₦airaland Forum

Hmm,

THE BLOOD OF THIS PEOPLE IS BETWITCHING NIGERIA!

I'm not surprise jor.

THERE MUST SURELY BE A JUDAS!

When i got to that place,
I forget I'm a Nigerian!

Hmm,

A THIEF CALLING A THIEF A THIEF!

A cross-section of members of the academic community, joined by members of civil society organisations, booed one the officiating clergymen, during the lying-in-state ceremony held for late former President of the Academic staff Union of Universities, Prof. Festus Iyayi, which held on Friday, at the Akin Deko main auditorium of the University of Benin.

Rev. Fr. Andrew Obiyan, one of the seven officiating priests at the ceremony, which was attended by a record that continued to swell as the programme wore on, drew the ire of the virtually all in attendance, when he veered of his main business, to tell ASUU about having a rethink about their over five month-old strike.

The priest said many of the lecturers were already wary of the “fight.”

Reading from portions of the bible, Obiyan praised Iyayi’s tenacity of purpose, courage and sense of dedication to duty, all of which he said contributed to the “hero” he became, both in life and in death and went on to call on ASUU members to consider their position in order that they not continue to be at the receiving end.

He said, “The death of the faithful is precious in the eyes of God, so I want to admonish the family not to think of the pain of death, but think about the bright promise of immortality.”

Threading on what was to irk the crowd, he said, “Finally, I want to thank God because (ASUU) you have become the voice of the voiceless today. May that voice never die. But I want to remind you that there is no success without sacrifice; for Jesus to gain the whole world he had to give up his life. We give up to go up.

“My humble appeal to you as a minister of God is to kindly request you in the name of God to please surrender the tool of power. Do not give the federal government the privilege of satisfaction of fighting and defeating you. I encourage you to surrender first in this fight. You have made your point eloquently and clear enough.

“Sincere and intelligent Nigerians will consider will consider what you have done and will forever appreciate you for it. Your surrender at this time as a tool of power is the sign of strength, it’s not a sign of weakness. Our relationship with God our father shows that faith and trust navigate.

“We may not trust the federal government owing to their antecedents, but I humbly request you to please trust them now.”

Speaking with journalists at the end of the ceremony, ASUU President, Dr Nasri Fagge said reaction from the crowd was enough attestation to the mood of majority of union members on the matter.

He said, “We were told here at this gathering there were some fundamental issues that bother the mind of our late comrade, as to the future of the struggle. For me, it is left for us to rally round those ideals and advance his legacies. You saw the reaction of the crowd to what was said about suspending the struggle, and that to me said it all.”

Recalling some of his past encounters with the late professor of business administration, Governor Adams Oshiomhole said, “Iyayi spoke truth to power, just as much as he spoke truth with his colleagues.”

Oshiomhole offered to support in building of ASUU secretariat at UNIBEN, as a way of immortalising Iyayi.


Source: www.punchng.com/news/iyayi-ASUU-members-boo-reverend-father/

How can a traitor be the Mandela of Nigeria.

This is a man that doesn't want the unity of Nigeria.

I poo on this thread!

@OP, what brand of cigar do you smoke?

Dr2great: is wole soyinka greater than gej? Is he richer or more popular than gej? FOOLISH chiefnalowo. sarcastic shout out to chiefinalowo.,the son of a brick layer

Comparing SOYINKA with GEJ is a big taboo.

In Oshomole voice: GO and DIE!

President Goodluck Jonathan on Friday arrived Paris,
France after his two-day private visit to Germany.
Jonathan, who arrived in company with his wife,
Patience, is in the country to participate in the Summit
on Peace and Security in Africa.
Although the nature of his private visit to Germany was
not disclosed, there were indications during the week
that he and his wife would undergo medical checks. An
online report claimed that they both checked into a
German hospital.
The President and his wife, who were both decked in
winter jackets, were received at the airport by the
Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, Dr. Muhammed
Nurudeen.
They were accompanied by some presidential aides and
security chiefs.
They did not show any sign of ill-health.
Spokesman of the President’s wife, Mrs. Ayotunde
Adesugba, later issued a statement indicating that Mrs.
Jonathan attended First Ladies’ meeting at the Elysee
Summit for Peace and Security in Africa with the theme
“Acts Of Sexual Violence Against Women In Africa”
hosted by the First Lady of France, Ms. Valerie
Trierweiler.
The statement quoted Mrs. Jonathan, in her remarks at
the event, as describing the late President of South
Africa, Dr. Nelson Mandela, as an icon of peace for
humanity.
She said Mandela’s life as an epitome of peace and
compassion reflects the principles of the African First
Ladies Peace Mission which she chairs.
The statement read, “Dame Jonathan stated that the
late South African President, who was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 jointly with Frederik Willem
de Klerk, was a great bridge for promoting peace
because of his forgiving spirit and also because he lived
his life in a way that respected and enhanced the
freedom of others.
“She stated that as a proponent of peace, justice and
social inclusion, Dr. Mandela was a towering iconic
figure in life and an even greater figure in death.
“The AFLPM President noted that the late Dr. Mandela
is indeed a hero of all time who was held in the highest
esteem by not only people on the African continent, but
the entire world.
“She said that Dr. Mandela would be greatly missed but
observed that his impact would be felt forever. She
added that the activities of the AFLPM would continue to
draw inspiration from the remarkable life of Dr.
Mandela.”
The African First Ladies Peace Mission, which is open to
all first ladies of Africa, has the mandate of conflict
prevention and management, as well as the making,
keeping and building of peace through various means
including civil, humanitarian and diplomatic action.



Source: www.punchng.com/news/jonathan-arrives-paris-after-private-visit-to-germany/

A former Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, on Friday joined other world leaders to pay tributes to the late ex-South African president, Nelson Mandela.

Obasanjo in a statement he read to newsmen at his Hilltop Mansion in Abeokuta on Friday said Mandela lived an exemplary life.

Obasanjo relived various encounters he had with Mandela saying that his style of leadership helped South Africa to overcome the pains of apartheid. He described Mandela’s death as a loss to his family “who would miss a caring patriarch, the people of South Africa, who would miss a guide, Africa who would miss a role model and the world who would miss a leader.

The statement reads in part: “One of my earliest contacts with Nelson Mandela was in February 1986 when I visited him at Polls-moor Prison in my capacity as Co-Chairman of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group on Southern Africa. He dressed defiantly in ANC belt and reminded me of his visit to Nigeria in 1962.

Though appalled by Apartheid, I left his prison cell deeply convinced that the history of South Africa and, indeed, Africa would be worse off and would not be complete if the purpose for which he was in jail – elimination of apartheid – did not end for him to be in a position to lead his country from racial and tribal division into a rainbow united society.

“As we discussed during the visit, Mandela mentioned in passing that ‘if he got out of prison’…I interrupted him that ‘it was not if, but when…’ From that moment on, I resolved to do everything humanly possible, personally and working with my group to facilitate the release of Nelson Mandela from jail because South Africa and the world needed Mandela to be alive and released to be able to give South Africa the smooth transition it would need from an apartheid system to popular participation by all South Africans in their own governance.

“The eventual release of Nelson Mandela from prison was inevitable. On a visit to South Africa, I called on Mandela after he was released from prison on Sunday, 11 February 1990. He pulled me out of the hotel and made me to stay with him and his family in their house in Soweto.

“During the first non-racial democratic elections in 1994, I was on election observation assignment in South Africa and was there for his campaign and when he, Nelson Mandela, cast his own vote in a post-apartheid South Africa.

