₦airaland Forum

naijaking1:
I'm surprised you're so basic in your understanding: the lower court, appeal courts, and even the supreme courts are known as court in this argument. Maybe, it's the use of English

I have simply asked you if the truth changes with each change in court ruling or only the supreme court knows the truth?

Truth and facts are not changelings, nor do they depend on a sole confession.
That you claim/confess to be a doctor does not make you a doctor, but rather facts like if you passed medical school, are recognized by the professional body, are practicing in the profession etc are what establishes the facts. A court will not decide if you are a doctor, the facts will. But the courts could punish you for impersonationg a doctor if the facts establish that you are not one.

So (let me know if I am wrong), by your philosophy
- Nzeogwu and co were 'alleged' coup plotters, simply because they weren't convicted in court, even though the evidence are clear on the issue?
- Bush and the US government did not misrepresent the truth, even though we are yet to find the WMD that were suppose to be in Iraq?
- Hitler did not persecute the Jews, afterall he was never convicted of it?
- Seun does not own NL because a court has not ruled so?

This is simply hilarious and I cant imagine how your dislike for Sanusi can push you beyond reason.

But do not despair, the EFCC is taking steps against the executives, and if and when they are convicted, I hope you will be man enough to call the executives criminals , and not turn your back on the judicial system that you are hiding behind now, by calling it an unfair trial. After all, the court decides what is true abi?

naijaking1:
There's your foundamental error!
The whole function of a court is to get to the truth, using the help of the tripod(Judge, prosecutor, and defendant)
In addition to trials, investigations, and settelements, the courts also do interpret the law.

In addition? You are obviously out of your element.
I guess when a judgment is overturned after an appeal, the truth has changed accordingly?
Like I said before, feel free to believe anything that lets you sleep at night.

naijaking1:
^^^
You're becoming incoherent.
Truth is relative. What is true to you, the accuser is not always true to the accussed. That's why we have the courts.

There is nothing relative about the truth or facts (you can go and review their definitions), and it is not the point of view of the accused or the accuser.
The courts do not establish the truth, evidence and witnesses do. The court applies the law.

It is a fact that those banks were borrowing without repaying from the EDW (otherwise why are they repaying their CBN debts currently).
It is a fact that they had non-performing loans that were not reflected on their books (otherwise why are some entities repaying their loans).
It is a fact the were making losses when their books claimed otherwise (otherwise why borrow and not repay if you are healthy)
Hence it becomes fact that they doctored their books because the evidence and witnesses says that the executives doctored their books.
If you dispute any of the above as fact, provide counter evidence.

Black is black because it is black, and one doesn't need a law court to establish it as black, but then you are free to call it white, if it lets you sleep at night 

naijaking1:
For you to conclude that an armed robber is an armed robber, you have to have a confirmation or a confession. Many times, the accused armed robber denies being an armed robber, because of that doubt and denial, and no matter how strong your evidence, the person must then be tried and convicted a robber, otherwise he remains an accused armed robber, not an armed robber.

Making exceptions for Mutullab simply undermines your own argument, because in primitive America, he would have been executed on the spot by people with your type of mind-set---thank God mob lynching was outlawed in many civilized countries, except in your mind and that of Sanusi.

I am a doctor because I carry a paper that identifies me as such, I agree that I am a doctor, so does the teacher, the accountant, etc. Have you ever seen an armed robber walking around with an identification showing that he's a robber? This is because he doesn't confess to being a robber, so even if you arrest him in a likely robbery act, he still needs to be tried and convicted, and hopefully punished. It's called due process, and everybody is entitled to it in a civilized society, yes everybody: the accused armed robbers, the love-peddlers, the forgers, the embezzlers, and even those accused of cooking books by Sanusi

Again being convicted or exonerated has little to nothing to do with the truth. The courts do not establish the truth, they apply the law.

For example, you can check the FBI most wanted list, Usama is wanted for "MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH'. He has not been tried talk less of conviction. There is no 'alleged , ' . But according to you, the FBI is uncivilized and want to lynch him

The executives doctored the books of their banks and it is an established fact. You can delude yourself into thinking otherwise, or anything else that lets you sleep at night. 

In law, innocent or guilty, is with respect to the law and justice, and has little to do with the truth or morality e.g. being found guilty does not mean you committed the act, and being found innocent doesnt mean you didn't commit the act.

