concerned States on a new regime for the utilisation of the River Nile.
Factfile: The River Nile is fed by the While Nile (originating from Uganda) and the Blue Nile (originating from Ethiopia). Both rivers meet up in Khartoum, Sudan and flow northwards to Egypt and from there, into the Mediterranean Sea.
New Agreement on River Nile: Three as majority—Eight as Minority
Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia last week announced that they had crafted a new agreement on how the waters of the River Nile—the world’s longest—would henceforth be shared. The agreement also assuaged Egypt’s fears regarding the supposed threat the damning of the Nile by Ethiopia (which is building the 6,000 MW Grand Renaissance Dam through the diversion of the Blue Nile from May 2013) would pose to socio-economic life in Egypt. According to Sudan’s Foreign Minister, Ali Karti, “A full agreement has been reached between our three countries on the principles of the use of the eastern Nile Basin and the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.”
While the Heads of State of the three countries are expected to ratify the agreement, the signatory States appear to be quite upbeat, with the Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri suggesting that the deal signposts the start of greater cooperation between the said States. Addis Ababa, whose construction of the dam had sparked great fears in Cairo, saw the agreement as the start of a new chapter between the States.
While it would appear as if this agreement only focuses on the implications of Ethiopia’s new dam on the waters of the Nile, a subsisting disagreement on the overall use and management of the river still exists. Other States with a vested interest in how this water resource is managed had challenged the so-called “historic rights” of Egypt enshrined in treaties signed in 1929 and 1959 allowed that country unilateral control over a significant proportion of the river. Indeed, 11 States (Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Burundi, Congo, Eritrea, Tanzania, Rwanda and Kenya) have their fortunes affected by the Nile—as some of these either have the river flowing through them, or feed the river with water from their Lakes and tributaries.
The risk here will be heightened if States unilaterally decide to use the resources within their individual territories any way they choose (guaranteed by international law which provides for States to have sovereignty over their territory, water, air and everything else including human beings and animals on their territory) . It will certainly make nonsense of the recent agreement signed by only three out of the lot (even if it basically addresses the flow of the Blue Nile which originates from Ethiopia).
The spirit and letter of this law allows States to determine how all resources (including water) on their territory will be used but this right is mitigated by the extent to which it infringes on that of other States within the provisions of international conventions. This is why the recent agreement gleefully announced by Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia should be set aside for a comprehensive agreement with all concerned States on a new regime for the utilisation of the River Nile.
Factfile: The River Nile is fed by the While Nile (originating from Uganda) and the Blue Nile (originating from Ethiopia). Both rivers meet up in Khartoum, Sudan and flow northwards to Egypt and from there, into the Mediterranean Sea.
March 09 2015
Nigeria’s March 2015 Presidential Elections: A neutral Nigerian Army as a pivot of stability (2)
Today, with its on-going campaigns against Boko Haram, the Nigerian Army is gaining valuable experience on how to fight asymmetrical warfare—something most military forces are yet to be exposed to. This being the current combat of choice, the Nigerians are likely to come out of this theatre even better experienced and prepared than armies in other parts of the continent. The rapid modernisation that the Boko Haram war has also forced on Nigeria means that the three forces: Army, Navy and Air Force—the army taking delivery of modern T-72 main battle tanks, the navy acquiring brand new stealth frigates to patrol the Gulf of Guinea, and the Air Force, advanced Mi-35 Gunships, SU-30 and JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft—means that the Nigerian military will couple experience with modern platforms which should rank it as probably the best fighting force in Africa when the dust settles. The Nigerian Army has always been a truly national institution and treasure, with each of the 36 States in Nigeria having equal number of officers at entry level in the Nigerian Defence Academy (a tri-service military university for training officers). Indeed, whenever riots broke out in any part of the country, civilians often headed straight for any military barracks, guaranteed of protection regardless of their own religion or ethnicity or the ethnicity or religion of those of the soldiers receiving them at the installation. That is the level of trust and confidence that Nigerians have in their military—rather sadly, more than they have in the police which should ordinarily be closer to them. This level of trust and confidence MUST be sustained, even during Nigeria’s forthcoming elections.
It is instructive to recall that in the dying days of the brutal dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, the Nigerian Army flatly refused all attempts to cause it to fracture on ethnic lines. It must nevertheless maintain that same disposition now.
As Nigerians vote in the next three weeks, we re-echo what has been publicly stated by Maj-Gen Chris Olukolade, Spokesperson of Nigeria’s Defence HQ (in the wake of the involvement of the military in the alleged rigging of recent elections in the country’s South West Ekiti State), to Nigerian Army personnel to remain neutral and above partisan politics.
Gaskiya.net, driven by our concern for the stability of Africa and in our quest for a peaceful continent, admonishes that Nigerian officers and soldiers must:
· Refuse to soil their hands by engaging in any shenanigans.
· (Brigade and Battalion Commanders) Must ensure that politicians are barred from military locations.
· Must refuse unlawful orders to circumvent the electoral will of those they are being paid to defend and protect, and whose taxes train, equip and sustain them.
· (If deployed on security duties during the elections, military personnel) Must be given very clear and unambiguous orders
· (Any breaches of those orders) Must be immediately redressed by appropriate organs of the military and immediately communicated to the public to ensure that any misconceptions in the public eye are corrected to maintain the neutrality of the Army.
In conclusion, we warn that soldiers who plan to compromise their oath of allegiance to their country in these elections must particularly bear two things in mind. One, evidence exists to suggest that given the spate of carpet crossings from one party to the other and back, most Nigerian politicians may be in a particular political party but that does not mean they are loyal to that party. Therefore such politicians may ultimately produce evidence of such compromise where the military is involved on the day of reckoning.
Secondly, Nigeria has over 130 million active mobile phone lines, most of which are video-capable and with several applications, including instant connection to various online platforms. They can thus be used not only to record violations of the country’s electoral laws but cause the information so obtained to be immediately broadcast to the whole world. It behoves these officers and troops therefore to remain loyal to the Constitution of their country, prevent their careers from being truncated by any devious politician and sustain the hard-earned reputation of the Nigerian military at home and abroad.