“He was devoid of bitterness or anger against anybody except he hated apartheid system. He won the election and more importantly led South Africa to the extent that the country was able to cast aside its apartheid legacy and take its place in comity of nations.

“Certain that his task was completed, Nelson Mandela modestly refused to seek re-election after his first term in office as his presidency elapsed. I still recall his pragmatic words when he said to me ‘Olu, show me a place in the world where a man of 80 years is running the affairs of his country.

‘This, to me, reflects an unequalled sense of modesty for a man who spent 27 of the prime years of his life in prison for a just cause and still kept a calm and peaceful disposition to those who took away his freedom for all those years of his life.

“The last time I saw him was about two years ago. I went to visit him at his Johannesburg residence. His health had deteriorated somewhat but he was still very alert but did not talk much during our discussions; Graca did more of the talking.

“As the whole world pays tribute to Madiba, I join them in celebrating the life of a man who raised the beacon of human struggle to lofty heights of nobility and whose life is an example of what we should all aspire for. His struggle and our struggles remain the same and as we all seek for answers to deal with today’s challenges.

“In all situations, he lived nobly and died in nobility. Let us bear in mind that we all have the opportunity to act nobly in whatever position we find ourselves. When we teach our children the lessons for tomorrow, let us be reminded of the lessons Mandela gave the world in forgiveness and forbearance. May his soul rest in perfect peace.”

Source: www.punchng.com/news/my-life-with-mandela-obasanjo/

The remains of the Second Republic Governor of Plateau State and pioneer National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Chief Solomon Lar, will arrive the Abuja International Airport on Friday (today).

Chairman of the national burial committee, Prof. Jerry Gana, announced this at a press briefing to unveil the burial rites in Abuja on Thursday.

Gana was accompanied to the briefing by other members of the burial committee, including Minister of Information, Mr. Labaran Maku; former Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ibrahim Mantu; and former Deputy Governor of Plateau State, Mrs. Pauline Tallen.

Gana also announced that the remains of Lar would be interred on Friday, December 13, after a weeklong of activities.

He said, “The body will be received at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja. The airport reception will be at 6am. On Saturday at 3pm will be the main commendation service where friends, associates and the general public will be given the opportunity pay their last respect at the National Christian Centre.

“We invite the general public to be at that service to pay their last respect to the departed Chief Solomon Lar. On Tuesday at 11am, the House of Representatives will be holding a special session for the late Lar. Chief Solomon was a member of parliament in the First Republic. He was initially a Minister of State and later a Member of Parliament.”

Other programmes announced included a memorial lecture to be held on Monday at the Ladi Kwali Hall of Abuja Sheralton Hotel and Towers. Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Bishop Matthew Kukah; and Prof. Jonah Eliagwu are billed to deliver the lecture.

On Tuesday, the body will depart Abuja for Lafia, the capital of Nasarawa State, for lying in state. Nasarawa State was part of the old Plateau State when Lar was governor of the state.

The body will move to Langtang in Plateau for lying in state.

The late Lar belonged to the Tarok-speaking people of Plateau State. Their ancestral home is Langtang. Langtang is also the headquarters of the Langtang Local Government Area of Plateau State.

Source: www.punchng.com/news/lars-body-arrives-abuja-today/

The Lagos State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party has said Governor Babatunde Fashola should learn from President Goodluck Jonathan, especially in the area of harmonious politics.

The party said this against the backdrop of the Federal Government’s approval of a $200m loan sought by the Lagos State Government.

The party, in a statement by its publicity secretary, Taofik Gani, accused Fashola of playing bad politics by frustrating developmental programmes of PDP councillors in their wards.

The statement read in part “In the opinion of the party, the Federal Government’s gestures to an opposition state government has further confirmed that the Jonathan-led PDP Government is indeed a government of development with human face and with clear direction, contrary to the impression being sponsored by the All Progressives Congress.

“Unlike Fashola and his council chairmen who are deliberately witch hunting our few councillors by denying their wards developmental projects, the PDP Federal Government has continually supported the Lagos State Government to develop. This is how progressive government is run.

“Governance must be distinguished from partisan politics and we salute President Jonathan for practising this. We hope Fashola would learn such sincere governance from him.”

The party also applauded the decision of the Federal Government to approve $1.3bn for the commencement of construction of a deep seaport at Lekki.

It added that many of the structures in the state were laid by the Federal Government.

“The party notes that the Federal Government has monumental legacies within the state which are pillars upon which the Lagos State Government has been flaunting performance.

“Such legacies include the only two airports in the state; the seaports; railways, all the bridges connecting the mainland to the island; police and military installations to mention a few,” the statement added.

Source: www.punchng.com/news/fashola-should-learn-from-jonathans-good-governance-pdp/

The quality of education is also different. According to
the Bantu Educational Journal, only 5,660 African
children in the whole of South Africa passed their Junior
Certificate in 1962, and in that year only 362 passed
matric. This is presumably consistent with the policy of
Bantu education about which the present Prime
Minister said, during the debate on the Bantu Education
Bill in 1953:
"When I have control of Native education I will
reform it so that Natives will be taught from
childhood to realize that equality with Europeans is
not for them . . . People who believe in equality are
not desirable teachers for Natives. When my
Department controls Native education it will know
for what class of higher education a Native is fitted,
and whether he will have a chance in life to use his
knowledge."
The other main obstacle to the economic advancement
of the African is the industrial colour-bar under which
all the better jobs of industry are reserved for Whites
only. Moreover, Africans who do obtain employment in
the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations which are
open to them are not allowed to form trade unions
which have recognition under the Industrial Conciliation
Act. This means that strikes of African workers are
illegal, and that they are denied the right of collective
bargaining which is permitted to the better-paid White
workers. The discrimination in the policy of successive
South African Governments towards African workers is
demonstrated by the so-called 'civilized labour policy'
under which sheltered, unskilled Government jobs are
found for those white workers who cannot make the
grade in industry, at wages which far exceed the
earnings of the average African employee in industry.
The Government often answers its critics by saying that
Africans in South Africa are economically better off than
the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not
know whether this statement is true and doubt whether
any comparison can be made without having regard to
the cost-of-living index in such countries. But even if it is
true, as far as the African people are concerned it is
irrelevant. Our complaint is not that we are poor by
comparison with people in other countries, but that we
are poor by comparison with the white people in our
own country, and that we are prevented by legislation
from altering this imbalance.
The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the
direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White
supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation
designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this
notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are invariably
performed by Africans. When anything has to be carried
or cleaned the white man will look around for an
African to do it for him, whether the African is employed
by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites
tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do
not look upon them as people with families of their
own; they do not realize that they have emotions - that
they fall in love like white people do; that they want to
be with their wives and children like white people want
to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money
to support their families properly, to feed and clothe
them and send them to school. And what 'house-boy' or
'garden-boy' or labourer can ever hope to do this?
Pass laws, which to the Africans are among the most
hated bits of legislation in South Africa, render any
African liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt
whether there is a single African male in South Africa
who has not at some stage had a brush with the police
over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are
thrown into jail each year under pass laws. Even worse
than this is the fact that pass laws keep husband and
wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.
Poverty and the breakdown of family life have
secondary effects. Children wander about the streets of
the townships because they have no schools to go to, or
no money to enable them to go to school, or no parents
at home to see that they go to school, because both
parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family
alive. This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to
an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to growing violence
which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in
the townships is dangerous. There is not a day that goes
by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And
violence is carried out of the townships in the white
living areas. People are afraid to walk alone in the
streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are
increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can
now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences
cannot cure the festering sore.
Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to
perform work which they are capable of doing, and not
work which the Government declares them to be
capable o Africans want to be allowed to live where they
obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area
because they were not born there. Africans want to be
allowed to own land in places where they work, and not
to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can
never call their own. Africans want to be part of the
general population, and not confined to living in their
own ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and
children to live with them where they work, and not be
forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels.
African women want to be with their menfolk and not
be left permanently widowed in the Reserves. Africans
want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and
not to be confined to their rooms like little children.
Africans want to be allowed
to travel in their own country and to seek work where
they want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells
them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of
South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.
Above all, we want equal political rights, because
without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know
this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country,
because the majority of voters will be Africans. This
makes the white man fear democracy.
But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of
the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony
and freedom for all. It is not true that the
enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination.
Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial
and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one
colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a
century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it
will not change that policy.
This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a
truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people,
inspired by their own suffering and their own
experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this
struggle of the African people. I have fought against
white domination, and I have fought against black
domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic
and free society in which all persons live together in
harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal
which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be,
it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
On 11 June 1964, at the conclusion of the trial, Mandela
and seven others - Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki,
Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi, Andrew Mlangeni,
Ahmed Kathrada and Denis Goldberg - were convicted.
Mandela was found guilty on four charges of sabotage
and, like the others, was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Source: www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.htm

