THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE : DR. PETER AYODELE FAYOSE AND HIS DEPUTY

The law governing the impeachment of a Governor and a Deputy Governor in Nigeria is provided for in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The said Section 188  set out  the conditions precedent to the impeachment of a Governor or Deputy Governor of any State in Nigeria.

Under Section 188 a Governor or Deputy Governor can only be impeached by the State House of Assembly on the ground of gross misconduct after an  allegation of gross  misconduct  has been made against such a Governor or Deputy Governor and the allegation was  thereafter  investigated by an Investigative Panel appointed by the Chief Judge of the State under Section 188 (5).

When I was with the law firm of Awomolo,Otaru & Associates  -  a former partnership  of the duo of  Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN and Mr. Roland Otaru,SAN, wherein the former was the principal partner and the latter was  the managing partner- the firm was briefed by Ekiti State House of Assembly to lead a team of lawyers representing the House before the Investigative Panel appointed by the then Chief Judge to investigate the   allegations of acts of gross misconduct against the  former Executive Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his Deputy. 

The said team was led by  Mr. Roland Otaru,SAN and with the learned SAN were  Gboyega Oyewole (former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice Ekiti State), Tayo Aluko (Afe Babalola & Co), Akintude Esan ( Awomolo,Otaru & Associates ).

Below is  the said Investigative Panel Reports upon which  the  Governor  and his   Deputy Governor were impeached by the Ekiti State House of Assembly.


REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL INTO ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT AGAINST HIS EXCELLENCY, THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE, DR. PETER AYODELE FAYOSE AND HIS DEPUTY CHIEF (MRS.) BIODUN OLUJIMI.



INTRODUCTION

The Ekiti State House of Assembly in accordance with section 188 (5) of 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria requested the Honourable Chief Judge of Ekiti State vide a letter dated the 26th September, 2006 to set up a Seven (7) man panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose (hereinafter referred to as the Governor) and his deputy, Chief (Mrs.) Biodun Olujimi (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Governor).

The Chief Judge of Ekiti State in accordance with relevant provisions of the same 1999 Constitution inaugurated the Seven (7) man panel on the 10th of October, 2006. The names of the Seven-man Panel are as follows.

1. Mr. Remi Bamigboye - Chairman
2. Mr. Alli Apanisile - Member
3. Mr. Sesan Adesuyi - Member
4. Rev. Segun Da-Silva - Member
5. Chief Olu Alade - Member
6. Pastor Solomon Ajisafe Omoniyi - Member
7. Mrs. Olufunmilayo Olukogbon - Member

All the members of the panel were sworn in on the 10th of October, 2006 at the High Court premises, Ado – Ekiti.

OBSERVATION

Immediately after the swearing in ceremony, the Panel sat at the High Court number 2 at Ado Ekiti. The Panel made its inaugural sitting with the counsel representing the Governor in attendance. It should be noted that neither the Ekiti State House of Assembly nor its counsel made any appearance before the Panel on the 10th of October, 2006. The Panel thereafter adjourned its sitting till 12th of October, 2006 by 9.00am to enable the Ekiti State House of Assembly to present its case against the Governor and His Deputy.

Meanwhile, the Panel wrote a letter to the Speaker to enable the Ekiti State House of Assembly, being the petitioner appears before the Panel today, the 12th of October, 2006.

The Panel states that the Chief Judge of Ekiti State has obliged the Panel a copy of allegation as contained in the notice of impeachment against the Governor and his Deputy.

The chairman called on the Ekiti State House of Assembly to open its case. The Panel observed that neither Ekiti State House of Assembly nor its legal representatives were present. The Panel thereafter adjourned till 01:00pm to deliver its report.

REPORT

The conclusions of the Panel is that having regard to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the sensitive nature of the allegations against the Governor and his Deputy, and failure of the Ekiti State House of Assembly to appear before the Panel, the Panel concluded that all the allegations of gross misconduct against the Governor and his Deputy as contained in the notice of impeachment dated 26th of September, 2006 are deemed abandoned by the Ekiti State House of Assembly.

It is trite that, he who alleges must prove beyond reasonable doubt in criminal allegation as it is in this case. The allegations are therefore unsubstantiated, gold digging and therefore failed in its entirety. This Panel hereby absolves the Governor and his deputy of all the allegations contained in the notice of impeachment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION PANEL OF SEVEN PERSONS APPOINTED BY HONOURABLE JUSTICE JUBRILL B.K. ALADEJANA ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF GROSS MISCOUNDUCT LEVELED AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE. DR. AYODELE FAYOSE DATED 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006

Report of the Report of the investigation panel of seven persons appointed by Honourable Justice Jubrill B.K. Aladejana on the allegations of acts of gross misconduct leveled against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State - Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

Introduction: Pursuant to section 188 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, this panel of seven persons was set up by Honourable Justice Jubril B.K. Aladejana on Friday, 13th October 2006.

