PAGE 12
Opinion
PEOPLES DAILY, Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Who will rescue our University of Ibadan?
Still a wobbly tripod By Jerome-Mario Utomi
I
n one of my opinion pieces published about four years ago and entitled; Wobbly Tripod and Doctrine of Trinity, I narrated how as a young lad, I grappled with the teaching about the doctrine of Trinity. To refresh our minds, it was during my catechism class as a Catholic Christian and the topic of Trinity posed a huge task to me. This doctrine is a dogma which teaches that God, the Supreme Being, is actually three persons in one. These three persons, as I was later told, are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit coexisting as one entity sharing equality in substance, essence and divinity. This teaching which I had considered strange and untenable logic left me lost in the maze of high voltage confusion as I laboured to fathom how possible it was to compress three persons into one. Though I was totally disoriented by the logic of Trinity I tried not to betray my disconnect with the topic. Alas! I could not pretend for too long that I was flowing with the class for my teacher soon observed the utter confusion and frustration raging in my mind. And to douse the nagging helplessness enveloping me as regards comprehending what he was dishing out, he quickly declared, “Trinity is a mystery.” However, rather than clear my confusion, his declaration further left me crestfallen. What is a mystery, Sir? I found myself asking. He then went ahead to define mystery as “a revealed truth that is beyond human understanding but guided by the Holy Spirit.” Each time I ruminate over the
present separatist bug which has caught all sections of the country and place it side by side with the marriage of two unwilling brides who had no say in their forced and ill-fated union- amalgamation of the northern and the southern protectorates on the 14th February 1914,a day set aside to celebrate love all over the world, by Sir Lord Luggard- as well as the pre- and post-independence political structure of Nigeria, memories of my catechism class Trinity confusion come flooding. The British colonial overlords probably intended the protectorates to operate in a symmetrical manner with no part of the amalgam claiming superiority over the other. This arrangement conferred on the fledgling country the form of the Biblical trinity explained above. And at independence in 1960, Nigeria became a federation, resting firmly on a tripod of three federating regions-Northern, Eastern and Western Regions. Each of the regions was economically and politically viable to steer its own ship, yet mutual suspicion among them was rife. In fact, regional loyalty surpassed nationalistic fervor with each of the three regions at a juncture threatening secession. The late Premier of the Western Region once described Nigeria as “mere geographical expression” and later threatened “we (Western Region) shall proclaim selfgovernment and proceed to assert it”, a euphemism for secession. In the same vein, the Northern Region under the Premiership of the late Ahmadu Bello never hid its desire for separate identity. Just before independence, the region threatened to pull out of Nigeria if it
By Festus Adedayo was not allocated more parliamentary seats than the south. The departing British colonial masters, desirous of one big entity, quickly succumbed to the threat. In fact, the north at that time did pretend it never wanted to have anything to do with Nigeria. For example, the motto of the ruling party in that region at that time was “One North, One People, One Destiny.” And the name of the party itself “Northern People’s Congress, NPC,” was suggestive of separatist fervor, distinct identity. However, of all the secession threats since independence it was the one issued by the Eastern Region in 1966-67 following the bloody countercoup of July 1966 and subsequent genocide by northern soldiers and civilians in which thousands of easterners living in the north lost their lives or maimed, and the failure of Gowon to implement the Aburi Accord which was aimed at settling the crisis, that was much more potent because it was actually carried out. The result was the declaration of Eastern Region independent country with the name, “Biafra” on May 30, 1967 by the then Military Governor of the Region, the late General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. Currently, a wave of secessionist sentiments is sweeping across the country with restive youths in the north and south east as the main gladiators. Some groups in the southwest and south-south have also joined the fray to demand the marriage of 1914 be ended as the basis for its continued existence has severely been weakened. However, the very vociferous agitation for Biafra’s restoration by Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, led by youthful Nnamdi Kanu has been the