I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held
the view that the policy of admitting communists to the
ANC, and the close co-operation which existed at times
on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist
Party, would lead to a watering down of the concept of
African Nationalism. At that stage I was a member of
the African National Congress Youth League, and was
one of a group which moved for the expulsion of
communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily
defeated. Amongst those who voted against the
proposal were some of the most conservative sections
of African political opinion. They defended the policy on
the ground that from its inception the ANC was formed
and built up, not as a political party with one school of
political thought, but as a Parliament of the African
people, accommodating people of various political
convictions, all united by the common goal of national
liberation. I was eventually won over to this point of
view and I have upheld it ever since.
It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an
ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand
why experienced African politicians so readily accept
communists as their friends. But to us the reason is
obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting
against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this
stage. What is more, for many decades communists
were the only political group in South Africa who were
prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their
equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us,
live with us, and work with us. They were the only
political group which was prepared to work with the
Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake
in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who,
today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They
are supported in this belief by a legislature which
brands all exponents of democratic government and
African freedom as communists and bans many of them
(who are not communists) under the Suppression of
Communism Act. Although I have never been a member
of the Communist Party, I myself have been named
under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in
the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and
imprisoned under that Act.
It is not only in internal politics that we count
communists as amongst those who support our cause.
In the international field, communist countries have
always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other
Councils of the world the communist bloc has
supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism
and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight
than some of the Western powers. Although there is a
universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist
bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most
of the white world. In these circumstances, it would take
a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to
proclaim that the Communists are our enemies.
I turn now to my own position. I have denied that I am a
communist, and I think that in the circumstances I am
obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are.
I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an
African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six
years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the
acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am related
both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland,
Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief
Minister of the Transkei.
Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society,
an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading
and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and
organization of early African societies in this country.
The land, then the main means of production, belonged
to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was
no exploitation.
It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been
influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of
many of the leaders of the new independent States.
Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru,
Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all
accept the need for some form of socialism to enable
our people to catch up with the advanced countries of
this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme
poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.
Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to
debate whether the Communist Party has any specific
role to play at this particular stage of our political
struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the
removal of race discrimination and the attainment of
democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter.
In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its
assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which
people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.
From my reading of Marxist literature and from
conversations with Marxists, I have gained the
impression that communists regard the parliamentary
system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary.
But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of
Rights are documents which are held in veneration by
democrats throughout the world.
I have great respect for British political institutions, and
for the country's system of justice. I regard the British
Parliament as the most democratic institution in the
world, and the independence and impartiality of its
judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country's doctrine of
separation of powers, as well as the independence of its
judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and
East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a
political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and
objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of
society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free
to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . .
There are certain Exhibits which suggest that we
received financial support from abroad, and I wish to
deal with this question.
Our political struggle has always been financed from
internal sources - from funds raised by our own people
and by our own supporters. Whenever we had a special
campaign or an important political case - for example,
the Treason Trial - we received financial assistance from
sympathetic individuals and organizations in the
Western countries. We had never felt it necessary to go
beyond these sources.
But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new
phase of struggle introduced, we realized that these
events would make a heavy call on our slender
resources, and that the scale of our activities would be
hampered by the lack of funds. One of my instructions,
as I went abroad in January 1962, was to raise funds
from the African states.
I must add that, whilst abroad, I had discussions with
leaders of political movements in Africa and discovered
that almost every single one of them, in areas which
had still not attained independence, had received all
forms of assistance from the socialist countries, as well
as from the West, including that of financial support. I
also discovered that some well-known African states, all
of them non-communists, and even anti-communists,
had received similar assistance.
On my return to the Republic, I made a strong
recommendation to the ANC that we should not confine
ourselves to Africa and the Western countries, but that
we should also send a mission to the socialist countries
to raise the funds which we so urgently needed.
I have been told that after I was convicted such a
mission was sent, but I am not prepared to name any
countries to which it went, nor am I at liberty to disclose
the names of the organizations and countries which
gave us support or promised to do so.
As I understand the State case, and in particular the
evidence of 'Mr. X', the suggestion is that Umkhonto was
the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought by
playing upon imaginary grievances to enrol the African
people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for
African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a
communist state. Nothing could be further from the
truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto
was formed by Africans to further their struggle for
freedom in their own land. Communists and others
supported the movement, and we only wish that more
sections of the community would join us.
Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships
or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-
called hardships'. Basically, we fight against two
features which are the hallmarks of African life in South
Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we
seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and
lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists
or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things.
South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could
be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a
land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites
enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in
the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery.
Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly
overcrowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken
Reserves, where soil erosion and the overworking of the
soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the
land. Thirty per cent are labourers, labour tenants, and
squatters on white farms and work and live under
conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle
Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they
have developed economic and social habits which bring
them closer in many respects to white standards. Yet
most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by
low incomes and high cost of living.
The highest-paid and the most prosperous section of
urban African life is in Johannesburg. Yet their actual
position is desperate. The latest figures were given on
25 March 1964 by Mr. Carr, Manager of the
Johannesburg Non-European Affairs Department. The
poverty datum line for the average African family in
Johannesburg (according to Mr. Carr's department) is
R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly
wage is R32.24 and that 46 per cent of all African
families in Johannesburg do not earn enough to keep
them going.
Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and
disease. The incidence of malnutrition and deficiency
diseases is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis,
pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, and scurvy bring
death and destruction of health. The incidence of infant
mortality is one of the highest in the world. According to
the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis
kills forty people a day (almost all Africans), and in 1961
there were 58,491 new cases reported. These diseases
not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they
result in retarded mental conditions and lack of
initiative, and reduce powers of concentration. The
secondary results of such conditions affect the whole
community and the standard of work performed by
African labourers.
The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they
are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws
which are made by the whites are designed to preserve
this situation. There are two ways to break out of
poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second
is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and
thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned,
both these avenues of advancement are deliberately
curtailed by legislation.
The present Government has always sought to hamper
Africans in their search for education. One of their early
acts, after coming into power, was to stop subsidies for
African school feeding. Many African children who
attended schools depended on this supplement to their
diet. This was a cruel act.
There is compulsory education for all white children at
virtually no cost to their parents, be they rich or poor.
Similar facilities are not provided for the African
children, though there are some who receive such
assistance. African children, however, generally have to
pay more for their schooling than whites. According to
figures quoted by the South African Institute of Race
Relations in its 1963 journal, approximately 40 per cent
of African children in the age group between seven to
fourteen do not attend school. For those who do attend
school, the standards are vastly different from those
afforded to white children. In 1960-61 the per capita
Government spending on African students at State-
aided schools was estimated at R12.46. In the same
years, the per capita spending on white children in the
Cape Province (which are the only figures available to
me) was R144.57. Although there are no figures
available to me, it can be stated, without doubt, that the
white children on whom R144.57 per head was being
spent all came from wealthier homes than African
children on whom R12.46 per head was being spent.