The seven persons are:

1. Mr. Emmanuel Bamidele Omotoso Chairman
2. Deacon Olajubu Solomon Owoeye Member
3. Eng. Ismail Olowolafe Dayisi Member
4. Mr. Kayode Failani Member
5. Pastor (Mrs) Funmi Adeniyi Member
6. Rev. Father Anthony Oluwole Ijasan Member
7. Major J. O. Odusina (Rtd) Member

Venue: Ekiti State House of Assembly Complex Ado-Ekiti

Rules of procedure: Pursuant to section 188, subsection 7(a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Ekiti State House of Assembly prescribed the Rules of procedure which are 23 in number, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules".

This panel in compliance with section 188 (7) (a) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 exercised its powers and functions in accordance with the Rules.

Notices: Notices of sittings duly signed by the Chairman of the Panel were dispatched to all the parties concerned viz:-

(i) The Speaker of the House,
(ii) The Executive Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and
(iii) The Deputy Governor of Ekiti State – Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi.

Commencement of sittings: Relying on rule 4 of the Rules, the Panel commenced its sitting on 13th October, 2006 at 10.30a.m.

Attendance: The legal Representatives of the House of Assembly and Deputy of Governor of Ekiti State Rowland Otaru, SAN, with Gboyega Oyewole, Tayo Aluko, Akintude Esan, and Joseph Omodele Adewumi Esquire respectively.

Absent: The Executive Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his legal representative were absent.

Witnesses: Ekiti State House of Assembly called three witnesses and closed its case. The witnesses were viz:-

(a) M.P. Ogele, Esquire, a private legal practitioner and National Coordinator of Ekiti State Equity, Justice and Peace Movement.
(b) Abubakar Aliyu Madaki, Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Economic and Financial Crimes commission. (EFCC).
(c) Mr. Gbenga James, Managing Director, Biological Concepts Limited, Afao-Ekiti, Ekiti State and Avian Specialties Nigeria Limited, a close friend of Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

These witnesses were cross-examined by the legal representative of Her Excellency, Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi.

The Executive Governor – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his witnesses failed to appear before the panel but forwarded his response to the 7 allegations of gross misconduct against him. The Deputy Gov., Chief (Mrs) Abiodun Olujimi called no witness. Her legal representative rested her case on the House of Assembly.

Addresses: Learned counsel to the Deputy Governor Joseph Omodele Adewumi Esquire addressed the panel followed by learned counsel to the House of Assembly, Rowland Otaru, SAN, with Gboyega Oyewole, Tayo Aluko and Akintunde Esan.

Close of proceedings: After the addresses of the aforesaid learned counsel, the proceedings of the panel was declared closed on 14th day of October, 2006, when it became obvious that the Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose would not attend the panel sittings.

Report:

Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, The Executive Governor of Ekiti State.

After careful consideration of the evidence of the witnesses for the Ekiti State House of Assembly which was unchallenged by the Executive Governor, the panel hereby reports thus:-

Allegation One:

Illegal Operation of Foreign Accounts contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for public officers to wit.

Operation of foreign account with the Bank of Africa, United State of America with VISA CREDIT NO 45397806 and 28083056 valid until August, 2007, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Code of conduct for Public Officers.

Evidence: Olatunji Adegoke, Personal Assistant to the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose in whose custody the credit card No. 45397806 was found made confessional written statement to the Economic and Financial Crime Commission on 24th day of July 2006 to the effect that the aforesaid credit card belonged to Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose. The statement was tendered in evidence by EFCC representative. A copy of the Visa credit of the Bank of America U.S.A. valid until August 28 with the signature of the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, was also received in evidence. The evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Two:

Illegal Operation of Foreign Account Contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers to wit:

Operation of Foreign accounts Nos: 50633925, 60642924 and 808909594 kept with Barclays Bank Plc. 38, Hans Crescent Knightsbridge, London, SWL XOLZ contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for public officers.

