Sunday

Why Nigerians will never forgive Babangida - "If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

             


             CC™ Introspective Flashback

“On June 12: Severally and with great remorse too, I have taken responsibility as a true leader for the actions and decisions of the military administration that I led. The annulment of the June 12 election is one of the ugly spots one has to live with...I know that a day will come when Nigerians will forgive our regime because we are a godly nation that embraces the culture of forgiveness”. Gen Ibrahim Babangida, Minna, August 15 2010.

Brigadier John Dennis Profumo was a British politician. Although Profumo held a series of political posts in the 1950s, he is best known for his involvement in a 1963 scandal involving a prostitute. The scandal, now known as the Profumo Affair, led to Profumo's resignation and withdrawal from politics, and it may have helped to topple the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan. 

Profumo, a well-connected politician with a good war record was highly regarded in the Conservative party. On 5 June 1963 Profumo was forced to admit that he had lied to the British House of Parliament, an unforgivable offence in British politics. He resigned from office, from the House and from the Privy Council. The scandal rocked the Conservative government, and was generally held to have been among the causes of its defeat by Labor at the 1964 election. 

After his resignation, Profumo began to work as a volunteer cleaning toilet at Toynbee Hall, a charity based in the East End of London, and continued to work there for the rest of his life. Eventually, Profumo volunteered as the charity's chief fundraiser. These charitable activities helped to restore the fallen politician's reputation; he was awarded a CBE in 1975, and in 1995 was invited to Margaret Thatcher's 70th birthday dinner. He was a member of Boodle's club in St James's Court, London from 1969 until his death.

Tony Blair is a British Labour Party politician who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2 May 1997 to 27 June 2007. He was the Member of Parliament and Leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. 

The 43-year old Blair became the youngest Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 2 May 1997 since Lord Liverpool in 1812. With electoral victories in 1997, 2001, and 2005, Blair was the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister, the only person to lead the party to three consecutive general election victories. 

Tony Blair was a very popular and charismatic with lots of achievement including the Northern Ireland Peace Process (after 30 years of conflict) and one of the longest periods of economic prosperity in UK modern history. 

But in 2003, Blair joined the United States and invaded Iraq. This was particularly controversial, as it attracted widespread public opposition and no less than 139 of Blair's MP's opposed it. 

As a result, he faced criticism over the policy itself and the circumstances in which it was decided upon—especially his claims that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, which have not been discovered. 

Blair's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 prompted huge antiwar protests and till date, Blair cannot come out in public in the UK without huge security. 

In fact, Anti-war campaigners are planning to hold a demonstration at his book-signing in central London on 1 September 2010. 

Lindsey German, from Stop The War Coalition, said: "It would have been much better for everyone if he hadn't taken us into these wars in the first place. Blair lied about the Iraq war, he refused to express any regret at the Chilcot inquiry. 

Blair was highly vilified, summoned before the Chilcot Inquiry and some people, including Nobel Prize-winning playwright Harold Pinter and former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, have accused Blair of war crimes. 

However, yesterday, August 16 2010, Tony Blair announced he will donate all the profits from his forthcoming memoirs to a new sports centre for injured troops. The former prime minister is handing over the reported £4.6 million advance he received for the book, A Journey, as well as any royalties. 

The money - which represents a significant chunk of Mr Blair's estimated £15 million-plus fortune - will go towards the Royal British Legion's Battle Back Challenge Centre, which is due to open in summer 2012. The £12 million complex will provide accommodation and a state-of-the-art gym and training facility for injured service personnel. 

For the former prime minister it was "a way of marking the enormous sacrifice" of the UK's armed forces. For some others it was little more than an attempt to assuage a guilty conscience. 

The proceeds from the book will go to the Royal British Legion's Battle Back campaign, a project that will provide a new rehabilitation centre for seriously injured troops returning from the frontline. 

Simpkins of the British Legion said: "Mr Blair's generosity is much appreciated and will help us to make a real and lasting difference to the lives of hundreds of injured personnel." 

"In making this decision Tony Blair recognises the courage and sacrifice the armed forces demonstrate day in, day out," said his spokesman. "As prime minister he witnessed that for himself in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. This is his way of honouring their courage and sacrifice."

