₦airaland Forum

I know hollow block will take less material (sand and cement), I want to build a one storey building and considering using solid blocks for the ground floor and hollow blocks for the upper floor, any advice from the experts in da house?

ekt bear: How is it possible to force them to build refineries?

Who will supply the billions of dollars to build the refineries?

Wetin concern producer of crude oil with refining of same?

They are entirely separate businesses.

May as well compel them to build roads, power plants, provide security, etc too

Do u know china have the largest iron ore reserve and stock in the whole world and don't like supplying other steel companies outside china unless they site their factory in china?

Its security dude.

Its has nothing to do with kind of government. As free a europe is, do u know the security around where Obama, George Bush pass thru?, I walk to shake the hand of the prime minister like a fellow neighbour, but u can't do that with some high risk head of states like GEJ.

Its now they are making sense to me, but its has be well organise and violent free else, Nigeria crazy soldiers will bore hole in your aassszzz

Dis Guy:
bros, so which election did Boni win o? was it postponed retrospectively abi wetin?

informed diplomatic source with no name, diplomats begging anonymity na real wa o!

only one Nigerian newspaper with this watery news

Dude,

The Guardian is credible than those useless news papers in nigeria.

dustydee:
Did you read the article at all?. This is a different position. The one he was alleged to have contested in was conclusive with the Benin republic president being elected. How can he contest with a foreign minister? Please be sure before you post.

Well, u can eat up the shiitt propaganda, that is your cup of tea

diluminati:
You dey mind the ediot. No one's interested here coz the op is an ignoramus, a perennial azzlicker

U have been running around with your cretin IQ spreading shiitt about on NL, If u are frustrated, go and get something interesting to do or are u seeking attention here urgly braattt?

musiwa,,.:
My network is over africa. i can take you to any africa president. How , secret.

Can u take me to the map of the country too?

Arosa:
I agree with you.

It amazed me sometimes when people on here blow things out of context. they can deceived themselves and not me.

Arosa:
I think there was two vacant positions, the chair and the presidential position. The chair position is not for heads of states. 

The presidential post is rotational like it happens in EU and other organisations, why would Gej want to corner it when its not nigeria's turn?

NL'er peddle silly propaganda.

Beaf:
The anti-GEJ brigade justs breaks the records for pettiness and idiocy with each passing day.
Thats why the Ghanaians have fodder to poke fun at us.

Whenever you think you are messing up GEJ with some stup!d petty stuff, or paying foreign newspapers to publish stup!d petty stuff, whenever you do these things, realise that you are really only making a fool of yourself and doing harm to your country. . . And Ghanaians will laugh, small as their country is.

Beaf,

Those pendling the fake rumour don't even know the top 5 countries of AU(Nigeria, south africa, algeria, egypte and libya) could not contest the chairmanship of the organisation.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-863539.0.html

The bolded suggest GEJ could not contest the election, which was nigeria main opposition to the souht africans,
NL liars should cover their faces in shame.

RIVALRY between Nigeria and South Africa, and a deep diplomatic cleavage in the African Union, may have led to the failure of the AU to elect a substantive chairperson for the AU Commission after four rounds of voting that ended without the emergence of a winner last Monday in Addis Ababa.

Informed Diplomatic sources considered the deadlocked election as a victory for Nigeria, which is opposed to emergence of South Africa’s candidate on the grounds that the top five members of the AU, as was in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) should not be presenting candidates for the topmost office of the organisation.

While the incumbent AU Chairperson, Dr. Jean Ping, from Gabon is being supported by Nigeria, South Africa chose to sponsor an opponent and decided on its own Home Affairs Minister, Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the former wife of President Jacob Zuma.

While the South Africans had raised questions about Ping’s handling of the Libyan and Ivory Coast crises, Nigeria had been more supportive of Ping’s management of the crises although Ping has not always been known to be pro-Nigeria.

Both Nigeria and South Africa have stayed on opposing sides on the crises in Libya and Ivory Coast both of which led to a change in regimes.

The depth of the division among AU leaders and countries on the matter is fairly profound. The first three rounds of the election saw Ping leading marginally but short of 36 votes needed for a 2/3 majority of AU members. By the fourth round, when the South African candidate had to step down, Ping standing alone could not even get the needed votes.