Evidence: The EFCC tendered a copy of the Premier Bank Account of Barclays Bank Plc, 38 Hans Crescent Knightsbridge, London with account No 50633925 and Account Name Mr. Ayodele Fayose and same was received in evidence. This evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Three:

Illegal diversion of Local Government Funds contrary to Section 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
Diversion from the Ekiti State Joint Local Government Account the sum of N11.7 Billion received from the Federation Account from January 2004 to June 2006.

Evidence:

There are overwhelming evidence to the effect that various sums of money from the Ekiti State Joint Local Government Account were diverted to illegal quarters. The evidence were uncontroverted.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Four

Receipt of illegal gifts contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:
Receipt of the sum of ₤37,000.00 (Thirty Seven Thousand Pounds sterling only) from the Biological Concepts Ltd. Knowing it to be the proceeds of the Poultry Project embarked upon by the State Government.

Evidence:

Mr. Gbenga James, The Managing Director of Biological Concepts Ltd. Gave evidence before the Panel that out of the money for the Integrated Poultry Project he gave ₤37,000 (Thirty Seven Thousand Pounds sterling) to Adegoke Olatunji the Personal Assistant to the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose on the instruction of the Executive Governor.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Five:

Receipt of the illegal gift contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:-
Receipt of a house lying and being at 10 Kobiowu Crescent, Iyaganku, GRA, Ibadan Oyo State valued at over N40 million built from the proceeds of the poultry project.

Evidence:

Evidence was led by the prosecution to show that there was an agreement between Mr. Gbenga James, the Managing Director of both Biological Concepts Ltd. and Avian Specialties Ltd. And the Governor to build a building worth 40 million at Ibadan from the proceeds earmarked by the State Government for the poultry project.

Mr. Gbenga James gave evidence that the building drawn by Grid Associates was actually built at 10 Kobiowu Crescent, Iyaganku G.R.A. Ibadan, Oyo State valued N40 million being part of the money earmarked by the State Government for the poultry project.

The building plan of the said building was tendered through Mr. Gbenga James by the prosecution.

Various documents to corroborate this evidence were tendered and received in evidence.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Six

Receipt of illegal gifts of two houses contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:-

i. Property lying and being at 23, Ring Road Restaurant Street, Behind Total Petrol Station, Iyaganku, GRA, Ibadan, Oyo State valued at about N20 million built from the proceeds of the contracts of Ekiti State Governor's Office awarded to Grid Associates headed by Abiodun Fari-Arole.
ii. Property lying and being at Are Road, Afao-Ekiti State valued at about N25 million built from the proceeds of the contracts for Fountain Hotel awarded to Grid Associates headed by Abiodun Fari-Arole.
iii.The sum of N42 Million collected from Mr. Abiodun Fari-Arole of Grid Associates through Mr. Ayobola Abiola, then of the Standard Trust Bank Plc, now with FCMB Plc, Dugbe Branch being proceeds of the contract for Fountain Hotel and Governor's Office.

Evidence:

This allegation was substantiated with unchallenged oral documentary evidence tendered by the EFCC and Mr. Gbenga James, the Managing Director of Biologicawl Concept Ltd. and Avian specialties Ltd.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Seven:

Illegal transfer of the sum of $100,000 to the United State of American contrary to the money laundering act 2004.
Transfer of the sum of $100,000 to the United State of America on 20th August, 2004 through Account No 45703770 of City Bank, 244, Mani Street, White Palms NY 10601 belonging to Mr. Toney Orubuloye contrary to the money laundering Act, 2004.

Evidence:

The EFCC representative gave evidence that Abiola Ayobola of Zonal Head-West First City Merchant Bank Ibadan transferred a sum of $100,000 dollars to the United States of America on 20th August 2004 through account No 45703770 of City Bank, 244, Mani Street, White Palms NY 10601 belonging to Mr. Toney Orubuloye for the benefit of His Excellency Governor Ayo Fayose and personal staff who reportedly ran out of cash in United State of America.

This evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty.

Conclusion:

In view of the available evidence before the Panel, the Panel came to the conclusion that all the aforementioned allegations of acts of gross misconduct against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State. Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose have been proved.

Thanks.

