₦airaland Forum

afam4eva: This is not an idiocy for dummies thread, so, oya, ngwa, find your square-root osiso. Mkpi.

yinchar: Beaf for the first time since have know you on Nairaland, you said something meaniful and sensible, because most of your comments has always been anti tinubu, aregberascal(as you called him) & ACN.

naijaking1: Oh, oh, sorry for your plight. This is not a court of law, and you'll do yourself a World of good by venting your frustration through a better channel instead of posting supposed anti-Igbo articles that question your own sanity. How about going for some sort of psychological counseling to get to the root of these personal problems.
Rememeber what Fraud said about the ID, Ego, and super-ego.
Get help quick!!!!
Get help now!!!

afam4eva: Why are you harsh to someone you rate highly.

Subsidy regime fraught with corruption and inefficiency – Report
on APRIL 19, 2012 · in NEWS
9:41 pm
Email6
FOLLOWING the removal of subsidy on PMS on January 1, 2012 by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the attendant spontaneous social and political upheavals that greeted the policy, the House of Representatives in an emergency session on January 8, 2012 set up an Ad-hoc Committee to verify and determine the actual subsidy requirements and monitor the implementation of the subsidy regime in Nigeria.

The Federal Government had informed the nation of its inability to continue to pump endless amount of money into the seemingly bottomless pit that was referred to as petroleum products subsidy. It explained that the annual subsidy payment was huge, endless and unsustainable. Nigerians were led to believe that the colossal payments made were solely on PMS and HHK actually consumed by Nigerians. Government ascribed the quoted figures to upsurge in international crude price, high exchange rate, smuggling, increase in population and vehicles, etc.


R-L: Chairman Ad-hoc committee investigating Subsidy Regime Hon. Farouk Lawal; Chairman, House Committee on Media and Publicity, Hon. Mohammed Zakari; and deputy Chairman of the Committee, Hon. Victor Ogene at the briefing on fuel asubsidy report. Photo:Gbemiga Olamikan.
However, a large section of the population faulted the premise of the Government subsidy figures, maintaining that unbridled corruption and an inefficient and wasteful process accounted for a large part of the payments. To avert a clear and present danger of descent into lawlessness, the leadership of the House of Representatives took the bold and decisive action of convening the first ever Emergency Session on a Sunday (January 8, 2012), and set up the Ad-hoc Committee to verify the actual subsidy requirements of the country.

The Committee decided that the scope of this investigation should be for three years 2009 -2011 for the following reasons:

• The actual budget expendfture on subsidy for both PMS and HHK was tolerable, being N261.1 b in 2006, N278.8b in 2007 and N346.7b in 2008. 5 companies including NNPC were involved iQ 2006, 10 in 2007 and 19 in 2008 contrasted to 140 in 2011.

•Secondly, in line with accounting practice, the, Committee decided to investigate three years activities of the scheme.

•The Committee could have chosen to limit the investigation to 2011 alone given the scale of escalation of subsidy in that year alone but decided to take three years to establish a trend.

The Ad-Hoc Committee held Public Hearings from January 16, 2012 to February 9, 2012, taking sworn testimonies from 130 witnesses, receiving information from several volunteers, and receiving in evidence over 3,000 volumes of documents. In the course of the investigations the Ad-Hoc Committee was able to establish the following:

1.Contrary to statutory requirements and other guidelines under the Petroleum Support Fund (PSF) Scheme mandating agencies in the industry to keep reliable information data base, there seemed to be a deliberate understanding among the agencies not to do so. This lack of record keeping contributed in no small measure to the decadence and rots the Committee found in the administration of the PSF. This is evident also in the budget preparatory process by MDAs where adequate data is not made available to the National Assembly. The Committee had to resort to forensic analysis and examination of varied and external sources (including the Lloyds List Intelligence) to verify simple transactions. In this regard, the PPPRA is strongly urged to publish henceforth, the PSF accounts on quarterly basis to ensure transparency and openness of the subsidy scheme.

2. We found out that the subsidy regime, as operated between the period under review (2009 and 2011), were fraught with endemic corruption and entrenched inefficiency. Much of the amount claimed to have been paid as subsidy was actually not for consumed PMS. Government officials made nonsense of the PSF Guidelines due mainly to sleaze and, in some other cases, incompetence. It is, therefore, apparent that the insistence by top government officials that the subsidy figures was for products consumed was a clear attempt to mislead the Nigerian people.

3. Thus, contrary to the earlier official figure of subsidy payment of N1.3 trillion, the Accountant-General of the Federation put forward a figure ofN1.6 trillion, the CBN N1.7 trillion, while the Committee established subsidy payment of N2,587.087 trillion as at December 31, 2011, amounting to more than 900 per cent over the appropriated sum of N245 billion. This figure of N2, 587.087 trillion is based on the CBN figure of N844.944 billion paid to NNPC, in addition to another figure of N847.942 billion reflected as withdrawals by NNPC from the excess crude naira account, as well as the sum of N894.201 billion paid as subsidy to the Marketers.

NNPC withdraws from two sources

The figure of N847.942 billion quoted above strongly suggests that NNPC might have been withdrawing from two sources especially when the double withdrawals were also reflected both in 2009 and in 2010.

However, it should be noted that as at the time the public hearing was concluded, there were outstanding claims by NNPC and the Marketers in excess of N270 billion as subsidy payments for 2011. Whereas the mandate of the Committee was necessitated by the removal of subsidy, the Committee found out that subsidy payment on kerosene formed an Integra part of the total sum.

4. On its part, NNPC was found not to be accountable to any body or authority. The Corporation, in 2011, processed payment of N310.4 billion as 2009 – 2011 arrears of subsidy on Kerosene, contrary to a Presidential Directive which removed subsidy on Kerosene in 2009. The Corporation also processed for itself, direct deduction of subsidy payment from amounts it received from other operations such as joint venture before paying the balance to the Federation Account, thereby depleting the shares of States and Local Governments from the distributable pool. Worse still, the direct deduction in 2011 alone, which amounted to N847.942 billion, was effected without any provision in the Appropriation Act.

