The Senate just re-drew their steps on Aviation Minister Stella Oduah's probe concerning recent and frequent Air crash, what do you guys think about this development

NEXT ISSUE PLEASE...... i am tired of this ODUA issue.

They know better now. almost obvious they were shouting without caring to know whats realy on ground.

Talius: The Senate just re-drew their steps on Aviation Minister Stella Oduah's probe concerning recent and frequent Air crash, what do you guys think about this development

mama kate cool spot headline news.

Segeggs: mama kate cool spot headline news.

which one be mama kate again

dirifred: They know better now. almost obvious they were shouting without caring to know whats realy on ground.

Are u minding them, they forget that the people are watching

Pls, i'm at the pepper soup section of NL..

See u guys later

NIGERIA: FIERCE URGENCY IN DEFENSE OF A STAINED BUT PRICELESS REPUTATION©
(a.k.a., Nigeria May Be Neither Heaven Nor Hell, But It Is Home…So Defend It)©
--Attorney Patryk Utulu

Dr. Emman Shehu posted a story that caught my attention today. It was written by Tansa Musa and Leigh Thomas, and captioned “French Priest Kidnapped by Gunmen in Northern Cameroon.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-france-cameroon-kidnap-idUSBRE9AD0J120131114

It was a story of human tragedy, and oddly familiar. From India’s national epidemic of gang rapes to Mexico’s feared drug cartels that intimidate the National Police [officers are forced to wear masks!] to Colombia’s infamous kidnappers to Somali pirates to Iraq’s religious death squads to Nigeria’s advance fee fraudsters, stories of crimes and villainy have become all too familiar around the world.

Thus my first thought was, let’s pray for the poor victim, his suffering family, the terrorized people of Northern Cameroon, and the Security Forces that may attempt a rescue (where possible).

Then I read the opening lines and my heart sank with pain and annoyance. The opening statement in the article was: Gunmen have kidnapped a French priest working in the lawless region of northern Cameroon, authorities said on Thursday, nine months after Nigerian Islamist sect Boko Haram seized a French family in the same area.

For reasons too numerous to explain but mostly from trained experience, I felt immediately that the words “NINE MONTHS AFTER NIGERIAN ISLAMIST SECT BOKO HARAM SEIZED A FRENCH FAMILY IN THE SAME AREA” were not essential to the story but were added merely for sensationalism in order to raise the story’s profile and generate interest because of the word NIGERIA.

Because I’m trained to dispassionately look for facts I read the story all the way to the end. Twice! Just in case, I read it again via the link. As I suspected the EVENTS took place in Cameroun but the STORY was heavily slanted – using unverified statements of people who were NOT actual witnesses. It was shocking to see that Reuters (an international news agency) published a story on serious issues of terrorism and kidnapping using mostly unconfirmed statements of mostly unavailable (nonexistent?) witnesses. The article was full of “hearsay” statements. Hearsay is highly unreliable because actual witnesses are unavailable for cross examination (verification). Example of hearsay is when “Mr. A tells Mr. B, that Mr. C previously told Mr. A, that it was Mr. D that stole the bicycle.”

In this simple example, Mr. A is trying to prove the identity of the bicycle thief. The problem is that Mr. A did not witness what happened. He is merely telling Mr. B what someone else (Mr. C) supposedly said. The assumed witness, Mr. C, is not available to say what he did (or did not) see. Because Mr. C is not available to be cross-examined, Mr. A’s statement cannot be regarded as proof of what happened no matter how eloquently he tells it. Thus, Mr. A is simply repeating hearsay.

Courts use this rule. Credible journalists follow the same principle when reporting stories. Sadly, Mr. Musa/Mr. Thomas ignored it. They freely used statements by those who were neither direct victims nor witnesses. For example, they wrote that: "According to a village chief, some motorbikes later crossed the frontier to Nigeria and their riders started to celebrate. So it's likely they took the priest to Nigeria," Henri Djionyang, vicar-general of Maroua, told RFI. What this actually means is that Henri DJionyang (who wasn’t in Nguetchewa village) made a “hearsay” statement that “a village chief” (who was unavailable) previously told Djionyang, that “some motorbikes later crossed the frontier to Nigeria.” The journalists DIDN’T speak with the village chief. Notice also, that it was Djionyang who added the statement, “So it's likely they took the priest to Nigeria.”

