THE NATION WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 9, 2013
19
COMMENTARY EDITORIAL FROM OTHER LAND
EDITORIALS
Assad and the U.S. are blind to reality in Syria
Subsidy suit •We wonder if the suit to cancel subsidy is a ploy supported by the Jonathan administration
T
HE emergence, in the dying days of last year, of a chary suit asking the court to compel President Goodluck Jonathan to remove fuel subsidy, even when he has promised not to do so in a recent Presidential Chat, has left several public mouths agape. One Stanley Okeke, reportedly described as a ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain in Anambra State had filed the suit in a Federal High Court, in which he listed as defendants the President and two of his ministers: Diezani Alison-Madueke, Minister of Petroleum, and Dr. Ngozi OkonjoIweala, the Minister of Finance. Okeke is peremptorily asking the court through a 27-paragraph affidavit to which he deposed to determine, among others: Whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is validly competent to order the removal and or abolish the fuel subsidy scheme in view of the official corruption and abuse of office inherent in the fuel subsidy regime; whether it would be proper and lawful for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to completely remove and abolish the fuel subsidy regime despite the perennial fuel shortages and the attendant long queues in our filling stations; whether it would be proper to re-channel funds meant for fuel subsidy scheme into the building of infrastructural facilities, despite the fact that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, being appointees of the President, by not ensuring a corruption-free subsidy regime, have not failed in their principal duty to Nigerians. Equally, he wants the court to make an order directing Okonjo-Iweala to stop fur-
ther payment of fuel subsidy because, in his words, the payments had been corrupt, illegal and unlawful; and to compel the President to return to the Federation Account “such money earlier appropriated and or approved for the payment of fuel subsidy.” The suit has generated serious public opprobrium. Understandably too, because Nigerians were taken through such contentiously deceitful judicial path during the June 12, 1993 presidential election crisis, the public is being wary of this perceived double-faced suit. In 1993, a group, Association for Better Nigeria (ABN), went to court, pretending to be fighting for the country’s democratic interest, but was later discovered to be hatching the machinations of the then ruling military hegemony. What could then be the real motive of Okeke, a staunch member of the president’s party? Could his motive be altruistic or motivated by unseen official goading? Nigerians believe that the suit is a ploy to mischievously use the judiciary to remove fuel subsidy. And this is why the Save Nigeria Group (SNG), civil society organisations and notable Nigerians have reportedly criticised it. Mr. Femi Falana, human rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, an elder statesman, among others, reportedly described the suit as a “dubious diversion” that must be aborted. We have no doubt that the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) will join in fighting any attempt to remove fuel subsidy through the back door. Some civil society
organisations have promised to join the suit to oppose the plaintiff and the interests being represented. The NLC should equally offer itself to be joined too. Nigerians should not be punished for the racketeering of fuel smugglers ripping the public till through orchestrated claims of fuel subsidy money. We recognise the right of Okeke to approach the court, but there is the urgent need to be convinced about his true intentions; more so since the suit is not that of a class action. Nigerians are better informed and cautious now because of their recent history. We want to know, just as the public is craving to know, whether Okeke’s suit is inspired by love for the people or love for government, or even love for self?
‘Nigerians believe that the suit is a ploy to mischievously use the judiciary to remove fuel subsidy. And this is why the Save Nigeria Group (SNG), civil society organisations and notable Nigerians have reportedly criticised it. Mr. Femi Falana, human rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, an elder statesman, among others, reportedly described the suit as a “dubious diversion” that must be aborted’
A call for transparency • Full disclosure needed on award of contract to rehabilitate the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway
W
HEN, on November 19, 2012 the Federal Government revoked its contract of reconstructing the dilapidated Lagos-Ibadan Expressway with Bi-Courtney Highways Services Limited , many Nigerians heaved a sigh of relief. The government said it was compelled to take the step because the concessionaire had serially breached terms of the contract and failed to perform. Carnage on the old highway was another reason given for terminating the agreement. Minister of Works, Mr. Mike Onolememen, who announced the government’s decision, also explained that two construction giants, Julius Berger and RCC, had been picked for the task of immediately rehabilitating the ever-busy road. Two weeks later, the minister was on hand again to announce that the two companies had been given a deadline of eight weeks to make the road motorable and stop avoidable deaths caused by the bad portions. It has since been observed that the companies have been at work. It is however disturbing that the government has failed to be transparent in awarding the contract. Nigerians deserve to know what the rehabilitation is costing taxpayers. It is unacceptable that provisions of the law would be wilfully breached by elected officials of state. The Public Procurement Act is clear on the procedure for award of major contracts. At the time of award of the concession of the road to Bi-Courtney in May 2009, the public was told that it would cost the concessionaire N89 billion to meet the specifications. Now that emergency work has been commissioned, we deserve to know the terms - the cost, scope and the fine details. The point must be made that, even for good causes, public fund must
be judiciously expended. It is even more intriguing that the plan to build up the capacity of the road to carry the heavy traffic it bears has been broken into two. The first phase, expected to be concluded by the end of this month, is just for rehabilitation. Thereafter, the minister has disclosed that the more desired expansion of scope and modernisation would be contracted. Why didn’t the Federal Government go the whole hog at once? After terminating the contract with Bi-Courtney, the process of ensuring that road users do not have to wait unduly ought to have been activated at once by getting the project advertised, bids invited and the contract awarded in record time without infringing on the law. The contractors could then have been mandated to ensure a rehabilitation to proceed with reconstruction and remodelling. The government owes the people a duty to explain what it plans to do with the road now. Would it be handed another concessionaire on similar terms? Would it be a regular contract to be financed and funded by the Federal Government? How many lanes shall we expect on each side as well as other amenities like rest areas, etc. These are simple decisions that should be made by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) and pushed to the public for input. If it must be concessioned, the pitfalls that dogged the relationship with BiCourtney must be avoided this time. A scrutiny must be carried out to ensure that only firms with requisite experience, interest and financial muscle are brought on board. Besides, despite the road being federal, it is important to carry along states that are direct stakeholders, that is Lagos,
Ogun and Oyo whose people live along the corridor. The point was made early enough by the governors of the Southwest who even opted to take over the task to ease the burden of traffic snarl and the impediment it had constituted for integration. It is repugnant that the Federal Government is already talking about tolling the road after rehabilitation this month. This does not only constitute policy inconsistency, but amounts as well to exploitation. We see no justification for the return of toll gates that were dismantled at a hefty cost under the Obasanjo administration when reconstruction work is yet to commence. While the road that links Lagos, the commercial nerve centre of the country, to the West, East and North deserves expeditious attention, the law must be respected and it must be awarded at the most competitive price and to those with the capacity to do a thorough job.
