Nigeria Content Online

A country bound to violence

Somalia’s chaos did not start
today. It started 20 years ago when the then military government of
Mohammed Barre, was over thrown by factions who are from different
regions and from different areas of Somalia – each one fighting to
liberate the part they were in. Unfortunately, they never united. So,
since 1991, we have a number of fighting groups, on clan basis, each
one trying to overcome the other clan. Then, there was a period of US
and UN intervention from ‘92 – ‘93.
Unfortunately, they didn’t stay
long enough to create peace and stability, so in a way, that made this
chaos to be protracted and to go further until today.
Then came the warlords’ era, which
ended in 2006 or 2005 when the Islamic courts took over Mogadishu. At
that time, of course, the transitional government, which was elected in
Nairobi in Kenya in 2005, was in a place called Johar, not far from
Mogadishu. The parliament was in Baydawa in another regional capital.
Apparently the Islamic courts tried to get rid of this transitional
federal government. Then of course, the fighting started again between
the forces of the TFG, supported by Ethiopian forces, and that’s when
eager countries and the AU created AMISOM. Since then, the government
took over Mogadishu, but it never had the possibility really and the
support from the International Community and the United Nations
Security Council who always dilly dallied in sending any troops there.
The only relief was 5000 African troops, African mission. It was
supposed to be 8000 or so, but that has never been completed. The
Somali government, as late as a few days ago, even Kenya and Uganda,
the East African group, are asking the Security Council to approve a
number of UN peacekeeping force to be added to the AMISOM to have a
hybrid force like in Darfur. We hope, if that succeeds, that
stabilisation can come in due course.

Brief stay of UN peacekeeping forces

The mandate of the UN peacekeeping
force is to bring peace and stability. In places like the DRC and the
Congo, they have been there for a long time, although they are talking
about reducing their number. In Somalia unfortunately, it took them
about three years, four years maximum. When the UN left, then the
vacuum was taken over by warlords. Mogadishu alone had about four
warlords. This created the disintegration. It was not created by the
UN, but the fact that they left before stabilisation brought
deterioration, far more deterioration than what was there before.

International concern over piracy

Piracy did not begin from the
start of the conflict. As the internal war for dominance continued and
the nation’s government disappeared, the coasts went undefended and
became fair game for big fishing companies, encroaching on the
livelihood of Somali fishermen. When they turned to piracy and that
proved successful, more young men out of work and armed with guns took
to the seas to find their loot.
Now in 2007 and 2008, the whole
world began to realise that this was a huge problem. They created a
coast guard system, but when these young men have tasted the profits of
ransoms, they started going farther – up to the Seychelles, up to
Kenya, Tanzania and the Comoros – as far as that, so that the whole
western part of the Indian Ocean has become infected or infested. The
courts can deal with those who have been captured, so it will see the
pirates at the final end, not at the beginning. The beginning happens
on land, so it doesn’t stop them. It will never stop them.

Thinking of a way out of the crisis

The way out is first of all to
give support. The government now has trained the forces, a number of
them, which combined with AMISOM. And, if fortunately the Security
Council approves the United Nations’ peacekeeping component, they can
cope, even this will take us to the piracy issue. They have trained
about 1,000 coast guards, but there is no equipment, there are no
supplies. They need all the supplies and equipment they can get.
Furthermore, even salaries, which were promised by the international
community to pay these forces, are not forthcoming, even for AMISOM
soldiers. It took them a long time before they were paid, and up till
now, there is no security of payment from month to month. So these are
bottlenecks that again create further deterioration of the situation.
When people have no salary to survive on, how can they go and fight
people who have all the political and religious motivations? They get
all the equipment, they get the supplies, they get all the money. So
how can you overcome this when you have only few – six thousand maximum
armed forces that are not even regularly paid?
As a way out, we need to build
really functional, well-equipped national forces, security forces. We
need to reform the judiciary and do something about the young people in
the country. These young people are now surviving by the gun, so you
have to give them jobs. You have to attract them (lure them away) from
the war and piracy.
The UN secretary general has
proposed three phases, but we are still in the first phase. The first
phase was to send in humanitarian forces.

Until she got a text message from her
New York-based boyfriend, Shalewa Ayobami, 25, had never heard of Nuhu
Ribadu, a fiery anti-corruption fighter, and one of the most popular
Nigerians alive.

