---

Patrick Swayze did Dirty Dancing. What a sizzler it was. Our men of power prefer Naked Dancing in th...Read the full article.

---

SPLENDID. The point cannot be more amplified. Firm structures and institutions are the only pillars that can hold the Nigeria we all strive for; the ideal Nigeria.
Any attempt to manipulate our constitution in order to advance one person's ambition may lay a precedent that will ultimately destroy our country in the long run. My fear is not a third term for OBJ but what may happen after him.
A miscreant can become President and also attempt to manipulate the Constitution to perpetuate himself in office.Where will that leave us as a nation? Your guess may even be worse than mine.
Frankly, I think that even if the Heavens will fall, this shady proposals for the amendment of our Constitution must not be allowed to scale through.

---

Naked Dancing Is a popular african dance called Mapouka which is very popular in Congo, Camerooun, Ivory Coast and even Nigeria.

Tenure Extension is just 1 of over 100 amendments to the Miltary Constitution but If the National Assembly who has the right to amend the constitution goes ahead to do just that, I have no problem with it because It is all politics with winners and losers.

USA made the 22nd amendment to its constitution in 1953 to put term limits to its Presidents but in England as in much of parlamentary Europe, there is no term limits. In some of the Asian countries that we look up to like Malaysia, the leader stayed long to consolidate his programs i.e refused to abandon the programs. If tenure extension limit is set to 3 terms by the National Assembly , It does not mean the voters cannot vote out any unpopular leader.

---

Nice article. There is no doubt about the fact that Nigeria needs to establish institutions. However the big question is who and who will establish these institutions.
This political game called third term has the politicians as the main actors and beneficiaries, hence the need to reflect on the political class in the pursuance of whatever objective we, on the outside are setting.
We need to evaluate both sides with a view to determining the degree of reliance that we can place on each.

The constitution has been in existence for over SEVEN years and those opposing the current moves(amendment) have not been known to have reviewed the document for loopholes with a view to addressing them in the past seven years.
How i wish the press had been awash with the review of the constitution in the last two years and all efforts geared towards constitutional amendment. Perhaps things would have been different.
Indeed the politicians have treated the constitution with contempt. Instead of taking steps to rectify the "anomalies" before now they were busy attacking OBJ and his government, inciting the people, collecting chieftancy titles from Damaturu to Ile-Ife, buying houses all over the world and doing all manner of things that show them as unserious contenders. They were simply waiting for the hand over of power to them. PDP was working so hard that almost everybody is now in PDP. The party was regularly informing the public of her plans and soliciting for support etc. But can you tell me one piece of positive information from the other parties in the last two years, save for the recent ANPP convention and the unfolding of her plans?
Yes i support the fact that we should institute and nurture an enduring democratic culture, but the main actors we have now have proved to be so disappointing that not to support the third term will amount to compensating the politicians for their failures.
They have been visionless and careless and perhaps this will be a very good lesson for them and other visionless politicians that may want to come around in the future.
In business there is something that they call BENCHMARKING. These people dont benchmark anything, didnt plan for anything, didnt pay attention to their manual of procedure(constitution) hence the comedy of errors on their part.

Finally, they are back to blackmail and intimidation. Lying and trying to use the public against the elected officials. this will not work. we are no more under military rule when it was "we" and "them".

Let them strategise, let them sweat , let them invest their monies and other resources in the democratic process so that when they get power they will appreciate it and not treat Nigeria as "business as usual - chieftancy titles, fuller harem, mansions overseas etc." Let them stop inciting the public and face the battle as men. It is amazing that they are asking the public to fight when they are yet to tell them the alternative programme that they have for them.
For these politicians the public is gullible. But they will soon realize how wrong they are.

taslim

---

It is these kinds of seemingly innocous comparisons that got us this close to the precipice. To compare the amendment being contemplated in Nigeria with those made in the US, etc. is completely mischevious and in fact devilish.

First, by the admission of the current president in Nigeria, elections in Nigeria are perenially rigged and higly unreliable. To postulate that it would be up to the electorate to vote any which way they want is a bared-faced lie by those who know better.

OBJ's administration of 3rd term at all costs has at its disposal all of the governmental apparatus to randomly arrest, oppress and bribe with oil dollars to no end. The National Assembly or any the state houses cannot be expected to speak creditably. Can you expect Oyo State's legislature to speak with any kind of moral authority?