5. While NNPC feasted on the Federation Account to bloat the subsidy payable, some of the marketers were involved in claiming subsidy on products not supplied. PPPRA laid this foundation by allocating volumes of products each quarter to the marketers which it knew were not in conformity with its own guidelines for participation.

6. Our investigation further revealed that certain marketers collected subsidy of over N230.184 billion on PMS volume of 3,262,960,225 litres that from the records made available to us were not supplied. Apart from proliferation and non-designation of bank accounts for subsidy payment, PPPRA and the OAGF were unable to manage in a transparent manner the two accounts they chose to disclose. There were indications that PPPRA paid N158 billion to itself in 2009 and N157 billion in 2010. When confronted, the OAGF was unable to submit details of the bulk payments arrogated to PPPRA and the account from which the bulk sums were disbursed to the supposed beneficiaries.

7.Curiously too, the particular Accountant-General that served during the period 2009 was found to have made payments of equal instalments of N999 million for a record 128 times within 24 hours on January 12 and 13, 2009, totalling N 127.872 billion. The confirmed payments from the CBN records were made to beneficiaries yet to be disclosed by the OAGF or identified by the Committee. We, however, discovered that only 36 marketers were participants under the PSF Scheme during this period. Even if there were 128 marketers, it was inconceivable that all would have imported the same quantity of products to warrant equal payments.

Over-invoiced volume

8. In order to arrive at a probable figure of dailyconsumption of PMS, the Committee took the entire volume of 14,787,152,340 litres imported by marketers and NNPC in 2011 as recorded by PPPRA and then deducted what we suspected as over-invoiced volume of 3,276,949,993. Thus, the actual volume imported for year 2011 was 11,510,202,347. This manifested into an average daily PMS consumption of 31.5 million litres.

9. However, in 2012 marginal increment of 1.5 million litres a day is recommended in order to take care of unforeseen circumstances, bringing it to 33 million litres per day. And to maintain a strategic reserve, an additional average of seven million litres per day (or 630 million litres per quarter) for the first quarter of 2012 only is recommended. Thus, PPPRA is to use 40 million litres of PMS in the first quarter as its maximum ordering quantity per day. In subsequent quarters PMS daily ordering quantity should be 33 million litres per day. For Kerosene, the Committee recommends a daily ordering quantity of nine million litres.

10. On the issue of kerosene subsidy, the Committee strongly advocated for a Government policy to immediately recommence subsidy payment on the product by urging withdrawal of the 2009 Presidential Directive.

11. We also proposed a budget amount of N806.766billion for the 2012 fiscal year for payment of subsidy on PMS and Kerosene.

12. For the 2012 Appropriation Act, the Committee’s recommendation is based on the following: PMS: 33,000,000 Litres x N44 (subsidy) x 365 days = N529,980,000.00 Provision for strategic reserve for 1st Quarter of 2012: 7,000,000 x N44 (subsidy) x 90 days N27,720,000.00 HHK 9,000,000 litres x N101 (subsidy) x 274 days = N249,006,000.00 Total N806,766,000,000.00

Note: Commencement of kerosene subsidy is as from the second quarter of 2012, since the Committee is of the opinion that the product is still not under the subsidy regime. Therefore, the Committee recommends the sum of N806.766billion as subsidy for year 2012.

13. With regards to the 445,000 bpd allocation to NNPC, the Committee believes that with the current refining capacity of 53 per cent and the SWAP/Offshore processing arrangement of the balance of 47 per cent, it is sufficient to provide the nation with the following products:

a. 40 Million Litres Per Day (MLPD) of PMS, b.10 MLPD of Kerosene (HHK) c. 8.97 MLPD of Diesel (AGO) d. 0.62 MLPD of LPG and e. 2.31 MLPD of FO

It is only AGO whose average daily consumption of 12 million Litres per day will not be achieved in full. Since AGO has been deregulated, other marketers can make up for the 3.03 MLPD AGO shortfalls. The implication of this finding is that if NNPC properly manages the allocation of 445 bpd efficiently, the availability of the products can be achieved by the NNPC alone. This contrasts the situation where in 2009-2011 NNPC got the daily allocation of 445,000bpd and the nation still had to import through Marketers.

Curiously, although NNPC confirmed that it makes some savings of about N11.00 per litre refining locally than import, it could not be established that the Corporation reflects this cost differential in its claims to subsidy.

The Committee recommends that NNPC be unbundled to make its operations more efficient and transparent and this we believe can be achieved through the passage of a well drafted and comprehensive PIB Bill. All those in the Management and Board of the NNPC directly involved in the infractions identified for the years 2009-2011 should be investigated and prosecuted for abuse of office by the relevant anti­corru ption agencies.

14. Part of the funding sources of the PSF Account is over-recovery from marketers. This accrues when product landing cost is·lower than the Ex-Depot price. The Committee observed that:

i. In 2009, there was an over-recovery of N2.766 Billion. This was expected to have been credited to the PSF Account but was not traceable to the official PSF Account disclosed.

ii. Furthermore, in the presentation made by Akintola Williams Deloitte it was claimed that the sum of NGNS.27Biliion was established as over­recovery in 2099, however, there was no evidence that this money was credited to the PSF Account.

15. It is our view that the Guidelines of the PSF Scheme, even as watered down by the Board in 2009, could have salvaged the Scheme if they were observed and enforced. Had the staff of various agencies and government officials not compromised and colluded with certain marketers, the level of corruption would have been minimal. The Committee viewed this fact with serious concern and has suggested measures to ensure that impunity is no longer condoned. Therefore, marketers that had short-changed Nigerians were identified and recommended to make refunds within a time-frame of three months; civil servants were to be sanctioned in accordance with the Civil Service Rules as well as under extant Laws; management staff and top government officials were, based on the gravity of their offences, to be reprimanded, re-deployed, dismissed and, In specific cases, prosecuted for abuse of office and fraudulent practices.