Concluded
Nigeria’s March 2015 Presidential Elections: A neutral Nigerian Army as a pivot of stability (2)
Today, with its on-going campaigns against Boko Haram, the Nigerian Army is gaining valuable experience on how to fight asymmetrical warfare—something most military forces are yet to be exposed to. This being the current combat of choice, the Nigerians are likely to come out of this theatre even better experienced and prepared than armies in other parts of the continent. The rapid modernisation that the Boko Haram war has also forced on Nigeria means that the three forces: Army, Navy and Air Force—the army taking delivery of modern T-72 main battle tanks, the navy acquiring brand new stealth frigates to patrol the Gulf of Guinea, and the Air Force, advanced Mi-35 Gunships, SU-30 and JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft—means that the Nigerian military will couple experience with modern platforms which should rank it as probably the best fighting force in Africa when the dust settles. The Nigerian Army has always been a truly national institution and treasure, with each of the 36 States in Nigeria having equal number of officers at entry level in the Nigerian Defence Academy (a tri-service military university for training officers). Indeed, whenever riots broke out in any part of the country, civilians often headed straight for any military barracks, guaranteed of protection regardless of their own religion or ethnicity or the ethnicity or religion of those of the soldiers receiving them at the installation. That is the level of trust and confidence that Nigerians have in their military—rather sadly, more than they have in the police which should ordinarily be closer to them. This level of trust and confidence MUST be sustained, even during Nigeria’s forthcoming elections.
It is instructive to recall that in the dying days of the brutal dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, the Nigerian Army flatly refused all attempts to cause it to fracture on ethnic lines. It must nevertheless maintain that same disposition now.
As Nigerians vote in the next three weeks, we re-echo what has been publicly stated by Maj-Gen Chris Olukolade, Spokesperson of Nigeria’s Defence HQ (in the wake of the involvement of the military in the alleged rigging of recent elections in the country’s South West Ekiti State), to Nigerian Army personnel to remain neutral and above partisan politics.
Gaskiya.net, driven by our concern for the stability of Africa and in our quest for a peaceful continent, admonishes that Nigerian officers and soldiers must:
· Refuse to soil their hands by engaging in any shenanigans.
· (Brigade and Battalion Commanders) Must ensure that politicians are barred from military locations.
· Must refuse unlawful orders to circumvent the electoral will of those they are being paid to defend and protect, and whose taxes train, equip and sustain them.
· (If deployed on security duties during the elections, military personnel) Must be given very clear and unambiguous orders
· (Any breaches of those orders) Must be immediately redressed by appropriate organs of the military and immediately communicated to the public to ensure that any misconceptions in the public eye are corrected to maintain the neutrality of the Army.
In conclusion, we warn that soldiers who plan to compromise their oath of allegiance to their country in these elections must particularly bear two things in mind. One, evidence exists to suggest that given the spate of carpet crossings from one party to the other and back, most Nigerian politicians may be in a particular political party but that does not mean they are loyal to that party. Therefore such politicians may ultimately produce evidence of such compromise where the military is involved on the day of reckoning.
Secondly, Nigeria has over 130 million active mobile phone lines, most of which are video-capable and with several applications, including instant connection to various online platforms. They can thus be used not only to record violations of the country’s electoral laws but cause the information so obtained to be immediately broadcast to the whole world. It behoves these officers and troops therefore to remain loyal to the Constitution of their country, prevent their careers from being truncated by any devious politician and sustain the hard-earned reputation of the Nigerian military at home and abroad.
Concluded
March 05 2015
Nigeria’s March 2015 Presidential Elections: A neutral Nigerian Army as a pivot of stability (1)
Not a few domestic and international experts believe that should anything go wrong in the forthcoming Presidential Elections in Nigeria—God forbid—the re-establishment of law and order will depend to a large extent on the Nigerian Army. That will only happen however, if that army itself was not part of the problem that may arise, because if it was, then its credibility would have been lost and with it, its ability to intervene and stabilise the polity. May that scenario never occur as an imploding Nigeria will unquestionably take the entire African continent along with it.
What is the track record of this Nigerian Army you may wonder? Established in 1863, and fighting under its motto: Victory is from God Alone, the Nigerian Army has grown in leaps and bounds from a rudimentary Para-military force at inception to one of the most modern military forces in the world today. A brief account of its deployment history and battle campaigns is as follows:
· participated in the First World War as part of the Royal West African Frontier Force;
· in the Second World War as part of the victorious allied forces;
· single-handedly protected Tanganyika (now Tanzania) when that country’s army mutinied shortly after independence and was disbanded;
· was part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Congo Kinshasa (now Democratic Republic of Congo) which held the country together, ironically, after another army mutiny that finally resulted in a conflict which claimed the life of its first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba;
· successfully fought a bitter civil war to stop one part of the country (‘Biafra’) from breaking away;
· interposed between Israel and Lebanon as part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon;
· was a major participant in the UNOSOM operations in Somalia;
· again, singlehandedly restored sanity in Chad in the late 1970s into the early 1980s as the vanguard of the one and only AU (then OAU) peacekeeping force;
· deployed to Croatia as part of UN forces stabilising areas of the former Yugoslavia (its only European peacekeeping operation)
· and together with the Armed Forces of Guinea, fought off the threats to Liberia’s existence as part of the ECOMOG forces deployed to Liberia, and later Sierra-Leone.
· Concurrently, the Nigerian Army occupied and defended the Bakassi Peninsula;
· Formed the core of the first ever AU-UN hybrid force UNAMID in Darfur, The Sudan,
· and of late, has been able to recapture territories lost to the Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad i.e. Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad, popularly known as Boko Haram.
In its entire 152 year history, the Nigerian Army has never lost a war, either fighting alone or in tandem with other coalition forces. It is an army that grew from a modest 9 infantry battalions in the early 1960s after independence from the United Kingdom to having 3 mechanised and 2 composite divisions today. One of those five, the 7th Division, was born in the heat of battle and is responsible for defending the country’s north-eastern flank from threats by Boko Haram. In 1990, Nigeria, as the vanguard of the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) accomplished one of the most rapid deployments in any modern theatre when it not only deployed a brigade-sized force into Liberia, but also airlifted troops from sister States of Sierra Leone, Guinea and The Gambia all less than 10 days after the force was established by the Authority of Heads of State and Governments of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
The fairy tale of the Nigerian Army would be blighted by its foray and long stay in politics in Nigeria. Though acknowledged for achieving infrastructural development in Nigeria and fostering a sense of purpose and nationalism amongst its people, the military overstayed in politics and would later be mired in corruption and bad governance which came to its height when the results of a peaceful and free and fair election was annulled without reason in June 1993. It was forced to abdicate power in 1999 after sustained civil society agitations and organised resistance by the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO)—a mix of trade unionists, academics, politicians, retired Generals and students.
Going back to the army’s traditional area of expertise, African military experts posit that it is clear that the Nigerian Army, despite initial setbacks in its fight against Boko Haram, is Africa’s most combat active military force as it has been on active engagements since the 1990s. The Nigerian Armed Forces also remain the only military on the continent to have fought large scale organic battles involving all its three units—land forces, air forces and the navy—during peace enforcement operations against recalcitrant forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Nigerian Navy, sporting several fast missile craft, two landing ship tanks, two corvettes and one frigate, also enforced a joint ECOWAS/ UN arms embargo against Liberia and Sierra Leone at sea.