Therefore, the statement supposedly “linking” the terrorists to Nigeria was made by Mr. Djionyang (who wasn’t in Nguetchewa village)! Next, the journalists selectively quoted Alan Marsaud who is described as a politician representing French “voters based overseas.” Mr. Marsaud wasn’t in Nguetchewa village or any part of Cameroon. Yet, they printed his comment that he had “…good reasons to believe that it may have been people from Nigeria and Boko Haram in particular.”

As long as he mentioned “Nigeria” and “Boko Haram” in one sentence that was all that mattered to the journalists who sold the story to Reuters by falsely creating a predominant Nigerian context regardless of actual provable facts. They quoted Mr. Marsaud despite that the French Foreign Ministry said “checks were under way to establish the identity of the kidnappers!” Just to clarify what is already abundantly clear: French Foreign Ministry has hundreds of diplomatic and security intelligence officers based in Cameroon and in the areas where the kidnapping took place. The officers of FFM consist of highly trained ex-military, ex-commando infiltration agents and professional diplomats. The FFM probably suspected that NIGERIANS WERE NOT INVOLVED hence they made the statement that they still investigating “to establish the identity of the kidnappers.”

Musa and Thomas could have told an interesting but honest story of TERRORISTS THAT INVADED NGUETCHEWA VILLAGE in Northern Cameroon. The life of the kidnapped priest would be no less worthy. But they choose to besmirch the reputation of Nigeria on the theory of guilt by association or reputation. The terrorists’ link to Nigeria was never established. It is junk journalism to use anecdotal evidence (mere circumstantial and unrelated facts) as if though they were actual proof.

That the terrorists spoke the "English Language” wasn’t enough to conclude they were Nigerians.

FIRST, the nation of Cameroon was a German colonial possession. Then it became a British Protectorate before ultimately becoming a French Colony. France inherited Cameroun as part of the territories seized from Germany (after the Germans were defeated in 1939-1945 World War II).

SECOND, Cameroon and Nigeria share common pre- and post-colonial histories. For example, Nigeria has Adamawa state created in 1991 BUT Cameroun has Adamawa Region. Of Cameroun’s ten regions, Adamawa is the third largest. Tribes overlap the two nations. The geographical and colonial histories of both nations are so interconnected, especially in the border regions, as to be sometimes indistinguishable. If they wanted to, Tansa Musa and Leigh Thomas could easily have found out that many Cameroonians in the border regions speak English and French fluently.

THIRD, both nations share economic/political histories. Oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula is still claimed by both nations though Nigeria sustained unchallenged sovereignty over the peninsula long before oil was discovered. Even Nigerians would be surprised to know that Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe's old political party, NCNC, originally meant “National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons” because in 1945 Cameroon was an administrative part of Nigeria. It was after southern Cameroon opted to reunify with ‘French’ Cameroon that Dr. Zik changed NCNC to “National Council of Nigerian Citizens.”

FOURTH, Cameroon’s official languages are ENGLISH and French!

FIFTH, Cameroonians speak English because although Cameroun is regionally classified as Central Africa it is so geographically “far” from traditional CENTRAL Africa that even highly educated West Africans assume that Cameroun is in West Africa. [Sometimes Cameroon is classified as being in the “Central West Africa,” which is officially nonexistent; and Cameroon is not a member of ECOWAS].

SIXTH, Organized Crime Syndicates (Kidnappers, Drug Cartels, Terrorists and Political Anarchists) often collaborate by actively swapping identities to circumvent detection and confuse Strategic Security Analysts. Organized crime syndicates are usually trans-national in structure and operations.

Why did the journalists and French politician Marsaud create a false Terrorists/Nigeria connection?

There’s the cruel old joke that one must never let the “facts” get in the way of a good story. If they had alleged that the terrorists spoke in a dialect exclusively indigenous to Nigeria it would have been a weak, but at least, foundational connection. Notice that Mr. Marsaud used the word “may” in his statement. That’s called a “hedge” word. Without proof he effectively declared that the terrorists were Nigerians but he hedged his bet just in case. If Marsaud suspected that his blame-Nigeria statement may ultimately prove to be false then why did he make the statement anyway?