16. The Committee recommended the refund to the treasury the sum of N1, 067,040,456,171.31 trillion from the under listed for various violations.

i.) NNPC (Kerosene Subsidy)’ N310,414,963,613.00

ii.) NNPC (Above PPRA recommendation) – N285,098,000,000.00

iii.) NNPC (Self discount) - N108,648,000,000.00

iv.) Marketers (Total violations, of PSF) N8,664,352,554.00

v.) Companies that refused to appear N41,936,140,005.31

vi.) PPPRA excess paymenLto self N312,279,000,000.00

TOTAL N1,067,040,456,171.31

The Committee believes that if the PSF scheme was properly managed, this sum of N1.070 trillion would have been available to the three tiers of Government for budget enhancement.

17. The Committee recommends that the following transactions be further investigated by the relevant anti-corruption agencies and determine their level of culpability with a view to making further recoveries;

i. Payment of N999m to unnamed entities 128 times to the tune of N127.872 billion

ii. Companies who collected Forex to the tune of $402.610 billion whose utilization is questionable to the Committee.

iii. The 72 Companies listed under the.financial forensics are hereby recommended for further investigation by the relevant anti­-corruption agencies with a view to establishing their culpability and recovering the sums indicated against their names totalling N230, 184,605,691.00.

iv. The Over recoveries of N2.766 billion and N5.27 billion which were not accounted for by the office of the Accountant General of the Federation.

v. The cases of double deductions by the NNPC for sUbsidy payments in 2009,2010 and 2011 mentioned in this Report.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/subsidy-regime-fraught-with-corruption-and-inefficiency-report/

Looters tried to kill our report – Committee
on APRIL 20, 2012 · in HEADLINES
2:00 am
Email6
By Our Reporters
ABUJA—Chairman of the House ad-hoc committee on the utilization of subsidy, Rep. Farouk Lawan at a press conference, yesterday, admitted serious pressure from government, marketers and other quarters on his committee for a favourable consideration during its investigation. Lawan at the briefing further asserted that there would be no need for fuel importation in a regime of transparency in the petroleum sector.

This came as apprehension mounted in the presidency and the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP yesterday over the contents of the House of Representatives report on investigation of the utilization of the subsidy in the prices of petroleum products.

The apprehension based on the indictment of some major contributors to the party’s campaign coffers of 2011 heightened as the PDP summoned a meeting with the members of the House for April 30.

The party, however, dismissed the alleged anxiety saying that it welcomed the probe even as it admitted that only 12.75% of those indicted by the House report were contributors to the party’s campaign purse.

The apprehension nonetheless, criticism of the administration from opposition groups, lawyers, organised labour and civil society overflowed yesterday with calls on the administration to ensure full implementation of the report.

Tukur summons PDP House caucus meeting

The perceived apprehension in the PDP came as the national chairman of the ruling party, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur yesterday requested a meeting with the PDP House caucus on April 30. More than N1 trillion was recommended by the House committee to be refunded to government treasury on account of the alleged fraud by government agencies and marketers involved in the subsidy scam.

Briefing House correspondents after yesterday’s sitting, the Chairman of the House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Rep. Zakari Mohammed said, the recommendations of the Ad-hoc committee would be fully implemented to the letter.

Flanked by Lawan, Mohammed said, “we do not prosecute but we will ensure that the executive arm of government implements its recommendations to the letter. We will use all our legislative powers to ensure that after adoption, the report sees the light of the day.”

Asked how the legislative arm can achieve this, Mohammed said, “we are ingenuous, the executive arm will come to us also for certain things and we can use this report as a pre-condition and tell them that let this be done or we won’t do certain things that you are requesting us to do.”

Speaking at the briefing, Lawan admitted that the committee came under tremendous pressure from Government and oil marketers in the course of preparing the fuel subsidy report.

Lawan said the pressure was enormous but we considered Nigeria first “because if we free the resources in the sector of its ills it would go a long way to benefit all Nigerians rather than a few of us.”

He said: “what we did was to look at 2009 till 2011 when the fuel subsidy started skyrocketing into billions because as at 2008 the fuel subsidy was just a little above N200billion and the companies involved then were only 20.

“So we dug from 2009 where there was a proliferation of companies as we needed to limit ourselves because of time to ensure we do a very good work. There were so many pressures from government officials and marketers who wanted to reach us through some of our colleagues. If we have compromised we wouldn’t have had the courage to ask them the questions we asked them.”

He, however, dismissed the initial media reports that the committee doctored the report before it was laid before the House. “The report has revealed a lot of things, and we extended the scope of our investigation”, Lawan said, stressing that “we are asking Mr President to reorganise the Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources”, considering the spate of corruption revealed during the probe.

The committee also asked the Presidency to dissolve the Board of NNPC and PPPRA in the bid to sanitize the sector.

He maintained that there is “no need for importation of petroleum products for local consumption, if NNPC can effectively manage the local production stressing that government was losing too much money granting licence for importation of petroleum products.”

The legislator who doubles as chairman, explained that the escalation of money spent on fuel subsidy manifested when the committee resolved to extend the scope of the investigation to 2009. He added that the committee discovered proliferation of companies that participated in the subsidy rose during the period under review.

No anxiety in PDP — Metuh

Dismissing perceptions of anxiety in the ranks of the PDP, the national publicity secretary of the party, Chief Olisa Metuh told Vanguard yesterday that the party on the contrary fully endorsed the House investigations as, according to him, it would lead to the entrenchment of a regime of transparency as envisaged by the party.

“The party is happy with the National Assembly and charged PDP members to assist the President in his fight against corruption. Last week, the Party issued a statement condemning corruption. PDP supports all the probes going on and at the end of the day, they will assist the President in establishing an open and transparent system,” he said.

Tasked on the culpability of major contributors to the party coffers by the report, he said: “The people who you are talking of were only 12.75% of those indicted by the report and I hope that the public will not say that the remaining 87.25% are being indicted for not contributing to our campaign.”