To be continued
Nigeria’s March 2015 Presidential Elections: A neutral Nigerian Army as a pivot of stability (1)
Not a few domestic and international experts believe that should anything go wrong in the forthcoming Presidential Elections in Nigeria—God forbid—the re-establishment of law and order will depend to a large extent on the Nigerian Army. That will only happen however, if that army itself was not part of the problem that may arise, because if it was, then its credibility would have been lost and with it, its ability to intervene and stabilise the polity. May that scenario never occur as an imploding Nigeria will unquestionably take the entire African continent along with it.
What is the track record of this Nigerian Army you may wonder? Established in 1863, and fighting under its motto: Victory is from God Alone, the Nigerian Army has grown in leaps and bounds from a rudimentary Para-military force at inception to one of the most modern military forces in the world today. A brief account of its deployment history and battle campaigns is as follows:
· participated in the First World War as part of the Royal West African Frontier Force;
· in the Second World War as part of the victorious allied forces;
· single-handedly protected Tanganyika (now Tanzania) when that country’s army mutinied shortly after independence and was disbanded;
· was part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Congo Kinshasa (now Democratic Republic of Congo) which held the country together, ironically, after another army mutiny that finally resulted in a conflict which claimed the life of its first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba;
· successfully fought a bitter civil war to stop one part of the country (‘Biafra’) from breaking away;
· interposed between Israel and Lebanon as part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon;
· was a major participant in the UNOSOM operations in Somalia;
· again, singlehandedly restored sanity in Chad in the late 1970s into the early 1980s as the vanguard of the one and only AU (then OAU) peacekeeping force;
· deployed to Croatia as part of UN forces stabilising areas of the former Yugoslavia (its only European peacekeeping operation)
· and together with the Armed Forces of Guinea, fought off the threats to Liberia’s existence as part of the ECOMOG forces deployed to Liberia, and later Sierra-Leone.
· Concurrently, the Nigerian Army occupied and defended the Bakassi Peninsula;
· Formed the core of the first ever AU-UN hybrid force UNAMID in Darfur, The Sudan,
· and of late, has been able to recapture territories lost to the Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad i.e. Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad, popularly known as Boko Haram.
In its entire 152 year history, the Nigerian Army has never lost a war, either fighting alone or in tandem with other coalition forces. It is an army that grew from a modest 9 infantry battalions in the early 1960s after independence from the United Kingdom to having 3 mechanised and 2 composite divisions today. One of those five, the 7th Division, was born in the heat of battle and is responsible for defending the country’s north-eastern flank from threats by Boko Haram. In 1990, Nigeria, as the vanguard of the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) accomplished one of the most rapid deployments in any modern theatre when it not only deployed a brigade-sized force into Liberia, but also airlifted troops from sister States of Sierra Leone, Guinea and The Gambia all less than 10 days after the force was established by the Authority of Heads of State and Governments of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
The fairy tale of the Nigerian Army would be blighted by its foray and long stay in politics in Nigeria. Though acknowledged for achieving infrastructural development in Nigeria and fostering a sense of purpose and nationalism amongst its people, the military overstayed in politics and would later be mired in corruption and bad governance which came to its height when the results of a peaceful and free and fair election was annulled without reason in June 1993. It was forced to abdicate power in 1999 after sustained civil society agitations and organised resistance by the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO)—a mix of trade unionists, academics, politicians, retired Generals and students.
Going back to the army’s traditional area of expertise, African military experts posit that it is clear that the Nigerian Army, despite initial setbacks in its fight against Boko Haram, is Africa’s most combat active military force as it has been on active engagements since the 1990s. The Nigerian Armed Forces also remain the only military on the continent to have fought large scale organic battles involving all its three units—land forces, air forces and the navy—during peace enforcement operations against recalcitrant forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Nigerian Navy, sporting several fast missile craft, two landing ship tanks, two corvettes and one frigate, also enforced a joint ECOWAS/ UN arms embargo against Liberia and Sierra Leone at sea.
To be continued
March 02 2015
Nigeria’s Forthcoming Presidential Elections: an Appeal to the Nigerian Armed Forces
As Nigerians prepare to elect another President on 28 March 2015, in what is unarguably Africa’s largest democracy, Gaskiya.net is taking the liberty of its knowledge of the significance, power and potential of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to appeal to its Armed Forces to remain absolutely neutral and play its constitutional role of safeguarding the territorial integrity of the country and protecting all its citizens irrespective of their ethnicity, religious belief, political affiliation and social status.
At Gaskiya.net, we recognise that Nigeria, with her current population of 187 million people (minus those in the Diaspora), economic status (Africa’s largest), and geographical location (straddles West and Central Africa), has a great potential for either stabilising or destabilising the African continent—depending on how the election goes. For the benefit of members of the Nigerian Armed Forces and indeed all Nigerians, we shall draw from two examples to underscore this appeal. One is from Africa and the other from Asia.
From Africa, we are inspired to cite, rather sadly, that the unfortunate 1994 Rwandan crisis, occurring in a country with just 4 million people, had a devastating effect on not just Rwanda herself and neighbouring countries, but was to overwhelm the Democratic Republic of Congo—a country several times the size of Rwanda, leading to the overthrow of then President Mobutu Sese Seko and resulting in a protracted crisis and bloodshed there.
From Asia—to The Philippines in particular—we go back in time to the dying days of President Ferdinand Marcos’ administration. There had been an unprecedented heightening of political consciousness and activity in the run up to the electoral contest between the President and then challenger, Mrs. Corazon Aquino following the controversial assassination of Mr. Benigno Aquino, her husband and leading opposition politician. The election, when held, was ‘won’ by Mr. Marcos amidst allegations of massive fraud and brazen irregularities. The Philippine Army, long allied with President Marcos and strongly supported by the United States, stood firmly with the President as massive civil protests broke out across the country in condemnation of that election.
Something tiny however gave within that Army. A General by the name of Juan Ponce Enrile— previously and fiercely loyal to Marcos, abandoned his boss and even though initially doubted by many—as the Biblical Saul was doubted by Christ’s disciples—took the risk of defecting to the now famous Camp Aguinaldo Barracks from where other loyalist officers—including General Fidel Ramos (who would later rule the country after Mrs. Aquino) joined him. The refusal of Brigadier-General Artemio Tadiar—an Armoured Corps General—to crush peaceful protesters on the streets of Manila with his tanks, eventually turned the tide in favour of the people.
Erstwhile President Marcos fled into exile in the United States and Mrs. Aquino rightfully took her position as the duly elected 11th President of that country. The Philippine Armed Forces had cut its ties to the political establishment and had stood by the people. As it was in The Philippines, the Nigerian Armed Forces, especially its top leadership, must also remain apolitical, regardless of the overtures of the political class in their country and notwithstanding any efforts to influence them into taking sides in the unfolding political contest. The fabric of the Nigerian State cannot afford a biased military in these forthcoming elections.