Most importanty, it is extreme wickedness to try to use the might of the governmental resources to unlawfully force the delusion of indispensibility of one decrepit old man on the future of 120+ million people.

The good part to all these is that Nigerians are unlikely to trust any of the former military leaders given the current machinations of OBJ who had to be rescued from prison.

Free Publius

---

Mr. Anibaba

You allege that those oppsing "current moves" have never reviewed the constitution to rectify the loopholes. Well, are you suggesting the prolonged agitations and efforts of the likes of Prof. Soyinka, Gani, PRONACO, etc. never happened? And only the likes of PDP who brought us the bewilderment called the Oyo State shame were the ONLY ones with the foresight and moral rectitude to do these? Please re-check your facts.

I was waiting to see how long it would take for you to come out and attempt to discredit Prof. Utomi. I'm partly disappointed because you came out with these lukewarm, sideways posting. Why cant you simply say you disagree with the man and let the chips fall where they may.

Look my friend, until you come out and speak unambigously about your views on the third term issue itself, not the Trojan package distraction of the other 100 "amendments," would you be able to assert creditably on this issue. The kind of moral relativism attempts to change the topic here is simply not going to work.

The issue front and center is whether or not our constitution should allow OBJ or any other political leader to rig their way to any kind of third term. Not, whether mobile police should wear red, green or yellow and other kinds of inanities.

If OBJ was so sincerely intended, could he not have exempted his current administration from the changes he's seekng in the 3rd term amendments to the constitution? Dont you think he would have had much more credibility?

Again, Mr. Anibaba, the present issue is NOT about the NONFESANCE of politicians who did nothing to change the constitution but about MALFEASANCE of a corrupt, delusional, old man colluding with a devilish few to contuining to rape and pillage the country.

Free Publius

---

At what cost should the constitution be amended to allow the initiators of the amendment to continue in office? At the expense of the rule of law! Who gains and who loses when the rule of law is rubbished as is done in this case? You and I, your children and my children lose; people like IBB and Atiku will win! Do not forget that these other people may eventually get into the presidency to tweak the constitution to service their interests too; they may use the example of Mubarak in Egypt to extend their own tenure to 50 years while producing nothing for anybody.

Also, note that the same people, especially from the South (Anenih and co), who argued for tenure extension for Abacha, are doing it now. They saw the need for Abacha to continue. This shows their kind of wisdom and rationality. Wherever the wind blows, they follow the wind just to serve their prevailing personal interests.

Also, consider what could happen to Nigeria if OBJ insists on staying. War could break out. Does it worth it? If OBJ really wants to have a war with the North, has he done enough bridge-building with Southerners to rally everybody together? Can you really say that OBJ has been as kind to Southerners as he has been to Northern Jihadists? Who was he more likely to shoot to kill? How many Southern groups have been imprisoned for treason compared to Northern groups who have murdered many Southerners in religious riots?

You see, you may be winning now, but we all will lose as soon as the North clutches the presidency, simply because OBJ disregarded the rule of law at our own peril! How many years did the North rule with nothing to show for their work? If OBJ was really smart, he could have used this issue well.

He could have insisted that the South must rule for the next 20 years. He could have convinced the South with his actions and policies that we need to rally together to that effect. Some of us would have been out there supporting him. Can you say that this is the plan given the personalities scheming for tenure extension and given some of the actions of OBJ? Think about OBJ’s political confab and how it was conducted; think about the murder of Bola Ige; think about the beating up of the protesting old women in Lagos; think of the Oyo and Anambra crises, the fight with Tinubu, OBJ’s refusal to obey the courts; think about the condition of roads and schools in Nigeria; think about poverty, etc.

He could have fought for division of the nation based on Northern 20 years of misrule. Many of us could have joined him in the cause too. Did he?


I see no good ending to the current crisis, especially for the Southerners. We will all be losers in the end!

When I was about to post the above, I saw Taslim’s talk about benchmark. What is benchmarking? Is it different from performance standards? What standards is he applying to appraise OBJ’s 7 years in office? The economy? The vital health data? What is he using? Please, Mr. Taslim, give us the current data and comparisons to pre-1999 data!!! I challenge you to a debate right now just on vital economic and health data produced by OBJ, compared to pre-1999 information.