Also, days after the deadlocked voting in Addis Ababa, and after the AU summit decided to postpone the election for another six months until the next summit in Malawi, conflicting information is coming out regarding the status of the incumbent Chairperson, Jean Ping.

While the AU, in a statement on Tuesday, said Ping would continue to act in his capacity as AU Commission Chairperson until the next summit, the South African Ambassador to the United Nations said on the same day in New York that Ping’s deputy would take over instead of Ping staying for another six months.

The South African Permanent Representative to the UN, who was the President of the Security Council in January, Ambassador Baso Sangqu, was asked by the UN press on his country’s bid to be the next AU Commission Chairperson. According to him, the AU had made a decision to discuss the election of the Chairperson again in June and that a committee had been set up for that process.

But he added that, after the current Chair’s term ended, the Deputy Chair of the African Union Commission would take over until a successor was chosen.

However, the AU summit press release issued last Tuesday had actually indicated an extension of the term by another six months.

According to the statement, at the AU summit “the Heads of States adopted 25 Decisions, one resolution and two Declarations. Amongst the decisions is the suspension of the elections of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the AU Commission, alongside that of the eight Commissioners. This came after long debate as none of the candidates for the chairmanship could obtain the 2/3 votes as stipulated in the AU constitution.”

Furthermore, the AU “summit resolved that an ad-hoc committee be set up as soon as possible to look into the election matter ahead of the next AU summit scheduled for June 2012 in the Republic of Malawi. The ad-hoc committee is expected to meet in March 2012. To that effect, the mandate of the present Commission was extended until the next AU Summit.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a top Nigerian diplomat explained the Federal Government’s decision not to support South Africa.

Said the senior diplomat, ”it is a matter of principle. Just as the US or any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — called P5 — will not conceive canvassing for the United Nations Secretary-General’s post, so too, the African Union ‘P5’ members should not envisage replacing Jean Ping as the President of the AU commission.”

The AU P5 are Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, South Africa and Libya.

But there are fears that President Jacob Zuma might insist on presenting the South African candidate again and go all the way to influence and “economically persuade smaller African states to their side.

Commenting on the deadlocked election, a leading South Africa-based Think Tank, Institute for Security Studies (ISS), after last Monday’s AU summit, noted that “one could argue that the bid by South Africa and Nigeria’s strong opposition to it (supported by a large Francophone block), was what caused the stalemate during the voting.”

According to the organisation formed during the hey days of apartheid South Africa, “if Dlamini-Zuma had won the vote,,  Nigeria would decide to oppose everything the chairperson does during her term simply because she is South African; that would be extremely harmful to the continent.”

According to the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the chairperson of the AU Commission, made up of 10 key members, are elected every four years to run the AU Commission.

Also, the chairperson, deputy chair and commissioners can serve a maximum of two four-year terms with the chair and deputy chair elected by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government during a secret ballot, as was held last Monday.

Since the AU was formed in 2002, its Commission has produced three chairpersons: former Ivorian Foreign Minister, Amara Essy, former Malian President, Alpha Omar Konaré, and Ping, elected in February 2008.




http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76085:how-rivalry-between-nigeria-and-south-africa-stalled-au-elections&catid=1:national&Itemid=559

KnowAll:
Of course I know Igbo is the stumbling block and I also know igbos can sell their mum for a penny, with the right greek gift, the igbos would fall yakata. without that the SW, who have always been enterprising would not attempt a Northern a SW/ Northern coalition against the SS and SE, so naturally everyone would go her own way and if the Northerners want to unilaterally go to war against the SS/SE the international community would definitely step in on the side of SS/SE, IT WOULD BE an impossible task for the north.

I agree the leaders of the SE have been bought over in the past, In the current situation I'm afraid if they could withstand the reaction that it will generate, they would be playing with fire.

KnowAll:
Nobody is saying things cannot happen. Even the SE can be coaxed into jettison those loud mouth SS, by offering them irresistible deals  like offering the SE the Presidency, of a united Nigeria after the Senate President's INTERIM Tenure.  Just because the SE gave their votes to GEJ, it must not be misconstrued  that they are in tandem with whatever comes out from the SS. GEJ was the better option during last election hence why they voted for him.