As highlighted at the top of this analysis, central to the maintenance of internal cohesion and stability is the Nigerian Armed Forces, especially the Nigerian Army. We shall therefore continue this appeal by publishing a follow up specifically addressed to the Nigerian Army. Keep a date with Gaskiya.net.
Nigeria’s Forthcoming Presidential Elections: an Appeal to the Nigerian Armed Forces
As Nigerians prepare to elect another President on 28 March 2015, in what is unarguably Africa’s largest democracy, Gaskiya.net is taking the liberty of its knowledge of the significance, power and potential of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to appeal to its Armed Forces to remain absolutely neutral and play its constitutional role of safeguarding the territorial integrity of the country and protecting all its citizens irrespective of their ethnicity, religious belief, political affiliation and social status.
At Gaskiya.net, we recognise that Nigeria, with her current population of 187 million people (minus those in the Diaspora), economic status (Africa’s largest), and geographical location (straddles West and Central Africa), has a great potential for either stabilising or destabilising the African continent—depending on how the election goes. For the benefit of members of the Nigerian Armed Forces and indeed all Nigerians, we shall draw from two examples to underscore this appeal. One is from Africa and the other from Asia.
From Africa, we are inspired to cite, rather sadly, that the unfortunate 1994 Rwandan crisis, occurring in a country with just 4 million people, had a devastating effect on not just Rwanda herself and neighbouring countries, but was to overwhelm the Democratic Republic of Congo—a country several times the size of Rwanda, leading to the overthrow of then President Mobutu Sese Seko and resulting in a protracted crisis and bloodshed there.
From Asia—to The Philippines in particular—we go back in time to the dying days of President Ferdinand Marcos’ administration. There had been an unprecedented heightening of political consciousness and activity in the run up to the electoral contest between the President and then challenger, Mrs. Corazon Aquino following the controversial assassination of Mr. Benigno Aquino, her husband and leading opposition politician. The election, when held, was ‘won’ by Mr. Marcos amidst allegations of massive fraud and brazen irregularities. The Philippine Army, long allied with President Marcos and strongly supported by the United States, stood firmly with the President as massive civil protests broke out across the country in condemnation of that election.
Something tiny however gave within that Army. A General by the name of Juan Ponce Enrile— previously and fiercely loyal to Marcos, abandoned his boss and even though initially doubted by many—as the Biblical Saul was doubted by Christ’s disciples—took the risk of defecting to the now famous Camp Aguinaldo Barracks from where other loyalist officers—including General Fidel Ramos (who would later rule the country after Mrs. Aquino) joined him. The refusal of Brigadier-General Artemio Tadiar—an Armoured Corps General—to crush peaceful protesters on the streets of Manila with his tanks, eventually turned the tide in favour of the people.
Erstwhile President Marcos fled into exile in the United States and Mrs. Aquino rightfully took her position as the duly elected 11th President of that country. The Philippine Armed Forces had cut its ties to the political establishment and had stood by the people. As it was in The Philippines, the Nigerian Armed Forces, especially its top leadership, must also remain apolitical, regardless of the overtures of the political class in their country and notwithstanding any efforts to influence them into taking sides in the unfolding political contest. The fabric of the Nigerian State cannot afford a biased military in these forthcoming elections.
As highlighted at the top of this analysis, central to the maintenance of internal cohesion and stability is the Nigerian Armed Forces, especially the Nigerian Army. We shall therefore continue this appeal by publishing a follow up specifically addressed to the Nigerian Army. Keep a date with Gaskiya.net.
February 25 2015
Where is Ghana (as Benin stands up to Boko Haram)?
The Republic of Ghana was the doyen of African diplomacy in the heydays of the great Kwame Osagyefo Nkrumah—the founding father of the land of the Black Star. Nkrumah challenged the erstwhile colonial power, the United Kingdom and got independence for the Gold Coast (the name Ghana was previously known by).
In concert with the late Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (the only African country never to be colonised), Nkrumah set about encouraging other African States to challenge colonial domination. A sister West African State known as Guinea (with capital in Conakry) listened to him and an ebullient radical by the name of Ahmad Sekou Toure heeded the call, challenging France, the colonial overlord. Indeed, Sekou was so emboldened that he demanded independence from Paris, to the chagrin of General Charles de Gaulle.
Buoyed by Nkrumah’s success and Selassie’s encouragement, Guinea accepted de Gaulle’s challenge to subject its demand for independence to a referendum—the forum through which the General often used, based on his raging popularity that was earned by resisting German Nazi occupation of France—to render the French Parliament redundant in order to get his way. The referendum finally held and lo and behold, the General lost to Ahmad Sekou Toure (the first and only time de Gaulle would lose a referendum)! Guinea had earned her freedom!
Nkrumah rose to the challenge when, angered by that defeat, the French removed all the telephone poles and other infrastructure from Conakry in an attempt to frustrate the independence of this new West African State! Ghana replaced every single item removed by France, thereby further challenging imperialist and neo-colonial tendencies by the metropolitan colonising powers of yore.
Not long after that, President Nkrumah became the greatest advocate of what would later be touted as the African High Command—a proposed continental military force that would free the rest of the continent from colonial rule. It would have been composed of independent African States, going to war to liberate the rest. However, decline was to set in as Ghana ‘suffered’ its first military coup and with it, the death of Nkrumah’s ideals and the emergence of decay in the country.
Ghana however rose up again and was one of the West African States which formed the bulk of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), which successfully intervened in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s during the civil wars in both countries. Indeed, the first ECOMOG commander was General Arnold Quainoo, a Ghanaian four star General, although he would later be replaced by Nigeria’s General Joshua Nimyel Dogonyaro.
Today, the dynamism of Ghana and her spirit of concern for the rest of the African continent generally and her West African neighbours in particular has seemingly fizzled out. Not a few people have wondered aloud as to what has become of Ghana’s foreign policy and if indeed, there is still such a policy. The silence from Accra has become more deafening with the rising wave of terrorism in Mali as well as in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Chad. With the latter four States setting up what has recently been an interesting and increasingly successful coalition against Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad (People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad) otherwise known as Boko Haram (with forces from the Republic of Benin in reserve), some close watchers of West African politics and diplomacy wonder where Ghana stood in the scheme of things.
Ghana’s position or non-position was all the more graphically exposed when the Republic of Benin, Nigeria’s tiny but reliable neighbour to the West, boldly entered the coalition to fight against the terrorist group, even though Benin herself was never threatened. It was all the more interesting to observe those developments because Ghana has of recent become relatively wealthy from proceeds coming out of offshore oil concessions on her territory and could afford to project power. Benin stood up to be counted, in the spirit of true African brotherhood and solidarity, just like The Gambia, another tiny West African State, had joined the ECOMOG coalition years ago when bigger and relatively more prosperous States had declined.