I came there in the following manner:
1. As already indicated, early in April 1961 I went
underground to organize the May general strike. My
work entailed travelling throughout the country, living
now in African townships, then in country villages and
again in cities. During the second half of the year I
started visiting the Parktown home of Arthur
Goldreich, where I used to meet my family privately.
Although I had no direct political association with him,
I had known Arthur Goldreich socially since 1958.
2. In October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that he was
moving out of town and offered me a hiding place
there. A few days thereafter, he arranged for Michael
Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found
Rivonia an ideal place for the man who lived the life of
an outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to
live indoors during the daytime and could only
venture out under cover of darkness. But at Liliesleaf
[farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work far
more efficiently.
3. For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I
assumed the fictitious name of David. In December,
Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I stayed
there until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As
already indicated, I returned in July 1962 and was
arrested in Natal on 5 August.
4. Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the
headquarters of neither the African National Congress
nor Umkhonto. With the exception of myself, none of
the officials or members of these bodies lived there,
no meetings of the governing bodies were ever held
there, and no activities connected with them were
either organized or directed from there. On numerous
occasions during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both
the Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the
NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not
on the farm.
5. Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited
Arthur Goldreich in the main house and he also paid
me visits in my room. We had numerous political
discussions covering a variety of subjects. We
discussed ideological and practical questions, the
Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its activities
generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the
Palmach, the military wing of the Haganah. Haganah
was the political authority of the Jewish National
Movement in Palestine.
6. Because of what I had got to know of Goldreich, I
recommended on my return to South Africa that he
should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my
personal knowledge whether this was done.
Another of the allegations made by the State is that the
aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party
are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own
political position, because I must assume that the State
may try to argue from certain Exhibits that I tried to
introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation as to
the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was
disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again
reared its head. But since the allegation has been made
again, I shall deal with it as well as with the relationship
between the ANC and the Communist Party and
Umkhonto and that party.
The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has
been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the
concept of African Nationalism expressed in the cry,
'Drive the White man into the sea'. The African
Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of
freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their
own land. The most important political document ever
adopted by the ANC is the 'Freedom Charter'. It is by no
means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for
redistribution, but not nationalization, of land; it
provides for nationalization of mines, banks, and
monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned
by one race only, and without such nationalization racial
domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of
political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal
the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold
mines are owned by European companies. In this
respect the ANC's policy corresponds with the old policy
of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years,
had as part of its programme the nationalization of the
gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by
foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter,
nationalization would take place in an economy based
on private enterprise. The realization of the Freedom
Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous
African population of all classes, including the middle
class. The ANC has never at any period of its history
advocated a revolutionary change in the economic
structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my
recollection, ever condemned capitalist society.
As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I
understand its policy correctly, it stands for the
establishment of a State based on the principles of
Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the
Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the
problems created by white supremacy, it regards the
Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of
its programme.
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans
only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the
African people to win unity and full political rights. The
Communist Party's main aim, on the other hand, was to
remove the capitalists and to replace them with a
working-class government. The Communist Party sought
to emphasize class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to
harmonize them. This is a vital distinction.
It is true that there has often been close co-operation
between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-
operation is merely proof of a common goal - in this
case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof
of a complete community of interests.
The history of the world is full of similar examples.
Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in
the co-operation between Great Britain, the United
States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight
against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to
suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or
Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that
Britain and America were working to bring about a
communist world.
Another instance of such co-operation is to be found
precisely in Umkhonto. Shortly after Umkhonto was
constituted, I was informed by some of its members
that the Communist Party would support Umkhonto,
and this then occurred. At a later stage the support was
made openly.
I believe that communists have always played an active
role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom,
because the short-term objects of communism would
always correspond with the long-term objects of
freedom movements. Thus communists have played an
important role in the freedom struggles fought in
countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet
none of these States today are communist countries.
Similarly in the underground resistance movements
which sprung up in Europe during the last World War,
communists played an important role. Even General
Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of
communism, fought together with the communists
against the ruling class in the struggle which led to his
assumption of power in China in the 1930s.
This pattern of co-operation between communists and
non-communists has been repeated in the National
Liberation Movement of South Africa. Prior to the
banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns
involving the Communist Party and the Congress
movements were accepted practice. African
communists could, and did, become members of the
ANC, and some served on the National, Provincial, and
local committees. Amongst those who served on the
National Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary
of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, another former
Secretary, and J. B. Marks, a former member of the
Central Committee.

I returned to South Africa and reported to my
colleagues on the results of my trip. On my return I
found that there had been little alteration in the political
scene save that the threat of a death penalty for
sabotage had now become a fact. The attitude of my
colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had
been before I left. They were feeling their way
cautiously and felt that it would be a long time before
the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the
view was expressed by some that the training of
recruits was premature. This is recorded by me in the
document which is Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion,
however, it was decided to go ahead with the plans for
military training because of the fact that it would take
many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained
soldiers to start a guerrilla campaign, and whatever
happened the training would be of value.
I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in
this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish to
revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have
happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am
referring to the bombing of private houses of pro-
Government persons during September, October and
November 1962. I do not know what justification there
was for these acts, nor what provocation had been
given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it
is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the
carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto.
One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the
ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit
sabotage. I have already explained why this is incorrect
but how, externally, there was a departure from the
original principle laid down by the ANC. There has, of
course, been overlapping of functions internally as well,
because there is a difference between a resolution
adopted in the atmosphere of a committee room and
the concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical
activity. At a later stage the position was further
affected by bannings and house arrests, and by persons
leaving the country to take up political work abroad.
This led to individuals having to do work in different
capacities. But though this may have blurred the
distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it by no
means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken
to keep the activities of the two organizations in South
Africa distinct. The ANC remained a mass political body
of Africans only carrying on the type of political work
they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained
a small organization recruiting its members from
different races and organizations and trying to achieve
its own particular object. The fact that members of
Umkhonto were recruited from the ANC, and the fact
that persons served both organizations, like Solomon
Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the
ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of
officers, however, was more the exception than the
rule. This is why persons such as 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z', who
were on the Regional Command of their respective
areas, did not participate in any of the ANC committees
or activities, and why people such as Mr. Bennett
Mashiyana and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did not hear of
sabotage at their ANC meetings.
Another of the allegations in the indictment is that
Rivonia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not
true of the time when I was there. I was told, of course,
and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist
Party were carried on there. But this is no reason (as I
shall presently explain) why I should not use the place.