Metuh’s defence nonetheless, serious attack came the way of the ruling party and government from opposition parties and civil society groups over the contents of the report.

CPC, NLC, others kick

The Congress for Progressive Change, CPC speaking through its national publicity secretary, Engr. Rotimi Fashakin said the report represented the insensitivity and lack of conscience of the country’s present set of rulers as he accused the PDP of breaking the bank to ensure the election of President Goodluck Jonathan.

The NLC in its reaction to the report claimed the report had unveiled the corruption it said was inherent in the petroleum industry claiming it felt justified with its decision to oppose the removal of subsidy in petroleum products at the beginning of the year. The NLC in its reaction articulated by its Acting National Secretary, Comrade Owei Lakemfa equally demanded that the Ministers of Finance and Petroleum in the period during which the abuses occurred should be brought to account.

The NLC deposed thus: “For the NLC, the Report is a mere tip of the iceberg; there is the need for further investigations. For instance, the recommendation that the Executive Secretaries of the Petroleum Products Pricing and Regulatory Agency, PPPRA, from 2009 to date be probed, does not go far enough. There is the need to probe the oil industry from the inception of civil rule after the rapacious military regimes had departed. Some of the findings of the House Report show clear indication of criminality; therefore it is not enough for private and public organisations like the NNPC, PPPRA to be asked to make refunds. The Government has a duty to bring the officers of such organizations and their supervisors to justice.

“We also hold that the Ministers in the Finance and Petroleum Ministries and their lieutenants under whose watch the NNPC made unconstitutional deductions from the country’s oil income before dumping the balance in the Federation account, should be investigated for culpability. The massive looting of the subsidy funds and the corruption in the oil industry are sufficient grounds for the N97 per litre cost of PMS (petrol) to be drastically reduced. The NLC holds that if the government plucks up courage to do local refining, the cost of PMS need not be as high as the old price of N65 per litre.”

The NLC commends the House of Representatives and its ad hoc Committee for carrying out the probe and mustering the courage to make the Report public.

Save Nigeria Group reacts

In its own reaction to the subsidy report, the Save Nigeria Group, SNG, called for a sanctioning of the Minister of Petroleum and all other authorities involved in the approval of the payments.

In a telephone chat with Vanguard, spokesman for SNG, Mr Yinka Odumakin said:

“What we have been saying has now come to the fore. What we are dealing with is corruption and subsidy in the oil industry because if we were actually doing subsidy, we won’t have spent such huge amount of money, not to talk of the over 900 per cent that was now paid to thieves in the name of subsidy. As we speak, the figure is still mounting because we understand that another N547

billion has been deducted as carry over from last year, which will now make it N3 trillion in just one year.”

Lawyers react

Lawyers who reacted to the report were also scathing as many of them called for the prosecution of those indicted.

Bamidele Aturu

Mr Bamidele Aturu on his part said:

“It has confirmed what I have been saying all along that people are just reaping from where they did not sow. Many people have been robbing us and so the House of Representatives did not say anything new. There are so many emergency billionaires in Nigeria. I have said it before that we should use this opportunity to cleanse the Petroleum industry.”

He also added that “We should also ensure that the courts do their work and speedily too because this is not a report that we should just sweep under the carpet. One of the functions of the National Assembly is to expose corruption with the aim of amending the law. The National Assembly should come out to amend all necessary laws regarding the petroleum industry. Having exposed corruption, the EFCC and ICPC should move in to do their work because Nigerians have been short changed by these oil racketeers.”

Godwin Obla

Chief Godwin Obla who is a lead prosecutor with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC said:

“There is no doubt that the probe panel did a wonderful job though some are still critical about the extent they acted, however, asking the indicted organizations to make refund should not have been the best option. The panel should have asked the leadership of the National Assembly to transmit its findings to the anti-graft agencies for them to take up the case and subject the report to further investigations that will lead to either filing of charge or prosecution of those affected.

“I don’t think that the National Assembly actually have the authority to ask for the refund, it is an issue that should be resolved by the court, anyway, I followed the probe process on television and I believe that they have done a good job.”

Udofia Akpan

Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan, a constitutional lawyer said: “Clearly the chickens have come home to roost. President Goodluck Jonathan must show courage and leadership in this matter. These allegations are far too weighty to be swept under the rug just like the illegal and hasty oil block deals last year. Nothing short of a complete overhaul of the NNPC will restore public confidence in the government and its readiness to fight the hydra-headed monster that corruption has become. The Minister of Petroleum resources, her henchmen in the Ministry, NNPC, PPRA, DPR and PPMC must be removed if the president fails to act then he may be fuelling the armoury of his critics.”

For Mr Festus Keyamo said: “All the firms should be prosecuted. The onus is now on the federal government to show its sincerity towards fighting corruption in the country by initiating criminal proceedings against all the firms involved in the fraud. The case should be regarded in the same category as the Halliburton bribery scandal.”

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/looters-tried-to-kill-our-report-committee/

Civil Society organizations reaction to the Report of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc committee which investigated the controversial subsidy on petroleum products in the country, have called on President Goodluck Jonathan to take action to sanitize the situation in the country.

At a press conference in Abuja today, the United Action for Democracy (UAD) said that the revelations that emanated from the probe by the Representatives confirmed its position of and that of the mass of Nigerians that it was the corrupt enrichment of a minority and not the affordability of fuel for the vast majority of Nigerians that was being subsidized

The UAD therefore called for the prosecution of all the individuals and corporate bodies found to have been the beneficiaries of the supposed ‘subsidy’. “Further, we call we call for the immediate resignation or sacking of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, Minister of Finance, Diezani Allison-Madueke, Minister of Petroleum, and Labaran Maku, the Minister of Information for their demonstrated culpability by acts of omission or commission in the fuel subsidy, the anti people hike in the price of petrol and the conscious promotion of lies to cover up the truth,” the group said.

And in a press statement in Benin City, the Executive Director of Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), Rev. David Ugolor, said the report of the committee further confirmed the rot and mindless corruption represented by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources. “ It exposes the fact that the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Allison Madueke has been presiding over sleaze and she has no option now but to take the path of honour," he declared.