Yours faithfully.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION PANEL OF SEVEN PERSONS APPOINTED BY HONOURABLE JUSTICE JUBRIL B.K. ALADEJANA ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT LEVELEC AGAINST THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE. CHIEF (MRS.) ABIODUN OLUJIMI. DATED 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006

INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to section 188 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, this Panel of seven persons was set up by Honourable Justice B.K Aladejana on Friday, 13th October 2006. The seven persons are:

1. Mr. Emmanuel Bamidele Omotoso Chairman
2. Deacon Olajubu Solomon Owoeye Member
3. Eng. Ismail Olowolafe Dayisi Member
4. Mr. Kayode Filani Member
5. Pastor (Mrs) Funmi Adeniyi Member
6. Rev. Father Anthony Oluwole Ijasan Member
7. Major J.O. Odusina (Rtd) Member

VENUE: EKITI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY COMPLEX ADO EKITI

RULES OF PROCEDURE: Pursuant to section 188, subsection 7(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Ekiti State House of Assembly prescribed the Rules of procedure, which are 23 in number and hereafter referred to as "the rules".

This Panel in compliance with section 188(7) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria exercised its powers and functions in accordance with the Rules.

NOTICES: Notices of sittings duly signed by the Chairman of the Panel were dispatched to all the parties concerned viz:- The Speaker of the House, (ii) The Executive Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and (iii) The Deputy Governor of Ekiti State – Chief (Mrs) Abiodun Olujimi.

COMMENCEMENT OF SITTINGS: Relying on rule 4 of the Rules, the Panel commenced its sittings on 13th October, 2006 at 10.30am.

ATTENDANCE: The Legal Representatives of the House of Assembly and Deputy Governor of Ekiti State Rowland Otaru S.A.N. with Gbenga Oyewole, Tayo Aluko, Akintunde Esan and Joseph Omodele Adewunmi Esquire respectively.

WITNESSES: Ekiti State House of Assembly called three witnesses and closed its case. The witnesses were viz:

(a) M.P. Ogele, Esquire, a private legal practitioner and national Coordinator of Ekiti Justice and Equity movement.
(b) Abubakar Aliyu Madaki, a deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
(c) Mr. Gbenga James, Managing Director, Biological Concept Limited, a close friend of Dr. Ayodele Fayose.
dollars) from his secretary when she was on her way to London on the instruction of the Executive Governor, Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

However, in her response to the allegation of acts of gross misconduct, which her counsel adopted as her defense to the allegation, she stated therein that she collected the said sum for remission to Mr. Osinowo a friend of Mr. Gbenga James, for a project.

However, Mr. Tunde Osinowo in his written statement to the EFCC on 6th February, 2006 denied knowing anything about a landed property and that the Deputy Governor, Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi never brought any Dollars to him. He denied having any land dealing with Mr. Gbenga James and Mrs. Olujimi. This evidence was unchallenged.

VERDICT: In view of the unchallenged evidence before the Panel that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi, Deputy Governor of Ekiti State received a sum of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) from the secretary of Mr. Gbenga James, being part of the money earmarked for the Poultry Project coupled with the fear that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi failed to appear before the Panel to clarify the whereabouts of the said sum of fifty thousand dollars, this Panel has no option than to come to the conclusion and hereby come to the conclusion that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi was the beneficiary of the said sum of money. She is found GUILTY.

ALLEGATION TWO: Failure to comply with the Decree establishing the National Youth Service Corps Scheme, which mandates all holders of certificates equivalent to a bachelor's Degree to observe a one year compulsory Youth Service Programme.

EVIDENCE: The Ekiti State House of Assembly adduced no evidence before the Panel in proof of this allegation.

REPORT: As there is no evidence before the panel upon which the panel can write a report, the Panel hereby holds that this allegation is deemed abandoned by the Ekiti State House of Assembly and is hereby stuck out.

Thanks

Yours faithfully,

How The Kidnap Of Umaru Dikko From London Was Foiled In 1984

In London in 1984, a team of Nigerians and Israelis attempted to kidnap and repatriate the exiled former Nigerian minister Umaru Dikko. Mr Dikko, who had fled Nigeria after a military coup, was accused of stealing $1bn (£625m) of government money.

The plot was foiled by a young British customs officer, Charles David Morrow, who has now told the BBC World Service Witness programme what happened.

On a summer's day, Mr Dikko walked out of his front door in an upmarket neighbourhood of Bayswater in London. Within seconds he had been grabbed by two men and bundled into the back of a transit van.

"I remember the very violent way in which I was grabbed and hurled into a van, with a huge fellow sitting on my head - and the way in which they immediately put on me handcuffs and chains on my legs," he told the BBC a year later.

Mr Dikko had been minister for transport in the government of Shehu Shagari until it was overthrown by the military at the end of 1983. He fled to London accused by Nigeria's new rulers of embezzlement - a charge he has always denied.

Labelled "Nigeria's most wanted man", a plot was hatched to get both him and the money back.