The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that
operations commenced. The response to our actions
and Manifesto among the white population was
characteristically violent. The Government threatened
to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to
stand firm and to ignore the demands of the Africans.
The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they
responded to our call by suggesting the laager.
In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of
encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things
were happening. People in the townships became eager
for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was
generated by the initial successes, and people began to
speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained.
But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response
with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites
and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the
prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The
white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would
be punished by death. If this was so, how could we
continue to keep Africans away from terrorism?
Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial
friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala,
was held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of
Africans who had gathered to demand his release were
killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921, more
than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In
1924 over two hundred Africans were killed when the
Administrator of South-West Africa led a force against a
group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog
tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of
police shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960,
sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at Sharpeville.
How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the
history of our country? And how many more
Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence
and terror becoming the order of the day? And what
would happen to our people when that stage was
reached? In the long run we felt certain we must
succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of
the country? And if this happened, how could black and
white ever live together again in peace and harmony?
These were the problems that faced us, and these were
our decisions.
Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the
Government limitless opportunities for the
indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was
precisely because the soil of South Africa is already
drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we
felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term
undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves
against force. If war were inevitable, we wanted the
fight to be conducted on terms most favourable to our
people. The fight which held out prospects best for us
and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla
warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for
the future, to make provision for the possibility of
guerrilla warfare.
All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no
such training was given to Africans. It was in our view
essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who
would be able to provide the leadership which would be
required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to prepare
for such a situation before it became too late to make
proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a
nucleus of men trained in civil administration and other
professions, so that Africans would be equipped to
participate in the government of this country as soon as
they were allowed to do so.
At this stage it was decided that I should attend the
Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for
Central, East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held
early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need
for preparation, it was also decided that, after the
conference, I would undertake a tour of the African
States with a view to obtaining facilities for the training
of soldiers, and that I would also solicit scholarships for
the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training
in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came
about by peaceful means. Administrators would be
necessary who would be willing and able to administer
a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to
control the army and police force of such a State.
It was on this note that I left South Africa to proceed to
Addis Ababa as a delegate of the ANC. My tour was a
success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause
and promises of help. All Africa was united against the
stand of White South Africa, and even in London I was
received with great sympathy by political leaders, such
as Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Grimond. In Africa I was
promised support by such men as Julius Nyerere, now
President of Tanganyika; Mr. Kawawa, then Prime
Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of
Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan;
Habib Bourguiba, President of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now
President of Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of Mali;
Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure,
President of Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and
Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda. It was Ben
Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the Headquarters of
the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which
is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits.
I started to make a study of the art of war and
revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in
military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I
wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and
to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of
lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in
Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books
on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also
been produced. I have already admitted that these
documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I
made these studies to equip myself for the role which I
might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla
warfare. I approached this question as every African
Nationalist should do. I was completely objective. The
Court will see that I attempted to examine all types of
authority on the subject - from the East and from the
West, going back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and
covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and Che
Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the
Anglo-Boer War on the other. Of course, these notes
are merely summaries of the books I read and do not
contain my personal views.
I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo
military training. But here it was impossible to organize
any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices
in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of the
ANC in South Africa to do this. To this extent then there
was a departure from the original decision of the ANC,
but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch
of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was
passing through that country on my way back to South
Africa.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious
assessment of the South African situation, I, and some
colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in
this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and
wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace
and non-violence at a time when the Government met
our peaceful demands with force.
This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only
when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful
protest had been barred to us, that the decision was
made to embark on violent forms of political struggle,
and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because
we desired such a course, but solely because the
Government had left us with no other choice. In the
Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December
1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said:
"The time comes in the life of any nation when there
remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time
has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit
and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in
our power in defence of our people, our future, and
our freedom".
This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to
press for a change in the policy of the National
Liberation Movement. I can only say that I felt morally
obliged to do what I did.
We who had taken this decision started to consult
leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I
will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I
wish to deal with the role of the African National
Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the
policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe.
As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view
which can be summarized as follows:
1. It was a mass political organization with a political
function to fulfil. Its members had joined on the
express policy of non-violence.
2. Because of all this, it could not and would not
undertake violence. This must be stressed. One
cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit
organization required for sabotage. Nor would this be
politically correct, because it would result in members
ceasing to carry out this essential activity: political
propaganda and organization. Nor was it permissible
to change the whole nature of the organization.
3. On the other hand, in view of this situation I have
described, the ANC was prepared to depart from its
fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that
it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled
violence. Hence members who undertook such
activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by
the ANC.
I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it
clear that if I formed the organization I would at all
times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and
would not undertake any different form of activity from
that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And
I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence
came to be determined.
As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in
November 1961. When we took this decision, and
subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of
non-violence and racial harmony was very much with
us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil
war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other.
We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could
mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with
civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever
to achieve. We already have examples in South African
history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty
years for the scars of the South African War to
disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate
the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be
fought without a great loss of life on both sides?
The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking
for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence
as part of our policy, we realized that we might one day
have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be
taken into account in formulating our plans. We
required a plan which was flexible and which permitted
us to act in accordance with the needs of the times;
above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil
war as the last resort, and left the decision on this
question to the future. We did not want to be committed
to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it became
inevitable.
Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage,
there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there
is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method
and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.
In the light of our political background the choice was a
logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it
offered the best hope for future race relations.
Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy
bore fruit, democratic government could become a
reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what
we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):
"We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to
achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash.
We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions
will awaken everyone to a realization of the
disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is
leading. We hope that we will bring the Government
and its supporters to their senses before it is too late,
so that both the Government and its policies can be
changed before matters reach the desperate state of
civil war."
The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the
political and economic situation of our country. We
believed that South Africa depended to a large extent
on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that
planned destruction of power plants, and interference
with rail and telephone communications, would tend to
scare away capital from the country, make it more
difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the
seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a
heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus
compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their
position.
Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to
be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and
other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve
as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition,
they would provide an outlet for those people who were
urging the adoption of violent methods and would
enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that
we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back
against Government violence.
In addition, if mass action were successfully organized,
and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our
cause would be roused in other countries, and that
greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South
African Government.
This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform
sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its
members right from the start, that on no account were
they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out
operations. These instructions have been referred to in
the evidence of 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z'.
The affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and
directed by a National High Command, which had
powers of co-option and which could, and did, appoint
Regional Commands. The High Command was the body
which determined tactics and targets and was in charge
of training and finance. Under the High Command there
were Regional Commands which were responsible for
the direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the
framework of the policy laid down by the National High
Command, the Regional Commands had authority to
select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority
to go beyond the prescribed framework and thus had
no authority to embark upon acts which endangered
life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of
sabotage. For instance, Umkhonto members were
forbidden ever to go armed into operation. Incidentally,
the terms High Command and Regional Command were
an importation from the Jewish national underground
organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel
between 1944 and 1948.
Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961,
when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port
Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of
targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred.
Had we intended to attack life we would have selected
targets where people congregated and not empty
buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was
committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of
isolated groups and had no connection whatever with
Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later
acts were claimed by other organizations.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which
resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency
and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful
organization. My colleagues and I, after careful
consideration, decided that we would not obey this
decree. The African people were not part of the
Government and did not make the laws by which they
were governed. We believed in the words of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of
the people shall be the basis of authority of the
Government', and for us to accept the banning was
equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for
all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went
underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve
this organization which had been built up with almost
fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no
self-respecting White political organization would
disband itself if declared illegal by a government in
which it had no say.
In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led
to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who
constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population
of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not
even consulted about the proposed constitutional
change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under
the proposed White Republic, and a resolution was
taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a
National Convention, and to organize mass
demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if
the Government failed to call the Convention. The
conference was attended by Africans of various political
persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and
undertook to be responsible for organizing the national
stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide
with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by
Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike
must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and
consequently I had to leave my home and family and
my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.
The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to
be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were
given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse
to violence. The Government's answer was to introduce
new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and
to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the
townships in a massive show of force designed to
intimidate the people. This was an indication that the
Government had decided to rule by force alone, and
this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.
Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I
believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope,
enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually
adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned
in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to
jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life
should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in
1963.
I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders
of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of
force and the implied threat against future action, or
were we to fight it and, if so, how?
We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight.
Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our
problem was not whether to fight, but was how to
continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for
a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action
which might drive the races further apart than they
already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of
non-violence had brought the African people nothing
but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer
and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to
understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the
people had been talking of violence - of the day when
they would fight the White man and win back their
country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had
nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid
violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some
of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could
not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial
State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that
our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this
policy and were developing disturbing ideas of
terrorism.
It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had,
in fact, become a feature of the South African political
scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the
women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there
was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle
culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959
when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass
raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government
attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland.
Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961
there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the
Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each
disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth
among Africans of the belief that violence was the only
way out - it showed that a Government which uses force
to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force
to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the
urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for
violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a
danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against
Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed.
Particularly disturbing was the type of violence
engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland,
and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly
taking the form, not of struggle against the Government
- though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife
amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it
could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of
life and bitterness.