President Boni Yayi and the good people of the Republic of Benin deserve to be commended for standing with their West and Central African neighbours to resist fundamentalism and terrorism, even when they were never really threatened or affected. Ghana should take a cue from Benin and start playing the role for which the great Kwame Nkrumah primed her. It is when States like her play such roles that West Africa in particular and Africa in general can become safer and more secure for present and future generations.
Where is Ghana (as Benin stands up to Boko Haram)?
The Republic of Ghana was the doyen of African diplomacy in the heydays of the great Kwame Osagyefo Nkrumah—the founding father of the land of the Black Star. Nkrumah challenged the erstwhile colonial power, the United Kingdom and got independence for the Gold Coast (the name Ghana was previously known by).
In concert with the late Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (the only African country never to be colonised), Nkrumah set about encouraging other African States to challenge colonial domination. A sister West African State known as Guinea (with capital in Conakry) listened to him and an ebullient radical by the name of Ahmad Sekou Toure heeded the call, challenging France, the colonial overlord. Indeed, Sekou was so emboldened that he demanded independence from Paris, to the chagrin of General Charles de Gaulle.
Buoyed by Nkrumah’s success and Selassie’s encouragement, Guinea accepted de Gaulle’s challenge to subject its demand for independence to a referendum—the forum through which the General often used, based on his raging popularity that was earned by resisting German Nazi occupation of France—to render the French Parliament redundant in order to get his way. The referendum finally held and lo and behold, the General lost to Ahmad Sekou Toure (the first and only time de Gaulle would lose a referendum)! Guinea had earned her freedom!
Nkrumah rose to the challenge when, angered by that defeat, the French removed all the telephone poles and other infrastructure from Conakry in an attempt to frustrate the independence of this new West African State! Ghana replaced every single item removed by France, thereby further challenging imperialist and neo-colonial tendencies by the metropolitan colonising powers of yore.
Not long after that, President Nkrumah became the greatest advocate of what would later be touted as the African High Command—a proposed continental military force that would free the rest of the continent from colonial rule. It would have been composed of independent African States, going to war to liberate the rest. However, decline was to set in as Ghana ‘suffered’ its first military coup and with it, the death of Nkrumah’s ideals and the emergence of decay in the country.
Ghana however rose up again and was one of the West African States which formed the bulk of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), which successfully intervened in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s during the civil wars in both countries. Indeed, the first ECOMOG commander was General Arnold Quainoo, a Ghanaian four star General, although he would later be replaced by Nigeria’s General Joshua Nimyel Dogonyaro.
Today, the dynamism of Ghana and her spirit of concern for the rest of the African continent generally and her West African neighbours in particular has seemingly fizzled out. Not a few people have wondered aloud as to what has become of Ghana’s foreign policy and if indeed, there is still such a policy. The silence from Accra has become more deafening with the rising wave of terrorism in Mali as well as in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Chad. With the latter four States setting up what has recently been an interesting and increasingly successful coalition against Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad (People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad) otherwise known as Boko Haram (with forces from the Republic of Benin in reserve), some close watchers of West African politics and diplomacy wonder where Ghana stood in the scheme of things.
Ghana’s position or non-position was all the more graphically exposed when the Republic of Benin, Nigeria’s tiny but reliable neighbour to the West, boldly entered the coalition to fight against the terrorist group, even though Benin herself was never threatened. It was all the more interesting to observe those developments because Ghana has of recent become relatively wealthy from proceeds coming out of offshore oil concessions on her territory and could afford to project power. Benin stood up to be counted, in the spirit of true African brotherhood and solidarity, just like The Gambia, another tiny West African State, had joined the ECOMOG coalition years ago when bigger and relatively more prosperous States had declined.
President Boni Yayi and the good people of the Republic of Benin deserve to be commended for standing with their West and Central African neighbours to resist fundamentalism and terrorism, even when they were never really threatened or affected. Ghana should take a cue from Benin and start playing the role for which the great Kwame Nkrumah primed her. It is when States like her play such roles that West Africa in particular and Africa in general can become safer and more secure for present and future generations.
February 23 2015
The Nigerian Armed Forces & The End of Boko Haram.
The renewed onslaught against Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad (Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad), popularly known as ‘Boko Haram,’ planned by the Nigerian Armed Forces and executed with support from Chadian and Nigerien military units, especially along the borders of those countries with Nigeria, has a great potential for finally decimating the terrorist cum insurgent group once and for all.
As at today, the few towns being held or serially threatened by the terrorists such as Monguno, and Marte including the frontier location of Baga, seat of a previously ill-functioning Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF), have all been either liberated or pacified. The centre of gravity of the insurgents, Sambisa Forest—a pristine national park in Nigeria— has been systematically and comprehensively degraded by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) in sorties numbered in the hundreds, including sustained night attacks. With subsequent mopping up by Nigerian Special Forces and infantry units, it will be a miracle if the insurgents come out of these series of battles in any organised form.
The lockdown of border areas by Cameroonian, Nigerien and Chadian forces is particularly crucial to the success recorded so far. This sort of cooperation had been lacking in the past resulting in a situation where, even on those occasions when the Nigerian Army did hit the terrorists, they easily scampered into Cameroon especially, and to some extent Niger, with little or no attempt by the authorities in those States to hinder them. The foolhardy penchant of considering it a “purely Nigerian problem” would eventually prove exactly that—foolhardy. Cameroon, that, even in the few and far between encounters it had with the insurgents, often claimed exaggerated victories—with the support of western media—would soon seek Chad’s help to police its borders when the going got hotter.
Indeed, the insurgents survived this long and blossomed, not necessarily because of the initial weaknesses of the Nigerian Army in particular, but also due to regional ambivalence and alleged tacit cooperation with the group by elements in Chad and Cameroon. They also profited from the lack of a clear policy by the United States and France, leading some Nigerian intellectuals to surmise that both great powers have an interest in facilitating the balkanisation of Nigeria (a view that persists and is gaining more adherents). As for the regional dimension to this conspiracy theory and as argued by Gaskiya.net in one of several analyses on the threat posed by Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad, we had challenged President Idris Deby of Chad to come clean on his relationship with this group, following a petition by Nigerian civil society groups to the United Nations Security Council to sanction neighbouring States found to be supporting the insurgency. President Deby deserves commendation for clearly and unambiguously responding to our challenge through the efficacy and commitment of his military in supporting the on-going operations by the Nigerian Armed Forces.
Reports reaching Gaskiya.net from the various on-going battles and information from several confidential and usually reliable sources, we affirm that the end of Boko Haram as we know it has come. The insurgency that emerged from terrorist attacks has been crushed and the lethal weapons, most sourced from such disparate sources as Libya and Mali, including those captured from the Nigerian military itself, have either been destroyed, degraded or have been outrightly captured.