He said it ought to be clear to President Jonathan by now that he was misled on the issue of fuel subsidy removal on January 1, but that the people of Nigeria have now triumphed over the negative forces in government and Mr. Jonathan should demonstrate his commitment to fighting corruption in the sector. “He should get his anti-graft agencies to prosecute all those linked with this monumental fraud that led to the crisis of confidence between Nigerians and his administration,” he said. “He should be courageous enough to fire the Petroleum Minister so that Nigerians could be convinced that there are no sacred cows in his cabinet."

In the same vein, the UAD said at the press conference that it has closely been observing the evolving situation in the country with respect to growing impunity on the part of those in government, growing poverty in the midst of plenty, and growing insecurity across the country.

It noted that at its recent extraordinary and expanded session of its National Coordinating Council held in Lagos in March, the UAD reflected on the January uprising and the state of the nation, towards consolidating on the gains won by the popular masses.

“The January uprising was a popular upheaval of the poor and suffering Nigerian against the dire and worsening state of poverty, corruption and impunity in high places and disillusionment with the ruling elite in Nigeria which was ignited by the hike in fuel price,” the body said. Despite the premature suspension of the general strike at its peak by the labour movement, which UAD considered to be unfortunate, it said the outcome was a partial victory and Nigerian people victorious because they dared to struggle.

UAD said that with the realization that the Nigerian State remained committed to further hiking the price of petrol, it will henceforth commence intensive mobilization in preparation for mass mobilization in preparation for mass revolutionary action against this and other anti people policy and for system change.

Among others, UAD called for the immediate release, full publication and implementation of the reports of the power sector, fuel subsidy, petroleum sector and pension probes; prosecution and punishment of those implicated and indicted; exemplary punishment to guilty companies; and immediate steps taken to determine actual daily consumption rate for petrol; actual daily production capacity for petrol by domestic refineries; and actual daily production capacity of domestic refineries.

Also speaking in Benin City today, ANEEJ's Policy Officer, Mr. Innocent Edemhanria said it was gratifying that one of the recommendations in the House committee report is the immediate unbundling of Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which the Petroleum Industry Bill seeks to achieve.

“The passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill into law will complement the effectiveness of the Nigeria Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative(NEITI) Secretariat which recent 2006 – 2008 audit reports confirmed the urgent need to reform the oil and gas sector in Nigeria so as to create the enabling environment for all stakeholders,’’ Edemhanria stressed.

http://saharareporters.com/news-page/fuel-subsidy-fallout-combat-corruption-sack-okonjo-iweala-allison-madueke-civil-society-or

[size=14pt]Can Igbos Govern Their Own Nation-State?[/size]

SUNDAY, 09 SEPTEMBER 2007 18:52 WRITTEN BY OZODI THOMAS OSUJI


Lately, one of the questions that I have been pondering is whether Igbo people, as I know them to be, not as they present themselves as, can form a nation state and successfully govern it? This is a necessary question in light of the apparent wish by some of them to separate from Nigeria and form what they call Biafra. (As an aside it should be observed that those secessionists, apparently, are too lazy to even learn that the name Biafra derives from Portugal, is a village in Portugal and naming themselves after a Portuguese town is a sign that they are not true Africanists, are mentally colonized hence are not ready for self governance, yet. The first thing a person who seriously wants to govern himself does is define himself on his own terms, apart from other people, but the Biafrans, apparently, cannot define themselves apart from external others, in this case Europeans. This suggests that they are still suffering from Europe’s cultural imperialism.)

To predict an individual’s future behavior you look at his past behavior. We study history to understand how groups of human beings behaved in the past so as to understand how they would behave in the future. In this light what does the study of Igbo history teach us about their ability to govern themselves?

Before the white men came to Igbo land there was no unified Igbo nation-state. What existed were many Igbo towns each governing itself. Igbos in their towns had democracy of sorts. The various Igbo towns were not unified into an all Igbo polity. No Igbo warrior rose up and did what other warriors did: use force of arms and or political astuteness to unify his people into one nation.

Historically, what happens is that a strong man within a group rises up and organizes a following into a military force and employs it to unify those who are like him, those who speak the same language as him. Having united his people he, or subsequent leaders, may engage in foreign adventure by conquering neighboring groups and building an empire.

Originally, Greece was composed of independent towns but these, under foreign pressure, particularly from Persia, united into a Greek nation. Philip and his son, Alexander the Great, of Macedonia took things a little further: they conquered their neighbors and built an empire. A Latin tribe living on the banks of River Tiber were united into a group and began making wars against their neighbors and gradually developed the ability to conquer them and built the strongest empire, Rome, Europe had known. In the East the Mongols did the same; the Chinese, the Indians, and the Arabs did the same. In Africa, those Africans living in the Sahel region of West Africa, apparently, under pressure from marauding Islamic Arabs formed strong states and empires beginning with Ghana and morphing to Mali, Songhai, Bornu-Kanen and Hausa States. In the forested part of Africa some African nations emerged, such as the Benin Empire and the Oyo (Yoruba) Empire. Further south there were the Kongo Empire, Angola Empire, Buganda, and Zulu empires.

Most countries came into being by gradually evolving from a small unit into a larger unit; generally, this is done through military power. Alternatively, a foreign military power comes around and uses power to unite disparate groups into a country under its control. The British, actually, a handful of them, employed military force to unify the various tribes living in what is now called Nigeria into a country, and govern them for the interest of Britain. Nigeria, like most African countries, was formed for the good of foreign powers, not for the good of Nigerians. Britain ruled Nigeria not because she loved Nigerians but because she wanted to extract certain economic goods from Nigeria and enhance her political prestige in Europe.

Igbos, by themselves, did not form a united Igbo nation; it took a foreign power, in this case the British, to form them into a country. Without the British there would be no Igbo nation. Perhaps, eventually Igbos would have unified into an Igbo nation; given sufficient time everything is possible. But the question is why didn’t the Igbos by themselves form a nation state soon enough? Answering this question would elucidate the question that this essay is trying to answer: Can Igbos govern a large polity?