Your example of mutallab is wrong, cos he didnt blow up the plane, hence the intentions are alleged. On the other hand, the 911 actors are terrorists even though they were never tried (they were terrorist because of their actions, not a court conviction).

An armed robber is an armed robber because of what he does, same as a doctor is doctor, or a teacher is a teacher, because of what he/she does. You are a criminal if you commit a crime, irrespective of if you are caught or not. Being charged to court and found guilty simply makes you a convicted criminal.

It amazes me how you cannot (or refuse to) distinguish between committing an act and being found guilty of a crime. If you slap someone in front of credible witnesses, it becomes a fact that you did slap someone, which is different from saying you are guilty of assault (that is a legal issue).

The bank books were doctored by the executives, and that is a fact based on the evidence of the audit and other relevant circumstantial evidence, which is different from saying that they are guilty of crimes like embezzlement or fraud (that is a legal issue). Doctoring books is not a crime (else you can pull it out of a the CP act). I need an auditor, and not a judge, to tell me they doctored their books, but need a judge + prosecutor to determine if they are guilty of a crime and what the appropriate punishment should be if needed. That is why you have expert witnesses in court cases, as they are the ones who establish the facts of the matter, while the judge applies the law.

Its so simple, I am shocked you cant get it.

It is sad to see Nigerian fail to grasp the facts nor do due diligence before making comments on an issues.

Universal Banking, UB means that a bank is involved in more than one segment of the market e.g. commercial, investment etc.  It was introduced in 2001 by Joseph Sanusi (and not Soludo) via the UB license which allowed a bank to operate in any or all of the segments as it desired without further approval from the CBN.

History:
1. Pre  2001: Bank were granted specific licenses and were only allowed to operate in one segment and thus we had Commercial banks, Merchant/Invest Banks, etc
2. 2001 till date: UB license was the only license and made it possible for bank to carry out universal banking

Proposal:
1. The current scheme has only the UB licensing which allows any bank to operate in any segment. This in turn means that all banks must meet the requirement for the UB license (which encompasses all) even if they have no intention of participating in all the segments i.e. a 'one size fits all' approach. This has made it difficult for new entrants into the sector and has resulted in marginalization of some segments like rural banking.
2. The CBN and Bankers committee are moving towards an hybrid system, in which the banks are allowed to practice universal banking, but removes the single UB license regime. Any bvank that wants to operate in multiple segments simply needs to meet the requirements for each segment and get the associated license, which is different from pre-2001 when you couldnt even if you wanted to, while newer, smaller or specialized banks can just meet the requirements, get the licenses they need to operate in the segments they are interested in (and they dont need to come up with N25B if the segment doesnt require it). The move essentially brings back the targeted licensing regime, without taking away the UB banking practice.

I personally see it as a very positive move that recognizes that UB licensing is not tied to UB practice, and is similar to what obtains in places like SA.

@naijaking1
An armed robber is an armed robber because he robs people at gun point, and the only thing that changes after he has been convicted in court is that he becomes a convicted armed robber. It is obvious you just pander the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' (where the innocent/guiltyis wrt to the law not the truth or morality) and have little idea of the role or how the legal system works.

Its bad enough that you are convinced it is the law courts, and not auditors, that are responsible for determining if bank statements were falsified, but worse is the fact that you cannot seem to put up a coherent argument without resulting to personal comments.

I am not interested in your academic background (though your posts makes it easy to ball park), nor am I interested in your attempts to degrade the discussion to an assessment of the individual. If this is all you have to offer, it is simply pathetic, and you have my sympathy.

naijaking1:
For using the very same false, presumptive, and illegal phrase "doctoring" persistently and continously, you have exposed yourself to be a fraud who is operating from one of Sanusi's offices and reading off one of his numerous prepared speeches. You have refused to understand that nobody is guilty of any crime in any civilized society( I don't know about sharia) without trial, or confession, or conviction.

You seem clueless as to what are criminal offences  what next, a person that robs you at gun point is not an armed robber until he is found guilty in court?
There is nothing false, presumptive, or illegal in saying the executives doctored their books. Being guilty of corrupt practices is not same as being guilty of corruption.
Doctoring of books is determined by an auditor and not a judge, the same way a doctor certifies someone as being dead and not a judge. Killing someone does not equate to murder or manslaughter. I dont need a court of law to determine if you killed someone, but rather the court will determine if the killing was a criminal offence. It has been made known (and yet to be disputed) that the executive had non-performing loans that they failed to reflect on their books as required. They were declaring profits when in truth they were insolvent. That this is sufficient to prosecute them for corruption et al is a matter for the courts to determine.

