Monday, May 31, 2010
Between Uduaghan and Free Healthcare For Children
Chuka Onwuemene
Governor Emmanuel Udaughan of Delta State on Thursday flagged off free health care programme for children under the age of five in the state.
Uduaghan, who inaugurated the initiative at Sapele General Hospital to commemorate the Children Day celebration, urged health givers not to abuse the programme, invoking the wrath of God on workers that would sabotage it.
The governor said the children have a right to health care as, according to him, many children died because their parents could not foot their medical bills.
He advised parents to be responsible and show some care to the children, and that they should take advantage of the programme to ensure that their children are taken to the hospital when ill, and not to quacks.
“We dedicate May 27 to children under five. They have the right to health care and money should not prevent them from being taken care of. As a practising medical doctor, I know many children died because their parents could not pay their bill; they go and patronise quacks. Delta State government has decided that even if we don’t do any other things, we must take care of them from the day they are conceived to when they are 5 years.
“I appeal to health workers that this programme should not be sabotaged. If you sabotage the programme, I might not see you, but God will see you and your reward will be devastating. The programme is not only for out-patients, it also includes those on admission, surgery and the state is taken that responsibility.”
Health Commissioner, Dr. Joseph Otumara, described children as the bedrock upon which the future of the state and indeed the country depends, as such it is “incumbent upon us to endeavour to keep them in the best possible condition of health in order to guarantee a very healthy and rewarding future for us all’’.
Governor Emmanuel Udaughan of Delta State on Thursday flagged off free health care programme for children under the age of five in the state.
Uduaghan, who inaugurated the initiative at Sapele General Hospital to commemorate the Children Day celebration, urged health givers not to abuse the programme, invoking the wrath of God on workers that would sabotage it.
The governor said the children have a right to health care as, according to him, many children died because their parents could not foot their medical bills.
He advised parents to be responsible and show some care to the children, and that they should take advantage of the programme to ensure that their children are taken to the hospital when ill, and not to quacks.
“We dedicate May 27 to children under five. They have the right to health care and money should not prevent them from being taken care of. As a practising medical doctor, I know many children died because their parents could not pay their bill; they go and patronise quacks. Delta State government has decided that even if we don’t do any other things, we must take care of them from the day they are conceived to when they are 5 years.
“I appeal to health workers that this programme should not be sabotaged. If you sabotage the programme, I might not see you, but God will see you and your reward will be devastating. The programme is not only for out-patients, it also includes those on admission, surgery and the state is taken that responsibility.”
Health Commissioner, Dr. Joseph Otumara, described children as the bedrock upon which the future of the state and indeed the country depends, as such it is “incumbent upon us to endeavour to keep them in the best possible condition of health in order to guarantee a very healthy and rewarding future for us all’’.
Jonathan s visit: Oyo govt orders closure of markets
Emma Okwuahaba
IN preparation for the visit of President Goodluck Jonathan to Oyo State, on Thursday, the state government has ordered the closure of all major markets in Ibadan to give the entourage of the president easy access to projects he is scheduled to inaugurate on the day.
The affected markets include Aleshinloye, Dugbe, Oke-Ado and Challenge.
Others are Bola-Ige International Market, Gbagi, as well as Oje and Beere markets.
The state Commissioner for Environment and Water Resources, Alhaji Mukaila Aborode, gave the order in a press statement released in Ibadan, while enjoining market men and women, as well as commercial vehicle operators in the metropolis to set a day aside to clean up their surroundings before the visit.
Alhaji Aborode implored the affected traders to bear with the state government on the order, adding that the visit would bring more prosperity to the state.
IN preparation for the visit of President Goodluck Jonathan to Oyo State, on Thursday, the state government has ordered the closure of all major markets in Ibadan to give the entourage of the president easy access to projects he is scheduled to inaugurate on the day.
The affected markets include Aleshinloye, Dugbe, Oke-Ado and Challenge.
Others are Bola-Ige International Market, Gbagi, as well as Oje and Beere markets.
The state Commissioner for Environment and Water Resources, Alhaji Mukaila Aborode, gave the order in a press statement released in Ibadan, while enjoining market men and women, as well as commercial vehicle operators in the metropolis to set a day aside to clean up their surroundings before the visit.
Alhaji Aborode implored the affected traders to bear with the state government on the order, adding that the visit would bring more prosperity to the state.
Another Democracy Day - 11 years of Failed Promises
Emma Okwuahaba
Cynicism weighed heavily on the national psyche. No one knew for sure the direction of the ship of state. For million of Nigerians, it was a decade to forget. Many, unable to fathom the irreversible slide to hopelessness by a nation so bountifully blessed, simply voted with their feet. They ‘invaded’ other lands in search of the proverbial Golden Fleece.
To them, the ship of state was miserably lost in a vast socio-political and economic ocean with no one to salvage it. Suddenly, the news of the demise of the dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, filtered into town, eliciting spontaneous, wild jubilation. That was in July 1998.
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who took over from him promised to return Nigeria to democratic rule, less than a year from then. Precisely, he gave May 29, 1999 as the terminal date for military rule in Nigeria. By extension, that date would also signal the commencement of democratic rule. Though beleaguered, Nigerians braced for the transition and saw it through.
Approximately 4,015 days after Nigeria returned to the path of democratic governance, have things really changed for the average Nigerian? In 1999, people reveled and rejoiced at the prospect of civilian governance.
Inside the beautifully decorated and well secured Eagles Square in Abuja, on that historic day, newly inaugurated President Olusegun Obasanjo, easily revved the inexhaustible stream of hope in Nigerians.
In his inaugural speech titled "The new Dawn," Obasanjo was quick to admit that indeed, Nigerians had had to cope with a hectic past.
"I wish to pay tribute to the great and gallant Nigerians who lost their lives in the cause of the struggle for liberty, democracy and good governance. They held the beacon of freedom and liberty high in the face of state terrorism and tyranny. ..And I must commend you my home-based fellow Nigerians for the way you bore unprecedented hardship, deprivation of every conceivable rights and privileges that were once taken for granted."
What is more, he acknowledged that a vastly endowed nation like Nigeria must not fail in using nature’s free gift to ensure that Nigerians live a good life. He promised to do just that.
He added, "Nigeria is wonderfully endowed by the Almighty with human and other resources. It does no credit either to us or the entire black race if we fail in managing our resources for quick improvement in the quality of life of our people. Instead of progress and development, which we are entitled to expect from those who governed us, we experienced in the last decade and a half, particularly, in the last regime but one, persistent deterioration in the quality of our governance, leading to instability and the weakening of all public institutions", he declared.
For a clincher, he added: "The citizens developed distrust in government, and because promises made for the improvement of the conditions of the people were not kept, all statements by government met with cynicism". He then went on to reel out a good deal of promises, all aimed at ‘improving the conditions of Nigerians’.
From a vow to fight headlong and stem corruption, to ensuring energy stability, infrastructure development, deepening democratic values and strengthening government institutions, security of lives and property, fostering socio-economic growth and development and many more.
But alas, 11 years down the road; with the third president on the saddle - all on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) - it has been a harvest of broken promises and tales of reversal of fortunes than a systematic journey to Eldora do.
Corruption unlimited
The president had declared "Corruption, the greatest single bane of our society today, will be tackled head-on at all levels".
Unknown to Obasanjo and, perhaps many unwary Nigerians, corruption was just at its infancy with a determination to flower and blossom. The nation’s image abroad became synonymous with corruption, sleaze and shady deals. Soon, the landscape was reeking with sordid revelations of corrupt practices in high and even low places. Governors turned their state treasuries to personal purse. It was so bad that some governors were forced out of office in a rather ignoble manner on account of corruption. The number one cop in the country, lawmakers, and contractors were indicted in different cases of alleged corrupt practices. Indeed, one lawmaker openly declared that as politicians, some of them took loans and or sold their properties to raise fund for their election campaigns and must necessarily recoup same.
The national chairman of the ruling PDP has had to resign because of alleged corruption charges leveled against him. In the last four years, there have been so many revelations in the public and private sectors that make one fear if ever corruption will be tamed in the country.
Infrastructure
The new helmsman had lamented the decay, dysfunctional and epileptic nature of the nation’s infrastructure, which he said "were allowed to decay and collapse" (and that) "the entire Nigerian scene is very bleak indeed" (but) "I am determined with your full cooperation, to make significant changes within a year of my administration."
After eight years and a failed attempt to clinch a ‘Third Term’; three years shared by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, the state of Nigeria’s infrastructure is far less than desirable. No roads, no rail and no waterways and most importantly, no energy to generate electricity.
Deepening democratic institutions
As days turn to months and then years, it became apparent that it was easier to mouth democracy as the best form of government than for the operators to allow democratic institutions take root. Former President Obasanjo simply did not respect the doctrine of separation of powers as much as he trampled upon the federal structure of the polity. As a former military ruler, Obasanjo saw authority in a centralized form and that was exactly how he ran the country. The executive became so powerful that both the legislative and judicial arms of government became subservient to it. The leadership of the legislative arm was determined and installed by the executive. Judicial pronouncements were obeyed at the whims and caprices of the executive. Even political parties were made subservient to the executive at the federal and state levels. Party chairmen held offices at the pleasure of the executive. Godfatherism was elevated to an art. They loomed larger than life, and decided who get what and how as they bestrode the political space like colossus. Political flag bearers were chosen in air-conditioned hotel rooms by a mere handful of stakeholders than the people themselves. Soon, it became fashionable for aspirants to court godfathers who usually have powers to impose them on the system than the electorate.
As for elections, they grew progressively worse. The case of 2007 was simply dumbfounding. A new senator was sworn in only last week whereas an illegal occupant had taken that Anambra North senatorial district seat for three years. The tribunal declared its verdict on the petition in the Osun state governorship election in 2007 only yesterday.
General issues
Obasanjo listed the following as priority areas:
(I) The crisis in the oil producing areas
(ii) Food supply, food security and agriculture
(iii) Law and order with particular reference to armed robbery, and to cultism in our educational institutions
(iv) Exploration and production of petroleum
(v) Education
(vi) Macro-economic policies - particularly, exchange rate management etc.
(vii) Supply and distribution of petroleum products
(viii) The debt issue, etc.
Of all the issues, apart from the external debt for which Obasanjo and his team did well, there is hardly anything to cheer about the others.
For instance, not until the administration of the late Yar’Adua pronounced amnesty for the militants in the Niger Delta on August 6, 2009 did the region know any peace, especially from 2006.
The waiting game
As another Democracy Day rolls by, the pain rather than the joy of today is the consciousness that the average Nigerian, who is familiar with Obasanjo’s inaugural address on Democracy Day, 11 years ago is still waiting for the promised ‘New Dawn.’ How soon it will come remains largely a matter of conjecture.
Written by Augustine Avwode
My dear brothers and sisters,
The push to place Nigeria in her rightful place is on, in full gear. There can never be better time to board the train that takes us to the promised land than now.
Two places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement:
1. www.yourgovt. com
2. http://groups/. yahoo.com/ group/Transform- Nigeria
Cynicism weighed heavily on the national psyche. No one knew for sure the direction of the ship of state. For million of Nigerians, it was a decade to forget. Many, unable to fathom the irreversible slide to hopelessness by a nation so bountifully blessed, simply voted with their feet. They ‘invaded’ other lands in search of the proverbial Golden Fleece.
To them, the ship of state was miserably lost in a vast socio-political and economic ocean with no one to salvage it. Suddenly, the news of the demise of the dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, filtered into town, eliciting spontaneous, wild jubilation. That was in July 1998.
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who took over from him promised to return Nigeria to democratic rule, less than a year from then. Precisely, he gave May 29, 1999 as the terminal date for military rule in Nigeria. By extension, that date would also signal the commencement of democratic rule. Though beleaguered, Nigerians braced for the transition and saw it through.
Approximately 4,015 days after Nigeria returned to the path of democratic governance, have things really changed for the average Nigerian? In 1999, people reveled and rejoiced at the prospect of civilian governance.
Inside the beautifully decorated and well secured Eagles Square in Abuja, on that historic day, newly inaugurated President Olusegun Obasanjo, easily revved the inexhaustible stream of hope in Nigerians.
In his inaugural speech titled "The new Dawn," Obasanjo was quick to admit that indeed, Nigerians had had to cope with a hectic past.
"I wish to pay tribute to the great and gallant Nigerians who lost their lives in the cause of the struggle for liberty, democracy and good governance. They held the beacon of freedom and liberty high in the face of state terrorism and tyranny. ..And I must commend you my home-based fellow Nigerians for the way you bore unprecedented hardship, deprivation of every conceivable rights and privileges that were once taken for granted."
What is more, he acknowledged that a vastly endowed nation like Nigeria must not fail in using nature’s free gift to ensure that Nigerians live a good life. He promised to do just that.
He added, "Nigeria is wonderfully endowed by the Almighty with human and other resources. It does no credit either to us or the entire black race if we fail in managing our resources for quick improvement in the quality of life of our people. Instead of progress and development, which we are entitled to expect from those who governed us, we experienced in the last decade and a half, particularly, in the last regime but one, persistent deterioration in the quality of our governance, leading to instability and the weakening of all public institutions", he declared.
For a clincher, he added: "The citizens developed distrust in government, and because promises made for the improvement of the conditions of the people were not kept, all statements by government met with cynicism". He then went on to reel out a good deal of promises, all aimed at ‘improving the conditions of Nigerians’.
From a vow to fight headlong and stem corruption, to ensuring energy stability, infrastructure development, deepening democratic values and strengthening government institutions, security of lives and property, fostering socio-economic growth and development and many more.
But alas, 11 years down the road; with the third president on the saddle - all on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) - it has been a harvest of broken promises and tales of reversal of fortunes than a systematic journey to Eldora do.
Corruption unlimited
The president had declared "Corruption, the greatest single bane of our society today, will be tackled head-on at all levels".
Unknown to Obasanjo and, perhaps many unwary Nigerians, corruption was just at its infancy with a determination to flower and blossom. The nation’s image abroad became synonymous with corruption, sleaze and shady deals. Soon, the landscape was reeking with sordid revelations of corrupt practices in high and even low places. Governors turned their state treasuries to personal purse. It was so bad that some governors were forced out of office in a rather ignoble manner on account of corruption. The number one cop in the country, lawmakers, and contractors were indicted in different cases of alleged corrupt practices. Indeed, one lawmaker openly declared that as politicians, some of them took loans and or sold their properties to raise fund for their election campaigns and must necessarily recoup same.
The national chairman of the ruling PDP has had to resign because of alleged corruption charges leveled against him. In the last four years, there have been so many revelations in the public and private sectors that make one fear if ever corruption will be tamed in the country.
Infrastructure
The new helmsman had lamented the decay, dysfunctional and epileptic nature of the nation’s infrastructure, which he said "were allowed to decay and collapse" (and that) "the entire Nigerian scene is very bleak indeed" (but) "I am determined with your full cooperation, to make significant changes within a year of my administration."
After eight years and a failed attempt to clinch a ‘Third Term’; three years shared by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, the state of Nigeria’s infrastructure is far less than desirable. No roads, no rail and no waterways and most importantly, no energy to generate electricity.
Deepening democratic institutions
As days turn to months and then years, it became apparent that it was easier to mouth democracy as the best form of government than for the operators to allow democratic institutions take root. Former President Obasanjo simply did not respect the doctrine of separation of powers as much as he trampled upon the federal structure of the polity. As a former military ruler, Obasanjo saw authority in a centralized form and that was exactly how he ran the country. The executive became so powerful that both the legislative and judicial arms of government became subservient to it. The leadership of the legislative arm was determined and installed by the executive. Judicial pronouncements were obeyed at the whims and caprices of the executive. Even political parties were made subservient to the executive at the federal and state levels. Party chairmen held offices at the pleasure of the executive. Godfatherism was elevated to an art. They loomed larger than life, and decided who get what and how as they bestrode the political space like colossus. Political flag bearers were chosen in air-conditioned hotel rooms by a mere handful of stakeholders than the people themselves. Soon, it became fashionable for aspirants to court godfathers who usually have powers to impose them on the system than the electorate.
As for elections, they grew progressively worse. The case of 2007 was simply dumbfounding. A new senator was sworn in only last week whereas an illegal occupant had taken that Anambra North senatorial district seat for three years. The tribunal declared its verdict on the petition in the Osun state governorship election in 2007 only yesterday.
General issues
Obasanjo listed the following as priority areas:
(I) The crisis in the oil producing areas
(ii) Food supply, food security and agriculture
(iii) Law and order with particular reference to armed robbery, and to cultism in our educational institutions
(iv) Exploration and production of petroleum
(v) Education
(vi) Macro-economic policies - particularly, exchange rate management etc.
(vii) Supply and distribution of petroleum products
(viii) The debt issue, etc.
Of all the issues, apart from the external debt for which Obasanjo and his team did well, there is hardly anything to cheer about the others.
For instance, not until the administration of the late Yar’Adua pronounced amnesty for the militants in the Niger Delta on August 6, 2009 did the region know any peace, especially from 2006.
The waiting game
As another Democracy Day rolls by, the pain rather than the joy of today is the consciousness that the average Nigerian, who is familiar with Obasanjo’s inaugural address on Democracy Day, 11 years ago is still waiting for the promised ‘New Dawn.’ How soon it will come remains largely a matter of conjecture.
Written by Augustine Avwode
My dear brothers and sisters,
The push to place Nigeria in her rightful place is on, in full gear. There can never be better time to board the train that takes us to the promised land than now.
Two places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement:
1. www.yourgovt. com
2. http://groups/. yahoo.com/ group/Transform- Nigeria
Nigerians at home and Diaspora set to Transform Nigeria
Emma Okwuahaba
Nigerians from all walks of life, at home and abroad have come together to create an organisation the aim of which is to motivate Nigerians by creating awareness in the populace that they are in control of the leadership of their country, Nigeria.
They have formed an organisation called the Transform Nigeria Movement
In order to achieve this noble objective, Transform Nigeria will set out to enlighten Nigerians with the sole aim of empowering the people to think positively about developing a new type of leadership and followership for Nigeria, thereby creating the leaders of tomorrow and introducing new ways of thinking for Nigerians.
Already the group has more than 2,500 members on facebook, a core leadership of 100 men and women based all over the world including the United States of America, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Italy, Ecuador, and Italy among other countries with a further network of about 12,000 Nigerians connected online around the globe.
STATEMENT:
"Starting now, let's take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union, let's build a government that is responsible to the people and accept our own responsibilities as citizens to hold our government accountable" --- Barack Obama
Transform Nigeria envisions a Nigerian society where there is a positive change in the consciousness, orientation, and world view of all Nigerians.
We believe that a well informed populace will be motivated to positive action. Nigerians have been dormant for a long time; it is our responsibility to awaken them from slumber by informing, educating and enlightening the youths on what truly goes on in Nigeria.
Our goal is to entrench good governance, hold our leaders accountable and rid Nigeria of corruption by getting Nigerians to engage in governance, expose and report corruption wherever they see one.
How to achieve these aims
The drive to transform Nigeria will start in the grassroots across all states of the country and in all Nigerian Diaspora communities abroad. The model of operation of Transform Nigeria Movement will be a combination of a village style town square meeting and a modern day "Tea Party" meeting.
It will be a quiet and peaceful but effective revolution that will involve all Nigerians of goodwill - to create the biggest online Movement in Nigeria where Nigerians, especially the youths will come together in one forum to chart the way forward for our country.
We intend to create a dynamic Movement using 21st century Solution– the internet, emails, text messaging and hand bills - to tackle our age-long problems.
We would be able to create software to automatically send news to the emails and phone numbers of registered members.
Particularly we will:
1. Create Transform Nigeria Groups in the 36 states of the Federation including the FCT, Local Government Areas, Wards and Villages and in all the Universities, Schools and Colleges.
3. Generate publicity in Radio, TV, Newspapers and hand bills to be distributed regularly in Schools and Universities, L.G.A, wards and villages.
4. We will plan activities that will allow all members from all regions and groups around the country to get to know one another and with time travel around the world to observe and learn from other democracies.
Conclusion
Our Manifesto and constitution will be available to every member and prospective members to enlighten them on the aims and objectives of the organization. Every member will be expected to live up to the high standards expected of the future leaders of the country.
This is socio-political, non-partisan, unbiased, neutral organisation. It is not a political party, neither are we affiliated to any political party. Every Nigerian is welcome.
We are calling on every Nigerian; teachers, youths, students, workers, traders and artisans. Indeed every Nigeria with an email address – let us mobilise for the betterment of our country and to reshape our country's polity. Together we will create the Nigeria of our dreams.