In British Nigeria it took a lot of doing for the British to subdue the Igbos. The Igbo knew town governance and did not like to be subjected to a larger polity. To run large polities, it is necessary to have money, money obtained largely through taxation. When the British attempted to tax Igbos the Igbos resented it, hence, the 1929 Aba Women’s riot.

Whereas from the perspective of anti colonial efforts that revolt may be looked at favorably but from the perspective of governance it showed that the Igbos did not understand the nature of governance. You cannot govern a modern polity without generating revenue and governments obtain revenue from taxation. You have to tax a people if you want to run a modern government. Nothing is as inevitable in modern life as taxes. Every citizen, if realistic, bargains on paying, at least, twenty percent of his annual income to taxes. The alternative to not paying taxes is to not have a modern state, to revert to living in the jungle, to being a savage. Civilization has it its price: taxes and living under the rule of law.



The Absence Of Historic Igbo Nationalism


Igbos did not have an Igbo wide nation-state before the advent of the British. With British Nigeria, Igbos, suffering from population pressure on their meager land, quickly spread to all parts of Nigeria (and, later, to other parts of West Africa, Africa and now the world). The Igbo began living among non-Igbos in Nigeria…among the Yoruba, the Beni, and the Hausa etc. These other people saw the Igbos as different from them. A people who do not speak your language are different from you. Thus, it came to pass that other Nigerians treated Igbos from Owerri, Mbaise, Ngwa, Umuahia, Okigwe, Orlu, Onitsha, Enugu, Ikwerri, Asaba and Agbo etc as the same people even though among themselves these people could not understand each other’s Igbo dialect.

The perception of them by other Nigerians as one people began the process of building a sense of nationhood in Igbos. Since no human being is inferior to others and no human being accepts derogatory statements from others those that Igbos put down resent them. It came to pass that every once in a while the resentment of Igbo arrogance spills over into killing of Igbos. Thus, Igbos have been killed in several parts of Nigeria. The killing of Igbos in other parts of Nigeria, unfortunate as it was increased the incipient sense of Igboness; Igbos began to feel that they are a separate people.

In 1967 Emeka Ojukwu, a colonel in the Nigerian army, took Igbos to war with the rest of Nigeria. That war increased Igbos sense of nationhood. Undergoing national emergencies, such as wars and other struggles where the people pull together for their mutual survival, engenders a sense of nationhood in them. All said, several colonial and post-colonial events enabled Igbos to develop what they historically lacked, a sense of nationhood. Nevertheless, Igbo sense of oneness is very fragile. In business they tend to do well as sole proprietors where they start their own businesses and run them as they see fit. They seldom do well in partnerships and certainly not in corporations. Every Igbo wants, as in the cliché that every American Indian wants to be a chief, to be his own boss and since in large-scale organizations there can be few bosses. The salient point, though, is that Igbos have not fully developed a sense of being a unified people. Many forces are helping them move to that end but the feeling is still incipient.

If Igbos were to separate from Nigeria and form a separated Republic of Alaigbo, let us dispense with the nonsense of Biafra, and call Igbos by their real name, Alaigbo, the chances are that they would revert to their traditional clan identities. It is conceivable for the Owerri to fight the Onitsha and the Onitsha fight the Owerri, Orlu, Okigwe, Umuahai, Ngwa, Ikwerri, and Agbor etc. This situation would replicate what is going on in Somalia. The Somalis speak one language and are technically one people. But prior to the coming of the white man to unify them they organized themselves pretty much as Igbos did: along clans. With the departure of the white man and a strong national force (the fall of Said Bare’s military dictatorship) the various Somali clans reverted to their historical status and warred with each other, and the result is that Somalia is today a jungle where there is no centralized government. I am afraid that Igbos may experience the same faith were they to rush into an independent nation-state.

In my judgment, what seems to be in the best interest of Igbos is for them to continue to stay in Nigeria and larger polities, such as a West African federation and, ultimately, an African federation. However, while in Nigeria, Igbos ought to work to restructure Nigeria’s constitution along the lines that I, and, eventually, Pronaco suggested. In various writings, I suggested that all Alaigbo, from Agbo to Igwe Ocha, from Arochukwu to Nsukka etc become one state in Nigeria. If all Alaigbo were a state the people would learn to see themselves as one people and learn to govern themselves as one people.

Historically, Igbos, unfortunately, like divisions and if you gave them the opportunity each Igbo clan would like to become a separated state. Every Igbo town would like to be a state, and this would replicate their traditional, pre-white man’s socio-political organization. Such small-scale social organization makes Igbos politically weak and certainly makes them vulnerable to external exploitation. Slavery was easily carried out in Alaigbo because of the chaotic social organizations of the Igbos. Since each town was its own state and since each town was too weak to organize an effective army, it really could not fight off slavers.

In the early 1600s the Aro, an Igbo clan, on the border with the Efik tribe, formed an unholy alliance with the Calabar, and agreed to supply the later with Igbo slaves (who the later sold to the Portuguese and other Europeans). The Aro hired mercenaries, such as the Abam, and these roamed Igbo land kidnapping men, women and children and selling them into slavery. It was only in 1902 that Frederick Lugard and his British-led West African Frontier Army (composed mostly of Hausa soldiers) stormed the long juju of Arochukwu and its counterpart at Umunoha and finally put a stop to slavery in Alaigbo. If Igbos had a unified state that could mount a powerful military it is doubtful that they would have been vulnerable to slave trade. Those Igbos clamoring for more states ought to bear this point in mind: small Igbo states make Igbos weak. Foreigners can exploit the various small Igbos states and that way keep them weak.