What is the lesson for Ibrahim Babangida in these two stories?

General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, popularly known as IBB, was a Nigerian military ruler. He ruled Nigeria from his coup against Muhammadu Buhari on August 27, 1985 until his departure from office in August 27, 1993 after his annulment of elections held on June 12 that year. 

Babangida was the Chief of Army Staff and a member of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) under the administration of Major General Muhammadu Buhari. Babangida would later overthrow Buhari's regime on 27 August 1985 in a bloodless military coup that relied on mid-level officers that Babangida silently and strategically positioned over the years. 

He came into power in a military coup promising to bring to an end the human rights abuses perpetuated by Buhari's government, and to hand over power to a civilian government by 1990. Eventually, he perpetuated one of the worst human right abuses and lots of murder of military officers on phantom coup plots and unresolved plane crash that killed dozens of military officers. 

Ibrahim Babangida is widely regarded in Nigeria as a thief and criminal and was accused of being responsible for the theft of over 12 Billion Dollars. He was also accused of institutionalizing corruption. 

In his declaration speech, August 15 2010, IBB admitted that his ambition to be president has generated “robust debate as to whether or not I should contest the highest office in the land. In fact, some people in their negative criticism continue to render acrimonious misrepresentation to distort and disparage my true character and general contributions”. 

He went to point out four controversial issues that “touch on some of the impressions and issues that you and I must have been confronted with relating to my personality and previous administration”: 

1. The murder of Dele Giwa2. The annulment of June 12 elections widely held to be free and fair3. The Okigbo Panel Report and the missing $12.5 billion Gulf Windfall4. The Democratization of corruption 

On 1, 3, and 4 issues above IBB strove to exonerate himself from “the allegation for want of evidence by the prosecutors” while acknowledging that “perception, often repeated, no matter how untrue, becomes very hard to obliterate”. 

But on the issue of the annulment of June 12 election IBB said: “Severally and with great remorse too, I have taken responsibility as a true leader for the actions and decisions of the military administration that I led. The annulment of the June 12 election is one of the ugly spots one has to live with. It was a collective decision taken after series of consultations with several stakeholders. Even though ours was a military regime, yet we governed as a team, majority decision always carried the day. I know that a day will come when Nigerians will forgive our regime because we are a godly nation that embraces the culture of forgiveness”. 

Babangida in effect was asking Nigerians to forgive him and come next year, 2011, elect him as our civilian president. (I watched his declaration on NTA, he said “civilian president” with a crooked smile). 

Of the three other controversial issues above, I ask Nigerians: 

1. Is Babangida the most corrupt leader Nigeria has ever produced? I don’t think so. Otherwise, Atiku Abubakar - indicted in the USA for corruption would not be contesting and Olusegun Obasanjo would be in jail. 

Even Abacha’s son is reportedly warming up to be the next Kano State governor. 

2. Is IBB the only leader that may have killed political opponents including killed journalists? Since he left office, dozens of journalists has been murdered. Under OBJ’s watch, Bola Ige was murdered and no one has been prosecuted. 

3. Is the missing $12billion dollars reportedly stolen by IBB the worst looting Nigeria have ever witnessed?

I say, under Obasanjo, the publicly televised Elumelu Power Probe proved that $16billion earmarked for power generation under former President Olusegun Obasanjo equally disappeared. And yet OBJ remains one of the most powerful power brokers in the ruling party!

But on June 12, I tell IBB, No sir, Nigerians will not forgive you as to allow you be the next president. 

WHY?Simple, the answer is found in the narratives above about Tony Blair and Brigadier Profumo. 

Since 1993, For seventeen years, IBB by his own account, lived with a guilty conscience for criminally annulling the freest and fairest election ever conducted in the annals of this country and thereby: 

1. Set the clock of Nigeria’s development back by some 50 years!2. Brought the country to the brink of perdition and civil war3. Caused the loss of many innocent lives4. Imposed the most wicked, callous and sadist leader on Nigerians in the person of Sani Abacha.  

And yet when he “stepped aside” in 1993, and through all these 17 years, IBB continued to harbor and nurture the dream of coming back to rule Nigeria, and yet he did absolutely nothing to assuage his conscience, assuage the aggrieved and heal the wounds caused by his wicked act. 