The extraordinary plan was to kidnap Mr Dikko, drug him, stick him into a specially made crate and put him on a plane back to Nigeria - alive.

Israeli Anesthetist

An Israeli alleged former Mossad agent, Alexander Barak, was recruited to lead the kidnap team. It included a Nigerian intelligence officer, Maj Mohammed Yusufu, and Israeli nationals Felix Abitbol and Dr Lev-Arie Shapiro, who was to inject Mr Dikko with an anesthetic.

Umaru Dikko always denied embezzling $1bn
The kidnappers switched vehicles in a car park by London Zoo and headed towards Stansted airport where a Nigerian Airways plane was waiting. They injected Mr Dikko and laid him, unconscious, in a crate.

The Israeli anesthetist climbed into the crate as well, carrying medical equipment to make sure Mr Dikko didn't die en route. Barak and Abitbol got into a second crate. Both boxes were then sealed.

At the cargo terminal of Stansted Airport, 40 miles (64km) north of London, a Nigerian diplomat was anxiously waiting for the crates to arrive. Also on duty that day was a young customs officer, Charles David Morrow.

Diplomatic bag
"The day had gone fairly normally until about 3pm. Then we had the handling agents come through and say that there was a cargo due to go on a Nigerian Airways 707, but the people delivering it didn't want it manifested," Mr Morrow said.

"I went downstairs to see who they were and what was happening. I met a guy who turned out to be a Nigerian diplomat called Mr Edet. He showed me his passport and he said it was diplomatic cargo. Being ignorant of such matters, I asked him what it was, and he told me it was just documents and things."

A missing persons bulletin alerted customs officials to the kidnapping
No-one on duty at Stansted had dealt with a diplomatic bag before and Mr Morrow went to check the procedure.

Just then a colleague returned from the passenger terminal with some startling news. There was an All Ports Bulletin from Scotland Yard saying that a Nigerian had been kidnapped and it was suspected he would be smuggled out of the country.

The police had been alerted by Mr Dikko's secretary who had witnessed his abduction from a window in the house.

Hearing the news, Mr Morrow realised he had a problem on his hands.

"I just put two and two together. The classic customs approach is not to look for the goods, you look for the space," he said.

"So I am looking out of the window and I can see the space which is these two crates, clearly big enough to get a man inside. We've got a Nigerian Airways 707, which we don't normally see. They don't want the crates manifested, so there would be no record of them having gone through. And there was very little other cargo going on board the aircraft.

"If you want to hide a tree, you hide it in the forest. You don't stick it out in the middle of Essex."

By the book
But any cargo designated as a diplomatic bag is protected by the Vienna Convention from being opened by customs officers. So Mr Morrow got on the phone to the British Foreign Office.

"To qualify as a 'diplomatic bag' they clearly had to be marked with the words 'Diplomatic Bag' and they had to be accompanied by an accredited courier with the appropriate documentation. It was fair to say they had a Nigerian diplomat - I'd seen his passport - but they didn't have the right paperwork and they weren't marked 'Diplomatic Bag'," he said.

The decision was taken that the crates could be opened - but it would be done by the book. That required the presence of a Nigerian diplomat, but as Mr Morrow pointed out, one was already on hand. By now, the crates were up on special trolleys ready to be loaded on to the plane.

"Peter, the cargo manager, hit the lid on the bottom and lifted it. And as he lifted it, the Nigerian diplomat, who was standing next to me, took off like a startled rabbit across the tarmac," Mr Morrow said.

"You have to remember we are on an airfield which is square miles of nothing. He ran about five yards (4.5m), realised no-one was chasing him and then stopped.

"Peter looked into the crate and said: 'There's bodies inside!'

He parked a forklift truck so its tines lay across the top of the crate so it couldn't be opened. Mr Morrow dialled the emergency number 999.

"My name's Morrow, from Customs at Stansted. We've got some bodies in a crate. Do you think you can send someone over," he recalls saying.

"They said: 'Alive or Dead?'

"I said: 'That's a very good point. I don't know.'

"They said: 'We'll send an ambulance as well.'"

After half an hour, police started to arrive, and they opened the second crate. Inside they found an unconscious Mr Dikko, and a very much awake Israeli anaesthetist. Mr Dikko was lying on his back in the corner of the crate.

"He had no shirt on, he had a heart monitor on him, and he had a tube in his throat to keep his airway open. No shoes and socks and handcuffs around his ankles. The Israeli anaesthetist was in there, clearly to keep him alive," recalls Mr Morrow.

The kidnappers in the other crate were unrepentant. They said Mr Dikko was the biggest crook in the world.