That morning, Ms Ayobami’s boyfriend,
Adesina (who prefers that only his first name is used), walked into
Western Union’s shop on Times Square and wired $100 (approximately
15,000 Nigerian naira) to his girlfriend, an agricultural economics
student in a university in South-West Nigeria.

After sending the money off, Mr Adesina
typed out a text message for Ayobami. “I have sent 100 dollars to you,”
he wrote. “The test question is ‘Who will you vote for? The answer is:
Nuhu Ribadu.’” He then pressed the send button.

The following day, Ms Ayobami, who was
receiving money from abroad for the first time, walked into one of
Western Union’s more than 1,900 agents in Nigeria, to claim the money.
When she handed over her form, the paying agent behind the counter took
a long look and then suddenly burst into laughter. Ms Ayobami was
alarmed.

“What’s the problem?” she asked, worried that the information she provided was wrong.

“You guys are beginning to play politics with Western Union,” the cashier said, smiling.

Ms Ayobami still didn’t understand. The
cashier then explained to her that Mr Ribadu, Nigeria’s former
anti-corruption chief, was a presidential hopeful and that the test
question was a “very clever” campaign strategy.

Mr Ayobami is just one of many
Nigerians who have, in the past weeks, walked into banking halls across
West Africa’s most populous nation with the “who-will-you-vote-for”
test question to claim money wired through Western Union by US-based
supporters of Ribadu.

It is not clear how many supporters of
the politician have so far sent money home that way. Western Union
declined to disclose records, saying it does not comment on specific
transactions. But Olubunmi Aborisade, coordinator of the Ribadu
Coalition for Nigeria, a group campaigning for the election of the
anti-corruption czar in the presidential election fixed for April 2011,
said most of his members across the 50 U.S. states regularly follow
that procedure in wiring dollars to their relatives and friends in
Nigeria.

Mr Ribadu, 50, was an assistant
inspector-general in the Nigerian police and former head of the
country’s anti-graft commission. In 2007, late Nigerian President, Musa
Yar’Adua, removed him from his post and dismissed him from the force
after the commission arrested ex-governor James Ibori, on corruption
charges. After unknown gunmen shot at his car, Ribadu fled to the
United Kingdom. He then moved to the United States where he was a
senior fellow at the Centre for Global Development.

After Yar’Adua died in May, the federal
government withdrew charges against Mr Ribadu and retired him him from
the force. He arrived back in Nigeria in June and joined the opposition
Action Congress of Nigeria where he is a leading presidential aspirant.

“Those of us abroad remit billions of
dollars home every year, yet we are not entitled to vote in elections
in our country,” said Mr Aborisade, shortly after a meeting of his
group one recent Wednesday night. “So, this time, we are trying to
influence our relatives at home to vote right by voting for Ribadu in
the election. We are passing our message across in various forms, the
Western Union campaign being one of them.”

Making their voices heard

The idea behind the
who-will-you-vote-for remittance question only came by chance. In early
November, Mr Ribadu visited New York and held a late-night meeting with
about 50 of his supporters based in the city. During the meeting, held
at a popular Nigerian restaurant in Brooklyn, a pro-democracy activist,
who requested that his name be withheld because he does not want to be
seen as aligning with a candidate, suddenly had a brainwave. He
whispered it to other supporters and, before long, a new and completely
novel campaign strategy had been born.

The following day,
Mr Aborisade sent emails to representatives of his organization in 30
of the 50 U.S. states, urging them to inform members in their states to
“call their families and friends in Nigeria frequently, asking them to
vote for Ribadu as the next president of Nigeria.” He also requested
them “to generate questions and answers that remind people about the
“Nuhu Ribadu for President” project in the Western Union Money Transfer.

“That is a good way
to remind their loved-ones to campaign and vote for Nuhu Ribadu in the
2011 presidential elections,” he said.

Mr Aborisade
himself has wired money home that way in the past month. In fact, while
Ayobami was claiming $100 dollars in her university town in Oyo State,
30-year-old Gbenga Akinyede, strolled into a branch of First Bank of
Nigeria in Ado-Ekiti, less than hundred kilometers away, to process a
$500 transfer sent to him by Mr Aborisade, who is also an adjunct
professor of communications at the State University of New York.

