25

Apr

2006

Third-Term Bid And Politics Of Debt Repayment PDF Print E-mail
By Akinwole Ogunlola, Esq.
THIRD-TERM BID AND POLITICS OF DEBT REPAYMENT  

NIGERIA occupies about 925,000 hectares of land in West Africa. With about 140 million people, the country represents the largest Black Country in the world, and one out of every four Africans is a Nigerian. Nigeria has the largest concentration of man-power resources in Africa and remains richly endowed with natural resources such as gold, diamond, bitumen, iron, etc. There are over 240 ethnic groups in Nigeria with large number of different languages, traditions, and religions. According to late Chief Bola Ige, “the differences in the ways of life, outlook and attitude of the various nationalities are such that sometimes one could easily say that they are indeed different peoples. For example, the Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba (the three largest nationalities) are different in language, culture and way of life as the Spaniards are different from the Germans or Greeks”. See Bola Ige’s Constitution and the problem of Nigeria. Perhaps, this explains why late Sir Ahmadu Bello (a visionary leader), said long time ago that Nigeria is too big and too important, and too many people are involved to be used as a stage for amateur administrators, or in this case, for testing the attainability of a leader’s inordinate ambition.

Unfortunately for the country however, since the incursion of the military into governance in Nigeria, we have had more than a fair share of both amateur and selfish administrators and presidents who have used, or currently using the country as a stage for their ignorance, mediocrity, illegality and arrogance. Some have even used the country to settle trivial personal scores. This naturally leads us to the ongoing rumor in Nigeria about President Obasanjo’s determination to rule Nigeria for a third term (or forever if allowed). It is interesting that the president has neither publicly confirmed nor denied his intention to seek re-election despite overwhelming opposition to the idea from Nigerians, both abroad and at home. It is without doubt that the presidency initiated, and continues to fuel the speculation in the first place otherwise; the rumor would have died a natural death long time ago. Also, the use of public fund to bribe, lobby, or bulldoze the corrupt Nigerian lawmakers into amending the Constitution ( so as to pave the way for Obasanjo’s rumored ambition), certainly proves beyond doubt that Obasanjo is determined to disregard the voice of wisdom by the late Sir Ahmadu Bello.  Without any doubt, Obasanjo deserves some credit for bringing little resemblance of sanity into our body polity as well as selectively persecuting corrupt political opponents for their excesses. Most important achievement of his regime could be the recent repayment of Nigeria’s burdensome debts to the Paris Club. Compared to other leaders of Nigeria in the recent past therefore, Obasanjo clearly stands out and should be praised for his efforts.  

Every rational thinking Nigerian should be happy about the president’s effort to at least reduce, very substantially, if not totally eliminating this great burden on the country. Because excessive debt burden is a major cog in the wheel of economic development for any nation, the debt repayment effort of the President deserves standing ovation and accolades from Lagos to Sokoto and from the Niger Delta to Maiduguri. Babangida and past Nigerian leaders (who failed to act) should hide their faces and bury their heads in shame for squandering the resources and opportunity when they were in power. Based on this singular act as well as selective persecution of the manifestly corrupt political opponents by the president, many in the Obasanjo’s rented crowd and sycophants would like to argue that the President is the only qualified living Nigerian best suited as president of the country and must be supported by everyone in his suicidal mission. Some others have even argued that the Otta farmer has neither openly confirmed the intention nor expressed the desire to further elongate his tenure in office. To these people therefore, every voice of reason and wisdom from well meaning Nigerians against OBJ’s third-term are misplaced. Yet, a few of my tribesmen have argued passionately of the need for all Yorubas to support the near criminal ambition of the President. Their reason is that we have been marginalized for too long in the past by our brothers from the North. Alternative reason is that nobody knows when next, if ever, the Yorubas will have the golden opportunity to produce another president for the country. Therefore we need to support him in his quest for an illegal third term. Apparently these people have forgotten that Nigeria is bigger than anyone individual, and that average an Nigerian, given the opportunity, is prepared to make country work. They will also elect whoever they consider the best candidate for the highest office at anytime irrespective of tribal or religious background. Nigerians voted massively for Late MKO Abiola, knowing fully well that he was a Yoruba man. Late Musa Y’adua defeated Lateef Jakande twice in Lagos State election and won convincingly in all major Yoruba towns before IBB, in his usual disruptive manner, cancelled everything and brought MKO into the race. I also remember that there were notable and credible NADECO members from the East and the North who risked their lives seeking redress and justice from the unjust annulment of June 12 election. The search for justice and clamor for MKO Abiola’s recognition as the elected representative of Nigerians did not start and end in Ogun State but supported by every Nigerian in our demonstration of Nigerian unity. Having praised the president so much for getting some burden off our back, Obasanjo’s timing and motive for repaying Nigeria’s debt remain suspect and questionable. Is it part of the grand design to further harass, intimidate or discredit other potential political opponents of the president (of which IBB is one)? Or one that is simply calculated to curry favorable rating of Obasanjo in the eyes of western powers that have voiced, or in the process of voicing their opposition to the president’s third-term bid? A typical move of every sit-tight ruler is to appease the international community when faced with mounting opposition at home.  

