03 Mar 2004 |
|
| Dear Dr Onyeani, Re: The Adeniji-Okonjo-Iweala Salary Debate: What Has Patriotism Got to Do With It? I think it would be proper to start this rejoinder by first correcting some major and minor mistakes of fact prevalent in your piece. This, as you'll no doubt admit, is necessary for clarity. The only major mistake of fact actually is your claim and subsequent assumption that Gani had taken this case to court and that the court has thrown it out. Nothing can be further from the truth. The problem, as I see it really, is that you are mixing up two separate issues and two separate court actions. The case against the President, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Ministers in question is yet to be heard. The case that was thrown out by Justice Chinyere Chikere of the Abuja High Court concerns Gani's challenge of the Remuneration of former President and Heads of State (And other Ancillary Matters) Decree No 32 of 1999, promulgated on May 10, 1999, two weeks before Abubakar left office. This particular case that came before Justice Chikere, as you can see, is also on remuneration, but only as it relates to some past leaders. Gani was challenging the decree for purportedly granting remunerations of up to N2 billion to these former Heads of State and their families and relations. I have argued elsewhere that the decree contravenes the provisions of Section 84 (5) of the Constitution. Gani wanted the court to do what the legislature and executive hadn't done, but which should have been done long ago, that is to declare the decree null and void for being inconsistent with the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution. But curiously, in one of those rulings that attract unwanted suspicion to the Nigerian judiciary, Justice Chikere ruled that Gani had no locus standi. I mean, here is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the country, a well-known public rights advocate, one of the highest tax-paying persons in the country due to his practice and legal publishing business and an accomplished and well-respected citizen of Nigeria being told by a Nigerian court that he had no locus standi in a case involving the unconstitutional, if not criminal fritting away of public funds, to put it lightly. Further, considering that Nigeria has no formalized judicial review mechanism in place within our court system, and bearing in mind that the courts have other ways procedurally of stopping genuinely vexatious litigants, the ruling, to say the least, was very unreasonable. At the end of the day, it was not about the merit of Gani's case, because the effect of a no locus standi ruling is that you're never given the opportunity to make the case in the first place. The court simply said, go away, we don't want to listen to you, even though your case may be strong and the act you complain against is illegal, go away still; which is a shame really, because in this very case, it is an obvious abuse of the principle of locus standi by Justice Chikere. The logical conclusion from her stance is that only those illegally taking home this N2 billion - the unlawful beneficiaries - can come to court and challenge the law. This is like saying only a thief has the right to challenge the theft! Absurdity on four legs, if you ask me! Anyway, that is the case you are now mixing up with the new one Gani is instituting over this ministerial dollar payment affair. It is important to be clear on this point, because I suspect that in the coming days, we'll still have reasons to jaw-jaw about the court action relating to the issue at hand. Then, about minor mistakes of fact, I call them minor, because they would not really affect the fundamental strengths or weaknesses of your arguments if they're corrected; but they nonetheless need to be corrected, not only as part of getting the historical perspectives right, but also to be clear on the question of who did what, when and how. Take your claim below, for example: "Ostensibly, some recalcitrant ministers who felt aggrieved by several factors in the new Obasanjo administration, leaked the information to the press and since then there has been an chorus of indignation in the Nigerian media, whipping up flames of antagonism against these two ministers. " While I accept the ostensible nature of your claims, I think the emphasis should be on the fact that these revelations were made by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufot Ekaette, in written answers to queries posed to him by The Sunday Guardian. The speculation about Ministers and disgruntlement, while very strong, is uncorroborated. For instance, in no report have we heard any naira-salaried Minister mentioned as a disgruntled person or part of a disgruintled group. You talk about antagonism against the Ministers; those who object talk about the rule of law. You don't expect us to pat law-breakers on the back, so to read antagonism into some of our responses may be taking it a little too far. Of course, this does not invalidate the fact that there could be people out there gleefully prancing around, like some vultures, hoping to pick on the pieces when they fall. Again consider this : " Some misguided Nigerians are even petitioning the United Nations Development Fund, through which these two ministers' salaries are being offset under a special arrangement, to provide detailed information on the use of these funds. " This is a prejudicial declaration and, without mincing words, I can clearly say you are wrong, because the facts again do not bear you out. Obviously, you haven't read the Petition, and, if you've read it, you clearly didn't understand it (no offence meant, please). There is no part of the Petition asking for " detailed information on the use of these funds " or any fund for that matter. The only thing we are saying is - " Hey, UNDP, our Secretary to the Federal Government said you're operating a trust - The Nigeria Diaspora Trust Fund - on behalf of Nigerians to pay salaries in dollars to some of our Ministers, is that true? " We are not assuming anything; we are