See the disaster going on in Anambra state. It seems that the people of Anambra don’t seem capable of accepting a government; it seems that each man wants to be the government, the governor, legislature and judiciary, and the result is total chaos in that unfortunate state. The powers that be in Nigeria would be foolish not to exploit these peoples seeming inability to unite and no doubt they are stoking the fire of disunity in Anambra. Machiavelli advises a "divide and conquer" policy towards ones enemies and since these people already enjoy division why not take advantage of it so as to rule them? In my judgment, as currently constituted, Igbos seem unable to govern themselves in large polities. The Igbo is used to being his own boss. Igbos, as I see them, tend to do well as individual stars.

During wars solders use the threat of killing people to get them to do what the leaders want done. During the Biafran war, the accidental leader of the Igbos, Emeka Ojukwu (accidental because he was not elected by the Igbos, he was appointed by Major General Aguiyi Ironsi, the head of the military junta at Lagos) used force to get Igbos to follow him. In peace his dictatorial character would have made him unelectable. Ojukwu is not a leader who uses persuasion to get people to embrace his point of view and follow them; rather, he expresses pedestrian views, the views of a rich dim wit, and expects folks to accept them and feels angry if they refuse to kowtow to them.

The fact of the matter is that whereas people are fearful and you can intimidate them to going along with you, in the long run such leadership styles fail. Sooner or later, fearful persons attempt to overcome their fears and would fight those who rule them by intimidation. White men, for example, used force and intimidation to rule fearful black men in the Americas. As black men overcome the fears that bound them to slavery and second class citizenship white men would have to share power with them and re-negotiate the basis of governance or risk been overthrown by the angry blacks. Four hundred years of intimidation is just about all the white man can get away with; white domination of the black man is over, for black men now have the intellectual wherewithal to jostle for power share.

For our present purposes, Igbos attempt to intimidate folk into going along with them; this leadership by intimidation would not work, for one thing as a people Igbos are powerless and do not have the military power to cow any one into going along with their often childish schemes. It is in their best interests to learn negotiation and persuasion skills and try to get others to see their points of views rather than think that they can cow them. If Igbos were more knowledgeable of the art of persuasion, diplomacy and tactfulness they probably would have persuaded many countries to recognize their ill-fated Biafra enterprise. Instead, they assumed that other people would see their points of view and embrace them. Poor chaps; in international relations nations do what serves their national interests, not what helps you. Nobody cared if all Igbos died from kwashiorkor, what mattered to other nations was what was in it for them if they supported Biafra? International relationships are not a sentimental business whereby others supported you because you desire support. This point should be remembered by the would be Biafrans: why should the West support them? What do they have for the West? They must always remember that the oil desired by the West is not in Alaigbo, but mostly Ijaw land. Ojukwu and his fellow rebels had a big F in diplomatic skills.

The Desire To Actualize Of Biafra


What shall we make of the so-called movement for the actualization of Biafra? Not much. It is sort of a boys club; it is an organization formed by youth who were not part of the Biafra experience. They seem to have nostalgia for Biafra; to them Biafra seem their peoples one moment of glory in the sun. They look at that war as a historic struggle of good and evil and they are the good. Since, as they look back in their history they do not see anything that they can take pride from (their history was not written down before the white man came along), so they look unto the Biafran war as glorious and look at the leader of that war, Emeka Ojukwu, as a great warrior.

A great warrior, indeed; when the war was lost, like a coward, Ojukwu fled the country he had led to war, he fled to go save his hide. This is contrary to what is expected of generals; generals are expected to not abandon their soldiers in the battlefield, to accept their enemy’s punishment, including death, rather than abandon their troops.

The Biafran war lasted less than three years, only thirty months. In the annals of people’s struggle for independence three years is nothing. Such struggles often last decades. So why didn’t the defeated Biafrans disappear into the forest and launch a guerrilla warfare? Why were they in a hurry to return to other parts of Nigeria, the places they were supposedly killed at? Why did their desire for independence quickly flame out (and kept alive on the Internet by Biafra internet warriors, not actual warriors)?

Power concedes nothing; if you want something from those in power you have to fight for it and they would only give it to you when you defeat them in the struggle for power. Biafrans lost the war and currently talk about their need for independence and talk as if Nigerians would willingly allow them to separate from Nigeria. This is childish expectation. If you truly want independence you return to the jungle and fight for it.

Could it be the case that Biafrans are not willing to fight for what they believe and are just noisemakers? Could it be that they believe that if they make Nigerians feel guilty for killing their people that Nigerians would let them go? Nigerians would not feel guilty for they do not see themselves as the evil ones.On the contrary, other Nigerians see them as the guilty ones; they blame Igbo arrogance for Igbos problems. Nigeria is not going to let Biafra go out of guilt. Only Biafrans fighting for what they say they want would give them what they say they want, so, why don’t they fight for it? Why haven’t the Biafrans put their money where their mouths are?

During the Biafran war itself those that brought the war, the big boys, hid out in rear positions and forced poor children, some as young as fourteen years old, to fight the war for them. Those people were cowards who talked big and got a war going then got others, those who they intimidated to fight it for them. Those bastards hid their children from fighting. (Folk called Biafran soldiers abo ahihia, refuse to be thrown away.) I do not believe that Igbos are yet willing to place their lives in jeopardy for larger courses. I see them mostly struggling for personal goals but seldom for larger communal goals. If you listened to them you would think that when the bullets begin to fly that they would stand and fight. No, they would run and talk fools into fighting their wars for them.

If these people want to separate so badly I say let them exchange their business suits for military clothes and fight, fight for ten, twenty, thirty years or however long it takes to realize their dream. Then they would come across as heroic men, not mere noisemakers. (The Biafra Internet Brigade are hiding out in North America and talking volubly about war but when war comes the cowards would hide and have only the children of poor Igbos to fight it for them; these people are bloody cowards, they are contemptible and despicable; if you want a war go fight it by yourself. I am not a pacifist, I am not against all wars; I am for just wars.)