Mr. Taslim, if you are really honest and not motivated by selfish gains, take up my challenge, and I will come back to provide you with a useserID and a password to a neutral web site, where we can debate the records and performance of OBJ with quantifiable numbers produced and analyzed by independent organizations and governments. In fact, you can bring Adujie and others with you; many of you against me alone.

---

Democracy struggles in Nigeria

By HANK ESO
Sunday 16 April 2006


The ongoing third-term bid evokes déjà vu, pain, and discomfort. It is an albatross that won’t just go away. Many Nigerians feel like they are reliving their worst nightmare. Many more feel that they are “doing penance for the disingenuousness of years past”; not so much about bad leaders who take the nation for a ride, as much as it is about the naïveté of Nigerians in believing that the next leader will not be as bad as the previous ones. But alas, we know better.

In his speech on 23 September 1987 titled, “ A New Political Culture”, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida told Nigerians amongst other things,

“I wish to state categorically that this administration does not wish or plan to succeed itself. That is the main reason for excluding all retired or serving members of the Armed forces, who held or are holding the above listed offices from participating in elections during the transition period.”

In hindsight, we now know that what Babangida meant was that he intended to succeed himself and had devised a way to stymie his colleagues who might pose an obstacle to his grand design. A decade later, General Sani Abacha tried the same ploy under a different guise, having also locked up those erstwhile military colleagues he believed would be an obstacle to his goals.

I recall vividly Abacha’s assumption of office. It was not heralded. It was not welcomed. Indeed, three days after his palace coup, The New York Times editorial on 20 November 1993 said it all in its jumping, screaming, and scathing headline titled, “Democracy Struggles in Africa.” Coming as it was, on the heels of a military takeover in Nigeria and the adoption of a post-apartheid interim Constitution in South Africa, the editorial asserted that the return of the military in Nigeria was a cruel setback to democracy. Another key setback was the emasculation and jailing of outspoken Nigerians, including General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd).

Today, many Nigerians speak with both trepidation and consternation about the tendency of history to repeat itself in Nigerian politics. Just as they worried about General Babangida succeeding himself in the 80s, and then about General Abacha succeeding himself in the early 90s, they are now not only profoundly confounded about the true state of democracy in Nigeria but wonder if indeed democracy can yield any dividend in Nigeria. More critically, they are compelled to worry about General Obasanjo succeeding himself in 2007 and its consequences for Nigeria.

Unsurprisingly, matters like these, which only create problems, have long existed and have been publicly acknowledged. In his first Letter to My Countryman titled, “Whose Cause?” Prince Tony Momoh, the then Minister of Information and Culture. had this to say:

The bane of our country can be traced to what we have made of politics. In a bid to be in control at any cost, we have subverted the ballot box. Without firing a shot, politicians have seized power and manipulated Nigerians for so long that failure to resolve the problem now would create more problems in future.

Prince Tony Momoh might have very well been writing about Nigeria under President Obasanjo in 2006, instead of Nigeria under President Shehu Shagari from 1979 to 1983. But like all paid government propagandists, he was merely justifying in 1986 why the military had returned to power in Nigeria. But I cite this only to buttress that Nigerian politicians did not start subverting the ballot boxes and Nigerian constitution today. When it suits them, they suspend provisions of the constitutions so as to give effect to military rule. Now, they wish to amend parts of the Nigeria Constitution to give effect to an extended-stay-in-office desire. And they do so, only to serve their personal whims and causes, not necessarily in the national interest. It is against this background, that we must assess recent political developments in Nigeria.

Before I proceed, I am compelled to make one point clear: There is nothing wrong with amending or retooling any nation’s constitution to make it more efficacious and practical. After all, many national constitutions including that of the United States have been amended. Such tinkering, if need be, must first be adjudged to be in the national interest and not partisan or self-serving. And the latter is the grouse many Nigerians have with the ongoing efforts by the Ibrahim Mantu-led National Assembly Joint Committee on the 1999 Constitution Review (JRRC), which remains exceedingly suspect for several reasons. Primary among these is that the proposed amendment of section 137(1) (b) and section 182 (1) (b) of the Constitution, which aims at extending the two-term tenures of the president and governors, is seen by many, including non-Nigerians, as a camouflage for self-perpetuation in office by President Obasanjo.