Obasanjo appears to have perfected the arts of intimidation and harassment of political opponents while rewarding his praise singers. Sensing little or no credible opposition to his third-term bid within the corrupt Nigerian political class, Obasanjo has now shifted his attention to the international community. Apparently, the president’s strategy is, if you cannot intimidate or harass the international community, you can at least make them look the other way while you continue your destructive, sit- tight agenda at home. Something spectacular must therefore be done to impress the international community.  OBJ ensured that Nigeria’s debts, to the Paris Club were fully paid as agreed. The repayment yielded instant dividend for the President as probably expected. The members of the Paris Club are very pleased with the President for now. Some other countries already see Obasanjo as an economic pragmatist who is truly interested in attracting foreign investments into the largest black African Country. Every creditor nation or institute loves to see a responsible president in office to at least guarantee the repayment of their borrowed funds. Many of these countries and powers would ordinarily therefore close their eyes to Obasanjo’s egregious behaviors, brute manipulation of our Constitution, or at least, look the other way if and when Nigerians become victims of Obasanjo’s ambition.  Whatever the case, although we respect the president’s effort on this vital economic issue, it is submitted that this does not, and cannot confer any inch of legitimacy or acceptance on the president’s desire to perpetuate himself in office forever. Nigerians must therefore be prepared to reject this singular act as unacceptable reason to tolerate or even consider his third-term bid.  President Clinton’s record of lowest unemployment and greatest surplus in the history of USA was not enough for him or anyone to suggest amending the United State Constitution to allow the Arkansas orator to continue perpetually in office as President. Under president Obasanjo, Nigeria is a paradox of abundance. Up till today, the country remains world’s 5th largest producer of petroleum and vital member of OPEC. But despite all the God-given human and natural resources, the country is one of the poorest in the world. The per capita income, under president Obasanjo disgracefully stands under One dollar ($1.00). Corruption continues unabated, except for a few outspoken opponents of the president who are randomly selected and persecuted; the safety of lives and property cannot be guaranteed, good roads and drinkable water remain unavailable to large sections of Nigerian community, the daily cry of the oil-rich minorities for a fairer share of national resources and development remain ignored, while the judiciary is largely corrupt, inefficient and under political influence of the executive. Despite these terrifying statistics and realities, our president maintains criminal silence over his true intentions, continues to fuel speculations, and moves the country dangerously closer, on a daily basis, towards avoidable calamities. What could be the inspiration for yet another Nigerian leader to embark on the same destructive road earlier followed by past leaders without success? General Yakubu Gowon tried and failed. IBB tried it and failed. Sanni Abacha, the most brutal of them, tried but lost his life. President Obasanjo occupies a truly unique position in Nigerian history and survival. He has fought, and risked his life for the country in the past. He could rightly be called “Mr. Lucky”, in every sense of the word. But in the words of Late Nmamdi Azikwe (true patriot and elder Statesman), we should never consider a man “lucky” until we see the end.  How Nigerians will finally refer to Obasanjo depends essentially on the way he chose to end his reign over Nigeria. A man of honor, or a person that puts self-interest before the whole Country ? Only time will tell. But for crying out loud, this writer believes that Obasanjo must not be allowed a third-term.  By:  

Akinwole Ogunlola Esq.