Tell the World whether Ibru, Akingbola, and others ever confessed to you and Sanusi that they "doctored" books, we all know that they have never been convicted of such. Even if you have an evidence, you should subject it to a court process, before jumping to uncivilized conclusions, name calling, and punishment without trial.

One does not need the confession of the executives to determine if the books were doctored. The books can speak for themselves.
Conviction of the crime is a different issue altogether. Do not try to mix them up

Even if you're practicing Boko Haram ideaology, you should limit it your region or state, and it must never metamorphose into a national idealogy. Bye the last time I checked Nigeria is a capitalist society with its attending privilages and problems, not some fundamentalist muslim nation.
Sanusi's premise, just like yours have been based on guilt before trial, it's wrong, wrong, and wrong

Please lay off the ad hominem attacks. If you have no logical argument to present, then you should keep your hands off the keyboard.

I dont remember any of the bank executives in the US being accused of doctoring their books (even if they actually did). The enron executives accused of malpractices were tried.

One should not assume that the way the US or UK does things is always right. This is what happens with the approach of the US government http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html. Almost 200 institutions have failed since 2008 and what do you think happened to the depositors and shareholders funds? They simply covered their behinds on big banks who had enough clout and/or were too big to fail, all at the expense of public funds and smaller banks. That move should never be emulated.

You say the banks did not seek a bailout from the government, what then do you think the EDW was? They were borrowing from the CBN without repayment. If not for the EDW, those banks would have failed by the end of 2008. If that is not a bail out I wonder what is. Yet the problems only got worse because the corrupt executives remained in office and the EDW funds were just sinking into a black hole.

The law empowers the CBN to fire the executives (without having to secure a majority stake in the banks) and they did, and that was the right move IMO. Now if you feel the corrupt executives should have been left in office, then say so.

Also the CBN injected funds directly into the banks (instead of the unrestrained EDW approach) to secure the bank on the short term. That also was the right move, else they would have gone belly up under the required provisioning for bad debts.

You look at the situation before assessing the appropriateness of the actions. You cannot judge Sanusi's action in a vacuum. If you feel he acted wrongly, implies there was at least one better alternativce, which I would be glad for you to share.

mikeansy:
I have said this before and I will say it again.

With a performance measurement that benchmarks the incumbent's records against some unscaled imaginary catastrophe waiting to happen save for his intervention in which whatever failures experienced in the current is assumed to be a fraction of the immaginary catastrophe that would have happened

even a bread seller in Ojuelegba can run the CBN.

If you fail you simply clame worst would have happened if you did not act.

are you disputing the figures presented by the CBN?

mikeansy:
another clear proof below that we are headed to pre-2004

why must we take one step forward, 3 steps backward. Why can't these banks be allowed to pursue businesses if they are profitable? Why should it be up to CBN to dish out what business banks can and can not go into like piecemeanl

I wouldnt have pegged you for one to jump to conclusions without due consideration.

pre-2004? why the choice of 2004? Hope you are not confusing Universal banking with Soludo's policies and the consolidation exercise. UB was introduced in 2001 under Joseph Sanusi.

I dont see the downside to the move. The changes by the CBN and the bankers committee only affects how you acquire licenses and does not stop a bank from doing business in as many segments as it wants. The bank simply needs to get a separate license for each segments it intends to participate in, while allowing for other banks with narrower scope of interests to meet the requirement and get licenses for those segments only. It essentially abolishes the existing 'one size fits all' and replaces it with an 'a la carte' system, which does not necessarily take off the table the silver bullet 'license'. This is different from the pre-UB system where a bank can only participate in one segment e.g. investment and not commercial.

Evidence form other countries show that there is no benefit for a 'one size fits all system' as the current setup makes it difficult for new entrants into the sector, and existing banks will simply focus on segments that favor their profitability, while segments like rural banking suffer. It is impractical to require a bank interested in financing subsistence farming to come up with N25B capitalization. Diversity is, most often than not, a good thing.

Under the new regime, one can still practice universal banking, they just need to get all the required licenses. The abolishing of UB license does not equate to the abolishing of UB.