This is a very long journey, but today we take the step towards changing the course of the ship of the Nigerian State.
Three places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement
1. www.yourgovt.com
2. Facebook
3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Transform-Nigeria/
Signed:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1.Nicholas Agbo - Oakland California; 2. Dr. Anthony Afolo - New Jersey;
3.Ezinne Anyanwu - Texas , United States; 4.Emmanuel Ohai - Atlanta
5.Modupe Odunsanya - Illinois , United States; 6.Paul Adujie – New York
7.Noyo Edem– New Jersey; 8.chijioke akunyili - Los Angeles
8. Acho Orabuchi - Texas
UNITED KINGDOM
1.Ikhide Odion - Aberdeen; 2.Adeniyi Adeleke – London
3.Ifeoluwa Adebayo – Reading; 4.Gbenga Shadare – Nottingham;
5. Chinedu V. Akuta – Leicester; 6.Tochi Godwin Ekwuogo - Swansea
7.Chukwunonso Ngwu - Coventry
NIGERIA
1.Nnenna Iwuanyanwu – Lagos; 2.Acho Orabuchi;
3.Nathan Jonah- Kaduna; 4. Akin Lawanson - Ile Ife
5. Emeka Nwachukwu - Lagos; 6.Oluwatobi D. Adelaja - Lagos
7.Favour Afolabi – Lagos; 8.Abba Anthony - Kaduna
9.Phillip Nwaochei - Asaba; 10.Akeju A. Aike – Warri
11.Akeju Akintomiwa Aike – Warri; 12. Kalu Awa – Port Harcourt
13.Akeju Akintomiwa Aike – Warri; 14.Peter C. Njoku – Enugu
15.Okwenna I. Hons - Kano; 16. Sandra Yakusak – ABU, Zaria
17.John Luka – Kaduna; 18. Julius Dariya – Kafanchan
19.Stephen H. Hassan; 20. Ayuba U. Kalba - Abuja
21.Ronke Doherty - Abuja; 22. Kayode Ajulo - Abuja
23.Lawal Ishaq;
EUROPE
1.Afolabi Shola – Helsinki, Finland; 2.Isaac S. Oyebola - Treviglio, Italy
3.Ambrose Obimma - Frederiksberg,Denmark; 4.Demilo Grant - Halmstad , Sweden;
5.Rufus Oteniya – Milan , Italy; 6.Cyril Oriafoh
OTHERS
1.Akinyemi Adeseye - Cuenca, Ecuador
2.Razi anka – China;
4.Adigun Mathew - Empangeni, South Africa
5.Nnamdi Ousmane– Burkina Faso
Nigerians from all walks of life, at home and abroad have come together to create an organisation the aim of which is to motivate Nigerians by creating awareness in the populace that they are in control of the leadership of their country, Nigeria.
They have formed an organisation called the Transform Nigeria Movement
In order to achieve this noble objective, Transform Nigeria will set out to enlighten Nigerians with the sole aim of empowering the people to think positively about developing a new type of leadership and followership for Nigeria, thereby creating the leaders of tomorrow and introducing new ways of thinking for Nigerians.
Already the group has more than 2,500 members on facebook, a core leadership of 100 men and women based all over the world including the United States of America, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Italy, Ecuador, and Italy among other countries with a further network of about 12,000 Nigerians connected online around the globe.
STATEMENT:
"Starting now, let's take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union, let's build a government that is responsible to the people and accept our own responsibilities as citizens to hold our government accountable" --- Barack Obama
Transform Nigeria envisions a Nigerian society where there is a positive change in the consciousness, orientation, and world view of all Nigerians.
We believe that a well informed populace will be motivated to positive action. Nigerians have been dormant for a long time; it is our responsibility to awaken them from slumber by informing, educating and enlightening the youths on what truly goes on in Nigeria.
Our goal is to entrench good governance, hold our leaders accountable and rid Nigeria of corruption by getting Nigerians to engage in governance, expose and report corruption wherever they see one.
How to achieve these aims
The drive to transform Nigeria will start in the grassroots across all states of the country and in all Nigerian Diaspora communities abroad. The model of operation of Transform Nigeria Movement will be a combination of a village style town square meeting and a modern day "Tea Party" meeting.
It will be a quiet and peaceful but effective revolution that will involve all Nigerians of goodwill - to create the biggest online Movement in Nigeria where Nigerians, especially the youths will come together in one forum to chart the way forward for our country.
We intend to create a dynamic Movement using 21st century Solution– the internet, emails, text messaging and hand bills - to tackle our age-long problems.
We would be able to create software to automatically send news to the emails and phone numbers of registered members.
Particularly we will:
1. Create Transform Nigeria Groups in the 36 states of the Federation including the FCT, Local Government Areas, Wards and Villages and in all the Universities, Schools and Colleges.
3. Generate publicity in Radio, TV, Newspapers and hand bills to be distributed regularly in Schools and Universities, L.G.A, wards and villages.
4. We will plan activities that will allow all members from all regions and groups around the country to get to know one another and with time travel around the world to observe and learn from other democracies.
Conclusion
Our Manifesto and constitution will be available to every member and prospective members to enlighten them on the aims and objectives of the organization. Every member will be expected to live up to the high standards expected of the future leaders of the country.
This is socio-political, non-partisan, unbiased, neutral organisation. It is not a political party, neither are we affiliated to any political party. Every Nigerian is welcome.
We are calling on every Nigerian; teachers, youths, students, workers, traders and artisans. Indeed every Nigeria with an email address – let us mobilise for the betterment of our country and to reshape our country's polity. Together we will create the Nigeria of our dreams.
This is a very long journey, but today we take the step towards changing the course of the ship of the Nigerian State.
Three places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement
1. www.yourgovt.com
2. Facebook
3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Transform-Nigeria/
Signed:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1.Nicholas Agbo - Oakland California; 2. Dr. Anthony Afolo - New Jersey;
3.Ezinne Anyanwu - Texas , United States; 4.Emmanuel Ohai - Atlanta
5.Modupe Odunsanya - Illinois , United States; 6.Paul Adujie – New York
7.Noyo Edem– New Jersey; 8.chijioke akunyili - Los Angeles
8. Acho Orabuchi - Texas
UNITED KINGDOM
1.Ikhide Odion - Aberdeen; 2.Adeniyi Adeleke – London
3.Ifeoluwa Adebayo – Reading; 4.Gbenga Shadare – Nottingham;
5. Chinedu V. Akuta – Leicester; 6.Tochi Godwin Ekwuogo - Swansea
7.Chukwunonso Ngwu - Coventry
NIGERIA
1.Nnenna Iwuanyanwu – Lagos; 2.Acho Orabuchi;
3.Nathan Jonah- Kaduna; 4. Akin Lawanson - Ile Ife
5. Emeka Nwachukwu - Lagos; 6.Oluwatobi D. Adelaja - Lagos
7.Favour Afolabi – Lagos; 8.Abba Anthony - Kaduna
9.Phillip Nwaochei - Asaba; 10.Akeju A. Aike – Warri
11.Akeju Akintomiwa Aike – Warri; 12. Kalu Awa – Port Harcourt
13.Akeju Akintomiwa Aike – Warri; 14.Peter C. Njoku – Enugu
15.Okwenna I. Hons - Kano; 16. Sandra Yakusak – ABU, Zaria
17.John Luka – Kaduna; 18. Julius Dariya – Kafanchan
19.Stephen H. Hassan; 20. Ayuba U. Kalba - Abuja
21.Ronke Doherty - Abuja; 22. Kayode Ajulo - Abuja
23.Lawal Ishaq;
EUROPE
1.Afolabi Shola – Helsinki, Finland; 2.Isaac S. Oyebola - Treviglio, Italy
3.Ambrose Obimma - Frederiksberg,Denmark; 4.Demilo Grant - Halmstad , Sweden;
5.Rufus Oteniya – Milan , Italy; 6.Cyril Oriafoh
OTHERS
1.Akinyemi Adeseye - Cuenca, Ecuador
2.Razi anka – China;
4.Adigun Mathew - Empangeni, South Africa
5.Nnamdi Ousmane– Burkina Faso
Another Democracy Day - 11 years of Failed Promises
Emma Okwuahaba
Cynicism weighed heavily on the national psyche. No one knew for sure the direction of the ship of state. For million of Nigerians, it was a decade to forget. Many, unable to fathom the irreversible slide to hopelessness by a nation so bountifully blessed, simply voted with their feet. They ‘invaded’ other lands in search of the proverbial Golden Fleece.
To them, the ship of state was miserably lost in a vast socio-political and economic ocean with no one to salvage it. Suddenly, the news of the demise of the dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, filtered into town, eliciting spontaneous, wild jubilation. That was in July 1998.
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who took over from him promised to return Nigeria to democratic rule, less than a year from then. Precisely, he gave May 29, 1999 as the terminal date for military rule in Nigeria. By extension, that date would also signal the commencement of democratic rule. Though beleaguered, Nigerians braced for the transition and saw it through.
Approximately 4,015 days after Nigeria returned to the path of democratic governance, have things really changed for the average Nigerian? In 1999, people reveled and rejoiced at the prospect of civilian governance.
Inside the beautifully decorated and well secured Eagles Square in Abuja, on that historic day, newly inaugurated President Olusegun Obasanjo, easily revved the inexhaustible stream of hope in Nigerians.
In his inaugural speech titled "The new Dawn," Obasanjo was quick to admit that indeed, Nigerians had had to cope with a hectic past.
"I wish to pay tribute to the great and gallant Nigerians who lost their lives in the cause of the struggle for liberty, democracy and good governance. They held the beacon of freedom and liberty high in the face of state terrorism and tyranny. ..And I must commend you my home-based fellow Nigerians for the way you bore unprecedented hardship, deprivation of every conceivable rights and privileges that were once taken for granted."
What is more, he acknowledged that a vastly endowed nation like Nigeria must not fail in using nature’s free gift to ensure that Nigerians live a good life. He promised to do just that.
He added, "Nigeria is wonderfully endowed by the Almighty with human and other resources. It does no credit either to us or the entire black race if we fail in managing our resources for quick improvement in the quality of life of our people. Instead of progress and development, which we are entitled to expect from those who governed us, we experienced in the last decade and a half, particularly, in the last regime but one, persistent deterioration in the quality of our governance, leading to instability and the weakening of all public institutions", he declared.
For a clincher, he added: "The citizens developed distrust in government, and because promises made for the improvement of the conditions of the people were not kept, all statements by government met with cynicism". He then went on to reel out a good deal of promises, all aimed at ‘improving the conditions of Nigerians’.
From a vow to fight headlong and stem corruption, to ensuring energy stability, infrastructure development, deepening democratic values and strengthening government institutions, security of lives and property, fostering socio-economic growth and development and many more.
But alas, 11 years down the road; with the third president on the saddle - all on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) - it has been a harvest of broken promises and tales of reversal of fortunes than a systematic journey to Eldora do.
Corruption unlimited
The president had declared "Corruption, the greatest single bane of our society today, will be tackled head-on at all levels".
Unknown to Obasanjo and, perhaps many unwary Nigerians, corruption was just at its infancy with a determination to flower and blossom. The nation’s image abroad became synonymous with corruption, sleaze and shady deals. Soon, the landscape was reeking with sordid revelations of corrupt practices in high and even low places. Governors turned their state treasuries to personal purse. It was so bad that some governors were forced out of office in a rather ignoble manner on account of corruption. The number one cop in the country, lawmakers, and contractors were indicted in different cases of alleged corrupt practices. Indeed, one lawmaker openly declared that as politicians, some of them took loans and or sold their properties to raise fund for their election campaigns and must necessarily recoup same.
The national chairman of the ruling PDP has had to resign because of alleged corruption charges leveled against him. In the last four years, there have been so many revelations in the public and private sectors that make one fear if ever corruption will be tamed in the country.
Infrastructure
The new helmsman had lamented the decay, dysfunctional and epileptic nature of the nation’s infrastructure, which he said "were allowed to decay and collapse" (and that) "the entire Nigerian scene is very bleak indeed" (but) "I am determined with your full cooperation, to make significant changes within a year of my administration."
After eight years and a failed attempt to clinch a ‘Third Term’; three years shared by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, the state of Nigeria’s infrastructure is far less than desirable. No roads, no rail and no waterways and most importantly, no energy to generate electricity.
Deepening democratic institutions
As days turn to months and then years, it became apparent that it was easier to mouth democracy as the best form of government than for the operators to allow democratic institutions take root. Former President Obasanjo simply did not respect the doctrine of separation of powers as much as he trampled upon the federal structure of the polity. As a former military ruler, Obasanjo saw authority in a centralized form and that was exactly how he ran the country. The executive became so powerful that both the legislative and judicial arms of government became subservient to it. The leadership of the legislative arm was determined and installed by the executive. Judicial pronouncements were obeyed at the whims and caprices of the executive. Even political parties were made subservient to the executive at the federal and state levels. Party chairmen held offices at the pleasure of the executive. Godfatherism was elevated to an art. They loomed larger than life, and decided who get what and how as they bestrode the political space like colossus. Political flag bearers were chosen in air-conditioned hotel rooms by a mere handful of stakeholders than the people themselves. Soon, it became fashionable for aspirants to court godfathers who usually have powers to impose them on the system than the electorate.
As for elections, they grew progressively worse. The case of 2007 was simply dumbfounding. A new senator was sworn in only last week whereas an illegal occupant had taken that Anambra North senatorial district seat for three years. The tribunal declared its verdict on the petition in the Osun state governorship election in 2007 only yesterday.
General issues
Obasanjo listed the following as priority areas:
(I) The crisis in the oil producing areas
(ii) Food supply, food security and agriculture
(iii) Law and order with particular reference to armed robbery, and to cultism in our educational institutions
(iv) Exploration and production of petroleum
(v) Education
(vi) Macro-economic policies - particularly, exchange rate management etc.
(vii) Supply and distribution of petroleum products
(viii) The debt issue, etc.
Of all the issues, apart from the external debt for which Obasanjo and his team did well, there is hardly anything to cheer about the others.
For instance, not until the administration of the late Yar’Adua pronounced amnesty for the militants in the Niger Delta on August 6, 2009 did the region know any peace, especially from 2006.
The waiting game
As another Democracy Day rolls by, the pain rather than the joy of today is the consciousness that the average Nigerian, who is familiar with Obasanjo’s inaugural address on Democracy Day, 11 years ago is still waiting for the promised ‘New Dawn.’ How soon it will come remains largely a matter of conjecture.
Written by Augustine Avwode
My dear brothers and sisters,
The push to place Nigeria in her rightful place is on, in full gear. There can never be better time to board the train that takes us to the promised land than now.
Two places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement:
1. www.yourgovt. com
2. http://groups/. yahoo.com/ group/Transform- Nigeria
Cynicism weighed heavily on the national psyche. No one knew for sure the direction of the ship of state. For million of Nigerians, it was a decade to forget. Many, unable to fathom the irreversible slide to hopelessness by a nation so bountifully blessed, simply voted with their feet. They ‘invaded’ other lands in search of the proverbial Golden Fleece.
To them, the ship of state was miserably lost in a vast socio-political and economic ocean with no one to salvage it. Suddenly, the news of the demise of the dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, filtered into town, eliciting spontaneous, wild jubilation. That was in July 1998.
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who took over from him promised to return Nigeria to democratic rule, less than a year from then. Precisely, he gave May 29, 1999 as the terminal date for military rule in Nigeria. By extension, that date would also signal the commencement of democratic rule. Though beleaguered, Nigerians braced for the transition and saw it through.
Approximately 4,015 days after Nigeria returned to the path of democratic governance, have things really changed for the average Nigerian? In 1999, people reveled and rejoiced at the prospect of civilian governance.
Inside the beautifully decorated and well secured Eagles Square in Abuja, on that historic day, newly inaugurated President Olusegun Obasanjo, easily revved the inexhaustible stream of hope in Nigerians.
In his inaugural speech titled "The new Dawn," Obasanjo was quick to admit that indeed, Nigerians had had to cope with a hectic past.
"I wish to pay tribute to the great and gallant Nigerians who lost their lives in the cause of the struggle for liberty, democracy and good governance. They held the beacon of freedom and liberty high in the face of state terrorism and tyranny. ..And I must commend you my home-based fellow Nigerians for the way you bore unprecedented hardship, deprivation of every conceivable rights and privileges that were once taken for granted."
What is more, he acknowledged that a vastly endowed nation like Nigeria must not fail in using nature’s free gift to ensure that Nigerians live a good life. He promised to do just that.
He added, "Nigeria is wonderfully endowed by the Almighty with human and other resources. It does no credit either to us or the entire black race if we fail in managing our resources for quick improvement in the quality of life of our people. Instead of progress and development, which we are entitled to expect from those who governed us, we experienced in the last decade and a half, particularly, in the last regime but one, persistent deterioration in the quality of our governance, leading to instability and the weakening of all public institutions", he declared.
For a clincher, he added: "The citizens developed distrust in government, and because promises made for the improvement of the conditions of the people were not kept, all statements by government met with cynicism". He then went on to reel out a good deal of promises, all aimed at ‘improving the conditions of Nigerians’.
From a vow to fight headlong and stem corruption, to ensuring energy stability, infrastructure development, deepening democratic values and strengthening government institutions, security of lives and property, fostering socio-economic growth and development and many more.
But alas, 11 years down the road; with the third president on the saddle - all on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) - it has been a harvest of broken promises and tales of reversal of fortunes than a systematic journey to Eldora do.
Corruption unlimited
The president had declared "Corruption, the greatest single bane of our society today, will be tackled head-on at all levels".
Unknown to Obasanjo and, perhaps many unwary Nigerians, corruption was just at its infancy with a determination to flower and blossom. The nation’s image abroad became synonymous with corruption, sleaze and shady deals. Soon, the landscape was reeking with sordid revelations of corrupt practices in high and even low places. Governors turned their state treasuries to personal purse. It was so bad that some governors were forced out of office in a rather ignoble manner on account of corruption. The number one cop in the country, lawmakers, and contractors were indicted in different cases of alleged corrupt practices. Indeed, one lawmaker openly declared that as politicians, some of them took loans and or sold their properties to raise fund for their election campaigns and must necessarily recoup same.
The national chairman of the ruling PDP has had to resign because of alleged corruption charges leveled against him. In the last four years, there have been so many revelations in the public and private sectors that make one fear if ever corruption will be tamed in the country.
Infrastructure
The new helmsman had lamented the decay, dysfunctional and epileptic nature of the nation’s infrastructure, which he said "were allowed to decay and collapse" (and that) "the entire Nigerian scene is very bleak indeed" (but) "I am determined with your full cooperation, to make significant changes within a year of my administration."
After eight years and a failed attempt to clinch a ‘Third Term’; three years shared by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, the state of Nigeria’s infrastructure is far less than desirable. No roads, no rail and no waterways and most importantly, no energy to generate electricity.
Deepening democratic institutions
As days turn to months and then years, it became apparent that it was easier to mouth democracy as the best form of government than for the operators to allow democratic institutions take root. Former President Obasanjo simply did not respect the doctrine of separation of powers as much as he trampled upon the federal structure of the polity. As a former military ruler, Obasanjo saw authority in a centralized form and that was exactly how he ran the country. The executive became so powerful that both the legislative and judicial arms of government became subservient to it. The leadership of the legislative arm was determined and installed by the executive. Judicial pronouncements were obeyed at the whims and caprices of the executive. Even political parties were made subservient to the executive at the federal and state levels. Party chairmen held offices at the pleasure of the executive. Godfatherism was elevated to an art. They loomed larger than life, and decided who get what and how as they bestrode the political space like colossus. Political flag bearers were chosen in air-conditioned hotel rooms by a mere handful of stakeholders than the people themselves. Soon, it became fashionable for aspirants to court godfathers who usually have powers to impose them on the system than the electorate.
As for elections, they grew progressively worse. The case of 2007 was simply dumbfounding. A new senator was sworn in only last week whereas an illegal occupant had taken that Anambra North senatorial district seat for three years. The tribunal declared its verdict on the petition in the Osun state governorship election in 2007 only yesterday.
General issues
Obasanjo listed the following as priority areas:
(I) The crisis in the oil producing areas
(ii) Food supply, food security and agriculture
(iii) Law and order with particular reference to armed robbery, and to cultism in our educational institutions
(iv) Exploration and production of petroleum
(v) Education
(vi) Macro-economic policies - particularly, exchange rate management etc.
(vii) Supply and distribution of petroleum products
(viii) The debt issue, etc.
Of all the issues, apart from the external debt for which Obasanjo and his team did well, there is hardly anything to cheer about the others.