He failed to toe the path trod by Tony Blair Brigadier Profumo and even our own Moshood Abiola. 

Before June 12 no one considered Abiola a saint. In fact, when digital telephony eventually came to Nigeria in the late 90’s, I could not help then thinking that but for Moshood Abiola, we should have had digital telephony in our house 20 years earlier. 

Fela Anikulapo Kuti captured the disgraceful episode in his classic: ‘ITT, International Thief Thief’! 

And yet, by the time Abiola contested for President in 1993, what comes into the mind of Nigerians when Abiola's name is mentioned is not ITT but philanthropy! 

Unarguably, No part of Nigeria was excluded from benefitting from Abiola’s philanthropy. Even a secondary school in my home town, Nnewi, South-Eastern Nigeria got 250,000 Naira during one inter-house sports ceremony. 

So again I ask IBB: 

Since you knew even when you were stepping aside in disgrace in 1993 that you will come back to ask for our vote in a democratic Nigeria, what did you do to assuage our hurt, to win the hearts of the aggrieved, and show that you are not the evil genius you acknowledged we take you to be? 

Where is your public school (not the elite school you established with your wife) for the masses? 

You claimed to be “conscious of the geopolitical divides in the country”, how many indigent students from the all the geopolitical divides in the country benefitted from your scholarship? 

You led the Nigerian army to Liberia, What charity did you establish for those that lost their limbs or for the widows that lost their husbands in that war?

What tangible Foundations did you establish to entrench democracy and good governance in the country? 

Gen Obasanjo after handing over in 1979 and despite all his faults acted as the conscience of the Nation during the locust years of military maladministration of Nigeria including yours – we remember OBJ begging you to give your flagship economic policy, SAP, a human face and milk of human kindness, He spoke up against bad military rule, and established African Leadership Forum.

It can be argued that without the statesmanlike roles Obasanjo played between 1979 and 1994, the Federal establishment would not have approached him to assume the mantle of leadership in 1999.

So again I ask IBB: What statesmanlike role did you play in Nigeria between 1993 and 2010? 

Where were you as religious and ethnic crisis and Sharia riots engulfed parts of the North since 2001 till date? 

why didn’t you speak up when the man you nurtured, Sani Abacha was treading Nigeria with his jack-boot? You became deaf and dumb! 

Or even speak against the injustice of Obasanjo sending the Nigerian Army to massacre peaceful Odi and Zaki biam indigenes?

IBB didn’t care because he believes that he could always use his looted funds to buy some of us over to sing his praise. He was confident he could gather a few journalists to feed from the crumbs from his table. 

That to me is the height of arrogant disdain for Nigerians and a manifestation of megalomaniac sense of entitlement that should be quashed by all means! 

It shows that IBB take Nigerians to be gullible fools that could always be taken in by guile and a flash of gap-toothed smile. Or alternatively, he considers us a bunch of stupid idiots that could always be bought with money. 

And for this, we will never forgive IBB! 

I hardly agree with Alhaji Umaru Dikko on anything but on one thing I am on all fours with him; the Nigeria’s presidency is not for the highest bidder! 

This historical lesson proved again and again in Nigerian political history the daft-heads parading as presidential aspirants have always failed to learn.

To their detriment!

Saturday

2027: ADC, a grand deception, says Obi’s 2023 running mate, Datti Ahmed

CC™ Politico

By Staff

Senator Datti Baba-Ahmed, the 2023 vice-presidential candidate of the Labour Party and running mate to Peter Obi, has dismissed the coalition-backed African Democratic Congress ADC as a grand deception, alleging that many of those who ruined Nigeria under the President Muhammadu Buhari administration are now seeking refuge in the party ahead of the 2027 elections.

Speaking during a late Friday interview on Channels TV monitored in Abuja, Baba-Ahmed said Nigeria’s fundamental problems are rooted in flawed leadership recruitment processes that have consistently produced corrupt and self-serving politicians.

According to him, electoral fraud has been the breeding ground for insecurity, corruption and the collapse of national institutions.

