March 11, 2007
As President Olusegun Obasanjo celebrated his 70th birthday last week, the usual questions were asked in the usual muffled tones: is he really 70 or more? Of course, questions are being asked about his stewardship too. There are different opinions on, and reactions to, his claims of achievements. When such matters as privatisation, liberalisation, debt relief, banking consolidation, oil and gas, telecommunications and other aspects of his reform programme are mentioned, we look at these issues differently. I know of those who would swear that Obasanjo has not achieved anything in eight years. They describe his performance as a complete failure, and they file exhibits like power failure and fuel importation to arrive at a conclusive judgment. As much as I am very critical of the president’s performance, I do not subscribe to this school. Even General Sani Abacha, as murderous and incompetent as he was, still recorded some achievements.
On the other hand, you have the professional boot lickers—most of them beneficiaries of government largesse—who pester our lives with a long list of achievements. They never see any failing or any wrongdoing by the president. Everything about him is perfect and glittering. There is no way I can ever subscribe to this school too. Rather, I belong to the group which thinks that the president has performed well—but below expectations, given the resources, both human and material, at his disposal in eight years. The period between 1999 and 2007 has no parallel in Nigeria’s history, and therefore the president has no excuse not to deliver more than he has done. Ultimately, history will judge the man. I believe he has planted some seeds that will only germinate and bear fruits long after his exit. Such is life.
One major issue the president will always be remembered for is the anti-corruption war and the campaign for due process in the way government business is done. While the anti-corruption war can be described as good music to the ears, its execution has often been described as founded on double standards, disregard for the rule of law and vindictiveness. In this season of intense politicking, the president and anti-graft agencies have come under attack—some self-serving, others well-intentioned. As for me, I am glad that there is anything like anti-corruption at all, and I believe a more sincere and equitable president will take the war to the next level without fear or favour. I take consolation in the fact that, for once, we are openly talking about institutionalising an anti-graft jihad. We all seem to agree that looting is no longer acceptable, which is good. It is how to put a stop to it that we disagree about, and while we may never be able to achieve a 100% consensus on the best strategies, there can be no argument about some basic facts that we must accept as central to an effective establishment of transparency and accountability in the society.
Today, I have chosen to put the president to task on the Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited (ASCO). I was reading through the newspapers recently when I discovered that, indeed, the Solgas/ASCO sore is yet to heal. According to reports, Solgas has secured a court injunction to compel the Senate to investigate the circumstances surrounding the termination of the concessioning contract by the Federal Government. I have taken time to study the details and my conclusion is that, no matter the intention of the Federal Government, it has breached its own rules in the way businesses should be conducted. Since I am not a technical person in the area of steel, I certainly cannot intelligently discuss billets and ore, but as a rational human being, I cannot discuss the processes and the implications of what transpired in the deal. It is, again, about due process, transparency and accountability. The challenge is that once the government has defined “due process? as the core of its being, it will continue to be judged by such standards.
I have analysed the key issues in the Ajaokuta deal, and these are my deductions. One, the Federal Government, on June 30 2003, entered into a Concession Agreement with Solgas for the rehabilitation, completion and operation of ASCO for a period of 10 years. Two, Solgas was expected to start making returns to the government after four years (2007) of running ASCO. Three, on June 30, 2004, this agreement was terminated purportedly by “mutual consent?. Four, government re-awarded the contract to Global Infrastructure Holdings Limited (GHIL), without the much-trumpeted “due process?. Five, government was aware that GHIL and Solgas had a confidentiality agreement in which GHIL, as a sub-concessionaire appointed by Solgas, is, by law, not expected to make any bid for ASCO.
Other claims have been traded in the process. It was believed then that the president’s son was the “facilitator? of the deal. Although this claim has been denied, the denial does not seem to carry enough weight. Seeing that Solgas was “tall in promises but short in delivery? as the president was said to have put it (obviously in despair about the delay in injecting funds into the project by Solgas), the president’s son is said to have pushed for GHIL, a world-renowned company in the field of steel, to take over from Solgas. Perhaps, the president had good intentions to get ASCO working, but with accusations of personal interest and intimidation made by the Solgas Nigeria Chief Executive, Mr. Oluwaseun Oyefeso, this is certainly not how to conduct business by a government that is courting investment from all over the world. The moment an agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written, we subject ourselves to international ridicule and suspicion. Maybe there was something wrong with the original agreement, but then there is a proper way of correcting such flaws without jeopardising the very foundation of the reform programme.
Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.
Most disturbingly, Solgas is claiming that the termination of the contract was achieved through blackmail. It claims to be in possession of a recorded conversation between the then Minister of Power and Steel, Mr. Liyel Imoke, and Oyefeso, in which some statements believed to be damaging about the personal interests of the President and his son in the matter were made. Solgas claimed Oyefeso signed the termination of the contract under duress. This, if true, should be considered very alarming because that is a trait of military governments. Also, how did GHIL get the ASCO contract? Was it advertised? How many companies put in their bids? Developments like this make people write off Obasanjo and describe his government as hypocritical when it comes to transparency and due process. Is it true, also, that GHIL has mortgaged ASCO to take loans from three local banks? According to claims made by Solgas, GHIL “has mortgaged the goodwill and all the floating and incremental assets and rights whatsoever and wheresoever both present and future including the uncalled capital of Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited… to the tune of N1,180,500,000?. For a company worth over $5 billion to be entirely mortgaged for N1.18 billion is very worrisome, more so when GHIL was expected to bring in Foreign Direct Investment in the first place. I hope there is nothing sinister in this.
What am I driving at? Even though Obasanjo has made anti-corruption and transparency the cornerstone of its philosophy, facts on the ground tend to rubbish these claims. If you have a contract, respect it. If you must terminate it, everything must be done decently and in order. That way, those who want to discredit the government will not have enough evidence. But when the government itself is seen to be encouraging blatant disregard for law and order, through subterfuge and blackmail, then we have a big problem in our hands. We must do things right. It would be very tragic if most of what we remember about Obasanjo is his disregard for the laws of the land—in a democracy. He deserves more than that.
Who Wants Yar’Adua Dead?: I was very disheartened by the rumour that the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mallam Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, had died on his way to Germany for “emergency? medical treatment last Wednesday. I was deceived by the rumour only for a couple of minutes, as I soon found out the true position of things. In fact, the rumour died a natural death the moment people started telling me to tune to CNN to watch the “breaking news?. I had been watching CNN and there was no such thing, yet they kept saying it was on CNN. Then I knew it was all a lie.
Who started the rumour? There are different suggestions. One is that the PDP hierarchy started the rumour because they were no longer comfortable with hints about Yar’Adua’s independence. So they wanted a situation to make him look unmarketable so that his candidature can be substituted. Since substitution has closed, it’s difficult to believe this line of thought. The second is that Yar’Adua’s political opponents wanted to seize the opportunity to market themselves in the North. By painting Yar’Adua as terminally ill, they will succeed in persuading the North not to vote for him because power may return to the South through the back door if Yar’Adua dies a few months into his tenure. This suggestion infuriated the president so much that he cursed the authors.
Whatever the case may be, I think it is very wrong to wish a fellow human being dead, especially one that has, at least, not done anything to warrant ill-will. So far, he has conducted himself responsibly in the public. He has refused to engage in mudslinging. He has refused to engage in the favourite pastime of the PDP—lampooning Vice President Atiku Abubakar. That, to me, is a sign of maturity, for which I hail him. It seems people are transferring the hatred they have for the president to his anointed successor. The mistake, however, is to think Yar’Adua would be voted in as president and then he would be taking instructions from Ota. I don’t know of any President who would do that.
As for those who think Yar’Adua would soon die, they may be wrong. Only God knows tomorrow. In 1999, Southern Zaria people supported Ahmed Makarfi for Kaduna governorship because they believed the man was terminally ill. The cold calculation was that his deputy, Stephen Shekari (from Southern Zaria), would sooner than later become governor. But Shekari has died before him, and Makarfi is still “playing squash?. When the Great Zik was rumoured dead in 1989, he said those who wish him dead would die before him. Many of them did die before him. But, from the impressions I have of Yar’Adua so far, I don’t think he would say such a prayer for the rumour mongers.
For goodness sake, Yar’Adua doesn’t have to become president by all means. He doesn’t even look desperate for the job. To wish him dead for political reasons—and then flood Nigeria with such unfounded and sickening rumour—is desperation taken too far. Anybody can die at anytime, even those who look hale and hearty. That should be a lesson for all.
Posted by toshko under Denavir News | Comments (0)
Loading ...
Loading ...