loudest of the separatist movements. Though separatist bug has also caught some sections of the country, there is no denying the fact that even with the defeat of the Igbo in the Nigeria/Biafra civil war, the majority of the people, especially those born after the war harbour immense sentiment for separate political and cultural identity for the Igbo nation in the mould of restoration of the short-lived Republic of Biafra. For example, at the return of democracy in 1999, Ralph Uwazurike , an Indian-trained Lawyer, from Imo State ignited a passion for Biafra among south east youths via his separatist platform ‘’ Movement for the Sovereign State of Biafra’’ (MASSOB). MASSOB and its founder enjoyed tremendous following and respect among mostly youths of the region that it almost became an alternative government in the south east. The group’s sit-at- home orders were religiously obeyed just as the one declared by IPOB on May 30th was a monster success. Uwazuruike’s support base has since drastically waned following dissent in MASSOB. But from the ashes of MASSOB’s bye-gone years of strident pro-Biafra agitation came Kanu and IPOB, a much more vitriolic but charming personality and organisation. Kanu happened on the national and international limelight through a pirate radio Biafra which he used as a vehicle to promote the agitation to actualise the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) quest for independence. Two factors have so far worked for Kanu in his separatist agenda: His long incarceration by the Buhari government over Biafra and the recent quit notice given to the Igbo
residing in the north by Arewa youths. Both factors, apparently unknown to President Buhari’s handlers, have helped and still helping IPOB and Kanu’s cause.Fundamentally, his incarceration for almost two years helped to project him to his supporters, a mass of Igbo youths, and the international community as a prisoner of conscience and freedom fighter. While those of us who believe in the unity of Nigeria may not agree with Kanu’s campaign or campaign of any group or ethnic nationality to dismember Nigeria, the truth must be told to the effect that the whole gamut of restiveness of youths, whether in the southeast, south-south, north or southwest, and resurgent demand for the dissolution of Nigeria stem from mindless exclusion, injustice and economic deprivation orchestrated by successive administrations . I believe that the likes of Kanu would instantly fizzle away and their cause dies naturally, if Nigeria is restructured to ensure more inclusiveness. But agitations for the death of Nigeria cannot go way when nepotism and sectionalism continue to be evident in the manner of political patronage and distribution of our common patrimony as currently obtained. But at the present momentprecisely four years after the piece, the nation is still but a Wobbly Tripod. Utomi is the Programme Coordinator (Media and Policy), Social and Economic Justice Advocacy (SEJA), Lagos. He could be reached via;jeromeutomi@ yahoo.com
U.S. country reports on Human Rights practices mirror narrow understanding, hegemonic thinking By Chang Jian
T
he U.S. Department of State on March 30 issued its 45th annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In the reports, the U.S. once again takes its narrow understanding of human rights as the so-called criteria to judge others, and considers all situations that vary from its criteria as “human rights violation.” The White House employs the reports as a tool to oppress other countries that have different political systems, trying everything to tarnish the latter so as to maintain its hegemony in the world. The U.S. claims that the reports cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements. However, what have been set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements are not only civil and political rights of individuals, but also their economic, social and cultural rights. Besides, apart from worker rights, these documents also protect the rights of special groups including ethnic
minorities, women, children, persons with disabilities and seniors. In addition, massive resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the UN and the UN Human Rights Council were about a series of individual and collective human rights, including the right to subsistence, right to development, right to peace and right to environment. It’s weird that in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the U.S., only personal freedom and political rights, which are extremely highlighted under the American state system, are included. Such selection fully exposed the intention of the White House to force its political and social systems on all countries in rest of the world. Just as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in the preface of the reports, that the U.S. is committed to placing human rights at the center of its foreign policy. When the U.S. takes such standard as a universal gauge to measure other countries that have different political systems, the human rights conditions of the latter would be described as extremely poor. It’s not surprising that Blinken is calling white black when talking about the human rights situation of the last year in the reports.