"I am Prepared to Die."
Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the
opening of the defence case in the Rivonia
TrialPretoria Supreme Court, 20 April 1964.
I am the First Accused.
I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an
attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in
partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted
prisoner serving five years for leaving the country
without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike
at the end of May 1961.
At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by
the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa
is under the influence of foreigners or communists is
wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an
individual and as a leader of my people, because of my
experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt
African background, and not because of what any
outsider might have said.
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of
my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the
tales they related to me were those of wars fought by
our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names
of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi
and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were
praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped
then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve
my people and make my own humble contribution to
their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in
all that I have done in relation to the charges made
against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some
length with the question of violence. Some of the things
so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I
do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not
plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any
love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and
sober assessment of the political situation that had
arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and
oppression of my people by the Whites.
I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who
helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a
prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in
August 1962.
In the statement which I am about to make I shall
correct certain false impressions which have been
created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I will
demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the
evidence were not and could not have been committed
by Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship
between the African National Congress and Umkhonto,
and with the part which I personally have played in the
affairs of both organizations. I shall deal also with the
part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain
these matters properly, I will have to explain what
Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it
prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and
why these methods were chosen. I will also have to
explain how I became involved in the activities of these
organizations.
I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of
acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the
organisation, and which have been charged in the
indictment against us. I do not know what justification
there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they
could not have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to
refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organization.
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons
who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who
started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly,
we believed that as a result of Government policy,
violence by the African people had become inevitable,
and that unless responsible leadership was given to
canalize and control the feelings of our people, there
would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce
an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the
various races of this country which is not produced
even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence
there would be no way open to the African people to
succeed in their struggle against the principle of white
supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition
to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we
were placed in a position in which we had either to
accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the
Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke
the law in a way which avoided any recourse to
violence; when this form was legislated against, and
then the Government resorted to a show of force to
crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide
to answer violence with violence.
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not
terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all
members of the African National Congress, and had
behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and
negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We
believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who
live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We
did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to
the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will
be seen that the whole history of our organization bears
out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say,
when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to
adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the
African National Congress.
The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to
defend the rights of the African people which had been
seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which
were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For
thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly
to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and
resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in
the belief that African grievances could be settled
through peaceful discussion and that Africans could
advance gradually to full political rights. But White
Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of
Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In
the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became
President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
"who will deny that thirty years of my life have been
spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and
modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been
the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have
seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights
and progress, until today we have reached a stage
where we have almost no rights at all".
Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid
violence. At this time, however, there was a change
from the strictly constitutional means of protest which
had been employed in the past. The change was
embodied in a decision which was taken to protest
against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful,
demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this
policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in
which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This
campaign was based on the principles of passive
resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid
laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance
of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of
any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for
the role which we played in organizing the campaign,
but our sentences were suspended mainly because the
Judge found that discipline and non-violence had been
stressed throughout. This was the time when the
volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when
the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time
when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to
uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with
volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into
this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers
were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army
pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They
were, and are. dedicated workers who are prepared to
lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute
leaflets, to organize strikes, or do whatever the
particular campaign required. They are called
volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties
of imprisonment and whipping which are now
prescribed by the legislature for such acts.
During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and
the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These
Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences
committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this,
the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its
policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of
the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested
on a charge of high treason and charges under the
Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy
of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the
Court gave judgement some five years later, it found
that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were
acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the
ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the
existing regime. The Government has always sought to
label all its opponents as communists. This allegation
has been repeated in the present case, but as I will
show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist
organization.

About this poem.
My poem is a mishmash of Mandela's statement from
the dock at the opening of his defense in the trial, 20
April, 1964. His speech, referred to as his I Am
Prepared To Die speech, is 10,700 words long.
In the late 1990s, I heard that one technique David
Bowie employed to write songs was to cut up dozens of
sentences, phrases, and words and then haphazardly
arrange them. The hodgepodge that resulted may have
been random, but he apparently got some great lyrics
by this method.
But what was my method? With Mandela's speech, I
didn't do the same thing that David Bowie did. Yes I
used Microsoft Words copy and paste functions, but I
maintained the linear order of Mandela's I Am Prepared
To Die speech, and I added no words or punctuation.
Whenever I deleted a word or words, I always started
the next un-deleted word on a new line. What I cant
remember, though, is whether I stayed true to
Mandela's capitalization of words.
Lee Bob Black

About Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela, born 18 July,1918 in South Africa,
attended college, became a lawyer, joined the African
National Congress (ANC) in 1944, and helped found its
Youth League. In 1962, South African police arrested
him for his opposition to the white government and its
apartheid ("separateness") policies of racial, political,
and economic discrimination against the non-white
majority. In 1964, the government brought further
charges including sabotage, high treason, and
conspiracy to overthrow the government.
On 11 June, 1964, Mandela was found guilty of sabotage
and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
A worldwide campaign to free Mandela began in the
1980s and resulted in his release on 11Feb1990, at age
71, after 27 years in prison.
In 1993, Mandela shared the Nobel Peace Prize with
South Africa's President F.W. de Klerk for their peaceful
efforts to bring a non-racial democracy to South Africa.
Black South Africans voted for the first time in the 1994
election that brought Mandela the presidency.

Source: www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

Source: www.leebobblack.com/poems/nelson-mandela-i-am-prepared-to-die



Nelson Mandela: I Am Prepared To Die (a poem by
Lee Bob Black)

I am the First Accused
the question of violence
I planned sabotage
I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness
nor because I have any
love
of violence
a calm and sober assessment of the political situation
years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my
people
violence by the African people had become inevitable
without violence there would be no way
to succeed
against
white supremacy
We chose to defy the law
to answer violence with violence
South Africa belongs to all
people
In the words of my leader:
"What have been the fruits of moderation?
No self-respecting White political organization
would disband
itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had
no say
It would be unrealistic
to continue preaching peace and non-violence
when the Government met our peaceful demands with
force
Manifesto of Umkhonto
"The time comes in the life of any nation
where there are only two choices--submit or fight.
That time has now come to South Africa.
We have no choice but to hit back
by all means in our power
in defense of
our people
our future and
our freedom"
the ANC
would no longer disapprove of properly controlled
violence
when we decided to adopt violence
we realized that we might one day
face the prospect of
war
Four forms of violence:
sabotage
guerrilla warfare
terrorism
open revolution
compelling
voters
to reconsider their position
attacks
on the economic life-lines of the country
on Government buildings
and
symbols of apartheid
a source of inspiration to our people
strict instructions
that on no account were they to injure or kill people
and people began to speculate on how soon freedom
would be obtained
we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the
rest of the country?
African Nationalism
is not
expressed in the cry, Drive the White man into the sea
African Nationalism
is
the concept of freedom and fulfillment for the African
people
rebellion would offer the Government limitless
opportunities
for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people
I started to
study of the art of war and revolution
Clausewitz
Mao Tse Tung
Che Guevara
white supremacy implies black inferiority
they do not realize that they
have emotions--that they fall in love
like white people do
we want equal political rights
I know this sounds revolutionary
This makes the white man fear democracy
I have fought
against white domination
and
against black domination
a democratic and free society
an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve
an ideal for which I am prepared to die
* * * * *
Text by Nelson Mandela.
"Poetized" by Lee Bob Black.