@naijaking1
People that doctored their books are fraudsters. Being convicted of the crime makes them criminals. Else someone who robs at gun point is ot an armed robber, because he is yet to be convicted?
You are yet to provide any fact or figures to counter the CBNs publications on the state of the banks. Even Soludo admitted there were 'rats' in the house, the question was how big and how many.
I am tired of your baseless whining, as you refuse to attack the crux on the matter and would rather dance around issues and mudsling.

naijaking1:
Wonderful figures right from Sanusi's CBN office. Thank you. Exposure to EDW, non-perfoming loans(though most were by goverment), low liquidity ratios, bla, bla, blah didn't call for the knee-jerk reaction from Sanusi.
If he didn't have a preset agenda, was ignorant, or simply vindictive, he would have, like some experts have said; given a warning to the said banks, closed the EDW, forced them to increase their liquidity ratio within a specific time frame. He would have done all these without the soap opera that has characterized his show

Are you disputing the figures?  If yes, please provide evidence to the contrary.
That you would trivialize the above figures (if true) and can only hinge your opinion on some 'experts' just shows you are in no position to criticize Sanusi, rather invite those 'experts' to dispute the figures.

It is hilarious your suggestions that he should give warnings (like if the banks were not aware of their actions), close EDW (wonder what happens to the money the banks owe), and force them to increase liquidity (wondering what the weapon of force will be) all the while leaving the corrupt CEOs in office and putting depositors funds at further risk. What next, we should start warning fraudsters and letting them keep their jobs?

naijaking1:
No, no, and Nooooooo
If his description had been half accurate, the CEOs, the shareholders, customers, and even bank employees would not be up in arms against him today, because most people understand the need to save the banking industry from real, and not imagined catastrophy.
In as much I would like to, I just don't have time to paste all the event s of the banking industry for the past 1 year to substantiate the above statement. The statements reside in the public domain already, and as the court cases wind their way through the legal system, more light would be shown on this financial misadvanture.

Facts and figures?

Interesting your choice of witnesses to support your position
1. CEOs - that were fired for their corrupt and sharp practices, and would obviously prefer Sanusi not to intervene
2. Shareholders - that benefited (via dividends) from the doctored books of the executives 
3. The Bank employees - who lost (or fear losing) their jobs because of the clean up and would rather keep their jobs than be unemployed
Each has a selfish motive to oppose the CBN's actions. Yet, all these are not facts and figures, and do not hold water.

Example of what I mean by facts and figures:
Sanusi's reasons for the first round of intervention include

1. That last October, some banks showed liquidity strains and were 'bailed' by the CBN via the creation of the EDW
2. That as at 06/04/2009, total outstanding in EDW was N257 Billion with majority being owed by 5 banks, and as at july, they owed 90% of the EDW.
3. That 4 of 5 said banks were continously borrowing without repayment
4. The five banks had non-performing loans of 19-48% of their portfolio
5. Total portfolio of 5 banks was N2801 Billion with aggregate non-performing loans of N 1143 Billion i.e. 41%
6. The 5 banks had N456Billion marginal loans and N 487 Billion exposure to Oil &Gas.
7. The 5 banks, at may 2009, had liquidity ratios of 18-24%, which is below the regulatory minimum 25%
8. The 5 banks required N539 Billion in provisioning whcih would pull the banks below the 10% minimum CAR

If you disagree with any of the above please highlight, and provide counter evidence, otherwise , stop arguing on what you have little information on.

naijaking1:
Letters of credit are not the only indicator of a healthy banking system, but it's one of the most important especially in the eyes of foreign business partners. Perception of our financial stability by foreign partners is directly related to issuance of letters of credit for importation of goods and services, but without lecturing you about letters of credit, I'm surprised that you should even ask that question.

What's next? That lending money is a good measure of banking strenght? And when Dangote had to shopping for loans overseas, what do you say about our own local banking strenght? The interests from these loans could easily employ a few thousand more Nigerians.

Nobody has ever said that things were perfect under Soludo, but unlike Sanusi, Soludo seemed to know that creating wealth, prospering the economy, and maintaining a stable banking industry is like the proverbial "sausage making"----the process if often dirty, but needs continuous and persistent cleaning up, regulation, and updates without stopping the whole process, because people really need those sausages.

Again you miss the point, and are jumping the gun. You seem bent on analysing events in isolation.