The Nigerian intelligence officer and the three Israelis all received prison sentences in the UK.

Diplomatic relations between the UK and Nigeria broke down and were only fully restored two years later. The Nigerian and Israeli governments have always denied involvement in the kidnapping.

Mr Dikko returned to Nigeria the following decade and still lives there.

Mr Morrow was commended for actions that day by the head of UK Customs, who described the incident as a "very tricky situation"

Culled Naij

STRATEGIC DIALOGUE

Bullets and bombs may kill the body but they cannot kill the mind.

This is the reality the  Americans  are  facing now. They have only succeeded in destroying  the body of Osama Bin Laden not his mind. This is also applicable to the ongoing Israelis and Palestine dispute.

Likewise, Professor Chinua Achebe's controversial  book titled, "There was a country" implies that superior fire power may have destroyed a country named Biafra but it  did not destroy the mind of Biafra.

In tackling the menace of Boko Haram, superior fire power  alone is not enough, there is also the need for strategic dialogue, bearing in mind that, if Boko Haram does not have an organised organisation it would have long been subdued.

How the US president is elected

How the US president is elected

American voters pick their commander-in-chief not by true popular vote, but through the enigmatic Electoral College. Camille Elhassani Last Modified: 26 Oct 2012 02:27

Mitt Romney embracing his wife, as US President Barack Obama embraces first lady Michelle Obama [Reuters]

Presidents in the United States are chosen not by the popular vote, but through a system called the Electoral College. Each of the 50 states and Washington DC has a set number of Electoral College votes that go to the candidate who wins a plurality of the popular vote there. The winner of the majority of the Electoral College’s 538 votes becomes the next president. The number of electors in each state is determined by the number of officeholders that state has in the House of Representatives - proportional to the state’s population - added to the number of senators from that state. Each state has two senators, irrespective of population. For example, California has the largest population of any state, 37 million people. It sends 53 members to the House of Representatives and two to the Senate; thus it has 55 electors. ELECTORAL LANDSLIDES 1936: Franklin Roosevelt (D) won 523 electoral votes; Alf Landon (R) won 8 1964: Lyndon Johnson (D)won 486 electoral votes; Barry Goldwater (R) won 52 1972: Richard Nixon (R) won 520 electoral votes; George McGovern (D) won 17 1984: Ronald Reagan (R) won 525 electoral votes; Walter Mondale (D) won 13 The least populous state, Wyoming, with its 568,000 people, has only 3 electoral votes. This indirect system of electing the president is enshrined in the US Constitution. It was instituted more than 200 years ago because the framers of the Constitution wanted elders to provide a check to the popular vote. Consequently, the electoral system does not always reflect the will of the people. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore received more votes than Republican George W Bush, but Bush won in the Electoral College: 271 to Gore’s 266. Bush became the next president. In all but two states, the candidate who wins the popular vote takes all that state’s electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine use proportional representation, allocating one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and two more to the winner of the statewide vote. In 2008, Nebraska actually split its electors for the first time, giving four electoral votes to Republican John McCain and one to Democrat Barack Obama. The process of selecting electors varies from state to state, but generally, electors are party loyalists chosen at the state party conventions. The electors will meet on December 17 in their individual states to hold a ceremonial vote. Then the 113th US Congress will meet on January 3, 2013, to officially count up the electoral votes. Each elector casts one vote for president and one for vice president. Twenty-seven states and Washington DC require electors to vote the way the people of that state vote. In the unlikely event that the Electoral College ties 269-269, the House of Representatives would decide the next president and the Senate would vote for vice president. But after 56 presidential elections, the Electoral College has only tied once. In 1800, the House of Representatives voted to make Thomas Jefferson the next president.

Source: Al Jazeera

THE FOUR IMPERATIVES : Written by Chief Obafemi Awolowo

THE FOUR IMPERATIVES

Written by Chief Obafemi Awolowo

Chief Obafemi Awolowo

THE aim of a leader should be the welfare of the people whom he leads. I have used the word "welfare" to denote the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the people.

With this aim fixed unflinchingly and unchangeably before my eyes, I consider it my duty to Yoruba people in particular and to Nigerians in general, to place four imperatives before you this morning. Two of them are categorical imperatives and two are conditional.
One: Only a peaceful solution must be found to arrest the present worsening stalemate and restore normalcy.
Two: The Eastern Region must be encouraged to remain part of the federation.
Three: If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation.
Four: The people of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the Ad Hoc Committee or any similar body. Only on the basis of absolute equality with the other regions of the Federation.