Just confirm the news....

The leadership of the Jama’atu Nasril Islam led by the
Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Abubakar Sa’ad lll, has
demanded immediate release of an alleged Boko
Haram recruitment officer, Dr. Mohammed Yunus.
The group claimed Yunus was not a Boko Haram
member.
Yunus, a lecturer with the Kogi State University was
arrested in connection with the violent Islamic sect,
Boko Haram by operatives of the State Security Service
(SSS) on October 29.
The SSS had arrested the university teacher and four
others, parading them as suspected members of the
Boko Haram insurgents, alleging that they were
planning to unleash terror on the people of Kogi State.
Yunus was said to be the “spiritual leader and
recruitment coordinator” of a terrorist cell in Kogi State.
However, the JNI in a statement signed by its Secretary-
General, Dr. Khalid Aliyu, on Tuesday in Kaduna noted
that after a thorough investigation by the religious
body, it discovered that the said lecturer was not
connected with the dreaded Islamic sect, Boko Haram.
According to the JNI, the lecturer could not have been a
member of Boko Haram because those who have been
following the trend of the sect knew that “even ordinary
members of the Boko Haram hardly deny their
connection to their ideology.”
The JNI therefore argued that it would be doubtful
that a whole “spiritual leader and recruitment officer” of
the group(Boko Haram) would shed tears publicly while
denying any link to that ideology.
It added that it would sound contradictory also that a
leader of Boko Haram would still maintain his position
as a university lecturer when in fact, the first requisite
for one to be a member of the insurgent was to
abandon anything connected with western education
(Boko).

Source: www.punchng.com/news/jni-urges-release-of-bharam-recruitment-officer/

Governors elected on the platform of the All
Progressives Congress have accused President
Goodluck Jonathan of abandoning security of the
country for his second term ambition.
The APC governors, who are under the aegis of the
Progressive Governors Forum, made the accusation on
Tuesday just as the Federal Government said the
Armed Forces were recruiting more people to ensure
effective protection of the North- East against the
activities of Boko Haram insurgents.
But the APC governors, in a statement by the Director-
General of the PGF, Mallam Salihu Lukman, said the
Monday attacks on military formations and parts of
Maiduguri, Borno State, by Boko Haram insurgents
were pointers that Jonathan had no security agenda.
The governors lamented that the security situation in
several parts of the country had continued to
deteriorate despite the extension of the State of
Emergency in some of the North- East states and the
trillions of naira spent on security by the Jonathan
administration.
The statement reads, “As it were, notwithstanding the
fact that nearly one-third of this year’s Federal
Government budget was devoted to defence and
security, few Nigerians actually feel safe.
“The most recent attacks were particularly telling as
they show that President Jonathan has no security
agenda and is only focused on retaining power beyond
2015.
“The result of this criminal negligence is the unabated
slaughter of lives. Clearly the security structures set up
in the region have been overwhelmed.”
The PGF therefore called on the President to reassess
his security strategy and focus more on the critical
issues of the day.
The governors said that the strategies and tactics
currently adopted by Jonathan and security agencies
drafted to the North-East had been ineffectual .
While commiserating with the government and the
people of Borno State, they also called on the Federal
Government to immediately overhaul the tactics and
rules of engagement of the security agencies deployed
in Borno and other states in the North-East.
They said that the President, who also doubles as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, needed to
ensure coherence in the management of the various
aspects of security interventions in the zone .
They said his obsession with 2015 was a dangerous
diversion at a time when real courage and
statesmanship were needed in the country.
The governors, however, said they would continue to
offer support to their colleague in Borno State,
Governor Kashim Shettima, and provide necessary
humanitarian assistance “in these extremely difficult
times.”
Earlier, the APC had in a statement by its Interim
National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said
it was shocked and saddened by the enormity of the
attacks on Maiduguri.
It said nothing in the world could justify the death and
collateral damage inflicted on civilians by the insurgents.
The party, however, called for a renewed strategy to
combat the sect. Such a strategy, it advised, must place
a great emphasis on the gathering of intelligence so
that such attacks could be nipped in the bud.
The party also called for a probe into how hundreds of
terrorists could so easily infiltrate military facilities,
which are believed to be highly safe.
The Minister of Information, Labaran Maku, had
during a press briefing on the 2014 Armed Forces
Remembrance Day Celebration, in Abuja, said more
persons were being recruited into the Armed Forces in a
bid to contain the activities of terrorists.
“The Armed Forces are engaged in additional
recruitment and training, because overall, the North-
East is more than several countries in West Africa put
together in terms of geographical size,” the minister
added.
Maku also disclosed that the Defence Headquarters
had sent a high-powered team to ascertain the extent
of the Monday morning attack on the military
formations in Maiduguri.
The minister, who oversees the Defence Ministry, said
Nigeria was facing a stubborn international enemy
whose “members operate without uniforms.”
He said, “Our soldiers and other security agencies are
taking more risks than before… Yesterday(Monday), as
you saw in the news this (Tuesday) morning, we had a
very painful incident, where the insurgents that we have
been battling for some time, managed a very daring
attack on our Air Force Base in Maiduguri.
“Let me say that the Defence Headquarters has already
briefed the media about the incident. I must say that
what it tells us is that we are facing a very stubborn
international enemy that is really committed to
destabilising the peace of the country but I can say with
pride that the incident was not only repelled but that
those who participated in it faced the fire of special
forces.
“As we speak to you, the Armed Forces are in Maiduguri
with their strong team to give us a full report of what
happened.
“The point must be made that Nigeria is facing an
international enemy that has a long line of supply and
that we are not taking it lightly.
“Insurgencies of this type are not easy to overcome. For
example, in places like Pakistan, Algeria and Yemen
there are still cases of penetration even in nearly 10
years of terrorist activities.
“If places like Iraq that have been battling with
insurgency for over 10 years still have lingering
moments, I must say confidently that our Armed Forces
are doing everything possible not only to deal
decisively with these incidents but ensuring that the
North-East and the boundaries of Nigeria were
secured.”
He said that the Federal Government was looking at the
international operations of Boko Haram and the
network being employed by it in carrying out attacks on
the country.
He stressed that while the attacks on Maiduguri were
painful, they had alerted the authorities to the need for
further steps to secure the country.
He said it was wrong for the Boko Haram insurgency in
the North- East to be classified as a civil war by the
International Criminal Court.
The minister argued that the classification of terrorist
activities all over the world must be the same.
Maku said, “It is amazing that terrorist attack on a
country is described as a civil war. When terrorists
attack the United States, it is an attack on a peaceful
country. When terrorists attack Afghanistan, it is not a
civil war. What is happening in Nigeria is a war by
terrorists against all Nigerians, especially those who live
in the Boko Haram’s operational areas.
“It is not a civil war; it is a group of terrorists, with
international network, deploying that network to attack
innocent people. It’s not a civil war.
“We are fighting a group of people who carry out
random attacks on our people. They attack Christians
and Moslems. What we are facing is a war in which a
network of terrorists have used a part of our country to
attack our citizens.
“The people of Borno State are Nigerians and you can’t
define this as a civil war. There would be full response
from Nigeria. Terror in Nigeria cannot be different from
terror as defined elsewhere.”
According to the minister, the classification of Boko
Haram as an international terrorist organisation by the
US was a further confirmation of Nigeria’s position.
He stated that the Federal Government had not
contacted the US or any other country for assistance in
the war against terrorists because the Armed Forces
had the training, the capacity, the competence and the
efficiency to tackle them.
In Maiduguri, the National Emergency Management
Agency said over 300 persons were internally displaced
following the on Monday.
The Northeastern Public Relations Officer of the agency,
AbdulKadir Ibrahim, in an e-mail to journalists, said the
300 persons had been moved to the 33 Artillery
Regiment of the Nigerian Army , one of the military
bases attacked by the sect .
Ibrahim said, “An assessment has been conducted and
initial relief materials like beddings, blankets and
mosquito nets have been given to the victims in the 33
artillery barracks where we have 300 internally-
displaced persons whose homes were affected during
the attacks.”
He however said the casualty figure could not be given
by the agency because it was a security issue.
“We do not give casualty figures because of the inherent
confusion and security nature of the conflict, the
military should be in a better position to provide that,”
the NEMA spokesman added.
Maku however said the cooperation of the foreign
nations was needed by Nigeria because the crisis had
assumed an international dimension.