Chicago, USA

April 25, 2006


Your Comments

Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.

User Avatar
RobotRobot is offline

 # 1 | 25.04.2006 21:50

How Nigerians will finally refer to Obasanjo depends essentially on the way he chose to end his reig...Read the full article.

User Avatar
malcolm12398malcolm12398 is offline

 # 2 | 25.04.2006 22:47

Baba Agba, na where I go apply for visa to see you? Na wah, you just push me for boat commot for my back and I no even hear from you before or after the exam. Oleku! Na so people dey treat people?!

Awa sha wa sha. I was in chicago like 2 weeks ago and I called your number, no answer except for some pretty lady's voice. which one you dey Egbon?

This na Femi Ewetuga without Esq.

User Avatar
gwobezentashigwobezentashi is offline

 # 3 | 26.04.2006 03:06


2007 MOVEMENT ANTI-THIRD TERM LEGISLATORS

H. E. The Senate President
Chief Ken Nnamani

H. E. The Hon. Speaker
Alhaji BelIo Masari

Your Excellencies,

PROTEST AGAINST THE METHOD ADOPTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY JOINT COMMIITEE RETREAT IN PORT-HARCOURT

As We, the undersigned members of the National Assembly Joint Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution (JCRC), on behalf of ourselves and many others whom we agreed not to expose for now for obvious reasons, do hereby communicate through you to Senate and House of Representatives our strong protest against the “methodology” adopted in the proceedings during the Committee’s Retreat in Port-Harcourt.

We strongly urge the Senate and the House of Representatives to invalidate the recommendations relating to the issue of tenure, specially Sections 137 (1) (b) and 182 (l)(b) made through this method.

The “methodology” and the resultant recommendations violate the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic and Standing Rules of both Houses of the National Assembly and are a deliberate subversion of the due process.

Section 60 of the Constitution empowers the Senate and the House of Representatives to regulate their procedure. Rule 1 (a) of the Senate Standing Rules states that “the proceedings in the Senate and in ALL Committees of the Senate shall be conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders”. See also Rule 1 of the HOR. These violations are listed as below:

1. REPORT OF THE ZONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMITTED TO A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE IN THE VILLA BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING IT

After the zonal Public Hearings, Chairmen of the Zonal sub committees were directed (and they complied) to submit their findings in a meeting held in the Aso Villa even when members of the Committee had not had the opportunity to see the Reports. This is against the Standing Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.

2. CONTINUED ACCEPTANCE OF MEMO AFTER DEADLINE

It was agreed that the Committee should hold Public Hearings on February 22 and 23 to receive inputs and memoranda from the public on the proposed amendments and thereafter collate the inputs from March 6 - 10.

However, against the procedure already agreed, the Committee continued to accept memoranda from some Governors after the official deadline. Some state governments - Kwara, Bauchi and Gombe - submitted their memoranda in Port Harcourt while collation was going on.

3. GROSS VIOLATION OF THE STANDING RULES

Rule 55 (1) of the Senate requires the Presiding Officer to allow speeches for and against any proposal before the Senate or its Committee. Rule 55 (3) specifically provides that “the President of the Senate shall allocate one-half of such time to be given to debate in favour of and one-half to debate in opposition to such proposition”. See also Standing Order 1 x (3) (3) of the Rules of the HOR.

Rule 73 (1) states thus: “Any Senator may challenge the opinion of the President or the Chairman by claiming a division”. Rule 75 (1) states: “In Committees other than Committee of the Whole Senate, a division shall be taken by the Clerk to the Committee asking each Senator of the Committee how he desires to vote and recording the votes accordingly” See also Order x 1 (2) of the HOR.

These clear safe-guards are made so that no voice is shut out in the consideration of a proposition before the Senate and HOR or any of their Committees, no matter how disagreeable the opinion is to the Presiding Officer.

All the safe-guards were completely and flagrantly flouted by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Ibrahim Mantu and his co-chairman, Hon. Austin Opara during the collating period in Port-Harcourt, specifically “in the consideration of proposals for the amendment of Sections 137 and 182 of the Constitution” (tenure of the President and Governors).