Like all things Nigerian, the President Obasanjo has his ardent supporters; the diehards who will support him, come hell or high water on this vexatious issue. But this “Fanatic and Martyr” mentality is not new in Nigeria. It is worth recalling here that there were soldier-politicians who helped Babangida in negatively reconstructing Nigeria’s political landscape, by vowing that they would “follow him into combat blind-folded.” As I write, they are back to work again by pushing for Babangida’s return to power in 2007. Such zealotry, hero-worship, and sycophancy did not end with the Babangida's regime. It played itself out with disastrous consequences during the Abacha's regime. The same mindset, or better still, this groupthink is yet at work in Nigeria under President Obasanjo and in a democratic setting. The potential dangers cannot be glossed over.

It needs admitting here that those who like I, are aficionados of the “use of history” in determining the prospective success or failure of policy options and acts of decision-makers, can already see the handwriting on the wall. The ongoing third-term bid, of which the constitutional amendment pertaining to other issues is just a façade, will flop in the long run. Why? Generals Gowon, Babangida, and Abacha all tried to extend their respective stay in office and failed. General (President) Obasanjo can, therefore, not be an exception to this historical reality. But should this claim be deemed an unreasoning from analogies, let us then consider the basis on which a third term is being predicated and, indeed, if there is any merit or validity.

PROBING PRESUMPTIONS
As President Obasanjo winds up his second and what ought to be his final term as the leader of democratic Nigeria, deep skepticism abound about what happened in Nigeria over the past seven years, as well as about Obasanjo’s leadership abilities and his willingness to set Nigeria on the part of glory. President Obasanjo is not totally blameless for the morass in which Nigeria wallows today. While he may be less so than President Babangida and General Abacha, he still bears a vicarious responsibility, first as a soldier-ruler and second, as someone who has been given the opportunity to make amends, but instead chose to fritter that opportunity away for inexplicable reasons. This may explain why he feels that he needs another four years to complete his mandate. In reality, however, he has left Nigerians no other choice but to be pessimistic. Behind their skepticism, lies the profound knowledge that the past three years has been, at best, a rehash of the shambolic leadership and “politics of chimpanzees” that they witnessed between 1999 to 2003.

Why is this so?

Various assessments have been made of Obasanjo’s accomplishment in his first term. The jury is in and the verdict is not rosy. Ditto the second term, which is just winding down. Indeed, in his own self-assessment, Obasanjo confirmed his administration’s non-performance when, on concluding his first term, he recalled less than twenty of his over fifty ministers and special advisers to serve with him in his second term. That barely makes the fiftieth percentile and, certainly, that is not a pass mark. Some ministers fell by the way side for their complicity in official malfeasance. More interestingly, there is nothing better with which to judge a man than his own words and standards. So let’s hear OBJ out.

In his 23 February 2003 speech, titled “The New Orientation,” President Obasanjo posed the following questions about his administration to his ministers:

Have we achieved the optimum results?
Is there anything we can do better?
Are we meeting the people’s expectations?
Are we moving the nation forward?
Do we properly and accurately access obstacles on our path?
And are we staying focused on our vision for the nation?”

I believe the answer to these questions are self-evident.

If President Obasanjo had posed these questions on the eve of 29th May 2003, any honest Nigerian would have courageously looked him in the face and answered a categorical “NO” to all the questions. And if OBJ is courageous enough to call for a national referendum on his proposed third term in office and asked exactly the same questions of Nigerians, the response to all would equally be a resounding “NO,” except for the second question about the nation doing better and the fourth, about “moving the nation forward.” Yes, the nation can surely do better, and the nation has moved forward, even if haltingly, in the sense that we still have a civilian administration, albeit (s)elected by the Nigerian population. But then, it seems the president is bent on ensuring a reverse.

Proponents of a third term predicate their push on the argument that President Obasanjo needs to complete the reform programs he started. Such contentions are based on mere presumptions. They are not necessarily true nor can they be validated, but President Obasanjo can be judged by his track record thus far. But first, the presumptions must be tested. Richard E. Nuestadt and Ernest R. May, who are counted amongst the eminent people seized with empirically assessing such matters, tell us that “the first step toward testing presumptions is to sort them, to set aside the ‘maybes’ least weighed down by the ‘truths,’ and also the free-standing ‘truths’ that cannot well be tested. What remains are likely for the most part to be the ‘if/thens’ along with some truth hiding the ‘maybes.’