not accusing anybody, we have not asked the UNDP to do anything, save to confirm or deny. Of course, we refuse to vanish into thin air after the Secretary's revelation; rather we came out immediately demanding clarifications, which I think is the right and reasonable thing to do. But are we to assume now, based on your claims above, that you object to a process of seeking this clarification from the horse's mouth, especially where those involved have chosen to give worried citizens the silent treatment? Well, that cannot be acceptable, because the Trust (if it exists as they claim) is not Obasanjo's private trust, nor is it the private trust of Okonjo-Iweala, Adeniji or any public officer, rather it is the Nigerian people's trust; and except you're saying the beneficiaries, Nigerians, shouldn't know whether a Trust in their name exists or not, I just can't understand your beef. So, I'll like to think that Nigerians that are simply asking for confirmation/clarificastion of the UNDP's role in this affair are not " misguided "? Misguded about what? I suppose you're a Nigerian citizen interested in knowing the truth, the extent of UNDP's involvement, if any, and more information on exactly what the Fund is being used for, besides the bare information given by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. I urge you to read the Petition properly to understand what we are talking about, because ultimately, as an opinion moulder, people will look to you for direction. Knowing you by reputation (which has preceded you, I might add), I do not think you are in the business of leading people astray. Again, I say read this " Statement of Inquiry " and confirm that there's absolutely nothing prejudicial to the Ministers or the President in it; it's a straightforward request for information, presented as a Petition to underscore the fact that many people are interested in the information. Perhaps, part of the misconception in people's mind is this scary word " Petition ". I can understand that in the consciousness of the ordinary Nigerian, petition spells trouble; but in truth, its ordinary meaning is a " request ", a simple request for information. So please, go and read the Petition properly and join us in the noble mission of getting the information required. You should be seen side by side with Nigerians demanding to know what's going on; not take a cudgel to those doing the right and reasonable thing! Finally, I come to the core of your piece, which again is encapsulated in your quote below : " A large number of commentators and journalists in the Nigerian press have questioned the patriotism of these two ministers, inferring that they should feel privileged to have been selected as ministers to serve their country. They point out that conditions both in the finance sector as well as Nigeria's foreign image have not markedly improved since these ministers assumed their respective offices in 2003 after Obasanjo's reelection to a second term." This invariably takes us back to your title, which is a little misleading, by the way, because very little time was spent discussing lack of patriotism as an excuse by the opposition to the dollar salary payments. Instead, you spent quite a lot of time taking a partly panoramic view of the issue woven with a lot of personal experience. The danger of this approach is that it gives the impression of intrinsic disconnection with the core issue because of the very nature of it. Where personal experiences are great in butressing points in a debate, it really depends on the issue in that debate. In truth, they're extremist in effect - they either raise your arguments to the level of mass empathy or mass disconnection with your theme. I'm afraid that in this case, taken together with your no less controversial title, it creates the impression of disconnection with the national entity. It is only at this level that people will choose to understand your attempt to take patriotism out of the equation altogether; but can we? Patriotism demands the highest level of vigilance from the citizen and the highest level of performance from the public official. But both cannot act at cross-purposes; when they do, one of them could be right and the other wrong. Where both are wrong, they cannot take refuge in patriotism because both would be deemed to have equally failed the nation. The only way to adjudicate their differences - necessary differences - is through the law; the law is the only arbiter, determining the extents of rights, privileges, power and sustainable conditions necessary for the advancement and progress of society through the lawful activities of both parties. Curiously, you located the argument of the opposition as being about a breach or breaches of "specific constitutional provisions which stipulate how much officials in different categories of the country's service should be paid, in the Nigerian currency, including President Obasanjo himself ", but failed to address the matter further. Rather, you simply jumped into this unsubstantiated assumption that " there is something to be argued as to why two ministers should receive their salaries in dollars, while other ministers are paid in the Nigerian currency, which many feel is becoming valueless in comparison to the dollar ". Of course, I say " unsubstantiated ", because what you tendered as substantiations really cannot pass muster. Take your argument that Obasanjo's first term failures necessitated him having to seek expert hands to leave a somewhat worthy legacy this time, since we aren't expecting him to have a third term, etc; how would such an argument stand if we were to run it through the gauntlet of reason? This is failed substantiation and a bad counter-argument, because it inadvertently supports the case of the objectors here! Why should a man, who has failed this much as you've attested to here, be allowed to wake up some days later to trash our Constitution, as he's serially trashed it all the while he's been there, in the name of some elusive success? Is success ever built on illegality? I mean, should the law