A brief review of the incident is necessary. A strange thing happened when the meeting got to Section 137. The Chairman’s pace revved to overspeed. He promptly recognized one speaker as if on cue, a supporter of third term. Immediately the speaker ended his speech, the Chairman rushed to put the question.

His move met uproar and loud demands for counter motion. The Chairman reluctantly, after a quiet intervention by the co-chairman, allowed a counter motion. After the counter-motion, he allowed only three speakers – the shortest list of speakers in all contributions made on controversial issues throughout the proceedings.

He ignored a sea of hands signaling intention to speak. He put the question. Many were loudly demanding division instead of voice vote. He ignored us all. In the voice vote, those for and those against were at par, but he brusquely announced that the third timers had won.

Many members still insisted on division. He ignored us. A Principal Officer of the House of Representatives quietly approached him and pleaded for a division on this important issue. He rejected the request.

But, immediately after his quick dispatch of Section 137, the Chairman reverted to his familiar style of exhaustive debates! The Co-Chairman who later supervised the packaging of ‘majority’ opinion in favour of Section 182 b (third term for Governors) improved upon Chairman Mantu’s magic show.

This part of the tragedy began with a motion and powerful speech from Hon. Ningi in support of retention of existing two-term tenure for Governors. Ningi’s argument was unassailable and when it was obvious that majority of members were inclined to support the motion, the Co-Chairman nervously beckoned him to the high table.

Meanwhile, two members, noted for their pro-third-term manouvres, quickly moved also to the high table for quick consultations with the Co-Chairman.

As soon as Ningi returned to his seat from the high table, he announced that he had withdrawn his motion! A Senator immediately raised his hand and loudly pleaded for Chairman’s pleasure to move a similar motion.

The Chairman ignored him and promptly ended the day’s session. Co-Chairman’s imaginary ‘majority’ have approved third term for governors!!

Alhaji Mantu and Chief Okpara have a lot to teach the parliamentary world on how to neatly rig legislative procedure and verdict through VOICE VOTE and how to over-dramatize the charade of ‘democracy at work’ though a loud triumphant bang of the gravel.

The Chairmen’s handling of Section 137 and 182 is a fundamental procedural irregularity and invalidates the purported recommendation on the issue.

The questions to ask are: why did the Chairman refuse to allow division as required by the rules when a proposal is contentious and a member makes a demand? Why did he not allow those in opposition to the amendment any further opportunity to speak on their position?

If-he was sure of the vote of the majority in support of third term, as he afterwards claimed in the press, why did he prefer a voice vote to a division? The Chairman’s insistence on voice vote was an admission of the patently clear unpopularity and minority score of the third term proposal.

These acts, on the part of Chairman Mantu and his co-chairman, constitute negative indices that disregard known democratic norms and create legal and legitimacy problems for the Review exercise.

The illegalities should never be allowed to stand as they most certainly further tarnish the image of the National Assembly and expose it to the scornful jeers of the populace.

The Chairman’s above-the-law attitude was also demonstrated when he shut off those who wanted to speak when the issue of the Court Ruling was tabled before the Committee.

Contrary to Order 53 Rule 5 of the Senate (see also Order IX (1) (5) of the HOR) that once the Senate is informed of a pending suit in court of law no debate shall be allowed on the subject matter to the suit, the Chairman streamrolled a hurried decision in favour of ignoring the court order.

Typical of him, he used his familiar technique of voice vote to rubber stamp a pre-determined position. In protest against this act of executive lawlessness, five members walked out.

RULE-OF-THUMB METHOD AND SUBJECTIVE FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE, IN PLACE OF SCIENTIFIC WEIGHTING FORMULA
No weighting formula was used to measure extents of popular support of proposals. The Chairman refused to entertain any suggestion of weighting from three members.

The absence of weighting has completely destroyed the value and validity of the Public Hearing as a reliable measure of public opinion. This is so, for two reasons:

i. The method of simple arithmetic additions of written memoranda reduced all presenters to the same weight - whether individuals or groups, whether old, established groups with certified large membership or one-person fronts formed overnight in corridors of power. Thus majority of paper pages has become majority of people.

ii The allocation of preponderant weight to positions (state governors as representatives of the people was baseless presumption which caused a gross distortion of estimate of popular support. Governors should ideally have been excluded from direct participation or at wars weighted as individuals.