Mr Akinyede was
armed with the same test question as Ayobami. But unlike her, Akinyede,
a soft spoken, unemployed graduate of Business Administration from the
University of Ado Ekiti, was politically up-to-date. He knew Ribadu was
running for president and that the question was a campaign message. He
however did not foresee the “excitement” the question generated in the
banking hall that day. After looking at the information provided by Mr
Akinyede, the paying cashier smiled and then invited three of his
colleagues over. The four bank staff laughed.

“As we got talking, they all became interested in Nuhu Ribadu and his campaign,” Mr Akinyede said in a telephone interview.

“They wanted to
know how to get involved in the campaign. Two of them requested
souvenirs like caps and T-shirts. They were excited when I promised to
get it across to them.” Doba Afolabi, a New York-based painter who
himself has, twice in the last month, sent money home to his aged
mother using the “who-will-you-vote-for” test question, said the
campaign strategy is paying off.

“We are trying to
tap the power of our remittances,” Mr Afolabi said one recent Saturday
afternoon as he drove towards the venue of a campaign meeting. “My
nephew, through whom I sent money to my mother, did not know about
Ribadu and his campaign. But he is now one of the most vociferous
supporters of Ribadu. He’s passing the message along to his friends and
other family members, telling them about the importance of a Ribadu
presidency to our country

Dictating the tune

Nigeria is the
number one remittance receiving country in sub-Saharan Africa.
According to the World Bank’s latest Migration and Remittances Factbook
2011 released in November, the country of 150 million people received
$10 billion (about 1.5 trillion Nigerian naira) from remittances;
followed, in a distant second, by Sudan, with $3.2 billion. The bulk of
the money is believed to come from the United States, where Nigerians
are the single largest contemporary African immigrant group with a
population of over 165,000 people, according to the year 2000 census.

“There are several
thousands of us here and we send home billions of dollars,” said Bukola
Oreofe, executive director of the pro-democracy group, Nigerian Liberty
Democratic Forum. “It is high time we realized the importance of our
remittances and take advantage of it to be more economically and
politically relevant at home.” Nigerians at home generally regard their
compatriots abroad as more sophisticated, better educated and
successful and thus think highly of their opinions, said Omolade
Adunbi, an assistant professor of Afro-American and African Studies at
the University of Michigan. Mr Adunbi is intrigued by the
who-will-you-vote-for campaign.

“The fact is that
most people who send money home are breadwinners of their families and
their opinions carry a lot of weight,” he said in a telephone
interview. “If I am sending you money and I request you to campaign for
and vote for Ribadu, you most likely won’t do otherwise because you
won’t want me to stop sending money.” Ms Ayobami obviously wanted her
boyfriend to keep the dollars coming.

After she left the
bank that day after receiving the money sent to her, she rang Mr
Adesina who informed her at length about Mr Ribadu’s track record and
the edge he has over other presidential candidates.

On a visit home that weekend, the university student said she
discussed Mr Ribadu with her grandmother who happened to know more
about the anti-corruption activist. By the time she returned to school
two days later, she had become one of Ribadu’s staunchest supporters.
“Corruption is the biggest problem our country face and we need a man
like Ribadu to fight it,” she said. “If the election is free and fair,
I am sure he will win because most Nigerians want him.”

A country bound to violence

Somalia’s chaos did not start
today. It started 20 years ago when the then military government of
Mohammed Barre, was over thrown by factions who are from different
regions and from different areas of Somalia – each one fighting to
liberate the part they were in. Unfortunately, they never united. So,
since 1991, we have a number of fighting groups, on clan basis, each
one trying to overcome the other clan. Then, there was a period of US
and UN intervention from ‘92 – ‘93.
Unfortunately, they didn’t stay
long enough to create peace and stability, so in a way, that made this
chaos to be protracted and to go further until today.
Then came the warlords’ era, which
ended in 2006 or 2005 when the Islamic courts took over Mogadishu. At
that time, of course, the transitional government, which was elected in
Nairobi in Kenya in 2005, was in a place called Johar, not far from
Mogadishu. The parliament was in Baydawa in another regional capital.
Apparently the Islamic courts tried to get rid of this transitional
federal government. Then of course, the fighting started again between
the forces of the TFG, supported by Ethiopian forces, and that’s when
eager countries and the AU created AMISOM. Since then, the government
took over Mogadishu, but it never had the possibility really and the
support from the International Community and the United Nations
Security Council who always dilly dallied in sending any troops there.
The only relief was 5000 African troops, African mission. It was
supposed to be 8000 or so, but that has never been completed. The
Somali government, as late as a few days ago, even Kenya and Uganda,
the East African group, are asking the Security Council to approve a
number of UN peacekeeping force to be added to the AMISOM to have a
hybrid force like in Darfur. We hope, if that succeeds, that
stabilisation can come in due course.