For instance, not until the administration of the late Yar’Adua pronounced amnesty for the militants in the Niger Delta on August 6, 2009 did the region know any peace, especially from 2006.
The waiting game
As another Democracy Day rolls by, the pain rather than the joy of today is the consciousness that the average Nigerian, who is familiar with Obasanjo’s inaugural address on Democracy Day, 11 years ago is still waiting for the promised ‘New Dawn.’ How soon it will come remains largely a matter of conjecture.
Written by Augustine Avwode
My dear brothers and sisters,
The push to place Nigeria in her rightful place is on, in full gear. There can never be better time to board the train that takes us to the promised land than now.
Two places where you can join the Transform Nigeria Movement:
1. www.yourgovt. com
2. http://groups/. yahoo.com/ group/Transform- Nigeria
Ribadu's Zeal Commendable, but.......
Emeka Maduewesi
Today I will meet Mallam Nuhu Ribadu for the first time at a reception in his honor in Richmond, California. I wrote this article in in September 2006 and it was published by THISDAY NEWSPAPERS both in both print and online. Today, I republish the exact same article in his honor. The issues raised in 2006 are as relevant today as they were then. Please read if your time permits.:
Nigerians have the reputation of being instinctively fraudulent. Yes, not having been caught, charged, tried and pronounced guilty excludes most of us from serving our comeuppance. Again, death has a way of hastening trial and conviction when the living lack the will to accuse and investigate and the courts of competent jurisdiction renege and abdicate their constitutional responsibility. If Abacha had not died, his billions of dollars starched away in foreign banks would still be his. Sani Abacha happens to be the only dead Nigerian head of state. Does it mean that all the rest are corruption-free? What of the dead INEC Accountant who had over one billion naira in his account? The Igbo says that searching for the kitchen knife is the surest way to disclose what the family had for dinner. If his wives had kept quiet, we would not have known. If he had one billion in his accounts, how much do INEC's past and present Chairmen have?
Nigeria has the freest, most vibrant press on earth that I know of, and I have lived in the United States, "the land of the free and brave" since 1998. In character with everything Nigerian, we also have, on the one hand, the boldest white-collar criminals who plunder our public treasury with impunity, and on the other, daylight robbers who are not afraid to lay siege on our busiest international airport! A friend of mine once told me that a serving civil servant - one of those who pioneered the move to Abuja - has more than 30 buildings in the city. She told me this story, not as one peeved by corruption, but in admiration of the thief's achievement! In Nigeria, the bolder the press, the more daring the thieves!
Corruption, citizen passivity (apathy) and comatose law enforcement and justice delivery system are the main problems with Nigeria. The coming into effect of the EFCC Act 2003 changed the face and pace of law enforcement. Armed with the freshly minted amendments, the czar of the War against Corruption and my hero any day, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, swung into action, arresting every one directly or remotely connected with Cybercafés. Because Nigeria is economically inefficient and politically anarchic, even good intentions are often times badly executed.
At a recent meeting with stakeholders in the internet service industry, Mallam Ribadu suggested that the Cybercafé operators should run their businesses as video clubs, with procedures for registration and identification of patrons. While I commend Mallam Ribadu's zeal in fighting corruption and internet crimes, this suggestions is grossly outdated and a chill on mobility of labor. If I register with ABC Internet Café in Lagos, on a visit to Abuja, will I be permitted by XYZ Cybercafé to use their facility? Would the Abuja café not be apprehensive that I may be a criminal who may put their business at risk? I have great respect for Mallam Ribadu and I know he can do better, hence this article.
My proposal is for an Act of the National Assembly for a centralized and compulsory registration of cybercafé users and issuing them with identification cards. In the alternative, the EFCC or the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) may use their enabling powers to issue regulations for that purpose if an Act of the National Assembly will take snail speed to arrive. The envisaged Cybercafé User's Card is a generic card that permits the holder to use any Cybercafé in Nigeria on presentation of the Card. My duty is to draft the propose Bill or regulation, but first, some comments.
Firstly, it is the responsibility of the government of a sovereign nation to protect her territorial integrity. Cyberspace, like airspace, is part of a notion's territory integrity. Both advanced and developing countries determine what passes through their cyberspace. This cyberspace equivalent of import and export is done through the use of a system on their internet national hub whose algorithm is programmed to respond to some keywords. The United States, China and even Vietnam are doing this as some kind of monitoring or censure.
Secondly, privacy concerns may suggest that we leave our cyberspace unmonitored. This is like leaving your airspace, shores and boundaries unmonitored. The war between privacy and security is stiffer in cyberspace than under brick and mortar. The need to protect our individual privacy must be balance against the need to secure our national cyberspace, a dichotomy that can be resolved with clearly defined policies and supporting technology.
Thirdly, on the algorithm for keyword monitoring system, our legal requirements for reporting certain transactions to appropriate authorities can be successfully integrated into a system to monitor emails sent from or received in Nigeria. For example, any email from Nigeria that has keywords like President, Governor, Head of State, NNPC, NPA, Petroleum, Minister, etc., and any sum of money above 5,000 Dollars, $, should trigger the system. After all, no Nigerian has the right to export or import $5000 without reporting it to the appropriate office.
Finally, technology is cheap and readily available. Nigeria is so richly endowed but we lack the political will to move forward. Our legendary kleptomaniac tendencies I alluded to earlier manifest everyday as public officers are exposed by either the EFCC or the Budget Monitoring Committee. The money recovered from Tafa Balogun should be enough to set up this system.
Emeka Maduewesi is a dual-qualified (Nigeria and California) international lawyer with cross-border intellectual property and technology transactions, licensing, regulatory, complex commercial litigation and antitrust experience. He has a Masters Degree in Intellectual Property and Technology Law from the University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, California. He is the Publisher of http://www.nigerianlawregistry.com/ and http://www.nlid.info/
Today I will meet Mallam Nuhu Ribadu for the first time at a reception in his honor in Richmond, California. I wrote this article in in September 2006 and it was published by THISDAY NEWSPAPERS both in both print and online. Today, I republish the exact same article in his honor. The issues raised in 2006 are as relevant today as they were then. Please read if your time permits.:
Nigerians have the reputation of being instinctively fraudulent. Yes, not having been caught, charged, tried and pronounced guilty excludes most of us from serving our comeuppance. Again, death has a way of hastening trial and conviction when the living lack the will to accuse and investigate and the courts of competent jurisdiction renege and abdicate their constitutional responsibility. If Abacha had not died, his billions of dollars starched away in foreign banks would still be his. Sani Abacha happens to be the only dead Nigerian head of state. Does it mean that all the rest are corruption-free? What of the dead INEC Accountant who had over one billion naira in his account? The Igbo says that searching for the kitchen knife is the surest way to disclose what the family had for dinner. If his wives had kept quiet, we would not have known. If he had one billion in his accounts, how much do INEC's past and present Chairmen have?
Nigeria has the freest, most vibrant press on earth that I know of, and I have lived in the United States, "the land of the free and brave" since 1998. In character with everything Nigerian, we also have, on the one hand, the boldest white-collar criminals who plunder our public treasury with impunity, and on the other, daylight robbers who are not afraid to lay siege on our busiest international airport! A friend of mine once told me that a serving civil servant - one of those who pioneered the move to Abuja - has more than 30 buildings in the city. She told me this story, not as one peeved by corruption, but in admiration of the thief's achievement! In Nigeria, the bolder the press, the more daring the thieves!
Corruption, citizen passivity (apathy) and comatose law enforcement and justice delivery system are the main problems with Nigeria. The coming into effect of the EFCC Act 2003 changed the face and pace of law enforcement. Armed with the freshly minted amendments, the czar of the War against Corruption and my hero any day, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, swung into action, arresting every one directly or remotely connected with Cybercafés. Because Nigeria is economically inefficient and politically anarchic, even good intentions are often times badly executed.
At a recent meeting with stakeholders in the internet service industry, Mallam Ribadu suggested that the Cybercafé operators should run their businesses as video clubs, with procedures for registration and identification of patrons. While I commend Mallam Ribadu's zeal in fighting corruption and internet crimes, this suggestions is grossly outdated and a chill on mobility of labor. If I register with ABC Internet Café in Lagos, on a visit to Abuja, will I be permitted by XYZ Cybercafé to use their facility? Would the Abuja café not be apprehensive that I may be a criminal who may put their business at risk? I have great respect for Mallam Ribadu and I know he can do better, hence this article.
My proposal is for an Act of the National Assembly for a centralized and compulsory registration of cybercafé users and issuing them with identification cards. In the alternative, the EFCC or the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) may use their enabling powers to issue regulations for that purpose if an Act of the National Assembly will take snail speed to arrive. The envisaged Cybercafé User's Card is a generic card that permits the holder to use any Cybercafé in Nigeria on presentation of the Card. My duty is to draft the propose Bill or regulation, but first, some comments.
Firstly, it is the responsibility of the government of a sovereign nation to protect her territorial integrity. Cyberspace, like airspace, is part of a notion's territory integrity. Both advanced and developing countries determine what passes through their cyberspace. This cyberspace equivalent of import and export is done through the use of a system on their internet national hub whose algorithm is programmed to respond to some keywords. The United States, China and even Vietnam are doing this as some kind of monitoring or censure.
Secondly, privacy concerns may suggest that we leave our cyberspace unmonitored. This is like leaving your airspace, shores and boundaries unmonitored. The war between privacy and security is stiffer in cyberspace than under brick and mortar. The need to protect our individual privacy must be balance against the need to secure our national cyberspace, a dichotomy that can be resolved with clearly defined policies and supporting technology.
Thirdly, on the algorithm for keyword monitoring system, our legal requirements for reporting certain transactions to appropriate authorities can be successfully integrated into a system to monitor emails sent from or received in Nigeria. For example, any email from Nigeria that has keywords like President, Governor, Head of State, NNPC, NPA, Petroleum, Minister, etc., and any sum of money above 5,000 Dollars, $, should trigger the system. After all, no Nigerian has the right to export or import $5000 without reporting it to the appropriate office.
Finally, technology is cheap and readily available. Nigeria is so richly endowed but we lack the political will to move forward. Our legendary kleptomaniac tendencies I alluded to earlier manifest everyday as public officers are exposed by either the EFCC or the Budget Monitoring Committee. The money recovered from Tafa Balogun should be enough to set up this system.
Emeka Maduewesi is a dual-qualified (Nigeria and California) international lawyer with cross-border intellectual property and technology transactions, licensing, regulatory, complex commercial litigation and antitrust experience. He has a Masters Degree in Intellectual Property and Technology Law from the University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, California. He is the Publisher of http://www.nigerianlawregistry.com/ and http://www.nlid.info/
Jumbo Pay for Legislators: A disdain for The Nigerian Worker
Emma Okwuahaba
It is a sad irony that some legislators in the Nigerian National Assembly are seeking an increase in their pay at the time that the recently late Chief Jerome Udorji is being laid to rest. The "Udorji Award" in the 1970s could be said to be the last time that the Nigerian Worker, therefore, the Nigeria economy had a real "Stimulus" That Award was a shot in the arm of the Nigerian Worker. Every worker
from the Office Tea-girl, Gateman, to the Clerk, Officer, Supervisor, Director, Secretary and Permanent Secretary, all recieved increases in their wages. As the money circulated, traders, taxi drivers, truck and barrow pushers and other business persons also recieved their own "Udorji Award" with increases in prices of goods and services.
The Udorji Award was a real "Stimulus Plan" that stimulated every aspect of Nigerian Life because the Award afforded the Nigerian Worker a Livable Wage that impacted the Standard of Living and Quality of Life of every Nigerian. That Award was done with the Nigerian Worker as the focal point. It was a "People First" Award because it was good for the Nigerian Worker, therefore, good for Nigeria and Nigerians.
As a young lad growing up in Enugu in the day of the Udorji Award, I cannot claim to have understood the mechanics of the economic theory nor the rationale behind what everyone was so happy about. The Udorji Award tide lifted every boat in Nigeria because there was confidence, pride and even a little more pep in everyone's steps as everyone seemed happier. It seemed that we all had just a little more than we had before the Award. Some bought cars, others bought motocycles, bicycles, sewing machines, refridgerators, TVs, gas cookers, new clothes and shoes. It was a happy time for all. The government seemed to care for The People that it governed. And people did their work well and with pride.
Fast forward to Nigeria of 2010, an election year. There has been at least two Federal Constitutions and a dozen governments in Nigeria since the Udorji Awards. There is so much to be said about each constitution and of these governments. One can hardly find too many people that would agree on much about that which are to be said. But one thing is undeniable, and that is that: The Nigerian Worker has faired progressively worse with each successive government in Nigeria despite our brighter outlook and hopes. The Nigerian Worker, therefore, Nigerians, are insecure physically and psychologically, poverty is up and the way of life have plumeted by more than a 1,000 percent. The nation's education and health care structures are in shreads; physical infrastructures are in reniuns. Even running water that was available during Udorji Award days are dry. Nigeria seem to have regressed to the dark ages since the Udorji Awards with virtually no electricity.
Workers everywhere are owed salaries, pensions and entitlement payments, even as Nigeria is by all accounts a richer nation than she was during Udorji Award days.
Greed and disdain for Nigerians
With a foreign debt that is on the rise again, and dwindling foreign reserves and depleted excess crude account money, it is nauseating to hear some in the national legislature float a 40 to 100 percent pay increase for themselves in the Nigeria of today. Beyond the smoke and mirrors, one can see this vehicle of blackmail as the price some in the legislature want President Goodluck Jonathan to pay if he wants to contest the 2011 presidential election. Mr. President must stand up to this group and every Nigerian should resist this. I call on individual legislators to go on record to reject this outrage. No legislator should accept this jumbo pay raise without comparable increase in the pay of the Nigerian Worker.
fight these people...join www.yourgovt.com
It is a sad irony that some legislators in the Nigerian National Assembly are seeking an increase in their pay at the time that the recently late Chief Jerome Udorji is being laid to rest. The "Udorji Award" in the 1970s could be said to be the last time that the Nigerian Worker, therefore, the Nigeria economy had a real "Stimulus" That Award was a shot in the arm of the Nigerian Worker. Every worker
from the Office Tea-girl, Gateman, to the Clerk, Officer, Supervisor, Director, Secretary and Permanent Secretary, all recieved increases in their wages. As the money circulated, traders, taxi drivers, truck and barrow pushers and other business persons also recieved their own "Udorji Award" with increases in prices of goods and services.
The Udorji Award was a real "Stimulus Plan" that stimulated every aspect of Nigerian Life because the Award afforded the Nigerian Worker a Livable Wage that impacted the Standard of Living and Quality of Life of every Nigerian. That Award was done with the Nigerian Worker as the focal point. It was a "People First" Award because it was good for the Nigerian Worker, therefore, good for Nigeria and Nigerians.
As a young lad growing up in Enugu in the day of the Udorji Award, I cannot claim to have understood the mechanics of the economic theory nor the rationale behind what everyone was so happy about. The Udorji Award tide lifted every boat in Nigeria because there was confidence, pride and even a little more pep in everyone's steps as everyone seemed happier. It seemed that we all had just a little more than we had before the Award. Some bought cars, others bought motocycles, bicycles, sewing machines, refridgerators, TVs, gas cookers, new clothes and shoes. It was a happy time for all. The government seemed to care for The People that it governed. And people did their work well and with pride.
Fast forward to Nigeria of 2010, an election year. There has been at least two Federal Constitutions and a dozen governments in Nigeria since the Udorji Awards. There is so much to be said about each constitution and of these governments. One can hardly find too many people that would agree on much about that which are to be said. But one thing is undeniable, and that is that: The Nigerian Worker has faired progressively worse with each successive government in Nigeria despite our brighter outlook and hopes. The Nigerian Worker, therefore, Nigerians, are insecure physically and psychologically, poverty is up and the way of life have plumeted by more than a 1,000 percent. The nation's education and health care structures are in shreads; physical infrastructures are in reniuns. Even running water that was available during Udorji Award days are dry. Nigeria seem to have regressed to the dark ages since the Udorji Awards with virtually no electricity.
Workers everywhere are owed salaries, pensions and entitlement payments, even as Nigeria is by all accounts a richer nation than she was during Udorji Award days.
Greed and disdain for Nigerians
With a foreign debt that is on the rise again, and dwindling foreign reserves and depleted excess crude account money, it is nauseating to hear some in the national legislature float a 40 to 100 percent pay increase for themselves in the Nigeria of today. Beyond the smoke and mirrors, one can see this vehicle of blackmail as the price some in the legislature want President Goodluck Jonathan to pay if he wants to contest the 2011 presidential election. Mr. President must stand up to this group and every Nigerian should resist this. I call on individual legislators to go on record to reject this outrage. No legislator should accept this jumbo pay raise without comparable increase in the pay of the Nigerian Worker.
fight these people...join www.yourgovt.com
Vehicle Documents Authentication Service that Alerts the Police of Problems
Emeka Maduewesi
We have to continue to show that we are not just about politics. We have much to offer Nigeria and fellow Nigerians.
What do you think of a Motor Vehicle Insurance System that allows you to process your insurance with your cell phone or over the internet and alerts the police and the Federal Road Safety Commission when your vehicle is stolen or involved in an accident? This system will leverage the services provided by the federal, States, or Local governments as far as motor vehicles are concerned using the convergence of our existing Banking, Insurance, and Communications infrastructures.
In early 2007 I designed such a system that, if implemented, will allow Nigerians to purchase vehicle insurance using our mobile phone or over the internet. I designed this system around vehicle insurance because vehicle insurance is compulsory under Nigerian law . I also designed it around cell phones because almost every Nigerian who has a motor vehicle has a cell phone. This system allows you to alert the police and your insurance in real time by sending SMS to a shortcode (number) if you were involved in an accident or if your vehicle was stolen. Depending on the data you supplied to your insurance company when you bought your insurance, the picture of your vehicle may be available to the police for a more targeted search and recover.
I recall sharing my literature on this subject with some highly placed individuals and government officials. Of course, some of them hurriedly built websites that implemented only about five percent (5%) of my ideas. I am not talking about websites. My idea is in the scope of software services provided by www.intuit.com or www.salesforce.com , platformed on a Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Socket Layer (SSL) cryptographic protocols with alert and verification systems. This is the future of computing - software as a service (SaaS) or Cloud Computing!
My system, if implemented, will provide Nigerians with real-time processing and verification of vehicle insurance, vehicle registration and vehicle roadworthiness. For the Government the system provides in real time:
Document verification;
Document authentication;
Data collection;
Smart policing and enhanced security.
Other direct benefits of the system include:
More revenue for Insurance companies;
More SMS revenue for the Communications companies;
More transactional revenue for the Banks;
Compulsory and automatic payment of all genuine claims submitted via the system;
More VAT revenue for the government;
More profit for insurance companies;
More tax revenue for the government;
Smarter Policing and Security; and
Creation of more Jobs.
The system will also ensure:
Reduction in transactional cost; less paper;
Reduction in fraud by insurance agents;
Elimination of fake insurance agents;
Reduction in police corruption for vehicular related offenses;
Reduction in waste; man hours, process;
Reduction of vehicular theft;
Increase in chances of recovering stolen vehicles;
Elimination of registration of stolen vehicles; and
Ability to pay for any of these services from any part of the world.
Other uses of the system will include:
Data Collection – Make, Model, Year of vehicles;
Accurate Statistics – locations of accidents and number of fatality by the Road Safety Commission;
Faster Processing of vehicle insurance claims; and
Efficient Utilization of Technology.
The system is developing-country-friendly. These countries have no legacy system for vehicle registration and policing. However, internet access and cell phones are becoming ubiquitous even in these countries.
What do you think?
Emeka Maduewesi is a dual-qualified (Nigeria and California) international lawyer with cross-border intellectual property and technology transactions, licensing, regulatory, complex commercial litigation and antitrust experience. He has a Masters Degree in Intellectual Property and Technology Law from the University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, California. He is the Publisher of http://www.nigerianlawregistry.com/ and http://www.nlid.info/
We have to continue to show that we are not just about politics. We have much to offer Nigeria and fellow Nigerians.
What do you think of a Motor Vehicle Insurance System that allows you to process your insurance with your cell phone or over the internet and alerts the police and the Federal Road Safety Commission when your vehicle is stolen or involved in an accident? This system will leverage the services provided by the federal, States, or Local governments as far as motor vehicles are concerned using the convergence of our existing Banking, Insurance, and Communications infrastructures.