Were one to use the aforementioned “presumption” parameter to judge President Obasanjo’s past record, the reasons for the negative answers will become even more evident, especially if one judged Obasanjo’s accomplishments by his promises. During Nigeria’s 40th independence anniversary he laid bare his mission as being, “to build a truly great African democratic country, politically united, and stable, economically prosperous, socially organized, wit equal opportunity for all, and making adequate all-embracing contributions, sub-regionally, regionally and globally.”

It will not be uncharitable to say that the above promise, vision, and commitment were not only platitudinous, but also vacuous. For how can we honestly say that Nigeria has made progress when the national economy is regressing and chugging along more towards tanking than towards recovery? Is the rampant corruption and official malfeasance in Nigeria to be taken as a measure of progress? Is the endless shutting down of the universities and schools and the fact that more Nigerians died from political, ethnic, and religious crises in first four years under Obasanjo than in the five years Abacha ruled litmus tests of the vibrancy of democracy in Nigeria? Are politically divisive policies a measure of a politically united country? Finally, what is to be made of warped public policies that have led to nowhere, including the selective enforcement of the anti-corruption campaign?

The sum total “truth” -- not the “if” or “maybe” -- is that over the past seven years the Obasanjo Administration has been conflicted on how to make progress in the political economic and social realm in the interest of Nigeria. Rather, it has engaged in institution building, self-preservation, and laying the foundation that will form the basis of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) retaining power beyond 2007. As it turned out, its aspirations for the PDP converged on a few occasions with the aspirations of the people. While this intermittent convergence has led to the make-belief claim of good governance, nothing could be farthest from the truth. It would therefore be a folly to insist or to misread such coincidences as a product of good governance rather than the aberration they are. In fairness to President Obasanjo, his policies are not outright dishonest; they are just diffused. Moreover, those he appointed to office were either self-serving or believed that their jobs were best protected by mouthing off their defense of the president and even his churlish policies at every juncture. In the end, they only succeeded in confirming that every bureaucracy creates its own weaknesses.

Those who today want to offer President Obasanjo another lease of life in the Nigerian presidency mouth-off about the virtues of his past and present leadership. They forget, however, that “the highest proof of virtue is to possess boundless power without abusing it.” But then it is also true, as McGeorge Bundy once observed, that “officials of government like other humans beings, find it easier to remember their powers than their obligations.” They also make promises they have no intention of fulfilling. Perhaps, it is this tendency and gumption to achieve devious ends by a political sleight of the hand that led someone to conclude that “all politicians are liars and nonentities.”

THE PROMISE
In his 29 May 2003 inaugural speech titled, “We Will Heal Nigeria” President Obasanjo, professed being “humbled by the confidence reposed in our leadership by the overwhelming response to our campaign for continuity, stability, and progress.” However, his promise for the next four years, which also could be interpreted as the “Roadmap” for that period, seemed more a confirmation that the task he embarked on 29th May 1999 remained essentially unfinished. Some critics would add that he had not even scratched the surface. What were these promises? He said:

Personally, I saw the retrogression as a failure of leadership and I was emboldened by my earlier experience whereby we had left legacies of what is achievable under good leadership. We identified as imperative, the need to restore the rule of law. Our social institutions had to be firmly based on principles of equality, justice, and peaceful co-existence. We recognized that we must enshrine the ethics of transparency, accountability, and responsible leadership. And we also recognized that, in order to reduce poverty and improve the quality of life, we had to put in place an economic regime that was efficient, productive and capable of delivering perceptible results….Our persistent drive to attract foreign investment has resulted in an increase in the number of foreign investors who have either invested in the country or are planning to do so. We have markedly improved the conditions of service of public sector employees. And Due Process has made its impact on costs of contracts, supplies, and purchases.

And President Obasanjo also touched and another critical problems bedeviling Nigeria -- corruption -- and surmised:

For starters, we have been able to put in place an anti-corruption commission which, unfortunately, has had to cope with legislative and constitutional hurdles. The commission has brought 39 cases of corruption to court for prosecution; this is in stark contrast with none at all in the preceding 20 years. After the court battle on the anti-corruption law, we will seek to amend the initial law for expeditious handling of corruption cases in the court.