Brief stay of UN peacekeeping forces

The mandate of the UN peacekeeping
force is to bring peace and stability. In places like the DRC and the
Congo, they have been there for a long time, although they are talking
about reducing their number. In Somalia unfortunately, it took them
about three years, four years maximum. When the UN left, then the
vacuum was taken over by warlords. Mogadishu alone had about four
warlords. This created the disintegration. It was not created by the
UN, but the fact that they left before stabilisation brought
deterioration, far more deterioration than what was there before.

International concern over piracy

Piracy did not begin from the
start of the conflict. As the internal war for dominance continued and
the nation’s government disappeared, the coasts went undefended and
became fair game for big fishing companies, encroaching on the
livelihood of Somali fishermen. When they turned to piracy and that
proved successful, more young men out of work and armed with guns took
to the seas to find their loot.
Now in 2007 and 2008, the whole
world began to realise that this was a huge problem. They created a
coast guard system, but when these young men have tasted the profits of
ransoms, they started going farther – up to the Seychelles, up to
Kenya, Tanzania and the Comoros – as far as that, so that the whole
western part of the Indian Ocean has become infected or infested. The
courts can deal with those who have been captured, so it will see the
pirates at the final end, not at the beginning. The beginning happens
on land, so it doesn’t stop them. It will never stop them.

Thinking of a way out of the crisis

The way out is first of all to
give support. The government now has trained the forces, a number of
them, which combined with AMISOM. And, if fortunately the Security
Council approves the United Nations’ peacekeeping component, they can
cope, even this will take us to the piracy issue. They have trained
about 1,000 coast guards, but there is no equipment, there are no
supplies. They need all the supplies and equipment they can get.
Furthermore, even salaries, which were promised by the international
community to pay these forces, are not forthcoming, even for AMISOM
soldiers. It took them a long time before they were paid, and up till
now, there is no security of payment from month to month. So these are
bottlenecks that again create further deterioration of the situation.
When people have no salary to survive on, how can they go and fight
people who have all the political and religious motivations? They get
all the equipment, they get the supplies, they get all the money. So
how can you overcome this when you have only few – six thousand maximum
armed forces that are not even regularly paid?
As a way out, we need to build
really functional, well-equipped national forces, security forces. We
need to reform the judiciary and do something about the young people in
the country. These young people are now surviving by the gun, so you
have to give them jobs. You have to attract them (lure them away) from
the war and piracy.
The UN secretary general has
proposed three phases, but we are still in the first phase. The first
phase was to send in humanitarian forces.

Nuhu Ribadu, the presidential aspirant of the Action congress of Nigeria [ACN] commiserated with families of the victims of the Jos bomb blasts in Abuja today but also challenged the administration to respond to the worsening security situations in the country.

Speaking to journalists in Abuja, Mr. Ribadu said “My heart goes to the families of the victims; but the government must wake up and ensure they provide adequate security for Nigerians.
“it is unfortunate that the security lapses in our country have continued to increase. This is a joyous season and it not appropriate for people to get apprehensive at a time like this. Sadness and sorrow should not be what our fellow brothers and sisters in Jos will face at this festive period.”

Mr. Ribadu said the current Chriatmas tragedy in Jos further underscores the central role that security plays in the building of a democratic society that can ensure development, peace and progress for the country.
“It is clear to me that we need to urgently address the cancer of insecurity in our country. The major indicators of this crisis are too glaring to be missed. We need to fiercely challenge the insecurity that stalks the Nigerian soil,” he told journalists.