“Insecurity is derived from electoral fraud. Corruption is aggravated by the kind of elections we conduct. The destruction of our youth and our judiciary is guaranteed by the fraudulent electoral system we run,” he declared.

The former Senator also criticised the Buhari years. When reminded that some of those who served in the Buhari administration are now in the ADC masquerading as Nigeria’s potential messiahs, he said the late former president himself served in the corruption-soaked General Sani Abacha regime.

According to him, Nigeria is still recovering money traced to the Abacha administration. Baba-Ahmed said Nigerians were grossly disappointed after investing enormous expectations in the former president. He described Buhari’s government as one of the most corrupt in Nigeria’s history.

Speaking about the Abacha regime in which Buhari served as Chairman of the now-defunct Petroleum Trust Fund PTF, Baba-Ahmed said Nigerians were disappointed in the former president.

“Nigerians were absolutely disappointed. He (Buhari) was a gentleman who had no trade to his name. So the first thing to do after coming out of detention and everything was politics. During the Abacha time, the archenemy of Abacha became friends with this one, got an appointment, and when he got that appointment, it was a different story from the leadership of 1984/’85. There was no longer truth. There was no longer justice. It was corruption and corruption and corruption.

“Everybody knows how corrupt that (Abacha) government was. Up till now, money is still being claimed by the federal government as stolen during that period. Those who came to power in 2015 were like wolves. Corruption started afresh, and the whole system was about party and campaign contributions”.

Baba-Ahmed alleged that the political “ecosystem” around Buhari had always been motivated by self-interest rather than service.

“From 2003 to 2015, it was all about campaign contributions. Without party money, the ecosystem around him would starve. The ecosystem was about party contributions. It happened again in 2007, 2011 and then 2015. So when they got power, they were like wolves, “ he said.

On the defection of some former Buhari allies to the ADC, Baba-Ahmed was unequivocal: “They are deceiving us. The ADC is a deception. Those who ruined Nigeria between 2015 and 2023 cannot now come under a new platform and claim they want to fix the country.”

He insisted that he remains firmly in the Labour Party and loyal to Peter Obi. “I am in Labour Party, for God’s sake. I am a Peter Obi man, and I want him to contest again in 2027,” he stressed.

Friday

Donald Trump’s Flirtations with Tyranny and Anarchy


CC™ PersPective

By Deji Komolafe, Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Donald Trump's political style and rhetoric have often sparked contentious debate and criticism, with some commentators and political analysts expressing concerns about his approach to governance and its dire implications for democratic norms. Here are some key points of reference for context:

1. Authoritarian Rhetoric: Trump has been accused of using language that some interpret as authoritarian. For example, his references to "enemies of the people" when discussing the media, and his admiration for foreign dictators, have raised concerns about his commitment to democratic principles.

2. Election Integrity: Trump's repeated claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections, despite a lack of evidence, have been seen by some as an attempt to undermine confidence in democratic institutions. His refusal to concede the 2020 elections and the subsequent Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, further fueled these concerns.

3. Centralization of Power: Critics argue that Trump's presidency saw an unusual centralization of power within the White House, with a focus on loyalty to the president over traditional bureaucratic processes. This was evident in his frequent firing of officials who were seen as disloyal or who contradicted him publicly.

4. Erosion of Norms: Trump's presidency was marked by a departure from many established political norms. This includes his use of social media to bypass traditional media, his personal attacks on political opponents, and his willingness to challenge the independence of the judiciary and other branches of government.

5. Populist Appeal: Trump's populist rhetoric, which often framed him as the sole defender of "the people" against a corrupt elite, has been compared to tactics used by authoritarian leaders. This approach can undermine trust in institutions and create a binary, "us vs. them" political environment.

6. Handling of Protests: Trump's response to protests, particularly during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020, included threats to deploy the military to quell unrest, which some viewed as an overreach of executive power and a threat to civil liberties.

7. Pardons and Clemency: Trump's use of presidential pardons, including for political allies and individuals convicted of crimes that aligned with his political interests, has been criticized as undermining the rule of law and using presidential powers in a self-serving manner.

It's important to note that these points are subject to interpretation and debate. Supporters of Trump argue that his actions were necessary to challenge a corrupt political establishment and to fulfill his promises to his base. They often view his rhetoric as a form of political bravado against entrenched interests and media bias.