It is significant to note that by the doctrine of separation of powers in the 1999 Constitution, and in particular in Section 176 (2), Governors have no constitutional mandate to represent the opinion of the people of their respective states. That mandate constitutionally lies on the States’ Houses of Assembly whose members represent clearly delineated Electoral Districts.

The anti-democratic and prejudiced character of governors’ and state governments’ memoranda should even be more obvious and unacceptable in this matter of executive tenure in which the Governors are most actively interested parties. For, IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, WHY DID PRESIDENT OLUSEGUN OBASANJO NOT SUBMIT A MEMO TO REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE OF NIGERIA?

The participation of the governors is unconstitutional Schedule 5 Part 1.1 of the Constitution clearly states ‘A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities’. The personal interest of the Governors is third term.

5. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING REQUIRMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Senate Rule 102 (2) (a) (ii) States that each Standing Committee of the Senate shall adopt written rules governing its procedure. It further states that such rules “shall not be inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate, or with those provisions of law having the force and effect on Rules of the Senate. Same in the HOR Rules.

Section 9 (3) of the Constitution requires two-third majority of the members for the passage of any proposal on the amendment of the Constitution. Since that is a law from which the Standing Rules derive, it therefore has force and effect on the Standing Rules and so, must be compiled with in the passage of any proposal before the Committee.

Where there is no unanimity of opinions as was clearly lacking in the consideration of Section 137 of the Constitution, there should have been a division to determine two-thirds majority for the proposal. The Chairman, by adopting voice vote, was in clear error in his verdict as to where the majority was. The verdict should therefore be invalidated.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from the above summary of illegalities that:

1. Voice vote was grossly abused: hallucinations and the voices of his pre-packaged agenda determined the Chairman’s verdict on voice vote on any given issue, especially his Third Term agenda. Thus voice of majority is infact the voice of Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu.

In pursuit of pre-conceived positions, the chairman routinely ignored rules, law and due process with impunity, using voice vote as a legal instrument of subverting popular will and mocking the spirit of rule of law.

It should be obvious that for a serious issue as constitutional amendment, the method of ascertaining popular opinion must be objective, depersonalised, quantifiable and verifiable.

2. The Chairman’s subjective method has given credence to the widely held belief that he has decided ab initio not to be bound by any rules because the Joint Committee is not a creation of either the Senate or House of Representatives since NO resolution of the current Senate or House of Representatives gave birth to JCCR.

This rule-of-the-jungle attitude is bound to draw attention to and underline the fundamental question of the legality of this Committee and its operations.

PRAYER
In view of the foregoing, we request
1. That the two Chambers of the National Assembly should treat the purported recommendation of three terms of four years for the President and Governors as invalid.

2. That the issue of tenure be considered by the two Chambers as unprocessed item from the memoranda received on the matter.
With assurances of our highest regards,
We remain,
Your Excellencies,
Yours Sincerely,


source:leadershipnigeria.com



Villagers, we are up against people who do not believe in the rules of the game of democracy. They try to move the goalposts after the game is in play. They cite all manner of incomprehensibles as their rationale for taking our country back into the depths of despair. The latest has been a patently illegal move to sneak in a modification to a document before the Senate after the first reading as if the appropriate procedures do not apply to them. They are the first to cry out about "due process" when it suits them but do not even know how to spell the words. Increasingly we can see that the people who are doing this to our country are so desperate that they will do anything to have their way. We are determined that they will not succeed because if they do, we will be doomed as a nation of laws. The matters before us are too serious to be left to politicians alone. We must join hands to take our country back from the vagabonds in power!! If need be, we must become politicians ourselves because time and again, we have fought the battles and handed the victory to these charlatans on a plate.

We must salute the courage of those in the vanguard of the opposition to these acts in the face of all manner of intimidation, threats and inducements. We must never waiver in our resolve not only to defeat this bill but to ensure that those whom are doing this to our country and stunting its development into a fully fledged democratic and FREE society never have their way again and are sent BACK to the gulag where they belong for posterity to judge us right for the sake of our country and the generations to come!!