I would like to comment briefly on these four imperatives. There has of late been a good deal of sabre rattling in some parts of the country. Those who advocate the use of force for the settlement of our present problems should stop a little and reflect. I can see no vital and abiding principle involved in any war between the North and the East. If the East attacked the North, it would be for purpose of revenge, pure and simple. Any claim to the contrary would be untenable. If it is claimed that such a war is being waged for the purpose of recovering the real and personal properties left behind in the North by Easterners, two insuperable points are obvious.

Firstly, the personal effects left behind by Easterners have been wholly looted or destroyed, and can no longer be physically recovered.

Secondly, since the real properties are immovable in any case, recovery of them can only be by means of forcible military occupation of those *

On the other hand, if the North attacked the East, it could only be for the purpose of further strengthening and entrenching its position of dominance in the country. If it is claimed that an attack on the East is going to be launched by the Federal Government and not by the North as such, and that it is designed to ensure the unity and integrity of the Federation, two other insuperable points also become obvious. First, if a war against the East becomes a necessity, it must be agreed to unanimously by the remaining units of the Federation.

In this connexion, it must be remembered that the West, Midwest and Lagos have declared their implacable opposition to the use of force in solving the present problems.

In the face of such declarations by three out of the remaining four territories of Nigeria, a war against the East could only be a war favoured by the North alone. Second, if the true purpose of such a war is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Federation, then these ends can be achieved by the very simple devices of implementing the recommendation of the committee which met on 9 August 1966, as reaffirmed by a decision of the military Leaders at Aburi on 5 January 1967, as well as by accepting such of the demands of the East, West, Midwest and Lagos, as are manifestly reasonable, and essential for assuring harmonious relationships and peaceful coexistence between them and their brothers and sisters in the North. Some knowledgeable persons have likened an attack on the East to Lincoln's war against the Southern States in America. Two vital factors distinguish Lincoln's campaign from the one now being contemplated in Nigeria.

The first is that the American civil war was aimed at the abolition of slavery - that is the liberation of millions of Negroes who were then still being used as chattels and worse than domestic animals. The second factor is that Lincoln and others in the Northern States were English-speaking people waging a war of good conscience and humanity against their fellow-nationals who were also English speaking. A war against the East in which Northern soldiers are predominant, will only unite the Easterners or the Ibos against their attackers, strengthen them in their belief that they are not wanted by the majority of their fellow-Nigerians, and finally push them out of the Federation.

We have been told that an act of secession on the part of the East would be a signal, in the first instance, for the creation of the COR States by decree, which would be backed, if need be, by the use of force. With great respect, I have some dissenting observations to make on this declaration.  There are eleven national or linguistic groups in the COR area with a total population of 5.3 millions. These national groups are as distinct from one another as the Ibos are distinct from them or from the Yorubas or Hausas. Of the eleven, the Efik/lbibio/ Annang national group are 3.2 millions strong as against the Ijaws who are only about 700,000 strong.

But when you have substracted the Ibo inhabitants from among them, what is left ranges from the Ngennis who number only 8,000 to the Ogonis who are 220,000 strong.

A decree creating a COR States without a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the people in the area, would only amount to subordinating the minority national groups in the State to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/ Annang national group.

It would be perfectly in order to create a Calabar State or a Rivers States by decree, and without a plebiscite. Each is a homogeneous national unit. But before you lump distinct and diverse national units together in one state, the consent of each of them is indispensable. Otherwise, the seed of social disequilibrium in the new state would have been sown.

On the other hand, if the COR State is created by decree after the Eastern Region shall have made its severance from Nigeria effective, we should then be waging an unjust war against a foreign state.

It would be an unjust war, because the purpose of it would be to subordinate them to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/ Annang national group.

I think I have said enough to demonstrate that any war by the North against the East, or vice versa on any count whatsoever would be an unholy crusade, for which it would be most unjustifiable to shed a drop of Nigerian blood. Therefore, only a peaceful solution must be found, and quickly too, to arrest the present rapidly deteriorating stalemate, and restore normalcy. With regard to the second categorical imperative, it is my considered view that whilst some of the demands of the East are excessive within the context of a Nigerian Union most of such demands are not only well founded, but are designed for smooth and healthy association amongst the various national units of Nigeria. For instance the East has demanded.
(1) the creation of separate Regional Monetary Authorities;
(2) the diminution of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court and
(3) the dependence of the Federal Government on financial contributions from the Regions.