The discussion around Trump's approach to governance is complex and multifaceted, reflecting broader debates about the nature of democracy, the role and power of the executive branch, as well as the future of American politics.

Thursday

Identity, citizenship and the Fulani in Ghana


CC™ Opinion Editorial

By Osman Alhassan

Observations from Gushiegu, Donkorkrom and Dawadawa

"In spite of the efforts by the Fulani to integrate, they are often reminded that they are strangers who do not belong to the community...."

Conflicts between farmers and Fulani herders are a prominent – and growing – conflict in Northern Ghana. Although the Fulanis have been living in Ghana for generations they are still not accepted among local community groups and are thus excluded from certain areas of political life and health services. In this blog post Osman Alhassan from the University of Ghana argues why resolution of this conflict is in everyone’s interest.

Conflicts among competing land and water resource users are not new in West Africa. While some scholars attribute these rising resource use conflicts to growing scarcity of resources, others contend that it is the consequence of failed governance structures and local conflict resolution mechanisms. Our field investigations in northern Ghana in early 2019 as part of the Domestic Security Implications of Peacekeeping in Ghana (D-SIP) programme point to the fact that both resource scarcity, such as decreasing grazing land and increasingly stressed water resources, and social relations explain conflicts between local farmers and settler Fulani. A closer look at the conflicts between local community famers and settled pastoralists in the Gushiegu Municipality in the Northern Region of Ghana suggests an escalation. Although the Fulani pastoralists have lived in the Gushiegu area since the 1940s, they are increasingly experiencing tension with indigenous community groups, such as the Dagombas, Mamprusis, Konkombas, and the Bimobas.

The Fulani in Gushiegu recount that their ancestors settled in Gushiegu, and surrounding communities, as far back as in the 1930s and 1940s. They took care of cattle as well as farmed the land that was allocated to them for their food needs. Most of the Fulani are Muslims and as such joined the local population for congregational prayers on Fridays and during Eid festivities. As a guest community, the Fulani in Gushiegu and other communities made efforts to attend other local festivals and ceremonies in a bid to get closer to the local community and sustain mutual coexistence. While most Fulani children are not undertaking formal education, they attend the local Makaranta (Islamic school) with Dagomba kids where the Koran and Islam are taught. According to the Fulani in Gushiegu, there are a few inter-marriages between the Fulani and the Dagombas. However, there have been some challenges, especially during periods when cattle in the care of the Fulani destroy food crops belonging to community members or pollute community water sources.

Issues around identity and citizenship provoke strong sentiments among Ghanaians when the Fulani are discussed. It would appear that no matter how long they have been in Ghana, the Fulani cannot become Ghanaians in the eyes of certain communities and officials. A Planning officer with the District Assembly at Donkorkrom argued that everyone in Donkorkrom was a migrant, including the Fulani. So he was baffled about why they had been singled out as not belonging to Ghana, when the Hausa, Gau and other ethnic groups that were not originally Ghanaian did not face the same challenge.In spite of the efforts by the Fulani to integrate, they are often reminded that they are strangers who do not belong to the community. The Fulani are not allowed to participate in gatherings such as political campaigns, cannot easily access health services, including National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) cards, and are not allowed to vote even in district level elections. The Fulani therefore are not identified as community members though they have stayed in the area for a long time. The local community is indifferent to the younger Fulanis who have been born in the area and have no other place of origin. The Fulani in Gushiegu cited an incident in Kpatinga two years ago that claimed the lives of two Fulani men and the destruction of their properties. No Fulani had anticipated this as they had lived with the people, practiced the same religion, taken part in local festivals and ceremonies, and had a few of their kinsmen married to Dagomba.