Most Igbo's are still annoyed by the properties they lost PH, AND THEY are not too happy with those Ikwerres who keep claiming they are not Igbos. A good deal would make the SE jettison the SS like a bad apple.

Dude,
So u think the SE gonna be coaxed into accepting the presidency of a united Nigeria when an ijaw man is not better enough to rule a united Nigeria?.
I'm of the view the SE will draw a lesson from this born-to-rule event. Impeaching GEJ will set a new ball rolling in the political arena of Nigeria, I bet it dude, we are at a delicate cross road right now, and any silly mistake could blow in our face.

The most trust worthy system of government that could restore trust, hope and full participation in Nigeria is co-federation. We are so damn doom to want to trust each other.

KnowAll:
The Ijaws can not hold a whole nation to ransome, if Nigeria would have to wipe the Ijaws out let it be. You cannot be fighting a kid-glove war with your resources, the OBJ's and Abacha's of this world are the ones who gave those bunch of hooligans a mouth to talk.

If the Nigerian nation has fought the Militants the way they fought the Biafrans those Militants would not be making all these noise they are making.  

If u think the event of biafra gonna repeat itself then u are mistaken, Note that the south south and south east are ready to opt out of the nigeria contraption, and if they play their politics and propaganda right Nigeria is damn for good, u saw the way the international communities supported them the last time?, In case u don't know, the EU countries analist and analysis of the Boko Haram situation favours seperation and it's obvious where the international community gonna align itself to resolve the issue, and the north don't have an attractive economy/energy interest to any country except non progressive mentality countries like iran and co. Like Mikeansy has said, this is a new ball game entirely.

Genocide will be hanging over the Nigeria's army head if they invade the ijaws. And the people are more bolder to confront them this time.

dem_people:
No. Not many people see it as a result of a systemic failure of the current administration. Many people though, evidently see it as a result of an intrinsic DNA trait in you Northerners, to be violent-prone. It didn't start today.

You say Boko Haram does not represent Northerners. How do you separate one from the other? A history of violence in your region that started since records began in 1945. And then again in 1953 and late 50s into the 60s with pogroms against innocent people and an unnecessary genocide, and then the 70s with the Maitatsine, Yan Tatsine etc well into the 80's. Not to talk of the 90s, through the 2000's.

In all these, millions of people massacred unjustly.

A region that has held power for 39 out of 50 years but still cannot collectively boast of the number of high school finishers, jamb applicants or university graduates than those of a single state in the South East - a place your people, through military fiat and belligerence, once destroyed and rendered infrastructurally and economically useless. Even economically, your people continually express shocking levels of lack.

A region which is indeed a major factory of illiterate and violent people who have consistently held back the progress of a country but yet, fantasizes on a born-to-rule mentality - the same mentality that has made a complete mess of a once promising country.

Do you see why its impossible to separate a pig from the dirt. They aren't mutually exclusive to each other.

And lest I forget, it isn't exclusive to Nigeria only. Throughout West Africa, your people have a very non-progressive mentality which is virulently disastrous to life.

Clap for your self, you born-to-rule product.

U've said it all dude, case closed.

Impeaching Gej may be a democratic process tho, but can the country afford the reactive effect it could cause?, then Nigeria should as well kiss its revenue avenue goodbye, U think the Ijaws and people of south-south are sitting down and watching at this moment?, I bet plans are in place as we speak in case the uncertain happens, Dude, it would be worse than Boko Haram and the whole country will suffer economically from it effect.

We have been there before and I don't think the senate would want to risk such stunt.

Yes, Gej has great power in his possession, but he can't achieve much without full co-operation from the north, Its obvious loads of the so called northern leaders are pro Boko Haram and want to undermined his authority, If he send the army into the north, they will be the first to accused him of militarizing the region and all sort of bulllshitts.
I would suggest he leave them to their lots until they are ready to co-operate with him to solve the Boko Haram issue.

When America and Nato did'nt have the co-operation of Afghaans and Irakis they were unable to tame the insurgence and I don't expect Nigeria/GEJ to work magic without co-operation from the northern region to uproot boko haram.