These and other such - like demands, I do not support. Demands such as those if accepted, will lead surely to the complete disintegration of the Federation which is not in the interest of our people. But I whole-heartedly support the following demands, among others, which I consider reasonable and which are already embodied in our own memoranda to the Ad Hoc Committee.
(1) that mines and minerals should be residual subjects;
(2) that revenue should be allocated strictly on the basis of derivation, that is to say, after the Federal Government has deducted its own services, the rest should be allocated to the regions to which they are attributable:
(3) that the existing public debt of the Federation should become the responsibility of the region on the basis of the location of the projects in respect of each debt, whether internal or external;
(4) that each region should have and control its own military and police force and
(5) that with immediate effect, all military personnel should be posted to their regions of origin.

Share

Culled Nigerian Tribune

2015: Sanusi faults rotational presidency

Governor of the  Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has disagreed with advocates of a return of power to the Northern part of the country in 2015 saying leadership should no longer be based on ethnic or regional considerations.

Delivering a lecture Friday  to commemorate the 78th birthday of former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon (RTD), Sanusi said basing leadership of the country on ethnic or sectional considerations promotes mediocrity and slows down the progress of the country.

The lecture held at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPPS), Kuru was entitled, “Nigeria’s Economic Development Aspiration and the Leadership Question: Is there a Nexus?”

According to him, “If we believe in turn by turn or  a president should come from a particular section of the country, it means we are promoting mediocrity . This is the time for us to retrace our steps and ask ourselves fundamental questions as to what kind of leaders we want. We need to promote transparency and credible election; it is not just free and fair voting but also free and fair election”.

He came down hard on the political class whom he said cling to ethnic and tribal sentiments to further their political interest adding, “It is irresponsible to frame election on ethnicity but the political class has failed to realize the consequences of this”.

”The ethnic and socio cultural associations like Arewa Consultative Forum, Afenifere, Middle Belt Forum South-South Forum, Christian Association of Nigeria, Jamatul Nasir Islam among others are created by the political class to champion their interests.

”How do you grow a nation on ethnicity and expect it grow without problems, cultural organizations have become political institutions, I am of the opinion that they should be  abolished, if it  is not possible, there should be law banning public office holders from being part of such organizations. The activities of such cultural organisations are diversionary”, he said.

Sanusi added that any nation wishing to catch up with the rest of the world in development should not be bogged down by which section of the country should produce the next president at a time many nations choose their best to lead them.

He advocated the strengthening of civil society groups to move for change and task those in government to be more responsive to the needs of the people.

Culled Vanguard

Forces of good, evil at war in Nigeria —Soyinka

Forces of good, evil at war in Nigeria —Soyinka

| Print | E-mail

RECENT wave of killings in different parts of the country has been attributed to an ongoing war between the forces of good and evil.

Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, said this in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, in his keynote address at the public presentation of Port Harcourt as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Book Capital 2014, on Thursday, noting further that Nigerians would cease to be human beings if they succumbed to the evil forces.

Soyinka, who expressed anger at the manner in which four students of the University of Port Harcourt were recently killed and the Mubi killings in Adamawa State, said the forces of evil were out to extinct all traces of enlightenment and creativity in the country.

He, however, charged literary minds in the country to see themselves more than just authors, writers and readers, but as part of a creative army standing against the forces that had come to extinct creativity in today’s world.

“I believe quite frankly this country is at war, the war is between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The forces of intellect, the forces of rationality and the forces of atavism retrograde thinking, forces of hatred against humanism.

“I believe that if we surrender to these banal forces in our society, we cease to be human beings, because we succumb completely to fear and it is the same message we must take to those in this nation, who believe that books are wrong. 

“I don’t care whether they call themselves the final defenders of the pure road and the ultimate salvation or call themselves Boko Haram.

“This recognition indicates very clearly that something, at least, is going right in Nigeria, despite the avalanche of negativities. One plea to my fellow writers, authors everywhere is that we are not just engaged in the business of writing books, we are parts of large army of creative people,” Soyinka said.

Culled from the Nigeria Tribune

EVITABLE AND INEVITABLE CONFLICTS

As a professional mediator
I can say with all sense of 
responsibility that by virtue 
of human nature some conflicts
 are inevitable but resolvable,
while some evitable but irresolvable.

When you try to prevent a conflict 
and you failed then concentrate on resolving it.
If the conflict is the type that cannot be resolved,
you have to do whatever you need to do
 to limit collateral damages.

In other words, if conflict prevention fails
 move to conflict resolution and
 if conflict resolution fails
 move to conflict damage control.