The situation at Dawadawa was not much different. A Fulani man, Ibrahim Musah, in Dawadawa explained the discrimination he felt in Ghana. Although he demonstrated fluency in three Ghanaian languages – Dagbani, Akan, and Ewe –during the interview, Ibrahim Musah was considered by many in Dawadawa as an alien because of his Fulani origins. His credentials, though, show him to be Ghanaian. He was born in 1987 in Bawku and raised there. He lived in Bimbilla for 14 years, and in Dawadawa for the past 10 years. Before this, he had lived in other places in Ghana, including Kumasi, for many years. People were not concerned about his birth, residence, mastery of several Ghanaian languages, and his vast knowledge about many parts of Ghana. ‘I consider Bawku as my hometown. If you send me to Bawku which is in Ghana, many people can testify that I was born there because my father lived there. My father hails from Bawku though my grandfather, I am told, hails from Burkina Faso,’ he accounted. He was of the view that there are many misleading perceptions about Fulani, including those who are citizens of Ghana, and this has had an adverse impact on their livelihoods and participation in decision making. A first step towards peaceful coexistence and effective conflict resolution would be to recognize the rights of the Fulani and facilitate their participation in local mechanisms for resolving conflicts.

The conflict situations in settlements such as Gushiegu could also improve if local and national governance mechanisms emphasized education of the population about the rights of citizenship. Local and national politics have often been complicated by religion, ethnicity, and economic considerations. While Ghana’s constitution specifies who a citizen is, this is differently interpreted at local levels to suit those in power to make decisions on behalf of the community. In addition, community members must also be aware that our collective economic and security organization goes beyond individual countries. For instance, the sustained development of livestock production is an integral part of any food security or poverty reduction policy. So, it has been argued that traditional pastoral farming systems such as transhumance – moving livestock from one grazing ground to another in a seasonal cycle – contribute to socio-economic development and the growth of livestock production.

A treaty on cooperation between Member States of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) exist as a means for regulating transhumance and achieving agricultural development and food security in the sub region. The provisions of ECOWAS decisions cover issues of the free movement of persons, good and services, and mechanisms for conflict prevention, management and resolution, peacekeeping and security. Unfortunately, not many community members, or local government agencies are fully aware of these regulations which gives rights of passage across and within countries, and to grass and water resources for their cattle, to pastoralists such as the Fulani herdsmen. After all, ECOWAS was formed to commit to enhancing economic development through the free movement of people in the West African sub-region. It is about time governments realise that our diversity as a people is a major asset for development.

In some other discussions, both the Fulani and indigenous communities see the need for changing the policy and practice of pastoralism for the improvement of communities. Respondents in Gushiegu and Bimbilla agreed that logically, the more land and water employed for farming, the less land available for other livelihoods, including pastoral livelihoods, and the more competition and conflicts over land resources. Particularly if technology and population remain the way things are now. Both Fulani herdsmen and crop farmers in Gushiegu agreed that modern cattle ranching should be encouraged and capacities built to be able to exploit these opportunities. It is likely that cattle herding as is currently practiced, will survive only forty to fifty years from now because there will be no corridors for cattle passage. It is therefore critical to encourage good cattle rearing and farming practices such as development of pastures and the establishment of ranches on public-private joint management. Food security remains an integral part of human development and poverty reduction, and better livestock industrial practice will reduce the country’s meat deficits. It can also reduce the numerous conflicts over grazing land and water.

DIIS.DK

Wednesday

Quota system: Why is Nigeria still breastfeeding the North?

Ex-President Buhari was accused of ethnic bias
CC™ Viewpoint 

By Dr. Ugoji Egbujo

Nigeria: Imagine two students in the same secondary school in Kaduna. They are 18. They are filled with youthful patriotism. They sit for admission exams into the NDA. They both want to read Mechanical Engineering. Efosa scores 280. Musa scores 180. Efosa's celebrations are cut short. He is not invited for an interview. Musa who scored 180 is hopping around. He has been invited for an interview. Musa is admitted. Efosa and Musa are Nigerians but from different states. Efosa with his 280 repeats the NDA exams the following year. He takes another 2 years to achieve a score of 300 and is finally admitted. Musa and Efosa become military officers. Musa who scored 180 when Efosa scored 280 is Efosa's boss. Musa remains Efosa's boss for the entire military career.

Musa would be happy. Efosa would carry a grudge against the country in his heart. Musa would be celebrated someday. He would be called Nigeria's finest. Efosa might get his chance. But with the grudge in his heart, he might not reach the top. Someday it would seep out and it could be Musa that would retire him.

Emir Sanusi is right, quota system should have an expiry date. But I think our quota system has already expired.