THE REALITY
Critics and many unpaid advisers have already painted a vivid picture of the unmet challenges during the past seven years of the Obasanjo administration. Hopes and high expectations over the last three years were dashed, despite what The Daily Times editorial of 29 May 2003 referred to as “the challenge of re-inventing Nigeria.” Certainly, this was not meant to have been an easy task. Succeeding required a total change of our political and socio-economy environment or in President Obasanjo’s own words, “a new orientation.” It called for creating a favorable investment climate, meant not only attract foreign investors but also to encourage Nigerians to invest in their own country without first considering the security worries of their lives, property, and liberty. This is the only way to bring in the much-needed infusion of capital. But this did not happen. It should be painfully obvious to the president and all that he has not delivered; which may explain his desire for another fours years in office.

Despite the much touted debt forgiveness which is deemed one of the cardinal economic achievements of the Obasanjo administration, it bears remembering what former US Secretary of State Collin Powell said of capital:

“You must end corruption. You must have the rule of law. You must have transparency in your systems. Capital is a coward. It flees disease. It won’t go near corruption. It goes where risk is understood and successful risk is received with rewards."

So what should one make of the much-touted democracy dividend? Well, it all depends on who one speaks to in our-less-than-grateful nation. By and large, Nigerians still feel emasculated, unloved, and disrespected by their leader and distracted by the high-decibel brand of politics his supporters pursue. They also feel duped and resent the ongoing attempt to willfully amend the Nigerian Constitution, under the pretext that it is being done in their name, interest, and with their imprimatur. Nigerians are no fools. They know that the past seven years have been a life and a tale of lurching from one crisis after another. Such shortcomings are the stuff of which great political legacies are made.

THE LEGACY
True to his messianic image and disposition, President Obasanjo’s inaugural speech and subsequent ones raised public expectations that are in reality unmatched by policies and projects he eventually delivered. He promised to fight corruption to a standstill, to right the wrongs of the past, to rehabilitate decaying infrastructure and to revamp the economy. He promised more than his team “some good, many bad and several representing Nigeria's ugly past” had the capacity or the intent to deliver.

The sum total of President Obasanjo’s legacy, on which some are now basing the campaign for a third term, was captured in the Thisday editorial of 29 May 2003:

“On the completion of his tenure in 2007, Obasanjo would have led Nigeria for about 12 years - the most by any Nigerian leader. In his first reluctant entry into leadership, he successfully midwifed the Second Republic ending an orgy of military rule and civil strife. In his second coming, he was elected literally from prison to begin the Fourth Republic. Now in his second and final term, the next four years will determine his legacy.”

Regrettably, there is no legacy to keep or defend. If there were, there would be no need for the ongoing clamor for a third term. This is the reality. And what was not achieved in eight years will not be achieved in the next four years.

It is time for the President Obasanjo to come clean and put an end to this orgy of political deceit and treachery. The notion that Nigeria cannot forge ahead without him is the most preposterous political contention I have heard in years. Just as the president is politically astute, he is equally biblically savvy. He therefore needS not be reminded of the rich one who said, “Rejoice my soul.” The ongoing third term campaign “brims the poisoned well.” While “fate, be it glorious, disastrous or familiar is always pre-ordained,” Nigerians do not seem resigned to accepting another four years in hope that they will move from political stultification to a glorious outcome. The general perception is that the political climate under Obasanjo will only get worse. In this context, President Obasanjo needs to remember that “law will never be strong or respected unless it has the sentiment of the people behind it.” The constitutional amendment to give effect to a third term does not. The third-term campaign must therefore stop forthwith.

Meanwhile, democracy struggles in Nigeria! What a sad postscript?

---

---

ATTN: GODWIN

Fair and good. It still brings us back to the core issues namely- the shady nature of the proposals, and the disregard for the institutional procedures laid down for such amendments.

The 1999 Constitution is clear and unequivocal regarding the procedure for its amendment. All propositions in this regard are supposed to be blessed by a majority of the respective Houses of Assembly in 2/3 states.

The process of Regional/zonal Sittings adopted by the infamous Mantu JCR committee is (with all respect) strange to the Constitution. The sincerity of its intentions/objectives are defeated by the man's antecedents, and the plethora of corruption allegations existing to his credit. In those countries mentioned by your goodself someone like Mantu will have long resigned from the senate to go and answer to the recurrent corruption allegations outstanding in his credit.