Even if GEJ has the power in the whole world he can't do much without the co-operation of the northerners who called themselves leaders, its obvious they are in support of Boko Haram, so if he send in troops into that region they are going accused him of militarising their zone and all sort of bulllshitts, I suggest he  leave them to their lots till they are ready to co-operat with him to solve the problem.

When America and Nato were not having the cooperation of Afgaans and Irakis they could'nt do much and Nigeria/GEJ would'nt work magic without co-operation.

;d ;d ;d ;d ;d ;d

The north have not experience war on it own, u think the south east and south west will fold their arms to be overrun by islamic fundamentalist?, wait till we get there it will be a different ball game entirely, then they will have a full taste of real war situation.

Look at the way GEJ made useless of labour and their conspirators.

The man seem to know the pros and cons, Are u still calling him a retardeen?. 

SUBSIDY PROTEST: INSIDE STORY OF WHY LABOUR BACKED DOWN

The tricks, intrigues and blackmail
• Security report that broke labour’s back
By OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Saturday January 21, 2012


•
Photo: Sun News Publishing


More Stories on This Section
The battle over the removal of fuel subsidy, which raged for almost a week all over the nation may, have come and gone, but the last is definitely yet to be heard on the intrigues and the behind-the-scene manoeuvres that caused the organised labour into beating a retreat and acquiescing to the Federal Government’s position.

Saturday Sun exclusively gathered that it was largely a case of emotional blackmail and outright threat of labour leaders by the government.

“At some point in time, the sword of treason hung delicately over the head of the labour negotiators, and being human, the self-preservation instinct made them buckle,” said a dependable source, who attended many of the meetings between both parties.

[b]Another competent source, who attended the meeting, told Saturday Sun how President Goodluck Jonathan, at one of the sessions, pointedly accused labour of teeming with disgruntled politicians and vocal civil society groups to bring down the government. He also sought to appeal to emotions. The president reportedly queried the labour team: “What have I done that you want to subvert my government? Am I the only president that has increased the price of fuel? So, why is my own case different? What is so different about my own case that you insist that I must return to N65 a litre? I believe you are not being fair to me?”

The president was not done. He also told labour that they were all out to embarrass him because of his perceived weakness. He reportedly said: “When (General Ibrahim) Babangida increased fuel price, he didn’t revert to the price before increase; (Chief Olusegun) Obasanjo didn’t revert his price. Every Nigerian head of state has increased fuel price and labour didn’t say revert to the price it was or they would ground the nation; so why are you saying I must revert to N65? Is it because I am simple and you are taking my simplicity for weakness?”[/b]
The labour leaders were reportedly dumbfounded by the president’s outburst. According to the source, when Jonathan offered N97 and went further to make a veiled reference to treasonable offences, labour leaders knew they had lost the steam to soldier on.

“Security agencies had obviously bugged the lines of the top hierarchy of labour and were monitoring interaction between the leadership of labour and people. Government provided security report, which showed that the agenda of some of the organisers of the protest went beyond the fight over removal of fuel subsidy to an outright call for regime change. That was the last straw that broke labour’s back,” the source told Saturday Sun.
Seeing they had lost in their original demand for a reversion to the pre-January 1, 2012, old pump price, labour leaders then turned round to making specific demands of the president: The complete cleaning of the petroleum sector, including the octopus NNPC and drastic cut in the cost of governance, among others. It is believed that labour’s input actually dictated the contents of the president’s broadcast offering N97.

The Senate pressure
The Senate and its leadership also put enormous pressures on the labour leadership. Senate President, David Mark, was the arrowhead of the pressure group. As an experienced power player, he glided smoothly from government to labour, trying to ensure a delicate balance. Mark didn’t want government to lose face or for labour to be humiliated. The compromise N97 new fuel price was largely due to Mark and Senate’s interventionist role.

Governors Forum and others
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum and two of its prominent leaders, Govs. Chibuike Amaechi and Adams Oshiomhole, also worked assiduously in brokering a truce in the FG/Labour spat. As a former labour leader, Oshiomhole is said to have worn two caps and tried to balance both. While appealing to his colleagues to ‘cool temper,’ he also sought to convince government why it should concede a reduction from the increase of over 120 per cent.