The North is full of smart people. It only needs to treat education with the same seriousness with which it attends to elections. If the North had come to education with the same keenness with which it approached population and census over the years, it would have been more educationally advanced than the South.

Quota system doesn't do the image of the North any good. Quota system creates the impression that the north is mentally handicapped. The North must understand that quota system ridicules it. The sort of mockery fit for a young adult who has refused to let go of feeding bottles.

Quota system distorts the system. It confers on its beneficiaries advantages meant for the handicapped. When persons who have two legs take advantages meant for wheelchair users they ought to feel some shame. 60 years after independence, the quota system we practice today is disgraceful.

The sections that benefit from it must feel the weight of its shame. It's possible they have never really addressed their minds to its ugly implications. The quota is simply an admission of inferiority. It simply says some groups lack the capacity to compete with others. That should be a humiliating position to adopt. So why are the beneficiaries marching around oblivious of its shame?

Quota system like other affirmative actions is righteous if they serve moral purposes. Whites in the United States denied blacks education and denied them participation in society. When slavery and racism were abolished, those chronic injustices meant blacks had been left far behind others. Since blacks couldn't compete but had to be included, blacks were allowed to get into Ivy League universities with lower scores. That was an adjustment made to accommodate their handicap. It was done to correct a gap created by injustice.

Quota system in Nigeria of today would be pardonable if it served to uplift women. Women and girls have been subjugated for ages. Girls in the far North have been excluded from education by retrogressive cultures. Quota system for northern girls only could be excusable to some extent. But a quota system used to service the ambitions of able-bodied but indolent men must be properly characterized as corruption-a reward for laziness.

Our statesmen who instituted the quota system must have intended a short-term measure to improve the participation of certain groups in national education and perhaps policymaking. They couldn't have anticipated a situation where political leaders in the North would abandon education and not be confronted with the consequences of their waywardness. Laziness should not be rewarded. The abysmal school enrollment figures in the North must reflect on the bigger stage.

Imagine a situation where admissions into the Nigerian Defense Academy were carried out only by merit. No one would be expected to disclose his state of origin. The best students would be chosen the way we choose players for the Super Eagles. We would have an officer corps chosen solely on merit. It could become lopsided. There could be grumblings about its lopsidedness. But no one would complain he had been cheated. States who abandon education would face the consequences of allowing rent-seeking manipulative politicians lead them.

When the nation was at infancy, sections like children had to be appeased with candies. Those who showed retardation had to be propped. But 60 years after independence, 60 years after all sections have had a chance to improve their educational system, 60 years after those who were thought weak have held the steering wheel, no section deserves this national babysitting.

When a system is used to improve political inclusion, it is good. When a system is used to perpetuate mediocrity and reward indolence it is evil. The quota system cannot continue to be used to help the very group that has dominated political leadership in the country.

Katsina has had two presidents. Katsina had a deputy military head of state. Niger state has had two heads of state. Katsina and Niger have been in the thick of things of national politics for ages. Yet, Katsina and Niger, are still deemed so educationally backwards that their indigenes cannot be allowed to compete with indigenes of Edo state.

Take a state like Borno. The National Security Adviser, the Chief of Army Staff, the president's Chief of Staff, the EFCC chairman were all from Borno State during the Buhari administration. Borno occupies more positions than any other State in the security architecture of this third world country. Why should Borno State indigenes be allowed to get into the military and security services with lower scores than people from Delta State?

I looked at the list of students for the National Common Entrance Examinations from a few years ago; Zamfara literally didn't participate. If that list is reliable then almost everyone who applied from Zamfara would gain admission because the number that applied from Zamfara is less than the number that applied from every small school in Lagos.

Yet, tomorrow, from amongst that small number of largely unqualified Zamfara students that would be admitted, the federal character would step in and catapult them to the highest positions in the land. If we practiced such a decadent system in our football or athletics we would be about the worst sporting nation in the world. So why do we practice it in politics, 60 years after trying to weave a nation?

I have read the arguments that say politics is not football. They mean exclusion would cause discontent and instability. But nothing causes discontent and instability more than injustice. When we shout 'One Nigeria,' we must mean it. True 'One Nigeria" is a Nigeria where all citizens are equal; where neither state of origin, religion nor ethnicity confers any advantages or disadvantages.