In early 2007 I designed such a system that, if implemented, will allow Nigerians to purchase vehicle insurance using our mobile phone or over the internet. I designed this system around vehicle insurance because vehicle insurance is compulsory under Nigerian law . I also designed it around cell phones because almost every Nigerian who has a motor vehicle has a cell phone. This system allows you to alert the police and your insurance in real time by sending SMS to a shortcode (number) if you were involved in an accident or if your vehicle was stolen. Depending on the data you supplied to your insurance company when you bought your insurance, the picture of your vehicle may be available to the police for a more targeted search and recover.
I recall sharing my literature on this subject with some highly placed individuals and government officials. Of course, some of them hurriedly built websites that implemented only about five percent (5%) of my ideas. I am not talking about websites. My idea is in the scope of software services provided by www.intuit.com or www.salesforce.com , platformed on a Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Socket Layer (SSL) cryptographic protocols with alert and verification systems. This is the future of computing - software as a service (SaaS) or Cloud Computing!
My system, if implemented, will provide Nigerians with real-time processing and verification of vehicle insurance, vehicle registration and vehicle roadworthiness. For the Government the system provides in real time:
Document verification;
Document authentication;
Data collection;
Smart policing and enhanced security.
Other direct benefits of the system include:
More revenue for Insurance companies;
More SMS revenue for the Communications companies;
More transactional revenue for the Banks;
Compulsory and automatic payment of all genuine claims submitted via the system;
More VAT revenue for the government;
More profit for insurance companies;
More tax revenue for the government;
Smarter Policing and Security; and
Creation of more Jobs.
The system will also ensure:
Reduction in transactional cost; less paper;
Reduction in fraud by insurance agents;
Elimination of fake insurance agents;
Reduction in police corruption for vehicular related offenses;
Reduction in waste; man hours, process;
Reduction of vehicular theft;
Increase in chances of recovering stolen vehicles;
Elimination of registration of stolen vehicles; and
Ability to pay for any of these services from any part of the world.
Other uses of the system will include:
Data Collection – Make, Model, Year of vehicles;
Accurate Statistics – locations of accidents and number of fatality by the Road Safety Commission;
Faster Processing of vehicle insurance claims; and
Efficient Utilization of Technology.
The system is developing-country-friendly. These countries have no legacy system for vehicle registration and policing. However, internet access and cell phones are becoming ubiquitous even in these countries.
What do you think?
Emeka Maduewesi is a dual-qualified (Nigeria and California) international lawyer with cross-border intellectual property and technology transactions, licensing, regulatory, complex commercial litigation and antitrust experience. He has a Masters Degree in Intellectual Property and Technology Law from the University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, California. He is the Publisher of http://www.nigerianlawregistry.com/ and http://www.nlid.info/
Negotiated Constitutionalism
Stuart Weir
n his landmark speech on political reform yesterday deputy prime minister Nick Clegg set out the new coalition government's agenda for restoring civil liberties and rolling back the database state after thirteen years of intrusions under New Labour. Yet at the same time cracks are emerging in the coalition's approach to how rights should be protected with the Lib Dems and Conservatives at odds over the future of the Human Rights Act. In an important new book K. D. Ewing argues that a reformed Parliament elected by proportional representation could strengthen the protection of liberty in Britain from the overbearing state.
K. D. Ewing, Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, human rights and the rule of law, Oxford University Press, £19.99 p/back and £50.00 hardback.
K. D. Ewing’s Bonfire of the Liberties is a book that deserves to make a substantial contribution to the debate on how best to protect human rights and civil liberties in the United Kingdom. But the openness of this debate has been muddied by David Cameron’s declared intent to replace the Human Rights Act with his own version of a “British” Bill of Rights and the Labour government’s equivocation over the fate of an Act that is one of its most notable achievements.
In 1990, Ewing and Conor Gearty wrote Freedom under Thatcher, a clinical study of her governments’ expansion of police powers and contempt for “the traditional freedoms of the person, expression and association”. But as he writes in Bonfire, the position is now much worse – after the very Act that was supposed to protect our liberties - so much so that he comments, it is “New Labour’s singular achievement to make us pine for the halcyon days of Freedom under Thatcher.” Ewing and Gearty were then both opponents of the campaign for a Bill of Rights.
Gearty has since changed his view, Ewing remains a militant sceptic. And there’s the rub. He has been a continual critic both of the Human Rights Act and “the futility of human rights”. In the muddied waters of the debate on the fate of the Act there is therefore a danger that his contribution will be ignored. Not unnaturally, among those of us who wish to protect or strengthen the Act there are many who deny any criticism of it, or even proposals that could strengthen it, for fear of giving space to Cameron and Labour doubters within which they could weaken or abolish it. There is one expression of this hostility to Ewing in Geoffrey Robertson’s review of Bonfire in the New Statesman, in which Robertson accuses Ewing of an “Old Labour” solution – “distrust the judges and leave human rights at the mercy of MPs” who are, as he says later, “more interested in flipping their second homes”.
This is a travesty of Ewing’s proposals, to which I shall return (and, incidentally, is a nasty slur on the many MPs, like David Howarth, my own former MP in Cambridge, who have behaved honourably and who do believe in human rights). But first to the core of Ewing’s erudite and detailed analysis of the state of civil liberties in the United Kingdom and the failure of the rule of law and judicial scrutiny fully to protect.
In six central chapters he sets out “the continuing corrosion of liberty” under what he describes as “the National Security State”, beginning with the shocking killing of Charles de Menezes under the Met’s “shoot to kill” policy. Police powers of stop and search and arrest without a warrant. Kettling, aggression and lack of self-control by police officers. “A surveillance regime that would have caused Erich Honecker to glow with pride”. Frequent attempts to extend the maximum period of detention without trial - which also depends on secret evidence. (As Ewing points out in chapter 8, Jacqui Smith’s attempt to introduce 42-day detention was stopped dead not in the courts, but by Parliament – i.e., Robertson’s despised MPs.) The determined retention of DNA samples from people who have not been found guilty of any offence. The “rendition of British subjects to unpleasant regimes” where, as we know, they are tortured.
Even as I write I find the list of offensive law and practice almost literally sickening, and there is much more as Ewing reaches down into the effects of this oppressive regime on ordinary people – citizens and non-citizens - as well as searching through the responses of Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the judiciary.
It is a reflection of the overbearing power of the state and the imbalance of power between the executive, Parliament and the courts that this torrent of abuse can happen. Ewing says that the rule of law is honoured in the breach: giving evidence for his assertions that state power is taken and exercised without legal authority; state authority is exercised arbitrarily, excessively and discriminatorily; and state power is exercised unaccountably “in the sense that rights can be violated without prior judicial authority over a wide range of issues, without due process and a fair trial, and without effective redress in the event of violation”.
He is critical of judges who often make ringing pronouncements that thrill us all, and urges us to “look at what they do” as well as what they say. Here he argues that the rhetoric conceals the “historically unresponsive nature of British judges to the challenge of liberty” and the continuing influence of a long legacy of deference to the needs of the state. He cites a variety of restrictions on freedom of the person, speech and assembly that the courts have upheld – including for example upholding the stop and search powers from the Terrorism Act 2000 – and points out that other judicial restraints on the authoritarian state came from Strasbourg court after our courts had failed, as with the retention of DNA samples. For him the A case, in which the courts rejected the government’s indefinite detention powers, is not the Rubicon it seemed, because the decision was reached with due judicial deference to the government’s judgment that there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Among subsequent decisions the courts only “shaved rather than removed” the executive power to make control orders.
In The Three Pillars of Liberty, Democratic Audit’s first major study of civil and political rights in the UK, Francesca Klug (the lead author), Keir Starmer and I argued that protection of liberty in Britain by the three traditional pillars – Parliament, the courts and the public – required to be reinforced by specific legal protection, under for example a Bill of Rights. I still believe that we were right. The Human Rights Act, introduced apologetically by Labour without a Human Rights Commission and a robust programme of human rights education, is nevertheless gaining force, is contributing to human rights education and training in public services, is creating a growing grassroots culture of awareness and is being used by a variety of organisations to uphold the rights and dignity of ordinary people in their dealings with the state.
However the protection of liberty cannot be left to one piece of legislation alone – as we all have seen and as Ewing has so dramatically documented. The judiciary has been weak and only spasmodically strengthened by the Act. But judges are at least obliged to consider human rights criteria in their judgments, thus airing the principles of liberty. What is needed now, as Ewing argues, is a stronger and more independent Parliament, with adequate new procedures for protecting human rights. Here the Take Back Parliament movement is utterly on the ball – proportional representation is important not only to make all our votes count, but also to make the House of Commons both more representative and more powerful in its relationship with the executive.
Ewing argues first that PR is the essential reform; and secondly, for the introduction of the Swedish system of “negotiated constitutionalism”. It is this element of his book that Robertson side steps in his hostile review, preferring to dwell upon the imperfections of Parliament as presently constituted. In Sweden, the parliament elected by PR has a committee system specially designed to review government proposals for consistency with the constitution in partnership with a judicial council. The parliament has at its disposal procedures to propose amendments to bills that violate the constitution and to delay them for a year or indefinitely. Thus their parliament has effective powers to defend the constitution and civil liberties, restrain government and stop violations before they come into force whereas here the judiciary can only act retrospectively. It works in Sweden and could work here.
We live here with an uneasy compromise between the powers of the executive and elected governments and the judiciary that seeks to hold a balance between the elected and thus “democratic” arm of government and the unelected judiciary. This balance is a fraud as our governments are not democratically elected and have overweening power. How much better it would be if we regarded Parliament and the judiciary as two pillars of liberty, alongside civil society, and developed a system in which they played complementary roles in the protection of the rule of law and liberty rather than opt for one against the other. “Negotiated constitutionalism” and also the weakness of the retrospective nature of the Human Rights Act itself.
n his landmark speech on political reform yesterday deputy prime minister Nick Clegg set out the new coalition government's agenda for restoring civil liberties and rolling back the database state after thirteen years of intrusions under New Labour. Yet at the same time cracks are emerging in the coalition's approach to how rights should be protected with the Lib Dems and Conservatives at odds over the future of the Human Rights Act. In an important new book K. D. Ewing argues that a reformed Parliament elected by proportional representation could strengthen the protection of liberty in Britain from the overbearing state.
K. D. Ewing, Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, human rights and the rule of law, Oxford University Press, £19.99 p/back and £50.00 hardback.
K. D. Ewing’s Bonfire of the Liberties is a book that deserves to make a substantial contribution to the debate on how best to protect human rights and civil liberties in the United Kingdom. But the openness of this debate has been muddied by David Cameron’s declared intent to replace the Human Rights Act with his own version of a “British” Bill of Rights and the Labour government’s equivocation over the fate of an Act that is one of its most notable achievements.
In 1990, Ewing and Conor Gearty wrote Freedom under Thatcher, a clinical study of her governments’ expansion of police powers and contempt for “the traditional freedoms of the person, expression and association”. But as he writes in Bonfire, the position is now much worse – after the very Act that was supposed to protect our liberties - so much so that he comments, it is “New Labour’s singular achievement to make us pine for the halcyon days of Freedom under Thatcher.” Ewing and Gearty were then both opponents of the campaign for a Bill of Rights.
Gearty has since changed his view, Ewing remains a militant sceptic. And there’s the rub. He has been a continual critic both of the Human Rights Act and “the futility of human rights”. In the muddied waters of the debate on the fate of the Act there is therefore a danger that his contribution will be ignored. Not unnaturally, among those of us who wish to protect or strengthen the Act there are many who deny any criticism of it, or even proposals that could strengthen it, for fear of giving space to Cameron and Labour doubters within which they could weaken or abolish it. There is one expression of this hostility to Ewing in Geoffrey Robertson’s review of Bonfire in the New Statesman, in which Robertson accuses Ewing of an “Old Labour” solution – “distrust the judges and leave human rights at the mercy of MPs” who are, as he says later, “more interested in flipping their second homes”.
This is a travesty of Ewing’s proposals, to which I shall return (and, incidentally, is a nasty slur on the many MPs, like David Howarth, my own former MP in Cambridge, who have behaved honourably and who do believe in human rights). But first to the core of Ewing’s erudite and detailed analysis of the state of civil liberties in the United Kingdom and the failure of the rule of law and judicial scrutiny fully to protect.
In six central chapters he sets out “the continuing corrosion of liberty” under what he describes as “the National Security State”, beginning with the shocking killing of Charles de Menezes under the Met’s “shoot to kill” policy. Police powers of stop and search and arrest without a warrant. Kettling, aggression and lack of self-control by police officers. “A surveillance regime that would have caused Erich Honecker to glow with pride”. Frequent attempts to extend the maximum period of detention without trial - which also depends on secret evidence. (As Ewing points out in chapter 8, Jacqui Smith’s attempt to introduce 42-day detention was stopped dead not in the courts, but by Parliament – i.e., Robertson’s despised MPs.) The determined retention of DNA samples from people who have not been found guilty of any offence. The “rendition of British subjects to unpleasant regimes” where, as we know, they are tortured.
Even as I write I find the list of offensive law and practice almost literally sickening, and there is much more as Ewing reaches down into the effects of this oppressive regime on ordinary people – citizens and non-citizens - as well as searching through the responses of Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the judiciary.
It is a reflection of the overbearing power of the state and the imbalance of power between the executive, Parliament and the courts that this torrent of abuse can happen. Ewing says that the rule of law is honoured in the breach: giving evidence for his assertions that state power is taken and exercised without legal authority; state authority is exercised arbitrarily, excessively and discriminatorily; and state power is exercised unaccountably “in the sense that rights can be violated without prior judicial authority over a wide range of issues, without due process and a fair trial, and without effective redress in the event of violation”.
He is critical of judges who often make ringing pronouncements that thrill us all, and urges us to “look at what they do” as well as what they say. Here he argues that the rhetoric conceals the “historically unresponsive nature of British judges to the challenge of liberty” and the continuing influence of a long legacy of deference to the needs of the state. He cites a variety of restrictions on freedom of the person, speech and assembly that the courts have upheld – including for example upholding the stop and search powers from the Terrorism Act 2000 – and points out that other judicial restraints on the authoritarian state came from Strasbourg court after our courts had failed, as with the retention of DNA samples. For him the A case, in which the courts rejected the government’s indefinite detention powers, is not the Rubicon it seemed, because the decision was reached with due judicial deference to the government’s judgment that there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Among subsequent decisions the courts only “shaved rather than removed” the executive power to make control orders.
In The Three Pillars of Liberty, Democratic Audit’s first major study of civil and political rights in the UK, Francesca Klug (the lead author), Keir Starmer and I argued that protection of liberty in Britain by the three traditional pillars – Parliament, the courts and the public – required to be reinforced by specific legal protection, under for example a Bill of Rights. I still believe that we were right. The Human Rights Act, introduced apologetically by Labour without a Human Rights Commission and a robust programme of human rights education, is nevertheless gaining force, is contributing to human rights education and training in public services, is creating a growing grassroots culture of awareness and is being used by a variety of organisations to uphold the rights and dignity of ordinary people in their dealings with the state.
However the protection of liberty cannot be left to one piece of legislation alone – as we all have seen and as Ewing has so dramatically documented. The judiciary has been weak and only spasmodically strengthened by the Act. But judges are at least obliged to consider human rights criteria in their judgments, thus airing the principles of liberty. What is needed now, as Ewing argues, is a stronger and more independent Parliament, with adequate new procedures for protecting human rights. Here the Take Back Parliament movement is utterly on the ball – proportional representation is important not only to make all our votes count, but also to make the House of Commons both more representative and more powerful in its relationship with the executive.
Ewing argues first that PR is the essential reform; and secondly, for the introduction of the Swedish system of “negotiated constitutionalism”. It is this element of his book that Robertson side steps in his hostile review, preferring to dwell upon the imperfections of Parliament as presently constituted. In Sweden, the parliament elected by PR has a committee system specially designed to review government proposals for consistency with the constitution in partnership with a judicial council. The parliament has at its disposal procedures to propose amendments to bills that violate the constitution and to delay them for a year or indefinitely. Thus their parliament has effective powers to defend the constitution and civil liberties, restrain government and stop violations before they come into force whereas here the judiciary can only act retrospectively. It works in Sweden and could work here.
We live here with an uneasy compromise between the powers of the executive and elected governments and the judiciary that seeks to hold a balance between the elected and thus “democratic” arm of government and the unelected judiciary. This balance is a fraud as our governments are not democratically elected and have overweening power. How much better it would be if we regarded Parliament and the judiciary as two pillars of liberty, alongside civil society, and developed a system in which they played complementary roles in the protection of the rule of law and liberty rather than opt for one against the other. “Negotiated constitutionalism” and also the weakness of the retrospective nature of the Human Rights Act itself.
‘Implementation of Uwais Report, Sure Way to Credible Polls’
Emma Okwuahaba
Full implementation of the Justice Muhammad Uwais Panel Report of Electoral Reforms is the only way to guarantee free, fair and credible polls in 2011. Only the qualified personnel and head of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), appointed by the National Judicial Council (NJC) with input from the people can guarantee a free, fair and credible election next year.
Since the role of security agencies cannot be over emphasised, Nigerians must campaign for police reforms before electoral reforms, adding “if the police are corrupt or compromised, we cannot guarantee a credible poll.
For elections to be free and fair, the Nigerian Police must show leadership and non-partisan posture. If this is achieved, we would have recorded a milestone towards a credible electoral process in the country.
Nigerians should be security conscious during and after elections in their voting domains. the electorate should report strange, unauthorised movement of persons, suspected thugs, and illegal movement of arms among others to the police, traditional rulers and other security agencies.
Economic empowerment was the key to genuine elections. Government at all levels should put in place strong macro and micro-economic framework for the empowerment of its citizens.
It is near impossible for Nigeria to achieve a corrupt free electoral process if our people do not have economic freedom. The tendency for people to collect token from politicians in Nigeria is high due to prevailing economic conditions.
We must create employment for our young people; we must pay pension, gratuity and salaries as at when due among others.
http://elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3649%3Aimplementation-of-uwais-report-sure-way-to-credible-polls&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=67
1. “The people need to take back their country. People ask if there can be a free and fair election. My response is that if the people desire such an election, they can make it happen. We have examples of places where people have said: “We will not accept,” “Enough is enough,” and the will of the people prevailed.
2. “We saw it happen in Kano with the present Governor in 2003. Shekarau was just a Permanent Secretary, persecuted and demoted by the then Governor Kwankwaso to a schoolteacher. The people rallied around him and he became the ANPP’s gubernatorial candidate. And the PDP of course was determined to rig the election but the young people of Kano manned the whole process. From the moment the INEC personnel arrived with voting materials, these young men policed everywhere, leaving riggers no room for maneuvering. That was how Kwankwaso was defeated in Kano. We saw it happen in Bauchi; to some extent, we saw it happen in Lagos.
3. “So, the people, if they want change, can make it happen.”
Full implementation of the Justice Muhammad Uwais Panel Report of Electoral Reforms is the only way to guarantee free, fair and credible polls in 2011. Only the qualified personnel and head of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), appointed by the National Judicial Council (NJC) with input from the people can guarantee a free, fair and credible election next year.
Since the role of security agencies cannot be over emphasised, Nigerians must campaign for police reforms before electoral reforms, adding “if the police are corrupt or compromised, we cannot guarantee a credible poll.
For elections to be free and fair, the Nigerian Police must show leadership and non-partisan posture. If this is achieved, we would have recorded a milestone towards a credible electoral process in the country.
Nigerians should be security conscious during and after elections in their voting domains. the electorate should report strange, unauthorised movement of persons, suspected thugs, and illegal movement of arms among others to the police, traditional rulers and other security agencies.
Economic empowerment was the key to genuine elections. Government at all levels should put in place strong macro and micro-economic framework for the empowerment of its citizens.
It is near impossible for Nigeria to achieve a corrupt free electoral process if our people do not have economic freedom. The tendency for people to collect token from politicians in Nigeria is high due to prevailing economic conditions.
We must create employment for our young people; we must pay pension, gratuity and salaries as at when due among others.
http://elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3649%3Aimplementation-of-uwais-report-sure-way-to-credible-polls&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=67
1. “The people need to take back their country. People ask if there can be a free and fair election. My response is that if the people desire such an election, they can make it happen. We have examples of places where people have said: “We will not accept,” “Enough is enough,” and the will of the people prevailed.
2. “We saw it happen in Kano with the present Governor in 2003. Shekarau was just a Permanent Secretary, persecuted and demoted by the then Governor Kwankwaso to a schoolteacher. The people rallied around him and he became the ANPP’s gubernatorial candidate. And the PDP of course was determined to rig the election but the young people of Kano manned the whole process. From the moment the INEC personnel arrived with voting materials, these young men policed everywhere, leaving riggers no room for maneuvering. That was how Kwankwaso was defeated in Kano. We saw it happen in Bauchi; to some extent, we saw it happen in Lagos.