“Am I saying that security is the only problem facing our country?” Ribadu asked rhetorically, adding, “No. My point is that after about half a century of independence, the inability to realize the great vision of modernity and effective governance is directly related to our inability to ensure the security of lives and properties of the people.

An obviously sad Ribadu, linked the insecurity in the country to the deep seated corruption in the land, saying, “this act of reckless state plunder is so prevalent in our country today and this represents one of the greatest human tragedy that has shackled our progress as a people and society. We cannot continue like this he retorted. We can’t.”

Olanrewaju Fagbohun, a Research Professor of Law
at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of Lagos,
speaks on environmental agencies and enforcement of environmental laws in
Nigeria.

There are numerous laws
guiding the use of our environment in Nigeria. Do you think they are having the
necessary impact?

It is true that there are numerous laws aimed at environmental
protection in Nigeria. Regrettably, it cannot be said that they are having the
necessary impact. Nigeria spans some 924,000 square kilometres. The country is
endowed with rich environment and natural resource base. These are continually
being destroyed, degraded and desecrated. What is odd is that in terms of talk,
Nigeria has remained a key player in all global environmental initiatives. In
terms of concrete actions, however, we still have a long way to go.

Is it a case of weak
environmental laws, or weak enforcers, or both?

The problem is that there is a weak link between the law and
enforcement of the laws. There are many reasons for this, the major one is
corruption; next to this is inconsistencies in some of our laws; then, weak
capacity. Also the unrealistic nature of some of the laws, and by this I mean
when targets are ridiculously high or fines are too low. There is also the
problem of weak capacity and unnecessary conflicts between implementing
institutions. These are the serious threats, gaps and barriers to enforcement.

Do you think there is a
need to review the NESREA Act so it would be up to date with current
environmental challenges?

I would not say there is a need to review the National
Environmental Standard and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act, which
is the legislation that repealed the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
(FEPA) Act. Rather, I would say we should be more proactive in enforcement. Let
there be a clear signal that it is not the status of the “individual” that
would determine whether a law will or will not be enforced.

In fairness to NESREA, I must say that the agency under the able
leadership of Dr. Ngeri Benebo has been doing a lot in recent times, not only
in sensitising the populace on environmental dangers, but also in trying to
push the frontiers of effective enforcement. These efforts need to be continued
and broadened.

There are lots of
agencies saddled with environmental responsibilities, yet we still have
pollution problems. What do you think is responsible?

You are correct in saying there are too many agencies saddled
with environmental responsibilities and yet, we are having increased problems
with pollution. The problems is not so much with the different agencies,
rather, it is the failure to properly integrate, harmonise and interface their
activities.

We are all agreed that the Federal Ministry of Environment is
the primary body saddled with environmental protection, but then, you find out
that the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) in the case of the oil and gas
sector is saddled with the functions of environmental regulation of oil and gas
activities while NESREA (which is the Ministry’s real enforcement arm) has no
role to play. What we should have had in that kind of situation is proper
delineation of functions. Let the DPR regulate technical issues in the sector;
NESREA enforce compliance with environmental requirements; while the National
Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) takes charge of emergency
response and clean-up. They will coordinate their activities to avoid
duplication through inter-agency consultations. This synergy is unfortunately
lacking in our system and is an appropriate loophole for potential offenders to
exploit.

How would third party
involvement help in setting better environmental standards?

There are too many obstacles for the participation of Civil
Society and non-governmental organisations. There is a need for government to
realise that it cannot do it alone. There is serious lack of access to justice.
There is an urgent need for the obstacles placed in the way of third parties to
be removed.

Let us start to seriously rethink issues relating to standing,
pre-action notice and time limitation in the way they apply to environmental
issues. The philosophy and theoretical considerations underpinning these
concepts are not applicable to environmental issues.

What in your opinion do
you think is the best way to tackle environmental problems as it relates to
monitoring and enforcement?

The best way to tackle environmental crisis of monitoring and
enforcement is for the system to be structured in such a way that all
stakeholders will be able to play their roles effectively. The citizens
(public) are there to act as a watchdog for the agencies of the Executive arm
of government and keep them on their toes. Right now, the civil society is not
able to play that role.

The judiciary is also largely bound to rules and concepts that
do not allow them the freedom to distinguish between environmental issues and
other issues. A number of our judges have been sensitised, but, they are still
hemmed in by old rules.