The unpredictable consequence of these victories by Nigeria and her coalition partners, Chad in particular and to some degree, Niger and Cameroon, could however be worrisome. Surviving terrorist cells composed of hard line operatives may likely continue with suicide bombings in key towns and capital cities, while the domestic intelligence services of all Lake Chad Basin Commission States, including local police forces, would need to improve their conduct to complement the successes attained by their military forces in the conventional campaign. They will be the arrowhead of efforts to neutralise those suicide attacks and other forms of violence.
The authorities in these states, especially those of Nigeria, Niger and to some degree, Chad, have to fish out sponsors of the group and demonstrate the capacity to try and punish them as appropriate, to the full measure of the law, even if it includes the death penalty, for heinous crimes committed against thousands of peace loving but hapless citizens. The heavy price that has been paid, and is still being paid by the military that has lost several troops and in the case of Nigeria, two very skilled combat pilots, must not be allowed to go unpunished.
When the dust of this major campaign settles in the next few weeks, member-States of the Lake Chad Basin Commission must develop very strict border control measures to stem the flow of illicit weapons and small arms—something they have so far only paid lip service to—otherwise the emerging threat by the Islamic State (IS) in Libya could herald another Boko Haram resurgence that could become excruciatingly difficult to defeat . When added to the frozen terrorist campaigns in Mali, that could prove a deadly combination indeed.
We pray that does not happen—and hope our warning would be heeded.
The Nigerian Armed Forces & The End of Boko Haram.
The renewed onslaught against Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad (Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad), popularly known as ‘Boko Haram,’ planned by the Nigerian Armed Forces and executed with support from Chadian and Nigerien military units, especially along the borders of those countries with Nigeria, has a great potential for finally decimating the terrorist cum insurgent group once and for all.
As at today, the few towns being held or serially threatened by the terrorists such as Monguno, and Marte including the frontier location of Baga, seat of a previously ill-functioning Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF), have all been either liberated or pacified. The centre of gravity of the insurgents, Sambisa Forest—a pristine national park in Nigeria— has been systematically and comprehensively degraded by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) in sorties numbered in the hundreds, including sustained night attacks. With subsequent mopping up by Nigerian Special Forces and infantry units, it will be a miracle if the insurgents come out of these series of battles in any organised form.
The lockdown of border areas by Cameroonian, Nigerien and Chadian forces is particularly crucial to the success recorded so far. This sort of cooperation had been lacking in the past resulting in a situation where, even on those occasions when the Nigerian Army did hit the terrorists, they easily scampered into Cameroon especially, and to some extent Niger, with little or no attempt by the authorities in those States to hinder them. The foolhardy penchant of considering it a “purely Nigerian problem” would eventually prove exactly that—foolhardy. Cameroon, that, even in the few and far between encounters it had with the insurgents, often claimed exaggerated victories—with the support of western media—would soon seek Chad’s help to police its borders when the going got hotter.
Indeed, the insurgents survived this long and blossomed, not necessarily because of the initial weaknesses of the Nigerian Army in particular, but also due to regional ambivalence and alleged tacit cooperation with the group by elements in Chad and Cameroon. They also profited from the lack of a clear policy by the United States and France, leading some Nigerian intellectuals to surmise that both great powers have an interest in facilitating the balkanisation of Nigeria (a view that persists and is gaining more adherents). As for the regional dimension to this conspiracy theory and as argued by Gaskiya.net in one of several analyses on the threat posed by Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad, we had challenged President Idris Deby of Chad to come clean on his relationship with this group, following a petition by Nigerian civil society groups to the United Nations Security Council to sanction neighbouring States found to be supporting the insurgency. President Deby deserves commendation for clearly and unambiguously responding to our challenge through the efficacy and commitment of his military in supporting the on-going operations by the Nigerian Armed Forces.
Reports reaching Gaskiya.net from the various on-going battles and information from several confidential and usually reliable sources, we affirm that the end of Boko Haram as we know it has come. The insurgency that emerged from terrorist attacks has been crushed and the lethal weapons, most sourced from such disparate sources as Libya and Mali, including those captured from the Nigerian military itself, have either been destroyed, degraded or have been outrightly captured.
The unpredictable consequence of these victories by Nigeria and her coalition partners, Chad in particular and to some degree, Niger and Cameroon, could however be worrisome. Surviving terrorist cells composed of hard line operatives may likely continue with suicide bombings in key towns and capital cities, while the domestic intelligence services of all Lake Chad Basin Commission States, including local police forces, would need to improve their conduct to complement the successes attained by their military forces in the conventional campaign. They will be the arrowhead of efforts to neutralise those suicide attacks and other forms of violence.
The authorities in these states, especially those of Nigeria, Niger and to some degree, Chad, have to fish out sponsors of the group and demonstrate the capacity to try and punish them as appropriate, to the full measure of the law, even if it includes the death penalty, for heinous crimes committed against thousands of peace loving but hapless citizens. The heavy price that has been paid, and is still being paid by the military that has lost several troops and in the case of Nigeria, two very skilled combat pilots, must not be allowed to go unpunished.
When the dust of this major campaign settles in the next few weeks, member-States of the Lake Chad Basin Commission must develop very strict border control measures to stem the flow of illicit weapons and small arms—something they have so far only paid lip service to—otherwise the emerging threat by the Islamic State (IS) in Libya could herald another Boko Haram resurgence that could become excruciatingly difficult to defeat . When added to the frozen terrorist campaigns in Mali, that could prove a deadly combination indeed.
We pray that does not happen—and hope our warning would be heeded.
Feb 18 2015
The brutal beheading of Egyptians in Libya: We warned the world!
On Sunday 15 February 2015, the Islamic State (IS) released a video showing the brutal beheading of 21 Egyptians in the Libyan town of Derna. That despicable action prompted the deployment of Egyptian Air Force jets in a dawn raid the following day against sites suspected to house terrorist fighters, their leadership and weapons.
In a recent news analysis, Gaskiya.net had warned of the threat the several militias in Libya, armed by western nations in the heydays of the struggle to remove Colonel Moammer Ghaddafi from power, pose to the rest of Africa. Titled “Cleaning up the mess in Libya,” we drew attention to the chaos that the country has become, identifying the origins of this mayhem as being rooted in the excesses of the lawless militias that we said “allegedly committed several atrocities against Black Africans and Libyan citizens perceived as not to have been sympathetic to their cause” during the uprising.
The world kept mute and should we have been taken aback much later, when “…those ‘brigades’ were allowed to do whatever they liked, make their own rules and enforce them as they pleased. Any surprise therefore when, after the regime (of Colonel Ghaddafi) had been uprooted and ‘normalcy’ restored, than we started seeing further breakdown of law and order, beginning first from Benghazi and then spreading gradually to other parts of the country. In fact, the militias in Benghazi, the very moment they drove out loyalist forces from their territory, had declared their area independent of Libya.”