3. “So, the people, if they want change, can make it happen.”
It Is Time For Old, Visionless Politicians To Leave The Scene part 2
Christopher Odetunde, Ph.D.
The issue before us is leadership and followership. It is time for the old politicians to retire and for the youth to take over. It is time for them to go. Many of our leaders were sent to school on our scholarships, and to the NDA to defend Nigeria against external threat. Instead, they decided to use their education to pauperize the nation, teach the next generation about art of looting, and use their military training not to fight our nation’s enemies and external threats but to wage war against us. Yet, they think we are stupid enough to continue to accept them as our savior. The question for the next generation (the youth) is, “Are you going to accept the status quo? “ Are you going to follow your parents’ grab and kill mentality or will you be courageous enough to initiate new policies that will allow Nigerians and Nigeria to move forward, advance the course of global human endeavor leading to prosperity for all and respect from both developed and developing nations. It is time for the power usurpers to go and leave Nigeria alone. Today is when little sacrifices by citizens will lead to: invigorating and exciting educational system; better healthcare delivery; better roads; adequate energy; and advancement in technology that will bring our nation to the 21st century.
For the youth, I say, do not fail yourselves and your nation. Please ask the following three questions: 1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from: and 3) Where am I going? It is time for you to fight for your nation not necessarily with arms but with your skills, your knowledge, your wisdom and understanding. The rouges cannot kill all of you. The bible says, “do not fear those that can kill your body but not your soul/spirit.” So far what you and those before you have done are to: a) take no responsibilities for your actions; and b) adore those that disenfranchise you; and those leaders that think healthcare system is embedded in transporting themselves to London, Dubai, US while trained Nigerians physicians are wasting at home. These leaders often found out that the rejected Nigerian physicians are the ones running most of the hospitals they visit abroad. Fellow citizens, it is time for these rogues and their copied and unaltered political system to go to oblivion. The next generation must fight on the side of justice and fairness. American youth took a risk on a young politician, Barack Obama and the world is appreciating what a black man can do when given opportunities. The choice is yours should you accept this new assignment. Remember, it's not what you do, but who you are and the legacy you leave behind that will eventually become the most important in your life.
In 1990, Carl Sagan reflected after looking at the earth from far space, it is merely a dot. But on this dot are where we live and the only planet that harbor life. The earth contains all those we love, every creator and destroyer of our world, those that fight for humanity and those that destroy humanity. We must make the earth work for us and for humanity. For those that still insist on destroying Nigeria or make Nigeria a failed state, let them remember that the earth is not given to us by our parents but loaned to us by our children. Thank God for President Jonathan Goodluck for sending Iwu and his likes to a timely and well deserved retirement. President Goodluck, you must turn our darkness to light with abundance of renewable energy that will allow Nigerians to work and create jobs. If you solve this problem, one cannot imagine any reasonable Nigerian opposing your candidacy except those who insists on a regressive zoning formula. May the Lord of host allow reasonable electorates come to life and chose real leaders for the first time after 44 years independence. So, then, it is time to stop the destroyers of Nigeria and it is time for them to permanently go into oblivion.
Robert Frost’s poem “The land was ours before we were the land's” is relevant for the conclusion of this article and it states “She was our land more than a hundred years before we were her people. She was ours in Massachusetts, in Virginia. But we were England's, still colonials, possessing what we still were unpossessed by, possessed by what we now no more possessed. Something we were withholding made us weak. Until we found out that it was ourselves we were withholding from our land of living, and forthwith found salvation in surrender. Such as we were we gave ourselves outright (The deed of gift was many deeds of war) to the land vaguely realizing westward, but still unstoried, artless, unenhanced, such as she was, such as she would become.” Let us resist these leaders of ill repute, move Nigeria forward and tell ourselves, it is time for them to go.
The issue before us is leadership and followership. It is time for the old politicians to retire and for the youth to take over. It is time for them to go. Many of our leaders were sent to school on our scholarships, and to the NDA to defend Nigeria against external threat. Instead, they decided to use their education to pauperize the nation, teach the next generation about art of looting, and use their military training not to fight our nation’s enemies and external threats but to wage war against us. Yet, they think we are stupid enough to continue to accept them as our savior. The question for the next generation (the youth) is, “Are you going to accept the status quo? “ Are you going to follow your parents’ grab and kill mentality or will you be courageous enough to initiate new policies that will allow Nigerians and Nigeria to move forward, advance the course of global human endeavor leading to prosperity for all and respect from both developed and developing nations. It is time for the power usurpers to go and leave Nigeria alone. Today is when little sacrifices by citizens will lead to: invigorating and exciting educational system; better healthcare delivery; better roads; adequate energy; and advancement in technology that will bring our nation to the 21st century.
For the youth, I say, do not fail yourselves and your nation. Please ask the following three questions: 1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from: and 3) Where am I going? It is time for you to fight for your nation not necessarily with arms but with your skills, your knowledge, your wisdom and understanding. The rouges cannot kill all of you. The bible says, “do not fear those that can kill your body but not your soul/spirit.” So far what you and those before you have done are to: a) take no responsibilities for your actions; and b) adore those that disenfranchise you; and those leaders that think healthcare system is embedded in transporting themselves to London, Dubai, US while trained Nigerians physicians are wasting at home. These leaders often found out that the rejected Nigerian physicians are the ones running most of the hospitals they visit abroad. Fellow citizens, it is time for these rogues and their copied and unaltered political system to go to oblivion. The next generation must fight on the side of justice and fairness. American youth took a risk on a young politician, Barack Obama and the world is appreciating what a black man can do when given opportunities. The choice is yours should you accept this new assignment. Remember, it's not what you do, but who you are and the legacy you leave behind that will eventually become the most important in your life.
In 1990, Carl Sagan reflected after looking at the earth from far space, it is merely a dot. But on this dot are where we live and the only planet that harbor life. The earth contains all those we love, every creator and destroyer of our world, those that fight for humanity and those that destroy humanity. We must make the earth work for us and for humanity. For those that still insist on destroying Nigeria or make Nigeria a failed state, let them remember that the earth is not given to us by our parents but loaned to us by our children. Thank God for President Jonathan Goodluck for sending Iwu and his likes to a timely and well deserved retirement. President Goodluck, you must turn our darkness to light with abundance of renewable energy that will allow Nigerians to work and create jobs. If you solve this problem, one cannot imagine any reasonable Nigerian opposing your candidacy except those who insists on a regressive zoning formula. May the Lord of host allow reasonable electorates come to life and chose real leaders for the first time after 44 years independence. So, then, it is time to stop the destroyers of Nigeria and it is time for them to permanently go into oblivion.
Robert Frost’s poem “The land was ours before we were the land's” is relevant for the conclusion of this article and it states “She was our land more than a hundred years before we were her people. She was ours in Massachusetts, in Virginia. But we were England's, still colonials, possessing what we still were unpossessed by, possessed by what we now no more possessed. Something we were withholding made us weak. Until we found out that it was ourselves we were withholding from our land of living, and forthwith found salvation in surrender. Such as we were we gave ourselves outright (The deed of gift was many deeds of war) to the land vaguely realizing westward, but still unstoried, artless, unenhanced, such as she was, such as she would become.” Let us resist these leaders of ill repute, move Nigeria forward and tell ourselves, it is time for them to go.
Pakistani students accused of terrorism win fight against deportation
Rukeyya Khan
Two Pakistani students arrested in a major counter-terrorism operation in north-west England have won their appeal against deportation. A special immigration court yesterday ruled that Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan could not be deported to their home country, Pakistan, as their human rights could be breached as the country has a ‘long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detailed.’
On the basis of secret evidence provided by UK security services, Justice Mitting said that Abid Naseer was 'an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.'
Naseer and Khan were arrested in April last year along with ten others on suspicion of planning a bomb attack on targets in Manchester. Two weeks after their arrest, the men were all released without charge. However, ten of them who are Pakistani were detained again on the grounds of national security and after enduring months of detention, all but two of them voluntarily returned to Pakistan. The men have consistently protested their innocence.
In light of yesterday’s ruling, Naseer and Khan could now face control orders. Their lawyer yesterday said the ruling was 'no victory' even though they had won the right to stay in the UK because the pair have been 'stigmatised for life and put at risk or even further risk in their own country on the basis of the shocking phenomenon of secret evidence.'
Britain's home secretary, Theresa May, said she is 'disappointed' by the special immigration appeals commission’s decision and that the government was 'now taking all possible measures to ensure... [the men]... do not engage in terrorist activity.'
Our verdict: The ruling is the first challenge to a new coalition government in Britain inheriting a divisive system of dealing with terrorism offences. The controversial use of secret evidence has been vehemently attacked by critics. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, for instance, has argued that 'if the two men... are truly dangerous, then bring them before a jury, and, if convicted, jail them.' She further added that simply expelling suspects to other countries poses further security risks and that the policy of deportation is, therefore, inadequate. The government's insistence that the defendants be deported to countries where human rights are not valued amounts to 'extraordinary rendition' which, Chakrabarti asserts, was a practice both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publicly criticised when they were in opposition.
The conviction that Naseer and Khan are terrorists has been upheld on the basis of evidence that both men and their solicitor have had no access to. Whilst recognising the 'complete absence of any evidence of the handling or preparation of explosives by Naseer and his alleged associates', the special immigration appeal commission's ruling alleges that the men were part of an al-Qaeda plot. Critics say the word ‘alleged’ is crucial since the commission's judgment is based on email intercepts that would be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The men allegedly exchanged emails with a suspected al-Qaeda operative about a 'wedding', which the security services claim is code for a bombing.
The ruling will no doubt have implications for the way in which civil liberties are reconciled with national security in Britain. It will drag the Human Rights Act, on which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have differing views, into greater contention. The Conservatives have previously said in their manifesto that they would favour replacing the Human Rights Act with a UK bill of rights. Conversely, the Liberal Democrats have firmly committed themselves to defending the Human Rights Act, which enshrines a number of rights stated in the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. Many commentators predict that the coalition government will have to shelve the idea of replacing the Act, in light of the political reforms Nick Clegg introduced today in which he asserted that the government was ‘not insecure about relinquishing control.’
The international implications of the ruling are unclear though it may well affect UK-Pakistani ties. Britain’s cooperation with Pakistani authorities in intelligence gathering could be affected with the critique of Pakistan’s human rights record that has come to light in this case. Public opinion in both Pakistan and among the sizeable Asian and Muslim community in Britain may also be affected, especially if the ruling is perceived to be Islamophobic. The government’s efforts to tackle home-grown extremism and it’s attempts to promote democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan may also be undermined by the controversial, secretive and unfair way in which the trial of these men has been conducted. The dismissal of the right to a fair trial, a fundamental principle and backbone of a liberal democracy, prompt questions about justice and the rule of law – the very foundation of a civilised society that is being exported and fought for overseas.
Bangkok rocked by violence as ‘Red Shirt’ leaders surrender
Thai Red Shirt leaders surrendered to the authorities on Wednesday amid rioting and clashes in Bangkok that killed six people. The Thai government imposed a curfew last night in Bangkok and twenty other provinces. In a televised address on Wednesday, Abhisit Vejjajiva said authorities would soon 'end the problems and return the country to peace and order one again.'
Whilst Red Shirt leaders surrendered and told protestors to leave Bangkok's financial district, where they have been defiantly protesting for the government to resign, many of those retreating set fire to several buildings, including most notably Bangkok's stock exchange. Wednesday's government crackdown involved exchanges of fire between protestors and the army, with reports suggesting that violence is spreading.
Meanwhile, Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's ousted prime minister who many in the red shirt movement support, said he believes the crackdown could lead to guerille warfare. He stated that 'there is a theory saying a military crackdown can spread resentment and these resentful people will become guerillas.' It is far from clear that the unrest that gripped parts of Bangkok for weeks is at an end.
Taliban launch attack on Bagram air base
A predawn attack launched by twelve insurgents on Bagram air base, one of the biggest NATO military bases in Afghanistan, resulted in the death of an American contractor and injury of nine US soldiers on Wednesday. Today's attack comes a day after a suicide bomber struck a military convoy in Kabul which killed twelve Afghan civilians and six foreign troops. Reuter's reports that 'the attacks may mark the start of a Taliban spring offensive against high-profile foreign targets.'
Witnesses say helicopter gunships responded to today's attack by firing into nearby areas. The International Security Assistance Force have been quick to deny the Taliban's claims that they breached the perimeter of the base. In any case, the Taliban have struck a symbolic blow by attacking the Bagram air base while the US prepares for a military offensive in Kandahar. The Taliban have already announced that they too will be planning their own spring offensive - al-Fatah, meaning 'Victory'.
Next week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai intends to hold a peace jirga, or consultative meeting with the aim of reconciliation and entering into negotiations with elements of the Taliban. Already however, some Afghan parliamentarians have expressed pessimism about the jirga, on the grounds that it lacks legitimacy and is nothing more than a publicity stunt. The US has, according to TIME Magazine, 'so far insisted that any peace deal with the Taliban would have to wait until the insurgency had been put on the defensive by a sustained military offensive that would make them more amenable to compromise.' Today's attack however suggests that 'the Taliban may be applying the same logic in reverse.'
New sanctions draft announced as pressure mounts on Iran
A draft resolution agreed on by the UN Security Council's five permanent members has targeted Iranian banks and calls for inspections of vessels that carry cargo relating to Iran's nuclear program. The draft will likely undergo revisions in the coming weeks but, so far, the ten-page proposed resolution will call on member states to ban Iranian banks from 'buying stakes in foreign institutions, opening new branches, or maintaining arrangements with foreign banks' if they are found to have dealings that could help Iran's nuclear programme, according to the Financial Times.
The Financial Times also notes that the resolution will ban Iran from investing in any uranium mining enterprises, and will likely target officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as well as associated companies, in the final list of targets. Iranian officials struck a defiant tone in response to the draft proposal, saying it lacks legitimacy and has ‘no chance.’
Two Pakistani students arrested in a major counter-terrorism operation in north-west England have won their appeal against deportation. A special immigration court yesterday ruled that Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan could not be deported to their home country, Pakistan, as their human rights could be breached as the country has a ‘long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detailed.’
On the basis of secret evidence provided by UK security services, Justice Mitting said that Abid Naseer was 'an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.'
Naseer and Khan were arrested in April last year along with ten others on suspicion of planning a bomb attack on targets in Manchester. Two weeks after their arrest, the men were all released without charge. However, ten of them who are Pakistani were detained again on the grounds of national security and after enduring months of detention, all but two of them voluntarily returned to Pakistan. The men have consistently protested their innocence.
In light of yesterday’s ruling, Naseer and Khan could now face control orders. Their lawyer yesterday said the ruling was 'no victory' even though they had won the right to stay in the UK because the pair have been 'stigmatised for life and put at risk or even further risk in their own country on the basis of the shocking phenomenon of secret evidence.'
Britain's home secretary, Theresa May, said she is 'disappointed' by the special immigration appeals commission’s decision and that the government was 'now taking all possible measures to ensure... [the men]... do not engage in terrorist activity.'
Our verdict: The ruling is the first challenge to a new coalition government in Britain inheriting a divisive system of dealing with terrorism offences. The controversial use of secret evidence has been vehemently attacked by critics. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, for instance, has argued that 'if the two men... are truly dangerous, then bring them before a jury, and, if convicted, jail them.' She further added that simply expelling suspects to other countries poses further security risks and that the policy of deportation is, therefore, inadequate. The government's insistence that the defendants be deported to countries where human rights are not valued amounts to 'extraordinary rendition' which, Chakrabarti asserts, was a practice both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publicly criticised when they were in opposition.
The conviction that Naseer and Khan are terrorists has been upheld on the basis of evidence that both men and their solicitor have had no access to. Whilst recognising the 'complete absence of any evidence of the handling or preparation of explosives by Naseer and his alleged associates', the special immigration appeal commission's ruling alleges that the men were part of an al-Qaeda plot. Critics say the word ‘alleged’ is crucial since the commission's judgment is based on email intercepts that would be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The men allegedly exchanged emails with a suspected al-Qaeda operative about a 'wedding', which the security services claim is code for a bombing.
The ruling will no doubt have implications for the way in which civil liberties are reconciled with national security in Britain. It will drag the Human Rights Act, on which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have differing views, into greater contention. The Conservatives have previously said in their manifesto that they would favour replacing the Human Rights Act with a UK bill of rights. Conversely, the Liberal Democrats have firmly committed themselves to defending the Human Rights Act, which enshrines a number of rights stated in the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. Many commentators predict that the coalition government will have to shelve the idea of replacing the Act, in light of the political reforms Nick Clegg introduced today in which he asserted that the government was ‘not insecure about relinquishing control.’
The international implications of the ruling are unclear though it may well affect UK-Pakistani ties. Britain’s cooperation with Pakistani authorities in intelligence gathering could be affected with the critique of Pakistan’s human rights record that has come to light in this case. Public opinion in both Pakistan and among the sizeable Asian and Muslim community in Britain may also be affected, especially if the ruling is perceived to be Islamophobic. The government’s efforts to tackle home-grown extremism and it’s attempts to promote democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan may also be undermined by the controversial, secretive and unfair way in which the trial of these men has been conducted. The dismissal of the right to a fair trial, a fundamental principle and backbone of a liberal democracy, prompt questions about justice and the rule of law – the very foundation of a civilised society that is being exported and fought for overseas.
Bangkok rocked by violence as ‘Red Shirt’ leaders surrender
Thai Red Shirt leaders surrendered to the authorities on Wednesday amid rioting and clashes in Bangkok that killed six people. The Thai government imposed a curfew last night in Bangkok and twenty other provinces. In a televised address on Wednesday, Abhisit Vejjajiva said authorities would soon 'end the problems and return the country to peace and order one again.'
Whilst Red Shirt leaders surrendered and told protestors to leave Bangkok's financial district, where they have been defiantly protesting for the government to resign, many of those retreating set fire to several buildings, including most notably Bangkok's stock exchange. Wednesday's government crackdown involved exchanges of fire between protestors and the army, with reports suggesting that violence is spreading.
Meanwhile, Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's ousted prime minister who many in the red shirt movement support, said he believes the crackdown could lead to guerille warfare. He stated that 'there is a theory saying a military crackdown can spread resentment and these resentful people will become guerillas.' It is far from clear that the unrest that gripped parts of Bangkok for weeks is at an end.
Taliban launch attack on Bagram air base
A predawn attack launched by twelve insurgents on Bagram air base, one of the biggest NATO military bases in Afghanistan, resulted in the death of an American contractor and injury of nine US soldiers on Wednesday. Today's attack comes a day after a suicide bomber struck a military convoy in Kabul which killed twelve Afghan civilians and six foreign troops. Reuter's reports that 'the attacks may mark the start of a Taliban spring offensive against high-profile foreign targets.'
Witnesses say helicopter gunships responded to today's attack by firing into nearby areas. The International Security Assistance Force have been quick to deny the Taliban's claims that they breached the perimeter of the base. In any case, the Taliban have struck a symbolic blow by attacking the Bagram air base while the US prepares for a military offensive in Kandahar. The Taliban have already announced that they too will be planning their own spring offensive - al-Fatah, meaning 'Victory'.
Next week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai intends to hold a peace jirga, or consultative meeting with the aim of reconciliation and entering into negotiations with elements of the Taliban. Already however, some Afghan parliamentarians have expressed pessimism about the jirga, on the grounds that it lacks legitimacy and is nothing more than a publicity stunt. The US has, according to TIME Magazine, 'so far insisted that any peace deal with the Taliban would have to wait until the insurgency had been put on the defensive by a sustained military offensive that would make them more amenable to compromise.' Today's attack however suggests that 'the Taliban may be applying the same logic in reverse.'
New sanctions draft announced as pressure mounts on Iran
A draft resolution agreed on by the UN Security Council's five permanent members has targeted Iranian banks and calls for inspections of vessels that carry cargo relating to Iran's nuclear program. The draft will likely undergo revisions in the coming weeks but, so far, the ten-page proposed resolution will call on member states to ban Iranian banks from 'buying stakes in foreign institutions, opening new branches, or maintaining arrangements with foreign banks' if they are found to have dealings that could help Iran's nuclear programme, according to the Financial Times.
The Financial Times also notes that the resolution will ban Iran from investing in any uranium mining enterprises, and will likely target officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as well as associated companies, in the final list of targets. Iranian officials struck a defiant tone in response to the draft proposal, saying it lacks legitimacy and has ‘no chance.’
It Is Time For Old, Visionless Politicians To Leave The Scene, part 1
Christopher Odetunde, Ph.D.