(1) Because he is a politician. One of his “voters based overseas” has been kidnapped and he must pretend to be doing something about it, (2) the theory of ‘give a dog a bad name and hang it’ now applies to Nigeria. He and the journalists knew that if they mentioned ‘Nigeria’ and ‘Boko Haram’ in the same sentence every negativity thereafter will seem reasonable; and most importantly, (3) they suspect that Nigerians don’t care anymore. Nigerians are great people who used to be fiercely protective of the very name, Nigeria. But it seems that this generation of Nigerians has become so embittered by domestic politics they conflate their nation with some hated rulers. Worse, it seems that Nigerians have been so intimidated by all the negativity about the Fatherland they no longer even bother to check which allegations about Nigeria is credible, reasonable or just plainly idiotic.

Nigerians, it seems, have given up on defending Nigeria!

Let me be absolutely clear: It is undisputable that millions of Nigerians have millions of reasons to be disappointed with both GOVERNANCE and various GOVERNMENTS of Nigeria. But there is an ocean of difference between Nigeria and (any) “Government” of Nigeria!!

When we Americans end all official speeches by saying “God Bless America” it does not signify agreement with every (or even any) actions of the U.S. Government. Rather, it is a patriotic affirmation of our faith in the perpetual wellbeing of America! Nigerians have the inalienable right to love or hate or be indifferent to any Nigerian Government. But no Nigerian should ever give up on Nigeria. You do NOT burn down your FAMILY HOME if your genuine objective is to have a good faith argument with your family members over the foundation, color, structural integrity and long-term stability of that home. Nigerians have no obligation to condone or defend unlawful activities of fellow Nigerians. That’s not my plea. What I am asking Nigerians is to NOT preemptively shame themselves into accepting attributions of negativity to Nigeria without asking – or testing – for proof.

To outsiders Nigeria may be an imaginary hell or a real economic heaven. To Nigerians it must always be home, and home is always an interest worthy of attention and, where necessary, defense!

Patryk Utulu is a U.S.-based attorney and Strategic Communications Consultant
[All Rights Reserved. All materials subject to Copyright Privileges and Immunities]

Patryk_Utulu: NIGERIA: FIERCE URGENCY IN DEFENSE OF A STAINED BUT PRICELESS REPUTATION©
(a.k.a., Nigeria May Be Neither Heaven Nor Hell, But It Is Home…So Defend It)©
--Attorney Patryk Utulu

Dr. Emman Shehu posted a story that caught my attention today. It was written by Tansa Musa and Leigh Thomas, and captioned “French Priest Kidnapped by Gunmen in Northern Cameroon.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-france-cameroon-kidnap-idUSBRE9AD0J120131114

It was a story of human tragedy, and oddly familiar. From India’s national epidemic of gang rapes to Mexico’s feared drug cartels that intimidate the National Police [officers are forced to wear masks!] to Colombia’s infamous kidnappers to Somali pirates to Iraq’s religious death squads to Nigeria’s advance fee fraudsters, stories of crimes and villainy have become all too familiar around the world.

Thus my first thought was, let’s pray for the poor victim, his suffering family, the terrorized people of Northern Cameroon, and the Security Forces that may attempt a rescue (where possible).

Then I read the opening lines and my heart sank with pain and annoyance. The opening statement in the article was: Gunmen have kidnapped a French priest working in the lawless region of northern Cameroon, authorities said on Thursday, nine months after Nigerian Islamist sect Boko Haram seized a French family in the same area.

For reasons too numerous to explain but mostly from trained experience, I felt immediately that the words “NINE MONTHS AFTER NIGERIAN ISLAMIST SECT BOKO HARAM SEIZED A FRENCH FAMILY IN THE SAME AREA” were not essential to the story but were added merely for sensationalism in order to raise the story’s profile and generate interest because of the word NIGERIA.