be made a scapegoat for what you admitted to be Obasanjo's first term failures? Extending this same argument to the Ministers, does the fact that Nigeria's currency is " becoming valueless ", as you've put it, excuse a reform-minded Finance Minister and Foreign Minister to trash it further by collecting their pay in dollars? What do we then make of the primary job of the Finance Minister to buoy the currency or the Foreign Minister as part of a cabinet supposedly committed to buoying up this failing currency? How would all those involved react to a charge of economic sabotage, which, as harsh as it sounds, does have all its elements as a crime present in their actions? Without mincing words, the action of each of our experts here as far as it concerns the naira is like that of a child-minder killing a child and coming before the parents to brandish impeccable references from previous parents she's served! How can Mrs Okonjo-Iweala and Ambassador Adeniji's dollar payments help the naira? It's only in Nigeria that people can still have the patience to argue when the head is off! In public service, it's all about impressions first. Your second substantiation bothers on the claims you made below: "I am yet to see in the salary debate the same vehemence in argument about the disparity that exists between Nigerians and expatriates who are ostensbly brought to do tasks that Nigerians could easily perform, but are paid substantially higher than Nigerians ". And, still on that theme of expatriates, you went on : " Those who are calling on these two ministers to resign are an embarrassment. And to question their patriotism is the height of irresponsibility. After all, why are they not questioning the patriotism of the hundreds of thousands of expatriates who are fleecing Nigeria of hundreds of millions of dollars every day? " Again, you miss the point. These expatriate are not brought into public service to administer Nigerians or Nigerian laws; the days of colonialism are long behind! By definition EXPATRIATES ARE NOT NIGERIANS; they owe you no loyalty, only a necessary duty to obey your laws. And if you're too lax to enforce them or too dumb to have good ones in place, yeah, they'd fleece you to the bare bones. And that applies everywhere. You talked about Nigerians as credit card fraudsters, etc; so, let's just say in the international system what goes on comes around, if you know what I mean. But seriously, I am not calling on anyone to resign or anyone not to resign. When a public offer takes a decision of this nature, whether from pressure or personal conviction, it is always based on the facts as it appears to the public that is being served. I'll simply enjoin any public officer in this situation to do the right thing, putting everything into consideration. Making rash decisions won't help anyone. So, let's not go into overdrive here, at least we are yet to get all the facts. From their records, Okonjo-Iweala was no law-breaker at the World Bank, neither was Adeniji a convention-ignoring, treaty-breaking, lawless international diplomat to the best of our knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn't come as highly-recommended as they are. But maybe it's something in the waters out there in Nigeria that causes all this froth; yet even so, let's hold our horses until we discover what this is and, as one patriotic, committed community, try to address it. That is why I see a silver linning in this crisis; it may well be the beginning of our march out of the grip of impunity. In conclusion, while I understand your displeasure with those you claim are debasing the image of the two Ministers involved, considering their impeccable antecedents, I will also urge you to view the larger national picture. You ask what patriotism has got to do with being well paid doing a good job, I say a lot if you're a Nigerian and a lot more if you're in the public service. The law is no respecter of persons or reputation; it is a blind but fair distributor of goods and an equal opportunity distributor of punishment for infractions or crimes against justiciable societal rules, most importantly, the Constitution. It therefore follows that citizens and public officials must not necessarily fear the law, but respect it; because while fear may provide a veneer of law and order, only respect for the law brings freedom and progress within a democratic milieu. Okonjo-Iweala and Adeniji did not come to Nigeria to break the law; they came to work. But the law determines what they can do and what they cannot do. While they may not be in position to fully determine the nature of success or otherwise of their mission while in service (as it necessarily depends on the cooperation they get from those they're answerable to administratively on one hand and those they are serving on the other), when it comes to the law, they stand answerable alone. As educated and accomplished persons coming into a system, it is not their place to join up with those they're answerable to administratively (in this case, the President) and work out a rule of conduct, operations and remuneration against the provisions, spirit and intendment of the law, whether for their own personal benefit or for others. Once this happens, every party in that affair answers to the extent of their involvement. It is therefore no excuse to say they are here to work, and that having being lured to work, they're entitled to special privileges over and above those specifically prescribed by the law. The President has no powers to lure them into breaking such rules for their own personal gains or to meet their own special needs in the name of necessity. Necessity is no substitute for the law; it is a servant and nothing more. So, when citizens protest against breaches of the law, they are simply doing their patriotic duty and the only way the public official can return to the refuge of patriotism is to also return to the law to join the people in rescuing the burning national chestnut from the fire. Kennedy Emetulu, London
|
# 
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.