PAGE 13
PEOPLES DAILY, Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Speaking of COVID-19, he says the pandemic impacted not only individuals’ health, but their abilities to safely enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is how the failure of pandemic control in the U.S. is glossed over with “democratic values and processes” used to protect citizens. The U.S. is witnessing a tragedy of 30 million infections and over 500,000 deaths. Is this a desired result of the so-called “democratic values and processes?” On the contrary, China and other countries have taken decisive measures to contain the spread of the virus, trying their best to protect their people’s rights to life and health. However, they are repeatedly slandered by the U.S. due to their efforts. What a shame on some of the politicians in the U.S.! Is not taking any measures and letting the virus spread a way to protect human rights? Placing personal freedom above people’s rights to health and life is exactly one of the major reasons of how the White House turned the U.S. into one of the most plagued countries in the world. However, it is taken by the U.S. as a doctrine to judge other countries. Aren’t there enough negative examples offered by
the country? Based on such narrow and arrogant human rights criteria, the U.S. government gives positive evaluation on whoever adopts American political system and democratic processes, regardless of the results, and criticizes and oppresses those who don’t. In the reports, there is barely any trace of the lasting protests across the U.S. triggered by the outrage over the death of George Floyd, or the violence at the U.S. Capitol following the presidential election, or the discrimination and hate crimes against Asians during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the reports give a thumb up to the turmoil in China’s Hong Kong, Belarus, Nigeria and Venezuela. The reports are silent about how many protesters the U.S. has arrested, but pretend to be righteous and call the education and vocational training offered by China to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism in Xinjiang a crime. The reports ignore how the U.S. has launched wars, violated sovereignty of other countries, killed civilians and abused unilateral sanctions across the world, but attack the governments of Syria, Yemen, Cuba and Venezuela, all victims of the U.S. hegemony.
Such typical politicizing of human rights and double standard are described by Blinken as “objective and comprehensive information.” How impressive it is! The narrow understanding of human rights of the U.S. led to massive tragedies amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and the so-called human rights diplomacy of the country undermined world peace and brought human rights disasters to other parts of the world. It’s foreseeable that the U.S. would create much more tragic events across the world if the White House insists on going down the wrong path and keeps acting irresponsibly. The U.S. government had better face the facts, reflect on its human rights tragedies, immediately stop forcing on other countries its narrowminded human rights philosophy that has been proved invalid, and completely abandon its hegemony and double standard on human rights issues. Chang Jian is the director of the Center for Human Rights Studies, Nankai University, and a professor with the university’s Zhou Enlai School of Government
T
he University of Ibadan, popularly known as UI, is currently undergoing one of its most challenging moments. The university that was once a great point of reference, even from its University College glory days, is now marooned as the epicenter of self-centered politics and everything-but-academic considerations. This has resulted in the threat against all those lofty achievements credited to this centre of learning, with the fear that they may be subsumed in the sewage. In the race for the Vice Chancellor office of the university is the proverbial wind that blew and the naked rump of a university associated with Professor Kenneth Dike is seen in its manifest dirt and rot. UI, in its 73 years existence, had been dragged backwards severally by issues not strictly academic. From its Crescent and Cross crisis of the 1980s which pitted Islam adherents against Christian worshippers on its campus, to
another religious war at its staff school which shot UI’s name into records of infamy, as well as allegations of plagiarism against some academics, the succession crisis of 2020 that the university sunk into after the expiration of the tenure of Professor of Applied Geophysics, Abel Idowu Olayinka, launched the school into another signpost of religion and tribe. A university that signposted the luscious growth of the academy for 73 years, began to dance to ethnic and religious tunes. In same 2020, Ibadan indigenes asked that Olayinka’s successor must hail from the former capital of the Western Region, while another group also came up to ask that whoever would be the next VC must wear a lapel of religion. The ghost of the Kenneth Dikes must feel insulted and assaulted. Those who know say that the idea of the universe which the university stands for ended in UI with the glorious administration of Professor of Engineering, Olufemi Adebisi Bamiro and died with ex-Minister of Health,