The refusal by foreign banks to honor letters of credit without a CBN guarantee was born out of the fear that the Nigerian banks may not be as healthy as they claim i.e. the foreign banks risking losing their money. So the question then becomes, were the Nigerian banks as healthy as they claimed? and if not should the CBN have covered up for them just to allow them continue getting LoCs?

The issue of Dangote is often misinterpreted as evidence against our banking sector.
Q: Did Dangote seek a loan from the banks and did not get it? No,
Dangote had a syndicated loan of $1.2 billion dollars he took in May 2008, that he chose to pay back in January 2010, simply because he got a more suitable facility from Standard Charted. The $350 Million facility is more a line of credit and not a loan, allowing him to draw on funds as at when needed (he has only drawn an initial amount of about $100m), as opposed to a project loan, which commits him to a larger sum, even though he might not need all the funds at once. He was having to service the $1.2B loan even though the expansion project the money was earmarked for was not in full swing. Also, the recent dip in crude oil prices means that forex rates are more favorable outside of the country and thus it suits companies like dangote's which have forex obligations (e.g. the deal with Siemens) to get te funds outside. So, even if Sanusi hadnt not acted, Dangote would have still gone for the foreign financing, as I doubt any Nigerian bank is willing to expose themselves to such a huge 'on demand' forex facility. It is the same way you need collateral to get a substantial loan in Naija, it is how our banks do business for now.

From your previous posts, you disagree with Sanusi's actions. My contantion is that you cannot agree/disagree with Sanusi's actions unless you have a reference in which you are evaluating it i.e., you cannot evaluate his actions in a vacuum. For example, using two extreme cases, if the banking sector was hale and hearty, then Sanusi's actions were uncalled for and wrong, but, if the banking sector was on the verge of collapse, then Sanusi's actions were right as the system has been saved from collapsing.

Your references to letters of credit, loans, rating or whatever are only relevant after you have ascertained the status of the banks before Sanusi's actions.Without that initial positional judgment, for all you know things could have been much worse or much better, with nothing to indicate either way.

So simple questions:
1. Was Sanusi's description of the state of the banking sector when he took over accurate?
2. If yes, then we can talk about the appropriateness of Sanusi's actions, and if not, give a more accurate picture of things, backing it up with relevant facts and figures (like CAR) in which case, Sanusi's action are wrong as they were based on a faulty premise)

but you cannot keep condemning his actions when you have no idea what the accurate state of the banks were at the time he took over.

naijaking1:
I pasted the above quotation from the article earlier posted by by mikeansy, because of your persistent and sometimes blind institance to show proof. If lose of letters of credit and strong lending capacity are not parameters to measure the strenght of our banks, what is?
The strenght our banks are not definitely going to be judged by how many sing and dance peroformamces Sanusi does out there.

So letter of credit is what is used to measure the health of a bank?
I have simply asked you to clearly state your position on the health of the banks before the Sanusi intervention. Was the banking sector in good health? if not, how bad was it? It is only you define your position on the state of the banks (and back it uop with facts and figures) that you can then judge if Sanusi's action are write or wrong, but seems you would rather assume his actions are wrong and then try to find evidence in support.

The guy is a mutineer who, along with his cohorts, murdered their senior officers in the military and key government officials including the prime minister and two premiers. That those in government were inept or corrupt is not a valid excuse. Their actions initiated military rule in Nigeria and sent us down the road of civil war, and, left the door open for the likes of IBB and Abacha. He is no different from any other coup plotter, and shouldn't be made out to be a hero. Doing so encourages any other disgruntled military officers who deems any civilian regime unfit to take a similar course of action.

naijaking1:
^^^^
Thank you, the only difference between many Sanusi supporters and critics is simple: the former had come to accept Sanusi's explanations that a financial armeggedon was about to occur save for his timely arrival. Using this false or questionable premise, he sought reasons(excuses) for most of his illegal or vindictive actions.
Critics like me believe the opposite. No matter how bad the situation of our banks at the twilight hours of Soludo, things are demonstrable worse 1 year after Sanusi took over, and there is no indication that it will get better.
And even if Sanusi had found things to be bad, how does he correct it by taking to singing to the media and eroding the confidence of our banking industry?
Many believe Sanusi's rants and raves are simple childish ways of deflecting attention away from his own inadequacies as a banker.