More than 44 years ago, the first violent takeover of our government took place in Nigeria. During the past 44 years of spectacle dis-achievements, the nation’s democracy was systematically dismantled, her fragile unity as a nation was stampeded, her petro-naira and British built infrastructures were left in shambles and in some cases completely destroyed. Some that witnessed the takeover of post colonial government did not stand up to challenge the “terrorists” of the time (the coup plotters) but instead, they waited for the African gods to come down to rescue the nation, the nation that gave so much in terms of security, freedom of association, freedom to find loyal buddies, to receive scholarship, to have outstanding education, freedom to love Nigeria and care for fellow citizens. As years went by, more daring military boys took over our government, our resources, our minds, our hopes, our struggles to be truly independent, our educational system, our political system, and our confidence as we began to bend to their will. Unfortunately, Nigerians with conscience literarily died with each succeeding illegal government.
It should be remembered that these coup planners and their allies were trained with our fathers’ hard earned money to defend the nation against all external enemies. Instead, we became the enemies and the targets on which they practiced their war games. They became vicious, looted our treasury at will, trained killers, initiated the use of letter bomb to kill fellow citizens and these leaders gave us those that are today rudderlessly taking over the senate and the house with looted funds. As long as some of us were not directly affected, we turned deaf ears. Instead of some of us standing up to defend Nigeria, we sold our soul for crumbs from their tables. Now, the chicken has finally come home to roost.
Years later, some of our fathers who turned deaf ears are jobless. Daughters are becoming the sole bread winners in most household by anyway necessary. Healthy young men and women, after toiling through the universities, are unable to find jobs. As such, armed robbery increased, kidnapping is competing with 419, immorality is a rule rather than exception and, indeed, prostitution in our society is informally accepted and is now the order of the day for our bright and beautiful daughters.
Our energy sector too did not escape the rude awakening because the wicked amongst us decided that they will rather make profit making from generator selling than allowing Nigeria energy sufficiency that will increase our nation’s standard of living, and increase our capacity utilization. Our energy supply is now in the Stone Age; and our industrial capacity is much lower when General Gowon was in power. Because of our unstable energy supplies, the multi-national and Nigerian owned companies are moving to as near away as Ghana, and as far away as South Africa. Our educational system is a shadow of its former self, parents cannot trust children, no one is loyal again, and human sacrifices have become the order of the day for those that want to belong to the emergency billionaires’ club and those that want to keep their political positions at all cost.
When the Igbo were being destroyed, we sat on the fence and failed to speak out because we were not Igbos. When accurate census was prevented from taking place, we acquiesced since on a temporary basis, it did not affect us. Knowledge of accurate census is needed for planning resource allocation, locating healthcare facilities for all citizens, locating best schools for the benefit of all, etc. Those that claim to have higher but bogus population took majority of our resources and now, we can no longer speak out against them because such an unwritten rule is now engraved in our subconscious. The older generations are tired of fighting while the younger ones have seen nothing good about Nigeria in their life time. All they have seen has been re-enforcement of negativism (corruption, 419, disloyalty and now, kidnapping). As Rev. Fr. Martin Niemoller aptly noted, “In Germany, they [the Nazis] first came for the Communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Next, they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time no one was left to speak up," Nigerians are currently in Rev. Fr. Niemoller mode and we need to begin to retrace our footstep for the benefit of next generation.
To retrace our steps, the above preamble was necessary for the analysis of 2011 candidates. How convenient it could have been to forget history but he who forgets history will end up reliving the mistakes of the past (story of Nigeria).
Some of the self imposed heads of States or unelected presidents now stand to state that the youth cannot govern Nigeria successfully. They forget that they were young, wet in the ears, and untrained for governance when they took over. These same “leaders” were unpatriotic citizens who lacked vision with their inexperience and even with the absolute power of gun they welded they could not move Nigeria over the thresh hold of success. These so-called leaders bastardized the nation’s economy, introduce corruption, became insanely rich at out expense and have the audacity to state that the youth are inexperience to move Nigeria to the 21st century. We recall that when a king was to be chosen in the house of Jesse, God chose David, the youngest. Though, David was inexperience, he became one of the greatest kings in Israel. So what are these zoning politicians telling Nigerian citizens? So, fellow citizens, let us wake up from our slumbers and elect credible Nigerians for ones and hold them responsible and not continue to be intimidated.
If I were Babangida, I will just become a true mentor to a young energetic leader that will help correct the mistakes I made. If Babangida insists he wants to rule Nigeria, however, he should know that he is doing so to his own detriment because, even, most of our politicians, Governors, Senators, House members never had principled objections to the way the country has been governed. The only time these politicians objected was whenever someone tried to stop them from sharing (within their group) the allocation meant for a whole state. Babangida and people of his generation and ideology never had manifesto capable of moving Nigeria forward and unfortunately, the citizens, at the same point in time, neither sought nor were ready to vote for credible candidates because of their own selfish interests that trampled our national interest. The combination of Babangida and the uneducated citizenry will be a bad omen for Nigeria come 2011. The other unfortunate issue is that our nation’s ability to embrace corruption is now as ubiquitous as gravity. While Babangida is only an example of the No Future Association, NFA leadership, we need to resist them with all our might from taking over this time.
May be our constitution needs to be modified such that no one who does not have a business to go back to after leaving office should run for Presidency, Governor, Senate and House because. It is believe that the only job in Nigeria is politics and this is why politics has become a do-or-die affair. We believe that once a job creator enters into politics, it is easy to get out since he would have a job to go back to. When a true leader reaches new height, he desires to carry citizens along. Our past power usurpers have been a drag on the system and really destroyed the system we inherited and the democracy we acquired. It is time for them to go.
Those that ever ruled Nigeria must never be allowed to contest again. There are more than 200 million Nigerians, therefore, one person; one family cannot take a nation or a whole state to ransom because of greed and selfishness. We reject insults from individuals and corporate entities who believe that Nigerians are perpetually stupid. It is time for us to wake up from our slumbers and it is also time for them to go back to wherever they came from.
That as it may be, it is time to think about a way forward from: a) Nigeria’s inability to progress; b) Her inability to think through the consequences of the PDP’s zoning formulation which places square-peg in a round hole; c) A leader that sees dead citizens on the road side and joyously drives by with siren blasting; d) Her dilapidated healthcare infrastructure; and e) Her deadened conscience of robbing the treasury dry and of robbing each other without flinching and transferring the funds out for others to enjoy. It is time for Nigerians to refocus and regroup. For the youth, this is the time to fight and get your government back from those who used their life time, your life time and absorbed your children’s opportunities. Some fight because they want their voices heard in order to have instant rewarded but you must fight because you must in order to save the next generation and have your faith in the future for humanity sake. You must prevail in the struggles of your time.
More than 44 years ago, the first violent takeover of our government took place in Nigeria. During the past 44 years of spectacle dis-achievements, the nation’s democracy was systematically dismantled, her fragile unity as a nation was stampeded, her petro-naira and British built infrastructures were left in shambles and in some cases completely destroyed. Some that witnessed the takeover of post colonial government did not stand up to challenge the “terrorists” of the time (the coup plotters) but instead, they waited for the African gods to come down to rescue the nation, the nation that gave so much in terms of security, freedom of association, freedom to find loyal buddies, to receive scholarship, to have outstanding education, freedom to love Nigeria and care for fellow citizens. As years went by, more daring military boys took over our government, our resources, our minds, our hopes, our struggles to be truly independent, our educational system, our political system, and our confidence as we began to bend to their will. Unfortunately, Nigerians with conscience literarily died with each succeeding illegal government.
It should be remembered that these coup planners and their allies were trained with our fathers’ hard earned money to defend the nation against all external enemies. Instead, we became the enemies and the targets on which they practiced their war games. They became vicious, looted our treasury at will, trained killers, initiated the use of letter bomb to kill fellow citizens and these leaders gave us those that are today rudderlessly taking over the senate and the house with looted funds. As long as some of us were not directly affected, we turned deaf ears. Instead of some of us standing up to defend Nigeria, we sold our soul for crumbs from their tables. Now, the chicken has finally come home to roost.
Years later, some of our fathers who turned deaf ears are jobless. Daughters are becoming the sole bread winners in most household by anyway necessary. Healthy young men and women, after toiling through the universities, are unable to find jobs. As such, armed robbery increased, kidnapping is competing with 419, immorality is a rule rather than exception and, indeed, prostitution in our society is informally accepted and is now the order of the day for our bright and beautiful daughters.
Our energy sector too did not escape the rude awakening because the wicked amongst us decided that they will rather make profit making from generator selling than allowing Nigeria energy sufficiency that will increase our nation’s standard of living, and increase our capacity utilization. Our energy supply is now in the Stone Age; and our industrial capacity is much lower when General Gowon was in power. Because of our unstable energy supplies, the multi-national and Nigerian owned companies are moving to as near away as Ghana, and as far away as South Africa. Our educational system is a shadow of its former self, parents cannot trust children, no one is loyal again, and human sacrifices have become the order of the day for those that want to belong to the emergency billionaires’ club and those that want to keep their political positions at all cost.
When the Igbo were being destroyed, we sat on the fence and failed to speak out because we were not Igbos. When accurate census was prevented from taking place, we acquiesced since on a temporary basis, it did not affect us. Knowledge of accurate census is needed for planning resource allocation, locating healthcare facilities for all citizens, locating best schools for the benefit of all, etc. Those that claim to have higher but bogus population took majority of our resources and now, we can no longer speak out against them because such an unwritten rule is now engraved in our subconscious. The older generations are tired of fighting while the younger ones have seen nothing good about Nigeria in their life time. All they have seen has been re-enforcement of negativism (corruption, 419, disloyalty and now, kidnapping). As Rev. Fr. Martin Niemoller aptly noted, “In Germany, they [the Nazis] first came for the Communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Next, they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time no one was left to speak up," Nigerians are currently in Rev. Fr. Niemoller mode and we need to begin to retrace our footstep for the benefit of next generation.
To retrace our steps, the above preamble was necessary for the analysis of 2011 candidates. How convenient it could have been to forget history but he who forgets history will end up reliving the mistakes of the past (story of Nigeria).
Some of the self imposed heads of States or unelected presidents now stand to state that the youth cannot govern Nigeria successfully. They forget that they were young, wet in the ears, and untrained for governance when they took over. These same “leaders” were unpatriotic citizens who lacked vision with their inexperience and even with the absolute power of gun they welded they could not move Nigeria over the thresh hold of success. These so-called leaders bastardized the nation’s economy, introduce corruption, became insanely rich at out expense and have the audacity to state that the youth are inexperience to move Nigeria to the 21st century. We recall that when a king was to be chosen in the house of Jesse, God chose David, the youngest. Though, David was inexperience, he became one of the greatest kings in Israel. So what are these zoning politicians telling Nigerian citizens? So, fellow citizens, let us wake up from our slumbers and elect credible Nigerians for ones and hold them responsible and not continue to be intimidated.
If I were Babangida, I will just become a true mentor to a young energetic leader that will help correct the mistakes I made. If Babangida insists he wants to rule Nigeria, however, he should know that he is doing so to his own detriment because, even, most of our politicians, Governors, Senators, House members never had principled objections to the way the country has been governed. The only time these politicians objected was whenever someone tried to stop them from sharing (within their group) the allocation meant for a whole state. Babangida and people of his generation and ideology never had manifesto capable of moving Nigeria forward and unfortunately, the citizens, at the same point in time, neither sought nor were ready to vote for credible candidates because of their own selfish interests that trampled our national interest. The combination of Babangida and the uneducated citizenry will be a bad omen for Nigeria come 2011. The other unfortunate issue is that our nation’s ability to embrace corruption is now as ubiquitous as gravity. While Babangida is only an example of the No Future Association, NFA leadership, we need to resist them with all our might from taking over this time.
May be our constitution needs to be modified such that no one who does not have a business to go back to after leaving office should run for Presidency, Governor, Senate and House because. It is believe that the only job in Nigeria is politics and this is why politics has become a do-or-die affair. We believe that once a job creator enters into politics, it is easy to get out since he would have a job to go back to. When a true leader reaches new height, he desires to carry citizens along. Our past power usurpers have been a drag on the system and really destroyed the system we inherited and the democracy we acquired. It is time for them to go.
Those that ever ruled Nigeria must never be allowed to contest again. There are more than 200 million Nigerians, therefore, one person; one family cannot take a nation or a whole state to ransom because of greed and selfishness. We reject insults from individuals and corporate entities who believe that Nigerians are perpetually stupid. It is time for us to wake up from our slumbers and it is also time for them to go back to wherever they came from.
That as it may be, it is time to think about a way forward from: a) Nigeria’s inability to progress; b) Her inability to think through the consequences of the PDP’s zoning formulation which places square-peg in a round hole; c) A leader that sees dead citizens on the road side and joyously drives by with siren blasting; d) Her dilapidated healthcare infrastructure; and e) Her deadened conscience of robbing the treasury dry and of robbing each other without flinching and transferring the funds out for others to enjoy. It is time for Nigerians to refocus and regroup. For the youth, this is the time to fight and get your government back from those who used their life time, your life time and absorbed your children’s opportunities. Some fight because they want their voices heard in order to have instant rewarded but you must fight because you must in order to save the next generation and have your faith in the future for humanity sake. You must prevail in the struggles of your time.
Kyrgyzstan and Georgia: two very different countries
Ivan Sukhov
Municipal elections and elections for the mayor of Tbilisi are scheduled for 30 May. Naturally, the opposition sees this as a chance to test their strength and take soundings of what the present government has to offer in the middle of the long-distance race to the new parliamentary and presidential elections, which by law must be held in 2012 and 2013.
The opposition lost the previous parliamentary and presidential elections (2008) to Mikhail Saakashvili and his followers, who won a firm majority in parliament. Opposition leaders declared that there had been multiple vote-rigging, but they were unable to convert these claims into any effective political steps – even when the August 2008 war caused many people in Georgia to reflect on the part the leadership played in the dramatic downturn in relations with Russia.
The opposition’s poor results were not only due to voters’ fear of the police force created by Saakashvili and deployed to disperse opposition protests in Tbilisi in autumn 2007. The fact of the matter is that, during its years in power, Saakashvili’s government has been leading the country along the path of reforms quite steadily. The results of some of them – such as police reform – are clearly to be seen.
The mood of the provincial electorate is to a large extent controlled by the electronic media, whose content is primarily determined by the government. Unlike many post-Soviet nations, however, this is not the only side of the story in Georgia. Tbilisi is traditionally opposed to the government, but here the results of Saakashvili’s reforms and the efforts of his loyal supporter the mayor Gigi Ugulava, are more in evidence than anywhere else. So it’s quite difficult for the opposition to explain to the electorate why they should vote for people who only promise to work, rather than the ones who are actually working – especially as the goals announced by both parties are not that different, at least in areas that directly concern people.
The 2008 elections demonstrated that the Tbilisi tradition of voting against the existing regime, and the resentment of the city’s intelligentsia towards the president, who had significantly dented the comfort afforded by many years of corruption, can bring success for opposition leaders and parties at local level. But that’s not enough to secure victory in the capital and give convincing proof of irregularities by the authorities in other parts of the country.
Demonstrations can die down for several reasons. On the one hand, the regime has created a system which certainly doesn’t only use police truncheons to disperse dissidents. Suffice it to say that social surveys show the Georgian police currently enjoy a very high level of trust. This is perhaps not a long-term basis for the whole edifice of socio-political stability. But it is the fundamental difference between Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, where furious outbursts of popular rage led to the collapse of the completely dysfunctional regime.
On the other hand, the opposition is completely incapable of uniting behind a common leader. Together the disparate opposition “columns” could be a powerful force, if they could convince voters they would do better than Saakashvili in addressing the country’s problems. In isolation their chances of success are automatically reduced to almost zero.
It seems very probable that the Tbilisi mayoral elections will see a repeat of the symptoms of 2008. Among the several candidates named by members of the opposition are people who would have a serious chance of winning if the opposition were to unite behind one of them.
One of the most likely of these is the leader of the alliance “For Georgia”, Irakly Alasaniya, formerly Georgian representative at the UN. Even before the main election cycle got under way in 2008, he was considered a very likely successor to Mikhael Saakashvili. There is also Gogi Topadze, the head of the industrialist movement.
Slightly less likely are Georgy Chanturia from the Christian Democratic movement, and the leader of the conservatives Zviad Dzidizguri, who was put forward by the National Opposition Council after the primaries. Former Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, an important figure for the Council who has recently been pushing for urgent rapprochement with Moscow, has remained in the shadows.
Other people could help these four leaders to win the votes of people who are dissatisfied with Gigi Ugulava and Mikhael Saakashvili: Tamaz Vashadze, former mayor of Tbilisi in the difficult year of 1991, Nika Ivanishvli (People’s Democrats) and David Yakobidze (Democratic Party of Georgia). The former Speaker of the Parliament Nino Burjanadze and Shalva Natelashvili’s Labour Party have called for a boycott of the elections on 30 May. After the collapse of the talks between Alasaniya’s Alliance for Georgia and the National Opposition Council, it is difficult to call this picture anything but a split in the opposition on the eve of elections that are important for them. So far it looks like a prerequisite for defeat. At the same time, the Tbilisi mayoral office feels very confident, and has launched an expensive campaign to improve the city’s image, with a slogan to attract visitors: “The city that loves you”.
Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the potential for protest in the capital. It pays close attention to the entire spectrum of the media, whereas in the provinces the only available news is official. The opposition still has a chance of success in Tbilisi. But social surveys show that this success is concentrated in the hands of Irakly Alasaniya, though Topadze should also not be ruled out. If Alasaniya wins the Tbilisi mayoral elections, Mikhael Saakashvili’s opponents will have cause for optimism. But it should not be forgotten that Alasaniya is a member of Saakashvili’s team of young reformers, who undoubtedly shares many of the President’s views. Perhaps this opposition victory would give the Georgian regime even greater freedom for political manoeuvres in the run-up to the next presidential elections than if Ugulava were to stay in power.
As for the Russian hopes, as usual they don’t look very promising. Moscow is making a point of keeping in touch with Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Nogaideli, who can’t boast very high popularity ratings at home, and is holding Alexander Yebralidze, a Petersburg businessman of Georgian origin, as its “trump card”. Yebralizde would appear to be the protégé of Gosha Dzasokhov, who until the 2008 war embodied the integration of ethnic Ossetians in Saakashvili’s team. He subsequently moved to Russia.
Dzasokhov takes a very active part in all public and political events in Russia relating to the North Caucasus. He also emphasizes the fact that North and South Caucasus are inseparable. At the same time, Dzasokhov continues to hold a Georgian passport – at least, there are no reports that he has relinquished his Georgian citizenship. But in Georgia itself his popularity rating is almost zero, as is Yebralidze’s. He doesn’t even have a Georgian passport. On the whole, the involvement of Yebralidze and Dzasokhov looks like a poor copy of the expensive and completely useless attempt to spin Igor Giorgadze as a political figure.
Moscow would like to see a more amenable leader in Georgia. But this could be anyone replacing Mikhael Saakashvili: naturally, the restoration of normal relations with its northern neighbour remains one of the most important tasks for the country. The problem is that the vector of Georgian Euro-Atlantic integration and the aspiration to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity are not Mikhael Saakashvili’s personal ideas, but the result of a clear public consensus. Any Georgian politician rejecting the idea of regaining South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be committing political suicide. People in Georgia obviously believe that Russia is the political sponsor of these territories’ independence, so there is a natural tendency for voters and the establishment to sympathize with opponents of Russian foreign policy. This situation will not change with a new Georgian president, but Russia has yet to learn to take this fact into account when planning its policy in the South Caucasus.
As for the “Kyrgyz” prospects for 30 May, they are dubious. The public perception of any disturbances will be very different from what it was in Kyrgyzstan: they will probably be seen as an attempt by a section of the opposition to take by force what they could not get in an honest political struggle – and perhaps with assistance from outside. Attempts of this kind rarely draw real sympathy from the public. For this reason it seems early days yet to predict the catastrophic scenario of Saakashvili’s team departing with its tail between its legs.
Municipal elections and elections for the mayor of Tbilisi are scheduled for 30 May. Naturally, the opposition sees this as a chance to test their strength and take soundings of what the present government has to offer in the middle of the long-distance race to the new parliamentary and presidential elections, which by law must be held in 2012 and 2013.
The opposition lost the previous parliamentary and presidential elections (2008) to Mikhail Saakashvili and his followers, who won a firm majority in parliament. Opposition leaders declared that there had been multiple vote-rigging, but they were unable to convert these claims into any effective political steps – even when the August 2008 war caused many people in Georgia to reflect on the part the leadership played in the dramatic downturn in relations with Russia.