Isaac Adewole’s administration. His administration was said to have focused on governing the university like political governance. The carcass of the university was also said to have been exhumed by Olayinka and is threatening to die again, judging by the throes that the appointment of a VC for the school is undergoing. With Adewole, the VC began to drive in a convoy like political office holders and the VC appointed a Chief of Staff. It took the wise counsel intervention of the National Universities Commission (NUC) to stop this descent into the sewage of political governance by a respected academic institution. Under Adewole, the main engagement of the university descended from strict academy to infrastructure, with the VC trapped inside the vortex of multiple contract awards. Today, contracts awarded by Adewole are said to be such that the contracts’ terminal life will outlive two VCs to come. The stake then increased for whoever would become the
Comment VC, commerce looming very large on the cards. Like they do in chieftaincies, lineups of who would be VCs for more than four consecutive terms were structured to reflect the “Adewole boys” professors. The clash of egos then became the second important factor in the UI crisis, with the afobaje (anointer) seeking to be relevant, even after leaving office. Today, University of Ibadan oscillates on an uncertain loop. The several tendencies described above are competing heavily to outdo one another. As the tendencies clash, threatening to boomerang, the university’s Senate then met and appointed Professor of Philosophy and former DVC Academics under Olayinka, Adebola Ekanola, as its Acting Vice Chancellor, beginning from Dec. 1, 2020. Other tendencies are that of Adewole, manifested in Professor of Chemistry, Kayode Adebowale, who analyst said was Olayinka’s proposed successor, having served under him. Professor Abideen Aderinto, who personified the
Muslim tendency, was Adewole’s candidate. Thus, apart from the Christian/Muslim tendencies of Adebowale and Aderinto, the clash between Olayinka and Adewole is also a very dominant, with Adewole allegedly bringing in the fourth factor, the federal push, which manifests in suspected partisan intervention of the Minister of Education, Adamu Adamu, who allegedly dances to the Adewole beat. The University of Ibadan must reclaim itself from all these mundane tendencies and return to the business of academy. Stooges and surrogates of Abuja politicians who fool us with their scalpels and stethoscopes, with intention to turn our precious UI into a fiefdom, must be shown the way out. This can only be done by a proper assurance of the place of teaching and research in the university. Politicians masquerading as academics must be weeded out for the university to retain its sanity. Festus Adedayo is a Public Affairs Analyst.
A microeconomic analysis of BUA versus Dangote price fixing conflict By Muhammad Sagir Bauchi
A
round October 1929, values of stocks in the New York Stock Exchange (NSE) market dropped to an unprecedented record level. Within three days, many investors loss about five billion dollars. Towards the end of the year, major banks and investment companies lost about USD Eleven Billion. That loss, led to closing of factories and laying off their workers, as economists forecasted more hard times ahead. But, in places like Iowa and Midwestern states, economic hard times were already in place Ten years earlier. During the world war, the central government (US) guaranteed farmers of high prices for their crops and Livestock. farmers took advantage of that and increased their agricultural output, and also, expand their herds. The farmers gained a lot from that favour. In the early 1930s, the world witnessed the aftermath of the World War I, which was known as “THE GREAT DEPRESSION “. During that period, the world witnessed a drastic fall in all economic activities. Factories were closed and many economic entities collapsed. Prices of goods and services skyrocketed, unemployment was high due to loss of jobs. During that period, classical economists were the theorists that authorities resorted to for economic advices and plans. As such, they were of the idea that the economy would move back to equilibrium position even without governments intervention by what they term as “INVISIBLE HANDS”-FORCES OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY. John Maynard Keynes, was a radical economist that did not subscribed to that economic idea of the classical economists. He was the person that guided the then U.S govt out of that great economic depression. In his response to the idea of self adjustment of the economy in the long run, he
opined that “in the Long run, we’re all deads” as such, he want the authorities to do away with ideas of the free market economy advocates, and intervene to stabilize prices and supplies from disequillibrium and correct the economic abnormalities. Fortunately, the authorities heed his ideas and act accordingly. With his advices, they successfully overcome the great depression. In Nigeria, we’re operating oligopoly where few firms produces for millions. They dominated the markets, determines the supplies in low quantity and also determines the price above margin which in itself is abnormal situations. While In real monopolies, monopolists control only one tool. Either price or supply, but here they controls both. And this is as a result of huge FAVOURs they enjoyed from the authorities through policies they lobbied. That’s why we are in a perpetual inflation as huge amount of money is chasing few goods produced by these Oligopolistic firms. Economics Science, is divided into two categories. They are: Microeconomic and Macroeconomic. Microeconomic, studies individual households, and business decisions. It also focused on demand and supply, and other variables that determine price levels. In a nutshell, microeconomics tries to analyze human choice, decision and the allocation of resources. On the other hand, Macroeconomics, studies the decision made by government as a whole, such as decision of a government in regards to inflation, price stability, unemployment and so on. Macroeconomics, takes into account the economy as a whole. As such, it takes a bottom line approach to determine the course and nature of an economic phenomena. Recently, a competitive -war broke out between the two dominant producers of the Nigeria sugar industry;