The North is full of smart people. Polices that cast it in negative light must stop. The abolition of the quota system is long overdue.

Monday

Your co-workers are not your friends, remember that….

CC™ Introspective
By B. Sierra

Have you ever gotten too close to a coworker? I know I have.

By ‘too close” I don’t mean sex, romance, or anything else that may have you calling HR, but more so mistaking a colleague for a friend and, consequently, saying or doing too much around them. 

I fell into the trap more easily when I was younger and working more part-time retail jobs as a student, but, as I transitioned into my long-term career, it became more imperative than ever for me to draw a *clear* line between friends and colleagues. 

Make no mistake: I’m not saying that we should be antisocial at work. Those 8+ hour days are more enjoyable when we have bonds in the office. We can also benefit from maintaining a good rapport with people in our respective industries (consider how actors benefit from having a good rapport with writers/directors/producers, and publicists with journalists, or media strategists with vendors, for example). 

I’m also not saying that we can’t meet life-long friends on the job, but there’s a huge difference between “work friends” and friends you met through work. In other words, there’s being friends and then there’s being friendly–we only need to be the latter when it comes to work relationships.

Be polite and considerate. Wish them a happy holiday or birthday. 

Talk about music, shows, movies, or any other aspect of pop culture. 

Laugh over how much your pet likes to tear your house apart.  

Keep it lighthearted. It’s only when we start interacting more “heavily” with our colleagues (like discussing our dating life or family issues) that sh*t becomes confusing. 

You can enjoy the bond and camaraderie, but see this exactly for what it is: a friendly work relationship. 

Yes there will be frequent work lunches, social gatherings, inside jokes, and fun moments with your colleagues, but the fact still remains that y’all are people brought together by circumstance. That’s it and that’s all. 

Ask yourself: If you didn’t do what you do, or have the gifts and connections that you have, would there still be a relationship? 

If the answer is no, then keep it [professionally] cute–you’re probably circumstantial “friends”, not true ones. 

If you’re someone who lacks boundaries then it’s easy to confuse a circumstantial relationship (like I mentioned above) with genuine friendship. But, here’s the thing: 

Just because you consider someone a friend doesn’t make them act like one. 

It’s so tempting to think you know someone better than you do when you spend a lot of time with them, but don’t be fooled. I urge you to move SLOWLY when getting closer to a colleague, even slower than you would pursue a friendship outside of work. 

You may feel like you’ve forged an instant bond with them, but it may not be real.  Though everyone can be nice and fun, not everyone has the character for true friendship. If you’re not careful, then that person’s character will become your crisis. 

And the worst part of all: you can’t revert back to considering them as only a “colleague” just because they disappointed you after you crossed the line (I mean you could, literally speaking, but the damage is already done and the relationship is tainted).  

Unlike non-work friends, these relationships intertwine with your professional life/reputation. With this comes unnecessary tension and miscommunication, making the consequences of a fall-out become much higher. It’s extremely difficult to go back to strictly business once you make the bond personal.     

So, remember: 

That’s not your sis. 

That’s not your bro. 

They are not a part of your inner circle.

If they gossip to you then they’ll likely gossip about you.  

Again, keep it light & stop including these folks in your personal life.

And Speaking of personal life, take notice of how much time you spend with colleagues outside of work. 

Attending the occasional happy hour or karaoke night with your coworkers or major events like weddings is perfectly fine, but don’t overdo it. If you blur the line between personal and professional outings by seeing your colleagues too much then it will skew the working relationship. 

Let me make it plain: 

  • Don’t do “Sunday Fundays” with them 
  • Don’t call them to get drinks so you can vent 
  • Don’t invite them to your family’s house (even your own place might be pushing it)
  • Don’t get them too acquainted with your friends 
  • And PLEASE don’t travel with them (unless it’s work trip)

Anyway, I think you get the point. If you take nothing else from this, please understand: building personal relationships with your colleagues is a very slippery slope. Though it’s natural to find people at work that you clique with more effortlessly than others, please tread carefully for everyone’s sake. 

Source: 20Something