The opposition’s poor results were not only due to voters’ fear of the police force created by Saakashvili and deployed to disperse opposition protests in Tbilisi in autumn 2007. The fact of the matter is that, during its years in power, Saakashvili’s government has been leading the country along the path of reforms quite steadily. The results of some of them – such as police reform – are clearly to be seen.
The mood of the provincial electorate is to a large extent controlled by the electronic media, whose content is primarily determined by the government. Unlike many post-Soviet nations, however, this is not the only side of the story in Georgia. Tbilisi is traditionally opposed to the government, but here the results of Saakashvili’s reforms and the efforts of his loyal supporter the mayor Gigi Ugulava, are more in evidence than anywhere else. So it’s quite difficult for the opposition to explain to the electorate why they should vote for people who only promise to work, rather than the ones who are actually working – especially as the goals announced by both parties are not that different, at least in areas that directly concern people.
The 2008 elections demonstrated that the Tbilisi tradition of voting against the existing regime, and the resentment of the city’s intelligentsia towards the president, who had significantly dented the comfort afforded by many years of corruption, can bring success for opposition leaders and parties at local level. But that’s not enough to secure victory in the capital and give convincing proof of irregularities by the authorities in other parts of the country.
Demonstrations can die down for several reasons. On the one hand, the regime has created a system which certainly doesn’t only use police truncheons to disperse dissidents. Suffice it to say that social surveys show the Georgian police currently enjoy a very high level of trust. This is perhaps not a long-term basis for the whole edifice of socio-political stability. But it is the fundamental difference between Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, where furious outbursts of popular rage led to the collapse of the completely dysfunctional regime.
On the other hand, the opposition is completely incapable of uniting behind a common leader. Together the disparate opposition “columns” could be a powerful force, if they could convince voters they would do better than Saakashvili in addressing the country’s problems. In isolation their chances of success are automatically reduced to almost zero.
It seems very probable that the Tbilisi mayoral elections will see a repeat of the symptoms of 2008. Among the several candidates named by members of the opposition are people who would have a serious chance of winning if the opposition were to unite behind one of them.
One of the most likely of these is the leader of the alliance “For Georgia”, Irakly Alasaniya, formerly Georgian representative at the UN. Even before the main election cycle got under way in 2008, he was considered a very likely successor to Mikhael Saakashvili. There is also Gogi Topadze, the head of the industrialist movement.
Slightly less likely are Georgy Chanturia from the Christian Democratic movement, and the leader of the conservatives Zviad Dzidizguri, who was put forward by the National Opposition Council after the primaries. Former Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, an important figure for the Council who has recently been pushing for urgent rapprochement with Moscow, has remained in the shadows.
Other people could help these four leaders to win the votes of people who are dissatisfied with Gigi Ugulava and Mikhael Saakashvili: Tamaz Vashadze, former mayor of Tbilisi in the difficult year of 1991, Nika Ivanishvli (People’s Democrats) and David Yakobidze (Democratic Party of Georgia). The former Speaker of the Parliament Nino Burjanadze and Shalva Natelashvili’s Labour Party have called for a boycott of the elections on 30 May. After the collapse of the talks between Alasaniya’s Alliance for Georgia and the National Opposition Council, it is difficult to call this picture anything but a split in the opposition on the eve of elections that are important for them. So far it looks like a prerequisite for defeat. At the same time, the Tbilisi mayoral office feels very confident, and has launched an expensive campaign to improve the city’s image, with a slogan to attract visitors: “The city that loves you”.
Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the potential for protest in the capital. It pays close attention to the entire spectrum of the media, whereas in the provinces the only available news is official. The opposition still has a chance of success in Tbilisi. But social surveys show that this success is concentrated in the hands of Irakly Alasaniya, though Topadze should also not be ruled out. If Alasaniya wins the Tbilisi mayoral elections, Mikhael Saakashvili’s opponents will have cause for optimism. But it should not be forgotten that Alasaniya is a member of Saakashvili’s team of young reformers, who undoubtedly shares many of the President’s views. Perhaps this opposition victory would give the Georgian regime even greater freedom for political manoeuvres in the run-up to the next presidential elections than if Ugulava were to stay in power.
As for the Russian hopes, as usual they don’t look very promising. Moscow is making a point of keeping in touch with Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Nogaideli, who can’t boast very high popularity ratings at home, and is holding Alexander Yebralidze, a Petersburg businessman of Georgian origin, as its “trump card”. Yebralizde would appear to be the protégé of Gosha Dzasokhov, who until the 2008 war embodied the integration of ethnic Ossetians in Saakashvili’s team. He subsequently moved to Russia.
Dzasokhov takes a very active part in all public and political events in Russia relating to the North Caucasus. He also emphasizes the fact that North and South Caucasus are inseparable. At the same time, Dzasokhov continues to hold a Georgian passport – at least, there are no reports that he has relinquished his Georgian citizenship. But in Georgia itself his popularity rating is almost zero, as is Yebralidze’s. He doesn’t even have a Georgian passport. On the whole, the involvement of Yebralidze and Dzasokhov looks like a poor copy of the expensive and completely useless attempt to spin Igor Giorgadze as a political figure.
Moscow would like to see a more amenable leader in Georgia. But this could be anyone replacing Mikhael Saakashvili: naturally, the restoration of normal relations with its northern neighbour remains one of the most important tasks for the country. The problem is that the vector of Georgian Euro-Atlantic integration and the aspiration to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity are not Mikhael Saakashvili’s personal ideas, but the result of a clear public consensus. Any Georgian politician rejecting the idea of regaining South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be committing political suicide. People in Georgia obviously believe that Russia is the political sponsor of these territories’ independence, so there is a natural tendency for voters and the establishment to sympathize with opponents of Russian foreign policy. This situation will not change with a new Georgian president, but Russia has yet to learn to take this fact into account when planning its policy in the South Caucasus.
As for the “Kyrgyz” prospects for 30 May, they are dubious. The public perception of any disturbances will be very different from what it was in Kyrgyzstan: they will probably be seen as an attempt by a section of the opposition to take by force what they could not get in an honest political struggle – and perhaps with assistance from outside. Attempts of this kind rarely draw real sympathy from the public. For this reason it seems early days yet to predict the catastrophic scenario of Saakashvili’s team departing with its tail between its legs.
At a time like this, what matters most my fellow Nigerians?
This is not a time many Nigerian workers are happy about because things have become tough and critical. Most of them go months on end without pay while bills continue to mount. At the other end of the spectrum they see politicians glowing and moving about in new convoys of cars, their wives and children shop and school abroad while they at home can hardly pay their wards' school fees or feed them. In the midst of this gloom confronting the Nigerian worker is the news that members of the National Assembly are seeking to inflate their allowances.
According to reports, the members of the National Assembly numbering 360 currently go home every quarter with a whopping sum of N27.2 million. That has proved inadequate for the honourable members. They now want to up it to N42 million each. This is preposterous in a country where the national minimum wage is N7,500 and the request by the Nigeria Labour Congress for N50,000 is still pending.
What justifies this raise that the assembly members are demanding? Perhaps it is to oil the machine for the coming elections. This much is denoted from the text messages which senators are said to be passing each other. The text reads:
"My Distinguished, each member in the House of Representatives has improved earnings from N25m to N43m. This is an improvement of 40 per cent. Reps members are also getting one Prado 4by4. This is election year; we should rise up and demand from leadership what is due us. Our entitlement in the budget is nothing less than N100m per Senator." The tone of the text is a demonstration of the fact that politics in this part of the world is all about bread and butter.
When last did the members of the National Assembly discuss or table any motion that has to do with the well being of citizens? This is a dangerous trend. The economy has been in a tailspin and things are getting tougher for the populace who have continued to wonder whether this democracy or the variety we have now is what they bargained for.
The concern of the populace is shared by the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), which in a recent report said state governments might not be able to pay workers' salaries in the next few months if the $3.2 billion left in the Excess Crude Account is shared. The report states only Lagos State out of the 36 states of the federation can generate enough to pay its workers. This is frightening and does not show any cause for cheer at a time when the world economy is down and many countries are thinking of shifting attention from oil due to its environmental problems.
We must begin to think creatively about how to fund our democracy; we have depended too much on short-term measures, which do not offer long-term solutions.
Several times arguments have been made about the need to make political office less attractive than it is at the moment. It is because of the out-of-the-world benefits that politics in this part of the world confers and the attendant path to stupendous wealth it offers that people approach it with a do-or-die attitude.
In the light of what the National Assembly members are proposing for themselves and the reality on the ground as made public by RMAFC, the time to drum some sense into the political arena is now.
We cannot afford this profligate politics.
According to reports, the members of the National Assembly numbering 360 currently go home every quarter with a whopping sum of N27.2 million. That has proved inadequate for the honourable members. They now want to up it to N42 million each. This is preposterous in a country where the national minimum wage is N7,500 and the request by the Nigeria Labour Congress for N50,000 is still pending.
What justifies this raise that the assembly members are demanding? Perhaps it is to oil the machine for the coming elections. This much is denoted from the text messages which senators are said to be passing each other. The text reads:
"My Distinguished, each member in the House of Representatives has improved earnings from N25m to N43m. This is an improvement of 40 per cent. Reps members are also getting one Prado 4by4. This is election year; we should rise up and demand from leadership what is due us. Our entitlement in the budget is nothing less than N100m per Senator." The tone of the text is a demonstration of the fact that politics in this part of the world is all about bread and butter.
When last did the members of the National Assembly discuss or table any motion that has to do with the well being of citizens? This is a dangerous trend. The economy has been in a tailspin and things are getting tougher for the populace who have continued to wonder whether this democracy or the variety we have now is what they bargained for.
The concern of the populace is shared by the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), which in a recent report said state governments might not be able to pay workers' salaries in the next few months if the $3.2 billion left in the Excess Crude Account is shared. The report states only Lagos State out of the 36 states of the federation can generate enough to pay its workers. This is frightening and does not show any cause for cheer at a time when the world economy is down and many countries are thinking of shifting attention from oil due to its environmental problems.
We must begin to think creatively about how to fund our democracy; we have depended too much on short-term measures, which do not offer long-term solutions.
Several times arguments have been made about the need to make political office less attractive than it is at the moment. It is because of the out-of-the-world benefits that politics in this part of the world confers and the attendant path to stupendous wealth it offers that people approach it with a do-or-die attitude.
In the light of what the National Assembly members are proposing for themselves and the reality on the ground as made public by RMAFC, the time to drum some sense into the political arena is now.
We cannot afford this profligate politics.
Conflict and Custom in the New World Order : a conversation with Gita Sahgal
Deniz Kandiyoti
DK: In Part I of our conversation 'Soft law' and hard choices you concluded that the “war on terror” had a deleterious effect on women’s rights issues. Can you provide some illustrations of what you meant by that?
GS: One of the examples that shocked me most was what happened in Iraq where, as you know, there has been a massive slaughter of women since the US-led military intervention. This has been underreported by the human rights movement and existing reports often focused on so-called “honour killings” i.e. women being killed by their families and kinsmen. This, of course, totally obscures the fact that the victims were often professional women, active in public life and that the perpetrators were militias and armed groups'
Now there are two ways in which the human rights movement has dealt with the issue of ‘crimes in the name of honour’. On the one hand, UN experts such as Asma Jahangir, who was Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, started to present ‘honour killings’ in Pakistan as a form of extra-judicial execution. Even though the actual crime may be committed by the family, the state is often directly or indirectly responsible for colluding in the crime ( for instance by imposing very low penalties, or by being either complicit with or directly implicated in the killing – by having police or government officials present at the council ordering the killing- or by sheer failure to prosecute). This analysis stems from a very important legal judgement known as the Velasquez Rodriguez case in the Inter-American Court.
Even though this legal foundation had already been laid by the time systematic killings of women who are active in public life or who transgress in their private lives began on a large scale in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and indeed in other centres of the ‘War on Terror’ such as Somalia), much commentary, even in human rights reports, reverted to seeing ‘culture’ as a driver for women’s deaths. So militia killings, a classic form of extra-judicial execution, are referred to as ‘honour killings in one UN report on Iraq. Killings of officials and others are referred to as extra-judicial executions but in gender neutral terms, so that the fact that women are targeted as women is completely buried.
DK: In post-conflict contexts, and in others where the provision of justice as a public good is deficient, there appears to be a consensus among powerful donors that devolving bits of the legal system to the local level and having recourse to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is the answer. Furthermore, these types of decentralization and devolution are presented as forms of democratization and bottom-up participation. What is the moving force behind this consensus? And what are the implications for women’s rights?
GS :There are a number of forces behind this consensus. One is the reluctant recognition that most societies already operate in a legally plural world and that the most ‘just’ law is not necessarily delivered by the formal courts – either because the law is often normatively more conservative than actual customs and norms that people live by, or because the formal court system is simply overloaded, unwieldy, slow and expensive. So there have been numerous movements calling for the recognition of other legal systems – perhaps most powerfully in Latin America as a result of the indigenous rights movements gaining a voice and even political power as in Bolivia. Women’s rights advocates have also been involved in a number of processes from resolving domestic disputes through what is known as alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) to peace processes where they have negotiated across conflict lines. Sunila Abeysekera has been involved in such processes through her organisation Inform which has mapped ‘disappearances’ during the conflict in Sri Lanka but also negotiated with sympathisers from different sides.
Now these movements have been taken up in broadly two ways – in human rights discourses and by powerful international organisations and donor governments as part of their aid agenda, particularly in what are known as post-conflict countries. These appear to be different approaches, but they converge precisely over negotiating away women’s rights and the rights of minorities – since these get ignored and submerged within purportedly homogenous identity-based groupings. Therefore those who are already marginalised may be further marginalised in informal justice systems which are controlled by local elites. Informal systems then use law to perpetuate or even re-invent a particular notion of cultural or religious identity. A woman who may simply want to access a particular right – alimony in the Shah Bano case in India, or inheritance in the case of Sandra Lovelace in Canada, finds that she is challenging the identity of the entire community who mobilise against her. Ironically in both cases, the law being applied was based on a colonial interpretation of religion and custom.
There is a growing human rights literature which discusses the competing demands of recognition of religious or cultural identities, on the one hand, and ‘balancing’ these with upholding equality and non-discrimination norms, on the other. When identity claims are smuggled in as part of non-discrimination norms, the goal of equality can easily be derailed. The debates over headscarves and the wearing of niqab are an example of this - see for instance the debate between Joan Scott and Karima Bennoune. It was in an attempt to bring a different view to international attention that WLUML and Amnesty International did a joint submission on issues arising from the Lubna Hussein case, a woman persecuted for her attire in Sudan.
Those promoting identity claims see themselves as offering a more culturally responsive version of human rights, but this approach all too often depends on being oblivious to women’s equality and to disputes within groups. Women’s rights advocates often refer to universal principles and the need to either protect existing law or to argue for new law such as relying on a civil code, rather than on different systems of family law based on religion in which people are seen as members of a religious community – as Amrita Chhachhi writes - a sort of forced identity that limits their entitlements rather than defining their rights as citizens. However, most human rights bodies have hardly dealt with family laws and tend to condemn parallel courts or informal courts principally because of their lack of due process and their harsh punishments ( such as whipping and stoning). While these are valid arguments they fall short of fully grasping the range of violations caused not just by the conduct of these courts but by their very structure. Parallel or customary courts tend to lend substance in law to religious or tribal identities that are themselves often the product of a colonial inheritance. They undermine women’s access to civil law even in those countries, such as Ethiopia, where a civil code exists. The Human Rights Committee made a recent comment in which it tried to square this circle by suggesting that lower courts should only handle ‘minor civil and criminal matters’. In Britain, the Lord Chief Justice made a similar point about sharia councils. This leaves virtually all matters pertaining to women’s lives, including quite serious crimes against them such as rape, in the hands of bodies that are systematically biased against them. That is why it is so astonishing that a number of powerful international institutions have put a lot of effort, and more importantly substantial finance, behind the promotion of parallel or alternative courts while overlooking the consequences, particularly for women.
DK: So are you saying, in concrete terms, that this type of devolution often deprives women of justice? Because a disproportionate number of so-called “minor” cases-family, marriage, divorce or inheritance disputes- would potentially be devolved to unaccountable and gender biased institutions?
GS: Yes, it deprives women of justice and also people who are from any minority tradition whose norms are not reflected in the law being applied. They have access neither to universal norms which could protect their rights, nor to the specific norms and customs to which they might adhere in their everyday lives. For instance, in some groups women may have easier access to divorce through their community norms than courts allow. Often the mapping of custom through a formalised process in the service of setting up a parallel justice system enforces more restrictive and patriarchal norms than was previously the case. So a legal system which is created ostensibly as part of a broader democratisation effort may end up inadvertently disenfranchising many citizens in terms of their legal rights.
This is particularly likely in post-conflict settings where foreign governments or charitable donors are pushing for such systems to be adopted. One such case was seen in South Sudan, where both World Vision, a Christian charity and the UN have supported the mapping of customary laws. The South has changed irrevocably during a twenty year period of conflict, social systems have been disrupted, and a large population of urbanised migrants have returned from exile. So the purpose of the system is to help create a national identity which can challenge the Muslim dominated, Shari’a based law of Khartoum, to ‘restore’ the old order and create a new version of South Sudanese identity through law. Pushing for women’s equality is seen as a threat to this project, since it is precisely the social compact that would be created under a patriarchal order which is supposed to be a guarantor against the recurrence of conflict. In contrast, women’s rights advocates, have emphasised that they are struggling for a transformed social order, not one that simply restores the status quo ante.
That is also why the current discussions on Afghanistan, whether from the left or right of the political spectrum, are so frightening. All talk of ‘moderate Taliban’ or ‘light foot print’ of foreign forces leads to the same end – that is a political consensus in which the rights of some are traded for ‘peace’ and ‘security’. This is a false equation which will bring neither peace nor security as conventionally understood, even in military terms; and will certainly not assist those seeking to implant some genuine democratic values.
DK: Would it be possible to talk about two contradictory tendencies at work here? On the one hand there is a drive to expand and consolidate women’s rights through the institutions of global governance, like for instance the United Nations setting up a “super agency” to monitor gender equality or setting up various machineries for gender mainstreaming. On the other hand, you have an even better resourced movement pushing in the direction of opting out of the formal legal system in favour of decentralized “traditional” actors with little judicial oversight and with built-in patriarchal biases.
GS: Yes, that is true and no-one seems to have noticed, except of course, the women who are directly affected and who are fighting heroically all over the world. Quite often their first hurdle – and they never get any further - is to convince those supposedly on their side (international NGOs, the UN and government aid agencies) to abandon approaches based on religion and tribal custom. There is a fascination with working within ‘Sharia’ by the British government, for instance, which may lead to regressive approaches which undermine not only secular values, but also the work that feminists have done to promote progressive readings of religion.
One example that fortunately failed to take root is the Asian Development Bank’s attempt to create an alternative dispute resolution system in Pakistan. It was backed by a huge budget and proposed a system that would by-pass the courts to resolve a whole host of disputes which included criminal as well as civil matters, with absolutely no safeguards as to process or judicial oversight. Naturally the Pakistani Judiciary and the lawyers hated it. At a meeting of the project on plural legal orders a Pakistani human rights advocate who evaluated the system said the best thing about it was its complete failure. It was, in effect, an attempt to formalise the jirga system, which was a highly contested institution against which the entire feminist and human rights community has fought. It wasn’t considered particularly ‘authentic’ by ordinary people either.
Some of these programmes have quite Orwellian titles like ‘Legal Empowerment of the Poor’, and they appear to be dedicated to getting the poor out of the formal court system, quite as much as getting them before informal tribunals. The reason that a Bank would be interested in funding the provision of justice in a developing country may have to do with preparing the formal courts to implement laws on financial regulation ( or deregulation) and relieve them from the burden of attending to a whole host of irrelevant matters (such as family disputes and abuses of women’s rights). Poor people, in short, should not clog up the court system. Nor should they, particularly if they are women, entertain the notion that they have immutable rights; only negotiable claims – which they may win or lose depending on their negotiating power, money, support of community elders, and so on. Mapping customary uses of land, for instance, may help people secure individual title to land, which can then become a source of collateral and credit. The drive to formalize is in no small measure related to deepening market integration and commodification.
DK: A lot of commentary opposes an allegedly secular human rights establishment (which includes feminist groups) to fundamentalist movements and tendencies of various stripes. What I find most interesting about the way you are framing your argument is that you are, in fact, suggesting that numerous mainstream secular organizations are trying to inhabit the space of religion- but they are doing so on their own terms and for their own instrumental purposes. Are they entrenching a normative vision of religion as the antidote to the presumed ills of “culture”?