Source: www.punchng.com/news/president-focused-on-2015-not-security-apc-govs/

I refuse to open that stupid link of lies...

God bless daddy G.O

Omexonomy: Just as ikuforiji is acting out tinubu and fashole script.
Those 1di0t terrorist and thieves you called leaders (tinunb and buhari) ask for it thinkin gej will not call for it.

Why must you upturn every thread?
•Fools like yon are reasons I still clamour for human sacrifice.
•What is the name of that new Drug you are using, guy??
Plz, check the composition of the Active Ingredients, and get ready to sue the 'doctor' who prescribed it for irreparable brain damage..
The you may thank me later.

Now, i want you to drop that bottle and modify your comment...

sincerenigerian: IkuforiThief Ole

GEJ bulldog,
Is this all you can say?

An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s
prosecution witness, Adeniyi Adebayo, on Monday
narrated before a Federal High Court, Lagos, how the
Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly, Mr. Adeyemi
Ikuforiji, collected millions of naira in cash from the
House under various headings.
Adebayo did the narration while continuing his
testimony at the ongoing trial of Ikuforiji and his
personal assistant, Oyebode Atoyebi, for alleged money
laundering.
Both Ikuforiji and Atoyebi are being prosecuted by the
EFCC for 54 counts of recieving over N600m from the
Lagos State House of Assembly without passing through
a financial institution between April 2010 and July 2011.
Adebayo, an EFCC investigator, commenced his
testimony on November 21, before Justice Ibrahim
Buba.
He said on Monday that Atoyebi had admitted that he
received millions of naira in cash from the Accounts
Department of the Lagos State House of Assembly on
behalf of the speaker.
According to the witness, Atoyebi on different occasions
collected money in cash on behalf of Ikuforiji for
Ramadan; the speaker’s wife’s orderly; the speaker’s
office; running expenses, and members’ travelling
allowances.
He added that sums of money were also collected from
the House of Assembly by Atoyebi for estacodes;
speakers’ residence allowances; and speakers’ guest
house allowances, among others.
Led in evidence by the prosecutor, Mr. Godwin Obla
(SAN), the witness said his team of investigators got the
information through investigations into the cash
registers recovered from the House of Assembly.
Adebayo said, “On August 1, 2011, the second accused
(Atoyebi) signed and collected about N4,444,770 on
behalf of the first accused (Ikuforiji), with the heading:
‘National Council for State Legislators Conference,
United States’.
“In the cash register, it was also discovered that on
August 3, 2011, the second accused collected the sum of
N10m on behalf of the Speaker, and the payment was
tagged, ‘Ramadam’. It was signed and dated August 4,
2011.
“On August 23, 2011, the sum of N1.2m was also
collected by the second accused, on behalf of the
Speaker, and the transaction was tagged ‘money for
orderly to the wife of speaker’.
“Also in August 2011, the second accused collected
N6,464,976 meant for the Powell Foundation event on
behalf of the speaker.”
The witness added that the sum of N2.725m was
collected by Atoyebi to enable members of the House of
Assembly participate in the Parliamentary Study Tours
and Training in London on July 12, 2011
Counsel for the accused, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN),
however, urged the court to direct the prosecution to
“isolate the documents” it intended to use for the
purpose of. Adebayo’s testimony in order to save the
time of the court.
In acceding to the lawyer’s request, Justice Buba urged
the prosecuting counsel to sort out documents which he
considered useful for the trial, so as to enhance
accelerated hearing of the suit.
The judge then adjourned the case to January 7, 8 and
10, 2014 for continuation of trial.
The EFCC said the alleged offence contravened Section
18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.

Source: www.punchng.com/news/ikuforiji-spent-n25m-on-wifes-orderly-others-efcc/

Our ancestors say a herb that will work is usually not
expensive. Why is Dr. Goodluck Jonathan’s government
insisting on a national conference, when, only last year
his presidency and the legislature controlled by his
party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), vehemently
objected to any such conference, promising to do
everything, including electoral reform, to ensure
Nigeria’s stability? Last year, I sided with “no need for
any conference”, because I knew, and I still have no
doubt that Nigeria can be stabilised without any
conference, if there is willingness on the part of the
President and the Legislature.
The goal (an expensive hidden agenda) is Jonathan’s
third term agenda, while the rest of us are insisting that
eight years in Aso Rock ought to be sufficient for an
individual who has been Vice-President/President, and
elected President. I am particularly concerned, because
Jonathan’s Nigeria has never known peace.
Jonathan is trying to act out the former President
Olusegun Obasanjo’s script, forgetting that the
conference did not serve Obasanjo’s third term
purpose; neither did it do Nigeria any good. But have
Nigerians also forgotten, or Jonathan’s will must prevail
at our expense? The child born in 1999 is about to
graduate from senior secondary school; the plantain is
getting rotten, and many Nigerians are saying it is
getting ripe! In Yorubaland, if you worship a divinity for
three years and it does not serve your purpose, you
dump it; PDP has wasted Nigeria for 14 years in
darkness and bad roads. Quit your political apathy, if
not for your own sake but that of your grand children.
When General Murtala Mohammed died, General
Obasanjo became Nigeria’s Head of State. He handed
over in 1979 to Alhaji Shehu Shagari who they were sure
would not probe them. Generals Muhammadu Buhari
and Babatunde Idiagbon had the mind of Murtala
Mohammed, but they were overthrown after about two
years only. Since then till now, Nigeria has been in the
hands of Obasanjo-Shagari circles.
Consequently, they are always reluctant to invite Buhari;
he does not belong to the Jegudujera (Embezzlers)
Association of Nigeria. I respect Senator Bola Ahmed
Tinubu also, since the PDP-controlled anti-graft agencies
have declared him clean, and the progress in his Lagos
State is there for everybody to see. The All Progressives
Congress must re-order Nigeria, not based on
regionalism, but zoning for peace and stability. We must
condemn the type of indiscipline that truncated
rotational presidency, and is promoting election-rigging.
Don’t sit on the fence!

Source: www.punchng.com/opinion/letters/jonathan-is-acting-out-obasanjos-script/

Hmmmm!

I guess this man must among those people that tasted/drink that ogogoro that landed the number one citizen of a country in hospital in other news...


Abi who are those people pushing this man?