Dangote & BUA. In microeconomics, the war is known as “Price War”. It is a situation where two rival firms reduced the price of their commodity in order to increase their revenue and market share. Normally, they did that for a short run. Whenever the war is intense, the rival firm usually react by setting a price lower than the price set by the other rival firm. They’ll keep on with that until they reach a point known as ‘PERFECT COMPETITIVE PRICE’, where none could either reduce or increase his price. And if one increase his price, he will loose his customers to his rival. And if he reduce his price, he will surely incur loss. So, no matter what transferred, the consumers are the gainers. Surely, they will only go for a commodity with a lower price, since that the commodities are identical and can serve the same purpose. But, was the action of BUA emanated from his empathy for the poor? Probably, and from the Microeconomic point of view, no, but only a strategy employed to gain more dominance in the industry, and also, to increase revenues and market share. Adam Smith, who is known as the father of modern capitalism, lived all his life on a philosophy known as “SELF LOVE”. With this, he meant that, man is naturally selfish. He loves himself more than anyone else. In his quest to better himself, he can extend to benefit others. But his intention was to better himself not them. And in the cause of that, he’ll count his gain from the people he bettered. For instance, when a private school is established, the school contribute in three ways; providing employment, imparting knowledge to the pupils, and above all, served as a means of income generating to the proprietor. So, here, the proprietor brought what will bettered his society, but his intention is to MAXIMIZE HIS PROFIT. That is why the SCHOOL FEES usually vary from time to time.
This is a typical example of our modern CAPITALIST. They can go extra mile to better themselves in the expense of the poor masses. And they usually hide in the veil of WELFARISM, while in reality, maximization of their profit is what matter them, not the welfare of the society. Adam Smith, in his Capitalist Bible, “The wealth of a nation” gave a best description of the capitalist, where he said, “It is not from the benevolence (kindness) of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. So, with the action of BUA, he will reap at least three things; increase his revenue and market share, attract the customers of his rival and gain a big place in the heart of his customers. In every game, there are two players. One may be smarter or wiser than the other. In this saga, BUA is smarter than his rival. For his single statement made to his dealers is capable of destroying his rival in the industry. His statement, “HIKE PRICE AND LOOSE YOUR LICENSE” portrayed his rival as a WICKED being. While in reality, he was only employing market politics to do away with his rival in either way. But if we are little bit away from looking at the action of BUA from a face value, we can agree that, he did the right thing by choosing to go for a small profit and increase his sales, and also put smile on the faces of his final consumers. And he’s smarter than his rival. Dangote Group, in their quest to retaliate the action of their rival, they filled a petition to the Minister of Industry, where they accused their rival with operating in impunity, acting contrary to laws laid by the National Sugar Policy by selling their products locally instead of otherwise. As such, they wants them to closed the firms of their rival! This is purely a case of dominance. And it is in nature of human being that they don’t want to be in competition
in whatever they do. But, to be frank, Dangote exhibit what could be simply regards as “selfishness” in this his reaction. Instead of seeking for government assistance to defeat his rival, he should’ve reacted with pity and a sense of sacrificing some of his profits to retain his customers, thereby reducing his price lower than the price set by his rival! As such, his customers would be retain, and he will have surely boxed out his rival out of the market. But calling for government to shut down his rivals industry will do more harm than good to his market in the eyes of their customers. Because, people always chose to reside with those they believe to be oppressed. In this saga, people view BUA as a Hero and Dangote as a villain. So, if he truly want to retain his hard earned reputation as business-philantropist magnet in order not to lose his customers, he must act wisely. For a mistake at this stage will surely hunt him in the future. Price war is nothing new in free market economy. It is just a strategy employed for industry dominance. At the end, government must come in, to address the issue in contention, in order to safeguard it’s national development, which is correcting inflation, generating employment and stabilizing the market/economy, thereby, creating an enable environment for other investors in the sector and to facilitate more competition in the Industry. By doing this, it will create more job opportunities and stabilize the price of commodities since that each of the firms would be wary of increasing their price to avoid loosing their customers to their rival. Sagir Ibrahim is a Student of Economics in Bauchi State University, Gadau. He writes from Bauchi, and can be reached via ibrahimsagir1227@gmail.com