‘The government owes the people a duty to explain what it plans to do with the road now. Would it be handed another concessionaire on similar terms? Would it be a regular contract to be financed and funded by the Federal Government? How many lanes shall we expect on each side as well as other amenities like rest areas, etc. These are simple decisions that should be made by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) and pushed to the public for input’
S
YRIAN PRESIDENT Bashar al-Assad delivered a speech Sunday that had the virtue, at least, of offering clarity. No, he insisted, he would not step down. He would not negotiate with the rebels who control much of the countryside and parts of major cities. He would not consider the compromise “transition” proposal being pedaled by a U.N. envoy with the backing of his ally Russia, as well as the United States. Instead, he said, he would fight to the end against “enemies of God and puppets of the West.” The State Department offered a succinct judgment on Mr. Assad’s hour-long speech, his first in six months: “His initiative is detached from reality, undermines the efforts of [U.N.] Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, and would only allow the regime to further perpetuate its bloody oppression of the Syrian people.” After 22 months of protests and civil war in which his regime has steadily lost ground, Mr. Assad is offering the same hollow political formulas and slogans about terrorists that he has clung to all along. The tragedy is that there is scant sign that Mr. Assad will be compelled to face reality any time soon. Despite their gains, Syria’s rebels continue to lack the heavy weapons necessary to break the regime’s hold over Damascus or to stop the artillery, missiles and planes Mr. Assad is using to pummel cities. With the United States and other Western governments refusing to help, recent reports have said that rebel arms supplies are drying up. Last week, U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay estimated that more than 60,000 people have been killed in Syria, a “massive loss of life [that] could have been avoided if the Syrian government had chosen to take a different path than one of ruthless suppression of what were initially peaceful and legitimate protests by unarmed civilians.” She added: “Unless there is a quick resolution to the conflict, I fear thousands more will die or suffer terrible injuries as a result of those who harbor the obstinate belief that something can be achieved by more bloodshed, more torture and more mindless destruction.” The Assad speech made clear that the ruler and his clique remain locked in that belief. But it also illuminated the fecklessness of U.S. policy. The same State Department statement that began by condemning Mr. Assad for undermining Mr. Brahimi concluded by saying that the Obama administration would continue to support the latter’s initiative, along with the “framework for a political solution” that the dictator had just rejected. Like the Syrian regime, the administration has become impervious to fact or real-world developments. Mr. Assad is not the only one who will bear responsibility for the frightful carnage Ms. Pillay’s agency has documented. As she put it, “the failure of the international community, in particular the [U.N.] Security Council, to take concrete actions to stop the bloodletting, shames us all.” Syrians, she said, have “repeatedly asked: ‘Where is the international community? Why aren’t you acting to stop this slaughter?’ We have no satisfactory answer to those questions. Collectively, we have fiddled at the edges while Syria burns.” – Washington Post
TRUTH IN DEFENCE OF FREEDOM Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief Victor Ifijeh • Editor Gbenga Omotoso •Chairman, Editorial Board Sam Omatseye •General Editor Kunle Fagbemi •Editor, Online Lekan Otufodunrin •Managing Editor Northern Operation Yusuf Alli •Managing Editor Waheed Odusile
• Executive Director (Finance & Administration) Ade Odunewu
•Deputy Editor Lawal Ogienagbon
•Advert Manager Robinson Osirike
•Deputy Editor (News) Adeniyi Adesina •Group Political Editor Bolade Omonijo •Group Business Editor Ayodele Aminu •Abuja Bureau Chief Yomi Odunuga •Sport Editor Ade Ojeikere •Editorial Page Editor Sanya Oni
• Gen. Manager (Training and Development) Soji Omotunde •Chief Internal Auditor Toke Folorunsho •Senior Manager (sales) Akeem Shoge
•IT Manager Bolarinwa Meekness •Press Manager Udensi Chikaodi •Manager, Corporate Marketing Hameed Odejayi • Manager (Admin) Folake Adeoye