The despicable slaughtering—for that was precisely what it was—of those innocent Egyptian citizens only confirmed Gaskiya.net’s worst fears in sustained acts of bestiality occurring regularly after Gaddhafi’s removal but left unreported. Indeed, we had argued that “…it is useful to observe that the international media that had vociferously supported the uprising and the various anti-Gaddhafi militias in the subsequent civil war refused to report the mess that Libya was becoming. The western nations that flooded that country with the weapons now being used to commit gross human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law also kept quiet...” It has now taken the emergence of IS inside Libya—again should this be surprising—for the world to wake up!
Libya, as we noted in that analysis, is a mess, for want of a better description. That mess was created by the United Nations Security Council (through Resolution 1973 passed on 19 March 2011) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) whose warplanes bombed the country and who flooded that African state with thousands of weapons. We affirmed that a “… direct fallout of the Libyan crisis is the subsequent outbreak of armed conflict in Mali and its implications for the stability of Mauritania, Algeria, Nigeria and Cameroon.” Today, we reiterate that the horrendous killing of those 21 Egyptians is also directly attributed to that fallout and if our warning had been heeded for the UN to intervene and correct its mistake, perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided. We hate to say it…but we warned the world!
Libya today has two parallel governments operating from Tripoli and Tobruk simultaneously, although none of them controls any territory. Anomie reigns supreme across the country and the security and governance vacuum obviously can be adduced as the reason for the emergence of IS affiliates there. President Abdelfattah Al Sisi of Egypt has rightfully taken strong measures in retaliation for the death of his country’s citizens. We make bold to say that it behoves other African states, especially Nigeria and Algeria, to equip their military forces sufficiently enough to be able to undertake strategic missions either in Libya or elsewhere in order to suppress a growing threat whose reach and impact remain yet unfathomable. The prospect of more African states becoming less able to impose sovereignty over every inch of their geo-political territory in the face of this expanding threat is worrisome, as is the likelihood that IS could spread from Libya to link up with its murderous counterparts in the vast Sahara desert, thereby fostering a reign of terror on most of the continent.
The brutal beheading of Egyptians in Libya: We warned the world!
On Sunday 15 February 2015, the Islamic State (IS) released a video showing the brutal beheading of 21 Egyptians in the Libyan town of Derna. That despicable action prompted the deployment of Egyptian Air Force jets in a dawn raid the following day against sites suspected to house terrorist fighters, their leadership and weapons.
In a recent news analysis, Gaskiya.net had warned of the threat the several militias in Libya, armed by western nations in the heydays of the struggle to remove Colonel Moammer Ghaddafi from power, pose to the rest of Africa. Titled “Cleaning up the mess in Libya,” we drew attention to the chaos that the country has become, identifying the origins of this mayhem as being rooted in the excesses of the lawless militias that we said “allegedly committed several atrocities against Black Africans and Libyan citizens perceived as not to have been sympathetic to their cause” during the uprising.
The world kept mute and should we have been taken aback much later, when “…those ‘brigades’ were allowed to do whatever they liked, make their own rules and enforce them as they pleased. Any surprise therefore when, after the regime (of Colonel Ghaddafi) had been uprooted and ‘normalcy’ restored, than we started seeing further breakdown of law and order, beginning first from Benghazi and then spreading gradually to other parts of the country. In fact, the militias in Benghazi, the very moment they drove out loyalist forces from their territory, had declared their area independent of Libya.”
The despicable slaughtering—for that was precisely what it was—of those innocent Egyptian citizens only confirmed Gaskiya.net’s worst fears in sustained acts of bestiality occurring regularly after Gaddhafi’s removal but left unreported. Indeed, we had argued that “…it is useful to observe that the international media that had vociferously supported the uprising and the various anti-Gaddhafi militias in the subsequent civil war refused to report the mess that Libya was becoming. The western nations that flooded that country with the weapons now being used to commit gross human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law also kept quiet...” It has now taken the emergence of IS inside Libya—again should this be surprising—for the world to wake up!
Libya, as we noted in that analysis, is a mess, for want of a better description. That mess was created by the United Nations Security Council (through Resolution 1973 passed on 19 March 2011) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) whose warplanes bombed the country and who flooded that African state with thousands of weapons. We affirmed that a “… direct fallout of the Libyan crisis is the subsequent outbreak of armed conflict in Mali and its implications for the stability of Mauritania, Algeria, Nigeria and Cameroon.” Today, we reiterate that the horrendous killing of those 21 Egyptians is also directly attributed to that fallout and if our warning had been heeded for the UN to intervene and correct its mistake, perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided. We hate to say it…but we warned the world!
Libya today has two parallel governments operating from Tripoli and Tobruk simultaneously, although none of them controls any territory. Anomie reigns supreme across the country and the security and governance vacuum obviously can be adduced as the reason for the emergence of IS affiliates there. President Abdelfattah Al Sisi of Egypt has rightfully taken strong measures in retaliation for the death of his country’s citizens. We make bold to say that it behoves other African states, especially Nigeria and Algeria, to equip their military forces sufficiently enough to be able to undertake strategic missions either in Libya or elsewhere in order to suppress a growing threat whose reach and impact remain yet unfathomable. The prospect of more African states becoming less able to impose sovereignty over every inch of their geo-political territory in the face of this expanding threat is worrisome, as is the likelihood that IS could spread from Libya to link up with its murderous counterparts in the vast Sahara desert, thereby fostering a reign of terror on most of the continent.
January 2015
The ICC and Kenya. Who is on Trial Kenya or Africa?
Early October, President Uhuru Kenyatta freely attended his trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. That journey began between December 2007 and January 2008 when violence broke out following controversial election results announced in Kenya. When the dust had settled, Mr. Kenyatta and his Vice-President, William Ruto were slammed with various charges relating to the violence and found themselves facing judges at The Hague because the domestic judicial system of their country could not, or was unwilling to try the alleged perpetrators of the mass murders.
As for Mr Kenyatta, he is being tried on five counts concerning the violence, including for crimes against humanity, which resulted in the killing of over a thousand people and displacement of thousands. Without any doubt, the crisis that engulfed those controversial election results was ethnic, resulting in intra-ethnic violence between the Kikuyu, Kalenjin and Luo.
Mr. Kenyatta may or may not have committed the offences for which he is being tried. That is something the courts must resolve, whether in Kenya or at The Hague. What is not acceptable to many in the African intelligentsia is for an African Head of State to be subjected to humiliation and embarrassment by this particular court. The reasons for which the ICC was established are noble and its role is key to ending impunity especially during armed conflicts and other situations of violence. However, the continued trial of Mr. Kenyatta constantly sends the wrong signals to Africa and Africans, suggestive of them being the sole target of the court. This is particularly true because there are many other leaders, past and present, in Europe and the Americas (obvious enough without names being mentioned), who many believe are themselves liable to being tried for similar offences. They have neither been tried at home, nor has the ICC gone after them following the failure of domestic judicial mechanisms to bring them to account.