Aluta!


Gwobezentashi

User Avatar
BayoBayo is online

 # 4 | 27.04.2006 19:56

Beyond the third term controversy

By Ayo Olukotun (The Guardian of 04/27/2006.)

I READ with interest the article by Dr. Reuben Abati published in The Guardian of April 23, 2006, in which he raised among other issues, the viability of the third term proposal, which is a front burner issue on the nation's political agenda. Let me state at the outset that this writer is not a sympathiser of the 'third term' proposition but one who believes also that in the emerging public debate, truth and sober analysis have been usurped by partisanship and emotional tantrums.

True, there have been moments of infamy in Obasanjo's Nigeria. For example, I felt diminished when a rump of the Oyo State House of Assembly threw out the elected governor in a charade that would make some banana Republics swoon in shame-faced regret. There was also the Anambra saga as well as the persisting crisis of infrastructure, of which the woes of NEPA are a vivid symbol. But it would be perverse not to concede that there have been compensating glory moments and mini-feats.

The recent exit of Nigeria from the club of debtor nations; the bold tackling of corruption at high levels which successive Nigerian leaders have fought shy of; the restoration of a modicum of stability to the chaotic fuel supply chain; despite the mark-up in prices; the GSM revolution; as well as the international respectability gained for Nigeria by reforms in the banking and health sectors are some of these. In other words, while I feel a measure of distaste for the way in which the hawks of 'continuity' are marketing the agenda, or seeking to ram it down our throats, I cannot associate myself with the position that Chief Obasanjo has been an inept or evil leader, who should be disgraced from office.

As one of our columnists recently reminded us, the structures which are now being used to foster political longevity for Obasanjo were erected by Northern Generals in whose hands the behemoth of the presidency became a terror club with which to beat civil society and the South into submission. Although some see an element of poetic justice in this development, I believe the fundamental solution to the political see-saw is to call a genuine national conference, not a prearranged one, in which the problem of nationalities, including that of the simmering cauldron which the Niger Delta has now become, as well as the renewal of the federal bargain can be frankly discussed.

It is an index of the political bankruptcy of the times, that several political parties are content to simply brand themselves as 'anti-third term', rather than articulate in what specific ways they would improve the lot of Nigerians or indeed how some of their arrowheads hope to live down their infamous past. Obviously, if the third term platform collapses, such parties will wither because they do not have a road map of a better Nigeria or an inkling of the promised land.

A genuine debate which this write-up is calling for will go beyond the issue of third term, to connect the nature of obasanjo's legacy; the problem of nationalities; as well as the agenda to jump start Nigeria's industrial status in the 21st century world. The ominous silence of several of these presidential hopefuls on these vital matters, reinforces the suspicion that some of them wish to whisk Nigeria off to the dark ages of the past in which the barefaced looting of public funds was the defining syndrome of Nigeria politics. In this connection, even the advocates of third term, to be convincing, need to situate their brief within a vision of utopia as well as show us how the president intends to carry forward the unfinished agenda of reinventing Nigeria.

Truth, it is often said, is the first casualty of war, and one may add for good measure, of political battles. It may be politically expedient for some to construct a demonology of the Obasanjo years, as unproductive and barren, a view that can be fed by the slant of neoliberal reforms which privileges the prudent management of resources and macroeconomic stability above poverty eradication and welfare subsidies.

I believe however that it is possible to disagree with Obasanjo's paradigm while granting that he has been outstanding in following that paradigm with such spin-offs as the rationalization of the contract award system, the sanitization of the banking sector, the substantial reduction of the chaotic culture of queuing for fuel; as well as the building of a healthy foreign reserve. In other words, as far as Nigerian capitalism goes, and given the diminution of leadership in the political firmament, Obasanjo tends to stand out, although this should not be construed as an argument for his perpetuation in office.

In our impoverished and denuded political vista, were the president to resist the temptation to elongate his rule, he might well find many Nigerians clamouring for his return, 12 months after he hands over power to any of the present crop of bidders for the presidency.

•Olukotun tecahes political science at the University of Lagos
 

Services : E-mail news | RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Links:   About the NVS | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies | Advertise With Us
All Rights Reserved. NigeriaVillageSquare.com