Nigerians are tolerant, but it is a great disservice to disrespect our collective intelligence by advancing incoherent arguments and analogies that tend to portray us as intellectually challenged or impaired. Hell No! Not in a country blessed with the wisdom and learning of people like the Udo Udomas; the Patrick Utomis; Ben Nwabuezes'; Wole Soyinkas etc.
The last Constitutional Conference provided a good opportunity for us to kick start the process for fine tuning the 1999 Constitution but most delegates of the Government were more interested in smuggling in a third term agenda for Mr President into the Constitution. So much so that the genuine yearnings and aspirations of the people were swept under the carpet. Perhaps if the contributions of the likes of Oronto Douglas were taken more seriously we will have long overcome the current Niger Delta dilemma.

Let us avoid error. Our current experience is in no way analagous to the examples you have cited.In the case of the United States there was no disregard for the laid down procedure. Malaysia does not apply at all.
The truth is that President Obasanjo has commendably played his role in the Nigerian Nation building experience (despite his alleged negative disposition to the constitution and obedience of court orders). No body can take this away from him. Matter of factly it now appears to me that his biggest enemy today is himself.

How? You may ask- I fear that Mr President may self destruct. I fear that he may be deceived into damaging the historic place he has secured in the history of our nation by allowing this unholy conspiracy by self serving individuals to misguide him. The patriotic thing for him to do in the circumstance is to search for, and support someone who is likely to continue with the reforms in line with the dictitates of Constitutional Stipulations. I remain steadfast in my prayers for him to so do.

---

With due respect Prof. Nigeria is not Lagos Business School where all manners of "Business Models" and "Case Studies" are being formulated, many of which resulted to failures and the distress of the 14 liquidated banks recently.

We remember how you vehemently opposed the consolidation policy in the banking sector with your analysis. Today the whole world is applauding the bold and courageous move no matter what you may have in mind.

Nigeria is a democracy where democratic institutions are in place and thriving. Americans have changed their constitution several times, with several amendment proposals still in the works. Just on January 7, 2003 congressman Jose E. Serrano a democrat representing New York in the United States House of Representatives proposed a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment to the Uinted States constitution which limit the presidential term to 2. Again, on February 25, 2003, seven house of representative members, namely;
Steny H. Hoyer, Dem. Md 5,
Henry J. Hyde, Rep. Il-6,
Barney Frank, Dem. Ma-4,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Rep.wi-5
Howard L. Berman, Dem. Ca-28
Martin Olav Sabo, Dem Mn-5
Frank Pallone Jr, Dem. Nj-6
submitted a bill similar to the first one by Serrano, both seeking to abolish the maximum term limit for the president of the united states.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/d?c109:6:./temp/~c1093abvso

Enough of US this and US that.

You may wish to be reminded that Nigeria is not Volkswagen Nig Ltd. There is no institution in any democracy that is superior to the parliament/congress which is elected by the people. We can strengthen that one too by not degrading it as you are attempting to do.

Prof. what we need most in Africa is the reduction of poverty to the barest minimum and not your URBAN BASED ELITIST MODELS that cannot stand the test of time. How do we institutionalize Cassava or Cocoa or Dongoyaro tree? All of which have the potential to reduce poverty by many percentage. Whenever it suits your ego, you mention Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore etc, but as soon as you are marched with figure for figure and argument for argument you resort to some bogus comparism with Abacha politicians. Yet these people have been elected by their various constituencies to represent them.

Once again Nigeria cannot be allowed to fail like Volkswagen Nig. Ltd. Never.

---

My take is that you don't do what you don't have the right to do. But if the constituion confers the right to OBJ to go once more, then, he should go ahead and do it. In this case OBJ is not the cause of all these panic and coward reactions, it is the House of Assembly to whom all the reactions to stop it should be directed.

Through the observation, you can see that the divide in the country is between the beneficiaries and the victims of the old regimes of status quo. Where was Utomi during the Shagari administration? Where was he during Babangida and Abacha? a small boy getting fat foods! Now, it is time for him to do the necessary exercise to slim down a little bit; and such exercise takes a little pain and cry.

As long as majority of the caountry say yes, that is what I go by. When I see the signs that it is against the interest of the majority I will join your bandwagon. For now the ball is in the court of electorate that ellected the representatives of House of Assembly.

I rather see hell break the roofs than breaking the genuine movement.