This is the flaw in your position. You have no definitive position on the status of the banking sector at the time Sanusi took over, and thus you cannot judge if his actions were appropriate. You cannot say something is 'demonstrable worse', if you dont know how bad it was in the first place, else what is the basis of your comparison?

When you are ready to make a clear statement (back with facts and figures) on the virility of the banks as at May 2009, only then can you comment on the best way forward and whether Sanusi's actions were right or wrong.

So liverpool is worth only £250million

You guys make it sound like NL is the only forum in the world. Seun acted wrongly, and he should have simply apologized. Even if he felt the polls were 'inappropriate', the right thing to do was to request the OP make the changes and give reasons why. All this BS spewing and BAK by some to try and justify his actions is simply nauseous.

Offer made to help cut Liverpool's debt

Tom Hicks and George Gillett have been offered a way of relieving the financial pressure at Liverpool after global investment firm the Rhone Group made a £100million-plus offer for a 40% stake in the club.

Liverpool's co-owners have been looking for an injection of cash to help reduce the current level of debt leveraged on the club. When they successfully renegotiated the terms of their loan with the Royal Bank of Scotland last summer one requirement was that they had to cut £100million off the £237million debt.

Liverpool chief executive Christian Purslow set a deadline of Easter to have secured new finance.

After much speculation over the source of potential investors, Press Association Sport understands the submission from the Rhone Group is the first genuine offer to be received. If the offer is accepted by Hicks and Gillett it would considerably strengthen the club's financial position.

The people behind the Rhone Group bid have been keen to stress that the offer comes in the form of fresh money - not borrowed - which would immediately be used to slash Liverpool's debt by nearly half.

If successful the Rhone Group's bid would give them the controlling interest in the club, with Hicks and Gillett reducing their shareholding to 30% each. Details of the offer were only received by Liverpool on Saturday and the matter has yet to be discussed at board level.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14032010/63/offer-made-help-cut-liverpool-debt.html

mikeansy:
I think the bit in bold is something people need to explore. Is he spending money and seeking Senate approval in retrospect? If that is what he is doing then that is an a example of the very sharp practice that Sanusi claims he wants to stop.

Actually the question is 'does he need senate approval to lend money on the short term to the banks as a subordinated debt in the tier 2 capital of the banks' cos that is what he did and the banks are to repay the loans.  I seriously doubt it, unless there is an upper limit that needs executive approval to exceed.

The AMC is a different issue, and is an entity that would buy the toxic assets (at below value of course) from the banks, and at the worst, the sale of those bad debts to the AMC will make money available for the banks to pay their CBN debts. Given the rate of debt recovery,  they might not need money from the AMC for the repayment. The AMC is a long term solution and will likely create a market for stand alone collection agencies.

Once a professor picks you up and/or you join a research group, funding becomes much easier, as the professor will likely pay for your RA from a project source. Till then, primary source of funding for international students in their first (and possibly second) year is TAship and there is rarely enough to around. Some departments are reluctant to give TA to students from outside the US as they feel they are unfamiliar with the system.

You are quite optimistic about funding in private schools, but unfortunately, my experience bars me from sharing such. Most of those top programs in private schools have large departments that can only fund a small fraction of their newly admitted students. The bulk of their funding goes to the 3yrs+ students and some still end up having to be a TA for the entire duration.

My initial point to NKnight was that if he is yet to receive funding, he should start working on it, and shouldnt believe the stories that there is abundance of funding waiting for him when he gets there. I had a friend who had to abandon his EE program in a top 50 school after two semesters of paying out of pocket and failing to secure funding, and I know of quite a few who had to transfer to lesser schools to ease the burden. If you dont get funding along with the admit offer, then one should make alternative plans that will last him for 1 or 2 yrs (to enable him join a research group or get a TAship). If things workout well and you get funding within your first semester, then all is good, but it will be bad if you dont get funding and are unprepared. People on ground will be able to give him a clearer picture, but he shouldnt take anything for granted. Naija are fond of thinking America is rosy, and most often receive a rude awakening.

Off campus opportunities are also not guaranteed, since you will need an OPT approval from the school, and I doubt there are many employers around UIUC, which is located in the middle of chilly nowhere.

SEFAGO:
I thot funding was guaranteed for every PhD student? Maybe just for private schools I guess.

Nothing is sure during this economic down turn, and it becomes more uncertain for someone who is not a permanent resident or US citizen (as it rules out most of the government sponsored opportunities). Even in private schools like Stanford and MIT, many international students find themselves on the short end of the funding stick.