Labour’s reaction
After the unveiling of new price regime of N97 a litre, labour appeared to be torn apart, into two groups. One group thought it was victory for organised labour in that they had secured a reduction, while forcing presidential commitment to good and responsible governance.
“What Nigerians should do at this point in time is to demand accountability and transparency in the governance process,” an arrowhead of the group said.
The second group in labour saw the acquiescence to a new pump price as tantamount to “betrayal of the Nigerian people.” This group appeared to have had the upper hand in the subsidy battle before the dramatic capitulation.

Commendation, not condemnation
However, labour leaders, who spoke with Saturday Sun on condition of anonymity, believed labour should be commended rather than being condemned in the negotiation process. Said one of the labour leaders: “We did the best we could. We are not politicians fighting political causes. We always know when to stop.”



http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2012/jan/21/national-21-01-2011-010.html

Calamama:
once, the idea of revolution in Nigeria floundered on the fact of our diversity but now we can see that Labour Union could be used to represent everyone. So just as Nigeria may be a project which distracts us sufficiently from disintegrating into all out ethnic wars without end so Labour if it is built upon could provide an umbrella project which the common man could belive in. One day we may have a Labour party.

The idea of using labour to represent everyone won't work at all, labour can only fight for their members and its a non political organization. If nigerians had stormed the street in a coordinated protest on corruption and good governance and dare the government for a whole week, its would have been a different ball game by now, its could have expand and yield result.

I was right afterall, NLC/TUC called off the strike and #occupynigeria# with their fooolish activism collapse and are  being hunted by soldiers about town, lol.

They can't do shiitt, they are Timipre sylva boys just making noise.

blacksta:
It is unlikely that the protest will fail, what is very likely is a compromise by the government. Without a compromise , this government will become a sitting duck, just like in the days of IBB and Abacha after masses revolt It is in the best interest of this government if it wants to to achieve anything or any of its transformation agenda it much show to be listening government. Nobody is saying subsidy must continue , but its implementation must be sincere and conducted in a condusive environment.

In the nigerian context subsidy is like crack and nigerians are addictied to it. Winning Nigeria off the crack without incentives wont work

The crack we are high on made the country stagnant for decades, accept changes my friend.

Go and get a job stalker!.

Even socialist countries are in deep shiit and debt all over.

Remii:
I don't see any reason for anyone to rejoice at failure of this struggle even you don't support them. If they achieve some of their aims, especially less corrupt govt, we would all be better for it.

Nobody is rejoicing, just that NLC/TUC or whatever are going about it foolishly, they should be thinking about how to keep the government on their toes on utilisation of the subsidy money in improving the infrastructure and well being of the citizens than encouraging subsidizing consumption, it's plain stupidity.

obi58:
@ poster wht u have cleverly omitted in all your arguments is that all these developed economies u wnt us to benchmark have all the infrastructure in place and a social net i.e. Welfare benefits to cushion d effects of some of thier capitalistic economic policies which u r advocating naija to swallow hook line and sinker without taking into cognisance the economic peculiarites of the nigeiran economy. How do u wnt a cointry struggling under a very high cost of living and cost of production burden to be jumpstarted by a more than 100% increase in dat single commidity that will cause a similar increase in everything else.

Yes subsidy removal is not bad in itself. But should u invrease d harship on d masses u cannot provide any social welfare for or create jobs for because u pulicly have admitted u cannot police our borders to eliminate or reduce smuggling to the barest minimum? why not give these neighbouring countries incentives to come and build refineries here to increase our locally produced content and thus generate income from cross border export by direct supervision?, dont u think that cost of governance here is far far higher than in most of the developed countries u have cited and funding such is unsustainable and irresponsible? Cant allowances for public holders and their aides be drastically cut to realise mire funds to get us out of the mess? Should wasteful public spending not be the major focus of government with clear policies and actions taken as against the empty promises so far?

Guy lets not put the cart before the horse. This burden should not keep being passed to the masses.

Yes, we are all aware availability of infrastructure is a problem in nigeria and the recent government has made that a priority, we just need to keep them on their toes and remind them what to do, and subsidy removal is an avenue to get more funds to sink into infrastructures, so if we hope to get somewhere sooner we have to make some radical decision to get radical result infrastructural-wise.

By this time next week every protester are already in hungry mode. , they will switch to pro removal to earn salary