Does all these mean that all Igbos should not be given leadership and managerial positions in Nigeria? Not at all. I have seen a few Igbos who possess all the traits expected in good leaders. They are usually the quiet ones, those that have taken the time to analyze themselves and understood themselves; as Socrates observed, an unexamined life is not worth living; when we examine, analyze, our lives we see a whole lot of things that need improvement. Those with examined lives, understanding that they are imperfect, do not go about verbally abusing other imperfect human beings; instead they seek ways to improve all of our lives. There are Igbos who can rule Nigeria and other modern organizations but they are very few. There are some Igbos who understand that a leader is a servant of those he leads; that he articulates their aspirations and helps them realize them, that he is not there to lord it over them, to get them to worship his inflated ego. Such leaders understand that all people are the same, equal and one and work for what serves our mutual self interests.

Projection Or Objectivity?

A person who wrote the type of things I have written about Igbos, a group that one nominally belongs to can be said to be talking about what he sees in his self, deny and or dissociate from and project out. Am I projecting out some things I see in me to Igbos? In the nature of things you cannot rule this entirely out. Nevertheless, the question is whether what I see in these people is observable by other persons, or not? I submit that any person who has been close to Igbos have seen the traits I described as inhering in them. In as much as there is inter observer agreement my observation seems accurate. If you disagree with me then disprove me.

A cursory reading of this essay may lead one to conclude that since it appears that I doubt the Igbos ability to govern themselves that as an Igbo I doubt my own ability to govern polities. In other words that the writing reflects deep loss of confidence in myself hence in my people. As it were, it would seem to suggest that I want other people to rule us, those who are allegedly better than us.

In the Americas colonized Negroes sometime feel so emasculated by their inferior social status that they doubt their ability to do the right thing and believe that only their white masters have the ability to do the right thing for them, rule them. The problem with this assessment of the issue is that I do not recognize external others as better than us. If I were to tell you what I think of white folks you would not believe that a human being would have such a low opinion of his fellow human beings. Regarding other African groups, if the Igbos, an admittedly hardworking group are seen in negative light you can only imagine how one sees them. Let us just say that I do not elevate other groups above Igbos and myself.

I do not expect other groups to rule Igbos. I am just seeking ways to make sure that Igbos rule themselves properly. By showing what is wrong with their manner of doing things my goal is to improve their doing those things. It is in governing that one learns the art of governing. If you want to develop leadership skills you have to put yourself in leadership positions. You cannot become a leader unless you actually lead people. Igbos, Africans must govern themselves and from so doing learn how to govern themselves well.

Conclusion


In 1957 Ghana became the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence. Since then all black African countries have gained independence from European rule. Fifty years of self-rule has resulted in collapsed economies all over Africa. Nowhere in Africa is the country well managed. So why is this the case? At first we blamed our former colonial masters for scheming to do us in. But in time some of us learned that only children blame others for their woes. When one points two accusatory fingers at other persons three point right back at one reminding one that though others contribute to ones fate that one is more responsible for it than other people.

In trying to understand why African countries do not seem to do the right thing I decided to examine my own ethnic group, the Igbos, and understand them as they are, not as they present themselves to others. I decided to go beneath the mask and know whom these people are. In several writings I have focused on the Igbos. I am trying to understand them, which really means understand me, for one must understand ones group if one is to understand ones self. For example, I am very competitive and do not accept being second to any other person. In trying to understand why I have that trait I learned that it is rooted in Igbo competitiveness. Igbos compete and reward only successful persons and either ignore or shame losers. Thus most Igbos are afraid of becoming losers least they are socially rejected and or shamed. The individual’s behavior is rooted in his group’s culture; the shibboleth of individualism is exaggerated.

My goal in this particular essay is to see if there is anything in Igbos background that disposes them to be unable to govern themselves? I believe the answer is affirmative and have posited those probable causes here. I do not know that they are always true but they seem true to me. Let us have a discourse on why Africans seem unable to govern themselves. I believe that members of other African ethnic groups ought to do what I did, do some soul searching and see if there is something in their background that impedes their self-governance. It is time we behaved like adults and stopped blaming the West for our poverty and inability to get anything right. Of course the West does play a role in our situation but let us for a while focus on what roles we play in that situation. When we improve our house and become strong we shall call the West’s bluff. I say, first, let us understand what we did to us before we worry about what other people did to us.

There are prerequisites for governing a modern polity, skills like law, political science, public administration, economics, finance, accoutering and management. The average person who aspires to governing his polity can learn these skills at universities. On the other hand, there are intangible skills that though aspects of them can be taught their core cannot be taught. Leadership can be taught but to be a leader one must have an intangible quality: total identification with the people one wants to lead, acute awareness of their needs, articulation of those needs and doing whatever it takes to help satisfy those needs. Leaders work twenty four-seven for their people and do so selflessly. I doubt that selflessness and total commitment to public service can be taught, though we must try.

My experience is that we have the capacity to learn the superficial aspects of leadership but lack the awareness of the psychological component of it: dedication to social service. We tend to seek public office for narcissistic reasons. We see public office as offering our prestige in the people’s eyes and want to obtain that prestige. We want to be perceived as the most important persons in their world, and public office gives us that neurotic feeling. We seldom ask themselves, "What am I seeking office for?" True leaders do not seek office for prestige but because of what they want to accomplish through such offices.

I think that we have to figure out a way to teach ourselves to seek public office for public service, to become selfless and commit to serving the people not because we seek fame and wealth but because we want to be useful to people. (Plato talked about how to train philosopher kings in The Republic). The egotist is in hell, in a prison of his own making, but does not know it. To be egoless, love and serve people, is to approximate heaven. (I have covered these issues in my more metaphysical writing.)

With a lot of efforts by the end of the twenty first century, perhaps, we shall produce persons who are capable of the type of leadership that I am talking about; in the present one has no illusions about them: they seek political office for what is in it for them. This is not a cynical view, but one based on cool-headed observation. Igbos successfully governed themselves in their traditional society but, so far, have not done a good job of governing themselves in the new political dispensation they find themselves. Ultimately, we will learn to successfully govern our selves in the modern world.


Ozodi Thomas Osuji PhD