After Mr. Kenyata was sworn in, he made spirited attempts to ensure that the trials (of himself and Vice-President William Ruto) were either halted or suspended. African leaders rallied round him, in what then appeared a concerted effort (not seen since the days of the liberation struggles in Southern Africa, when, at the 1975 OAU meeting in Addis, the late General Murtala Muhammed of Nigeria mobilised African leaders to unite in recognising the MPLA of Angola, much to the chagrin of the United States), to challenge what was perceived as the targeting of African Heads of State by the ICC.
The Extraordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union thus convened on 12 October 2013 and decided to, in its own words, "set up a contact group of the Executive Council to undertake consultations with the members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in particular, its five permanent members, with a view to engaging with the UNSC on all concerns of the AU on its relationship with the ICC, including the deferral of the Kenyan and Sudanese cases, in order to obtain their feedback. This should be done before the expected beginning of the trial of the Kenyan President at the International Criminal Court….The Assembly also agreed that Kenya should send a letter to the UNSC requesting the deferral, in conformity with Article 16 of the Rome statute, of the proceedings against the President and Deputy President of Kenya. This letter would be endorsed by all African States parties."
It would appear as if nothing came out of that effort by the AU, thereby paving the way for Mr. Kenyatta having to physically attend trial. Though he had told Kenyans back home that he was going to The Netherlands in his ''personal capacity,'' it was obvious that one more African Head of State was being docked. (Unlike President Charles Taylor of Liberia who had relinquished office before facing trial, though a warrant for his arrest was issued while he was still in power, which significantly angered West African leaders). Taylor was subsequently tried, not by the ICC but by the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone.
It is instructive to observe that the ICC has complained of the failure of the Kenyan authorities to provide it with evidence with which to prosecute Mr. Kenyatta. This alleged lack of cooperation could have its origins in the way and manner Mario Ocampo, the ICC's first Prosecutor, went about his business. He was brash and outspoken. He often made statements suggestive of him being on a personal vendetta, rather than working for a respected institution charged with ending impunity. Ocampo, on his very first visit to Kenya and without any investigations being conducted at the time to finger the culprits, gleefully announced that he was going to make an example of Kenya. Such grandstanding may have unwittingly created the kind of hindrance the court is facing today and fuelled the resentment that Africans and their leaders have for it.
In the face of this, how the ICC proceeds to settling the matter becomes the subject of intense debate. What is however not in doubt is that the continued trial of Uhuru and Ruto foists a serious credibility crisis on the court from which it needs to quickly extricate itself in order to restore confidence to its work and earn the respect of Africans who consider it as undermining their dignity.
The ICC and Kenya. Who is on Trial Kenya or Africa?
Early October, President Uhuru Kenyatta freely attended his trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. That journey began between December 2007 and January 2008 when violence broke out following controversial election results announced in Kenya. When the dust had settled, Mr. Kenyatta and his Vice-President, William Ruto were slammed with various charges relating to the violence and found themselves facing judges at The Hague because the domestic judicial system of their country could not, or was unwilling to try the alleged perpetrators of the mass murders.
As for Mr Kenyatta, he is being tried on five counts concerning the violence, including for crimes against humanity, which resulted in the killing of over a thousand people and displacement of thousands. Without any doubt, the crisis that engulfed those controversial election results was ethnic, resulting in intra-ethnic violence between the Kikuyu, Kalenjin and Luo.
Mr. Kenyatta may or may not have committed the offences for which he is being tried. That is something the courts must resolve, whether in Kenya or at The Hague. What is not acceptable to many in the African intelligentsia is for an African Head of State to be subjected to humiliation and embarrassment by this particular court. The reasons for which the ICC was established are noble and its role is key to ending impunity especially during armed conflicts and other situations of violence. However, the continued trial of Mr. Kenyatta constantly sends the wrong signals to Africa and Africans, suggestive of them being the sole target of the court. This is particularly true because there are many other leaders, past and present, in Europe and the Americas (obvious enough without names being mentioned), who many believe are themselves liable to being tried for similar offences. They have neither been tried at home, nor has the ICC gone after them following the failure of domestic judicial mechanisms to bring them to account.
After Mr. Kenyata was sworn in, he made spirited attempts to ensure that the trials (of himself and Vice-President William Ruto) were either halted or suspended. African leaders rallied round him, in what then appeared a concerted effort (not seen since the days of the liberation struggles in Southern Africa, when, at the 1975 OAU meeting in Addis, the late General Murtala Muhammed of Nigeria mobilised African leaders to unite in recognising the MPLA of Angola, much to the chagrin of the United States), to challenge what was perceived as the targeting of African Heads of State by the ICC.
The Extraordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union thus convened on 12 October 2013 and decided to, in its own words, "set up a contact group of the Executive Council to undertake consultations with the members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in particular, its five permanent members, with a view to engaging with the UNSC on all concerns of the AU on its relationship with the ICC, including the deferral of the Kenyan and Sudanese cases, in order to obtain their feedback. This should be done before the expected beginning of the trial of the Kenyan President at the International Criminal Court….The Assembly also agreed that Kenya should send a letter to the UNSC requesting the deferral, in conformity with Article 16 of the Rome statute, of the proceedings against the President and Deputy President of Kenya. This letter would be endorsed by all African States parties."
It would appear as if nothing came out of that effort by the AU, thereby paving the way for Mr. Kenyatta having to physically attend trial. Though he had told Kenyans back home that he was going to The Netherlands in his ''personal capacity,'' it was obvious that one more African Head of State was being docked. (Unlike President Charles Taylor of Liberia who had relinquished office before facing trial, though a warrant for his arrest was issued while he was still in power, which significantly angered West African leaders). Taylor was subsequently tried, not by the ICC but by the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone.
It is instructive to observe that the ICC has complained of the failure of the Kenyan authorities to provide it with evidence with which to prosecute Mr. Kenyatta. This alleged lack of cooperation could have its origins in the way and manner Mario Ocampo, the ICC's first Prosecutor, went about his business. He was brash and outspoken. He often made statements suggestive of him being on a personal vendetta, rather than working for a respected institution charged with ending impunity. Ocampo, on his very first visit to Kenya and without any investigations being conducted at the time to finger the culprits, gleefully announced that he was going to make an example of Kenya. Such grandstanding may have unwittingly created the kind of hindrance the court is facing today and fuelled the resentment that Africans and their leaders have for it.
In the face of this, how the ICC proceeds to settling the matter becomes the subject of intense debate. What is however not in doubt is that the continued trial of Uhuru and Ruto foists a serious credibility crisis on the court from which it needs to quickly extricate itself in order to restore confidence to its work and earn the respect of Africans who consider it as undermining their dignity.