Because I’m trained to dispassionately look for facts I read the story all the way to the end. Twice! Just in case, I read it again via the link. As I suspected the EVENTS took place in Cameroun but the STORY was heavily slanted – using unverified statements of people who were NOT actual witnesses. It was shocking to see that Reuters (an international news agency) published a story on serious issues of terrorism and kidnapping using mostly unconfirmed statements of mostly unavailable (nonexistent?) witnesses. The article was full of “hearsay” statements. Hearsay is highly unreliable because actual witnesses are unavailable for cross examination (verification). Example of hearsay is when “Mr. A tells Mr. B, that Mr. C previously told Mr. A, that it was Mr. D that stole the bicycle.”

In this simple example, Mr. A is trying to prove the identity of the bicycle thief. The problem is that Mr. A did not witness what happened. He is merely telling Mr. B what someone else (Mr. C) supposedly said. The assumed witness, Mr. C, is not available to say what he did (or did not) see. Because Mr. C is not available to be cross-examined, Mr. A’s statement cannot be regarded as proof of what happened no matter how eloquently he tells it. Thus, Mr. A is simply repeating hearsay.

Courts use this rule. Credible journalists follow the same principle when reporting stories. Sadly, Mr. Musa/Mr. Thomas ignored it. They freely used statements by those who were neither direct victims nor witnesses. For example, they wrote that: "According to a village chief, some motorbikes later crossed the frontier to Nigeria and their riders started to celebrate. So it's likely they took the priest to Nigeria," Henri Djionyang, vicar-general of Maroua, told RFI. What this actually means is that Henri DJionyang (who wasn’t in Nguetchewa village) made a “hearsay” statement that “a village chief” (who was unavailable) previously told Djionyang, that “some motorbikes later crossed the frontier to Nigeria.” The journalists DIDN’T speak with the village chief. Notice also, that it was Djionyang who added the statement, “So it's likely they took the priest to Nigeria.”

Therefore, the statement supposedly “linking” the terrorists to Nigeria was made by Mr. Djionyang (who wasn’t in Nguetchewa village)! Next, the journalists selectively quoted Alan Marsaud who is described as a politician representing French “voters based overseas.” Mr. Marsaud wasn’t in Nguetchewa village or any part of Cameroon. Yet, they printed his comment that he had “…good reasons to believe that it may have been people from Nigeria and Boko Haram in particular.”

As long as he mentioned “Nigeria” and “Boko Haram” in one sentence that was all that mattered to the journalists who sold the story to Reuters by falsely creating a predominant Nigerian context regardless of actual provable facts. They quoted Mr. Marsaud despite that the French Foreign Ministry said “checks were under way to establish the identity of the kidnappers!” Just to clarify what is already abundantly clear: French Foreign Ministry has hundreds of diplomatic and security intelligence officers based in Cameroon and in the areas where the kidnapping took place. The officers of FFM consist of highly trained ex-military, ex-commando infiltration agents and professional diplomats. The FFM probably suspected that NIGERIANS WERE NOT INVOLVED hence they made the statement that they still investigating “to establish the identity of the kidnappers.”

Musa and Thomas could have told an interesting but honest story of TERRORISTS THAT INVADED NGUETCHEWA VILLAGE in Northern Cameroon. The life of the kidnapped priest would be no less worthy. But they choose to besmirch the reputation of Nigeria on the theory of guilt by association or reputation. The terrorists’ link to Nigeria was never established. It is junk journalism to use anecdotal evidence (mere circumstantial and unrelated facts) as if though they were actual proof.

That the terrorists spoke the "English Language” wasn’t enough to conclude they were Nigerians.

FIRST, the nation of Cameroon was a German colonial possession. Then it became a British Protectorate before ultimately becoming a French Colony. France inherited Cameroun as part of the territories seized from Germany (after the Germans were defeated in 1939-1945 World War II).

SECOND, Cameroon and Nigeria share common pre- and post-colonial histories. For example, Nigeria has Adamawa state created in 1991 BUT Cameroun has Adamawa Region. Of Cameroun’s ten regions, Adamawa is the third largest. Tribes overlap the two nations. The geographical and colonial histories of both nations are so interconnected, especially in the border regions, as to be sometimes indistinguishable. If they wanted to, Tansa Musa and Leigh Thomas could easily have found out that many Cameroonians in the border regions speak English and French fluently.