GS: Exactly. Everything that is debased is cultural and everything that is pure is religious. The slogan is: “it’s not religion, it’s culture”. In fact, religious practice is always culturally mediated and therefore variable. There is a world of difference between what Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) was trying to do - comparing civil codes, customary laws and Muslim personal laws, and therefore highlighting the existing room for manoeuvre, and agencies seeking to find definitive (often fundamentalist) versions of ‘Sharia’ law and selling them as more ‘authentic’ than local cultural practice. What they don’t see is that these top-down interventions are narrowing the scope for flexibility and negotiation over women’s rights.
DK: To what extent is there also a confusion here between culture, religion and politics?
GS: The effects of this confusion were evident here in the UK. There was a period in the mid-1980s when the local councils and the GLC were funding Hindu Rights groups as “cultural centres". They inadvertently legitimized an extremist political tendency that destroyed the Babri Masjid mosque, attempted to build a Hindu temple on its site and has repeatedly committed atrocities against Muslims and Christian across India .Some people were undoubtedly contributing money in good faith, but there is no doubt that the diaspora acted as a powerful force bolstering the Hindu extremism. Activists in the US and Britain researched these groups and campaigned against them.
Today, we see that a range of fundamentalist organisations of the Islamic Right are being promoted by the state and by sections of the left and liberals. People who are members or suspected members of armed groups and who fled to this country and used it as a refuge were able to re-export militancy to their regions of origin. The British state and human rights bodies have legitimized many such groups including the Jamaat e Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood and salafis of various persuasions.
DK: When you did your work on the Hindu Right, this did not appear to create a great stir. However when you replicate this sort of work with Islamic groups and the Muslim diaspora it becomes more much controversial and divisive because of the “war on terror” and the human rights abuses committed in its name.
GS: Yes, the results are completely different depending on which fundamentalisms you tackle. If you confront the Christian Right or the Hindu Right you are attacked by members of those groups and may be exposed to threats. But you do not get attacked by the Left.
Whereas those working on Jewish fundamentalism may be accused of anti-semitism, and the critique will come from the both the left and right relating to political positions on Israel. Likewise any critical stance on Muslim fundamentalism becomes tainted with charges of Islamophobia and will bring down the wrath of the so-called progressives upon you. So it must be challenged. And of course a large part of the Right will love you for it! It is therefore very difficult to steer a consistent and ethical path and to argue that when challenging abusive counter-terrorism, we should equally be looking at the state’s promotion of religious fundamentalists and the destruction of secular spaces as part of the ‘soft ‘counter-terrorism policy.
DK: What is quite challenging is that many groups and organisations that may have little truck with the concept of individual human rights in doctrinal terms are nonetheless using the vocabulary and mobilizing tropes of human rights to press their rights to religious freedom. What are the implications?
GS: It is one of the strengths of the human rights framework that everybody does use it. But there are risks of serious threats to existing human rights standards. For instance, there is an ongoing attempt to make the defamation of religion into a human rights violation, initially through the use of soft law such as Declarations at the Human Rights Council. Although Amnesty International has offices in Geneva and New York, they did not work on this issue until feminists in the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition pointed out what was happening and a statement was drafted for the Coalition. Human rights organisations in the Coalition are particularly nervous about taking up this issue, as they are of dealing with religious fundamentalism as a serious threat to human rights. So they cannot see that the attempt to legislate the defamation of religion as an offence may open the door to significant threats to human rights today.
But there is some room to challenge these developments. The Organisation of Islamic States pushed for a Special Representative on Culture because they wanted to ‘protect’ cultural rights from attack. But a lot of people mobilized and a very good set of candidates were put forward as international experts. Farida Shaheed from Pakistan, who was appointed, has a very complex notion of ‘rights in the field of culture’ and is also a feminist activist. One must not underestimate what can be achieved within the parameters of human rights and I think the game is not entirely lost.
DK: Are you optimistic about future prospects?
GS: I'm not overly optimistic but I think there is a struggle to be had. It is time to challenge the hegemony of the formal human rights movement and its uncritical embrace of identity politics. The fault lines between those struggling on the ground and around the globe to uphold universal values in conditions of war and deprivation and the parochial narcissism of sections of the Anglo/American left is becoming more evident.
But I take heart from the rejection of the politics of the far right by large sections of the electorate in this country. So many working class voters – whether white or of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin decisively rejected the politics of fascism, whether represented by the BNP or the front organisations of Islamist parties. In that sense, they are way ahead of the so called progressives and the leaders of the human rights movement.
But domestically, there are many struggles ahead. The faith agenda so heavily pushed by Blair will be retained by the new government. Public spending cuts are going to increase the power of religious lobbies as providers of essential services. At home and abroad, it is becoming clearer that the ‘War on Terror’ is not about a clash of civilisations, but about the political uses of religion as an instrument of terror on the one hand, or of discipline and control on the other. People in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and so many other places understand this well. It is now time for others in the West to also wake up to these facts.
The first part of this conversation in which Deniz Kandiyoti and Gita Sahgal explore the challenges posed by the international conjuncture following the "war on terror" for gender justice and women's rights, 'Soft law and hard choices', can be read here
Gita Sahgal is a former Head of the Gender Unit at Amnesty International. She left Amnesty International on April 9th 2010 due to 'irreconcilable differences'.
DK: In Part I of our conversation 'Soft law' and hard choices you concluded that the “war on terror” had a deleterious effect on women’s rights issues. Can you provide some illustrations of what you meant by that?
GS: One of the examples that shocked me most was what happened in Iraq where, as you know, there has been a massive slaughter of women since the US-led military intervention. This has been underreported by the human rights movement and existing reports often focused on so-called “honour killings” i.e. women being killed by their families and kinsmen. This, of course, totally obscures the fact that the victims were often professional women, active in public life and that the perpetrators were militias and armed groups'
Now there are two ways in which the human rights movement has dealt with the issue of ‘crimes in the name of honour’. On the one hand, UN experts such as Asma Jahangir, who was Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, started to present ‘honour killings’ in Pakistan as a form of extra-judicial execution. Even though the actual crime may be committed by the family, the state is often directly or indirectly responsible for colluding in the crime ( for instance by imposing very low penalties, or by being either complicit with or directly implicated in the killing – by having police or government officials present at the council ordering the killing- or by sheer failure to prosecute). This analysis stems from a very important legal judgement known as the Velasquez Rodriguez case in the Inter-American Court.
Even though this legal foundation had already been laid by the time systematic killings of women who are active in public life or who transgress in their private lives began on a large scale in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and indeed in other centres of the ‘War on Terror’ such as Somalia), much commentary, even in human rights reports, reverted to seeing ‘culture’ as a driver for women’s deaths. So militia killings, a classic form of extra-judicial execution, are referred to as ‘honour killings in one UN report on Iraq. Killings of officials and others are referred to as extra-judicial executions but in gender neutral terms, so that the fact that women are targeted as women is completely buried.
DK: In post-conflict contexts, and in others where the provision of justice as a public good is deficient, there appears to be a consensus among powerful donors that devolving bits of the legal system to the local level and having recourse to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is the answer. Furthermore, these types of decentralization and devolution are presented as forms of democratization and bottom-up participation. What is the moving force behind this consensus? And what are the implications for women’s rights?
GS :There are a number of forces behind this consensus. One is the reluctant recognition that most societies already operate in a legally plural world and that the most ‘just’ law is not necessarily delivered by the formal courts – either because the law is often normatively more conservative than actual customs and norms that people live by, or because the formal court system is simply overloaded, unwieldy, slow and expensive. So there have been numerous movements calling for the recognition of other legal systems – perhaps most powerfully in Latin America as a result of the indigenous rights movements gaining a voice and even political power as in Bolivia. Women’s rights advocates have also been involved in a number of processes from resolving domestic disputes through what is known as alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) to peace processes where they have negotiated across conflict lines. Sunila Abeysekera has been involved in such processes through her organisation Inform which has mapped ‘disappearances’ during the conflict in Sri Lanka but also negotiated with sympathisers from different sides.
Now these movements have been taken up in broadly two ways – in human rights discourses and by powerful international organisations and donor governments as part of their aid agenda, particularly in what are known as post-conflict countries. These appear to be different approaches, but they converge precisely over negotiating away women’s rights and the rights of minorities – since these get ignored and submerged within purportedly homogenous identity-based groupings. Therefore those who are already marginalised may be further marginalised in informal justice systems which are controlled by local elites. Informal systems then use law to perpetuate or even re-invent a particular notion of cultural or religious identity. A woman who may simply want to access a particular right – alimony in the Shah Bano case in India, or inheritance in the case of Sandra Lovelace in Canada, finds that she is challenging the identity of the entire community who mobilise against her. Ironically in both cases, the law being applied was based on a colonial interpretation of religion and custom.
There is a growing human rights literature which discusses the competing demands of recognition of religious or cultural identities, on the one hand, and ‘balancing’ these with upholding equality and non-discrimination norms, on the other. When identity claims are smuggled in as part of non-discrimination norms, the goal of equality can easily be derailed. The debates over headscarves and the wearing of niqab are an example of this - see for instance the debate between Joan Scott and Karima Bennoune. It was in an attempt to bring a different view to international attention that WLUML and Amnesty International did a joint submission on issues arising from the Lubna Hussein case, a woman persecuted for her attire in Sudan.
Those promoting identity claims see themselves as offering a more culturally responsive version of human rights, but this approach all too often depends on being oblivious to women’s equality and to disputes within groups. Women’s rights advocates often refer to universal principles and the need to either protect existing law or to argue for new law such as relying on a civil code, rather than on different systems of family law based on religion in which people are seen as members of a religious community – as Amrita Chhachhi writes - a sort of forced identity that limits their entitlements rather than defining their rights as citizens. However, most human rights bodies have hardly dealt with family laws and tend to condemn parallel courts or informal courts principally because of their lack of due process and their harsh punishments ( such as whipping and stoning). While these are valid arguments they fall short of fully grasping the range of violations caused not just by the conduct of these courts but by their very structure. Parallel or customary courts tend to lend substance in law to religious or tribal identities that are themselves often the product of a colonial inheritance. They undermine women’s access to civil law even in those countries, such as Ethiopia, where a civil code exists. The Human Rights Committee made a recent comment in which it tried to square this circle by suggesting that lower courts should only handle ‘minor civil and criminal matters’. In Britain, the Lord Chief Justice made a similar point about sharia councils. This leaves virtually all matters pertaining to women’s lives, including quite serious crimes against them such as rape, in the hands of bodies that are systematically biased against them. That is why it is so astonishing that a number of powerful international institutions have put a lot of effort, and more importantly substantial finance, behind the promotion of parallel or alternative courts while overlooking the consequences, particularly for women.
DK: So are you saying, in concrete terms, that this type of devolution often deprives women of justice? Because a disproportionate number of so-called “minor” cases-family, marriage, divorce or inheritance disputes- would potentially be devolved to unaccountable and gender biased institutions?
GS: Yes, it deprives women of justice and also people who are from any minority tradition whose norms are not reflected in the law being applied. They have access neither to universal norms which could protect their rights, nor to the specific norms and customs to which they might adhere in their everyday lives. For instance, in some groups women may have easier access to divorce through their community norms than courts allow. Often the mapping of custom through a formalised process in the service of setting up a parallel justice system enforces more restrictive and patriarchal norms than was previously the case. So a legal system which is created ostensibly as part of a broader democratisation effort may end up inadvertently disenfranchising many citizens in terms of their legal rights.
This is particularly likely in post-conflict settings where foreign governments or charitable donors are pushing for such systems to be adopted. One such case was seen in South Sudan, where both World Vision, a Christian charity and the UN have supported the mapping of customary laws. The South has changed irrevocably during a twenty year period of conflict, social systems have been disrupted, and a large population of urbanised migrants have returned from exile. So the purpose of the system is to help create a national identity which can challenge the Muslim dominated, Shari’a based law of Khartoum, to ‘restore’ the old order and create a new version of South Sudanese identity through law. Pushing for women’s equality is seen as a threat to this project, since it is precisely the social compact that would be created under a patriarchal order which is supposed to be a guarantor against the recurrence of conflict. In contrast, women’s rights advocates, have emphasised that they are struggling for a transformed social order, not one that simply restores the status quo ante.
That is also why the current discussions on Afghanistan, whether from the left or right of the political spectrum, are so frightening. All talk of ‘moderate Taliban’ or ‘light foot print’ of foreign forces leads to the same end – that is a political consensus in which the rights of some are traded for ‘peace’ and ‘security’. This is a false equation which will bring neither peace nor security as conventionally understood, even in military terms; and will certainly not assist those seeking to implant some genuine democratic values.
DK: Would it be possible to talk about two contradictory tendencies at work here? On the one hand there is a drive to expand and consolidate women’s rights through the institutions of global governance, like for instance the United Nations setting up a “super agency” to monitor gender equality or setting up various machineries for gender mainstreaming. On the other hand, you have an even better resourced movement pushing in the direction of opting out of the formal legal system in favour of decentralized “traditional” actors with little judicial oversight and with built-in patriarchal biases.
GS: Yes, that is true and no-one seems to have noticed, except of course, the women who are directly affected and who are fighting heroically all over the world. Quite often their first hurdle – and they never get any further - is to convince those supposedly on their side (international NGOs, the UN and government aid agencies) to abandon approaches based on religion and tribal custom. There is a fascination with working within ‘Sharia’ by the British government, for instance, which may lead to regressive approaches which undermine not only secular values, but also the work that feminists have done to promote progressive readings of religion.
One example that fortunately failed to take root is the Asian Development Bank’s attempt to create an alternative dispute resolution system in Pakistan. It was backed by a huge budget and proposed a system that would by-pass the courts to resolve a whole host of disputes which included criminal as well as civil matters, with absolutely no safeguards as to process or judicial oversight. Naturally the Pakistani Judiciary and the lawyers hated it. At a meeting of the project on plural legal orders a Pakistani human rights advocate who evaluated the system said the best thing about it was its complete failure. It was, in effect, an attempt to formalise the jirga system, which was a highly contested institution against which the entire feminist and human rights community has fought. It wasn’t considered particularly ‘authentic’ by ordinary people either.
Some of these programmes have quite Orwellian titles like ‘Legal Empowerment of the Poor’, and they appear to be dedicated to getting the poor out of the formal court system, quite as much as getting them before informal tribunals. The reason that a Bank would be interested in funding the provision of justice in a developing country may have to do with preparing the formal courts to implement laws on financial regulation ( or deregulation) and relieve them from the burden of attending to a whole host of irrelevant matters (such as family disputes and abuses of women’s rights). Poor people, in short, should not clog up the court system. Nor should they, particularly if they are women, entertain the notion that they have immutable rights; only negotiable claims – which they may win or lose depending on their negotiating power, money, support of community elders, and so on. Mapping customary uses of land, for instance, may help people secure individual title to land, which can then become a source of collateral and credit. The drive to formalize is in no small measure related to deepening market integration and commodification.
DK: A lot of commentary opposes an allegedly secular human rights establishment (which includes feminist groups) to fundamentalist movements and tendencies of various stripes. What I find most interesting about the way you are framing your argument is that you are, in fact, suggesting that numerous mainstream secular organizations are trying to inhabit the space of religion- but they are doing so on their own terms and for their own instrumental purposes. Are they entrenching a normative vision of religion as the antidote to the presumed ills of “culture”?
GS: Exactly. Everything that is debased is cultural and everything that is pure is religious. The slogan is: “it’s not religion, it’s culture”. In fact, religious practice is always culturally mediated and therefore variable. There is a world of difference between what Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) was trying to do - comparing civil codes, customary laws and Muslim personal laws, and therefore highlighting the existing room for manoeuvre, and agencies seeking to find definitive (often fundamentalist) versions of ‘Sharia’ law and selling them as more ‘authentic’ than local cultural practice. What they don’t see is that these top-down interventions are narrowing the scope for flexibility and negotiation over women’s rights.
DK: To what extent is there also a confusion here between culture, religion and politics?
GS: The effects of this confusion were evident here in the UK. There was a period in the mid-1980s when the local councils and the GLC were funding Hindu Rights groups as “cultural centres". They inadvertently legitimized an extremist political tendency that destroyed the Babri Masjid mosque, attempted to build a Hindu temple on its site and has repeatedly committed atrocities against Muslims and Christian across India .Some people were undoubtedly contributing money in good faith, but there is no doubt that the diaspora acted as a powerful force bolstering the Hindu extremism. Activists in the US and Britain researched these groups and campaigned against them.
Today, we see that a range of fundamentalist organisations of the Islamic Right are being promoted by the state and by sections of the left and liberals. People who are members or suspected members of armed groups and who fled to this country and used it as a refuge were able to re-export militancy to their regions of origin. The British state and human rights bodies have legitimized many such groups including the Jamaat e Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood and salafis of various persuasions.
DK: When you did your work on the Hindu Right, this did not appear to create a great stir. However when you replicate this sort of work with Islamic groups and the Muslim diaspora it becomes more much controversial and divisive because of the “war on terror” and the human rights abuses committed in its name.
GS: Yes, the results are completely different depending on which fundamentalisms you tackle. If you confront the Christian Right or the Hindu Right you are attacked by members of those groups and may be exposed to threats. But you do not get attacked by the Left.
Whereas those working on Jewish fundamentalism may be accused of anti-semitism, and the critique will come from the both the left and right relating to political positions on Israel. Likewise any critical stance on Muslim fundamentalism becomes tainted with charges of Islamophobia and will bring down the wrath of the so-called progressives upon you. So it must be challenged. And of course a large part of the Right will love you for it! It is therefore very difficult to steer a consistent and ethical path and to argue that when challenging abusive counter-terrorism, we should equally be looking at the state’s promotion of religious fundamentalists and the destruction of secular spaces as part of the ‘soft ‘counter-terrorism policy.
DK: What is quite challenging is that many groups and organisations that may have little truck with the concept of individual human rights in doctrinal terms are nonetheless using the vocabulary and mobilizing tropes of human rights to press their rights to religious freedom. What are the implications?
GS: It is one of the strengths of the human rights framework that everybody does use it. But there are risks of serious threats to existing human rights standards. For instance, there is an ongoing attempt to make the defamation of religion into a human rights violation, initially through the use of soft law such as Declarations at the Human Rights Council. Although Amnesty International has offices in Geneva and New York, they did not work on this issue until feminists in the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition pointed out what was happening and a statement was drafted for the Coalition. Human rights organisations in the Coalition are particularly nervous about taking up this issue, as they are of dealing with religious fundamentalism as a serious threat to human rights. So they cannot see that the attempt to legislate the defamation of religion as an offence may open the door to significant threats to human rights today.
But there is some room to challenge these developments. The Organisation of Islamic States pushed for a Special Representative on Culture because they wanted to ‘protect’ cultural rights from attack. But a lot of people mobilized and a very good set of candidates were put forward as international experts. Farida Shaheed from Pakistan, who was appointed, has a very complex notion of ‘rights in the field of culture’ and is also a feminist activist. One must not underestimate what can be achieved within the parameters of human rights and I think the game is not entirely lost.
DK: Are you optimistic about future prospects?
GS: I'm not overly optimistic but I think there is a struggle to be had. It is time to challenge the hegemony of the formal human rights movement and its uncritical embrace of identity politics. The fault lines between those struggling on the ground and around the globe to uphold universal values in conditions of war and deprivation and the parochial narcissism of sections of the Anglo/American left is becoming more evident.
But I take heart from the rejection of the politics of the far right by large sections of the electorate in this country. So many working class voters – whether white or of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin decisively rejected the politics of fascism, whether represented by the BNP or the front organisations of Islamist parties. In that sense, they are way ahead of the so called progressives and the leaders of the human rights movement.
But domestically, there are many struggles ahead. The faith agenda so heavily pushed by Blair will be retained by the new government. Public spending cuts are going to increase the power of religious lobbies as providers of essential services. At home and abroad, it is becoming clearer that the ‘War on Terror’ is not about a clash of civilisations, but about the political uses of religion as an instrument of terror on the one hand, or of discipline and control on the other. People in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and so many other places understand this well. It is now time for others in the West to also wake up to these facts.
The first part of this conversation in which Deniz Kandiyoti and Gita Sahgal explore the challenges posed by the international conjuncture following the "war on terror" for gender justice and women's rights, 'Soft law and hard choices', can be read here
Gita Sahgal is a former Head of the Gender Unit at Amnesty International. She left Amnesty International on April 9th 2010 due to 'irreconcilable differences'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)