In my experience, unless you are one of the top admits (in which case you would likely get funding with the admission offer) or you come in with a proven track record in research, most professors will want you on campus for 1 or 2 semesters to evaluate your abilities first hand, before doling out the cash. Smaller programs often find it easier to fund most of their students, but the MechSE program at UIUC is quite substantial, and I doubt there is enough money to go round. Li, Chang, Rakesh etc usually have an edge given their larger network, and one needs to step up to the challenge if you dont want funding issues distracting you from your academic obligations.

@Nknight
How is your funding situation?
Try contacting the Naija/African grad students and any other grad student in your field that could give you heads up info on funding opportunities, classes, accommodation, settling down, etc.
Grad school in a top US program is often quite different from undergrad in Naija, with a much heavier workload, and often weekly homework/problem set. You want to take classes that will set you up for further advance classes and/or position you well for joining a group of your choice, while giving room for relocation and acclimatization issues. You might also want to start brushing up on some materials to keep in shape and if not familiar, you might need to get some hands on experience on any relevant software like Matlab,  As a 'Jambito', it is always better to hit the ground running.

christian name? arent they just jewish names?
If Jesus was Nigerian, his disciples would have been Kunle, Emeka, Adamu, Edet and co

@Nknight
Congrats and best wishes.

18 platoon:
@babylishus, did i ask you to write thesis, just hit the nail on the head, cant you see how beaf does his postings, short and direct. almajiri means seeker of knowledge. una never see.

Do not confuse the origin of a word with its meaning. Saying "5 ghana-must-go" does not 5 Ghanaian are returning to Ghana.

The origin of almajiri is from the arabic word 'Al-Muhajirun' meaning migrants (emigrant/immigrant) and was initially used in reference to Muhammed and his followers on his Hijira (from Mecca to Medina). It was later used to refer to those who left their homes to seek further Islamic knowledge. Since these people were 'nomadic', the muslim community were encouraged/required to provide support for their well beings (like Christians would do for a missionary).

In northern Nigeria, that provision in Islam is being abused, and children are kicked on to the streets by their irresponsible parents (who should be shot IMO) to go and beg for alms under the guise that they are al-majiris. Those kids are barely surviving, talk less of having time or energy for any meaningful study of the Islam. The word al-majiri has since come to mean beggars, as these children are unfortunately no more than beggars.

All this na 'he said, she said'. Let Jang name the commander he called, when and what info he passed across, and let the commander clarify what he did with the info and if he acted accordingly. All this blame shifting without fact will get us nowhere. Anyone, including Jang, that has failed in his duties in providing security for those people should be relieved of his/her post.

One sided arrests will not solve anything. The leaders of any groups involved in attacks (irrelevant of being initiated or reprisal) should be arrested and prosecuted. Government and security officials that failed in their duties should be dealt with as well.

RoadStar:
While I do not agree with the writer above on every issue he has raised in this write up, but I have carefully highlighted areas where he/she has been spot on.

In the coming months weeks/months/years, these highlighted issues will become more pronounced.

Ethics or not, what the economy needs is a bouyant Banking sector.

An absence of this will be a failure on Sanusi's part !

so have you read the speech on the CBN 's plans?

naijaking1:
CBN default position of authority which had hitherto been sarcrosant has been scandalized by Sanusi's rush to nail his so-called personal enemies. Remember how he gave wrong figures about the amount people actually borrowed from the banks--16 billion instead of 6billion in one instance, wrong names---confusing one member of the Dangote family with another, and even refusing to say that majority of the debts were by government and their agencies. He could explain these as mistakes, but some people say it's simple dishonesty and a rush to judgement.---another reason why he must not be trusted.

Cant you make a coherent argument?
Where did Sanusi get the debtors information from - was it not the banks? was he not trying to help the banks recover their debts or was it CBN that made them debtors?
What is the amount of error in the bank debts? 1million, 1billion or 1trillion?
Again if the figures published by Sanusi are false, please provide the accurate ones. What is the level of error in Afribanks debts? Where are all the money being recovered coming from?
Yet the executives were not sacked based on the list of debtors, but for running the banks into the ground. Your seemingly attachment to the debtors list brings nothing to the table.
If you have facts to back up your position please present and stop trying to introduce extraneous info.