THIRD, both nations share economic/political histories. Oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula is still claimed by both nations though Nigeria sustained unchallenged sovereignty over the peninsula long before oil was discovered. Even Nigerians would be surprised to know that Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe's old political party, NCNC, originally meant “National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons” because in 1945 Cameroon was an administrative part of Nigeria. It was after southern Cameroon opted to reunify with ‘French’ Cameroon that Dr. Zik changed NCNC to “National Council of Nigerian Citizens.”

FOURTH, Cameroon’s official languages are ENGLISH and French!

FIFTH, Cameroonians speak English because although Cameroun is regionally classified as Central Africa it is so geographically “far” from traditional CENTRAL Africa that even highly educated West Africans assume that Cameroun is in West Africa. [Sometimes Cameroon is classified as being in the “Central West Africa,” which is officially nonexistent; and Cameroon is not a member of ECOWAS].

SIXTH, Organized Crime Syndicates (Kidnappers, Drug Cartels, Terrorists and Political Anarchists) often collaborate by actively swapping identities to circumvent detection and confuse Strategic Security Analysts. Organized crime syndicates are usually trans-national in structure and operations.

Why did the journalists and French politician Marsaud create a false Terrorists/Nigeria connection?

There’s the cruel old joke that one must never let the “facts” get in the way of a good story. If they had alleged that the terrorists spoke in a dialect exclusively indigenous to Nigeria it would have been a weak, but at least, foundational connection. Notice that Mr. Marsaud used the word “may” in his statement. That’s called a “hedge” word. Without proof he effectively declared that the terrorists were Nigerians but he hedged his bet just in case. If Marsaud suspected that his blame-Nigeria statement may ultimately prove to be false then why did he make the statement anyway?

(1) Because he is a politician. One of his “voters based overseas” has been kidnapped and he must pretend to be doing something about it, (2) the theory of ‘give a dog a bad name and hang it’ now applies to Nigeria. He and the journalists knew that if they mentioned ‘Nigeria’ and ‘Boko Haram’ in the same sentence every negativity thereafter will seem reasonable; and most importantly, (3) they suspect that Nigerians don’t care anymore. Nigerians are great people who used to be fiercely protective of the very name, Nigeria. But it seems that this generation of Nigerians has become so embittered by domestic politics they conflate their nation with some hated rulers. Worse, it seems that Nigerians have been so intimidated by all the negativity about the Fatherland they no longer even bother to check which allegations about Nigeria is credible, reasonable or just plainly idiotic.

Nigerians, it seems, have given up on defending Nigeria!

Let me be absolutely clear: It is undisputable that millions of Nigerians have millions of reasons to be disappointed with both GOVERNANCE and various GOVERNMENTS of Nigeria. But there is an ocean of difference between Nigeria and (any) “Government” of Nigeria!!

When we Americans end all official speeches by saying “God Bless America” it does not signify agreement with every (or even any) actions of the U.S. Government. Rather, it is a patriotic affirmation of our faith in the perpetual wellbeing of America! Nigerians have the inalienable right to love or hate or be indifferent to any Nigerian Government. But no Nigerian should ever give up on Nigeria. You do NOT burn down your FAMILY HOME if your genuine objective is to have a good faith argument with your family members over the foundation, color, structural integrity and long-term stability of that home. Nigerians have no obligation to condone or defend unlawful activities of fellow Nigerians. That’s not my plea. What I am asking Nigerians is to NOT preemptively shame themselves into accepting attributions of negativity to Nigeria without asking – or testing – for proof.

To outsiders Nigeria may be an imaginary hell or a real economic heaven. To Nigerians it must always be home, and home is always an interest worthy of attention and, where necessary, defense!

Patryk Utulu is a U.S.-based attorney and Strategic Communications Consultant
[All Rights Reserved. All materials subject to Copyright Privileges and Immunities]

whats this?

I find it very insulting to use the word "probe" when talking about women.
@ op, has your mom been probed lately?

Alfa Seltzer: I find it very insulting to use the word "probe" when talking about women.
@ op, has your mom been probed lately?

How then do u suggest i modify it