Friday, 17th June, 2011

COMMENTARY

ON RISING INSECURITY IN THE COUNTRY

BY: BIODUN DARE

Security is vital to the growth and development of any society. It is an understatement to say that security is the lifeblood of any development effort whether at the individual, institutional, community or national level.  Security is the degree of protection against danger, damage, loss or crime and it entails the presence of an atmosphere that is conducive for the pursuit of legitimate individual, group or national interests.  The value of a secured enviroment is unquantifiable in the life of a nation. It is the starting point of any attempt at development.  In Nigeria, the security situation can be said to be challenging. The country can boast of relative peace, when the situation is viewed from a national perspective. 

While some improvement has been made in some difficult areas such as the Niger-Delta situation, the security challenges seem to have been replaced by other equally worrisome criminal trends.  No sooner had the dust seem to settle on militant activities and kidnapping than a new wave of security threat in the form of bombing took over. Even the kidnapping which seemed to have subsided for a while is now rearing its head again in some parts of the country. As we speak, the five Corps members kidnapped last week in River State are still in the custody of their abductors. Since the multiple explosions that was recorded during the nation’s golden jubilee celebrations last year, countless bombings have been witnessed in various locations in the country.  Some of those that readily come to mind are the explosions at the mammy markets in Abuja last and that of Bauchi recently. At different times, Suleja, a once peaceful town has been rocked by two bomb explosions in recent time.

In Maiduguri, bombs have been going off at a rate which will soon make it look like its a normal occurrence. Yesterday’s bomb attack on the Force Headquarters in Abuja tells us of how dreadful the times are. Another security challenge is the mindless crimes that are being committed. The last post election violence where some Nigerians were senselessly murdered in the name of protesting an election result brings to the fore the issue of law enforcement capacity and security in the country. The rise of ‘Boko Haram’ is another clear testimony that the nation’s security apparatus has been called to question.   The group has been involved in a series of violent attacks on persons and the state since the run-up to the election, almost with impunity, to the extent that the new Governor, Alhaji Kashim had to plead with them to sheath their swords. 

Recently, two factions of the National Union of Road Transport Workers in Oyo state engaged themselves in a bloody clash for the umpteenth time. Of course, innocent lives also went with it.  Bank robberies have also not abated. In different parts of the country, cases of attacks on banks feature in the news media. The implication of this scenario is grave, if allowed to fester. First, it is capable of stalling any developmental intention of Government. The much needed foreign investment in the country is bound to be elusive if the security situation is not addressed. The nation stands to lose on every count, with a poor perception on its security. So far, the response to these security challenges has been inadequate. A paradigm shift is required in our crime fighting strategies.  A shift from physical aggression to intelligence based security. 

The capacity of security operatives for intelligence sourcing, processing, analysing, and utility should be given utmost priority, for in this lies the key to unlocking the solution to violent crimes.  The security operatives should court the support and co-operation of members of the public through deliberate efforts aimed at confidence building.   The public should be made to see the security people as friends indeed. A situation where the security agencies frighten members of the public by any means is counter-productive. Strategies such as the recent barricading of roads, restriction of movement, keeping people incommunicado, harassment is not the best way  to improve insecurity in the country.  Attention should be given to properly equipping the Police force. Communication gadgets and other information technology equipments should as a matter of priority be given to the Police to enhance not just information among themselves but with members of the public. 

Cases of criminality should be diligently prosecuted and guilty persons seen to be appropriately sanctioned. This way, the culture of impunity will be discouraged and serve as an effective deterrence.  Security should not be seen as the responsibility of the security agencies alone but as our collective duty, after all, we are all direct stakeholders in the security of our land.

   THE MEDIA AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

 A 50th Anniversary Commentary.BY DR EDDIE IROH, OON is a former DG, FRCN

As our nation jubilates in her golden jubilee, it is totally appropriate that we should celebrate both the nation and the heroes of the struggle that led to our independence. In this regard there is no greater claimant to a pride of place in the pantheon of our heroes than the Nigerian media. No individual or group can challenge the decisive role the press played in the country’s journey to independence and development.

To begin with, the media as we know it today predates independent Nigeria by almost a century. It started with the establishment of Iwe Irohin in 1859 by the reverend Henry Townsend of the Church Missionary Society, (CMS) in Abeokuta. Although Iwe Irohin was more or less a provincial newsletter devoted to church and community news, it could not ignore the political events of the time. Soon the paper became a potent weapon for political agitation.

Later other newspapers were established in the tradition of Iwe Irohin. These were the Anglo African, in 1863, the Lagos Times 1880 and the Lagos Observer 1882, to name just a few.
But more than just a claim to longevity, the media spear-headed the nation’s actual struggle for independence. Our leading nationalists were quick to recognize that the pen was a much mightier weapon against the colonial masters than any sword.
The nationalists resorted to this new weapon in large numbers. The new Comet Newspaper promptly attracted the likes of Dennis Osadebay, Obafemi Awolowo and Fred Anyiam. The momentum accelerated in 1939 when Nnamdi Azikiwe, from exile in the Gold Coast, founded the West African Pilot.  Chief Awolowo followed with the Nigerian Tribune in 1949.

These newspapers recruited a whole new cream of urban journalistic Guerrillas who forsook the jungle of armed resistance for the new and more powerful weapon of the pen. It was in this new brigade that we find the great nationalists of our independence struggle, Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Hezekiah Davis, and of course Anthony Enahoro, the man who moved the motion for Independence.  All of them were, above everything else, acclaimed journalists.

Using various laws, the colonial rulers imprisoned nearly all of the nationalists at various times, not for carrying arms, as happened in countries like Kenya, but for what they wrote. With independence in 1960 and the nationalist-journalists now saddled with the task of governance, a new breed of journalists took over the mantle vacated by the Azikiwes and Awolowos. These included Lateef Jakande and Bisi Onabanjo. In the fullness of time they, too, became political rulers in Lagos and Ogun states respectively.

On the other hand, a very important comparison is worth noting here. The Nigerian army, which dominated our political life for over thirty years by frequently interrupting our march to national development, dates back to only 1863, four years after the advent of the Nigerian press.  There is something even more critical here.
While the press was making sacrifices for independence, the army, then called the Queen’s Own Nigerian Regiment, was being used to supress local uprisings in Epe 1863; Brass River 1895, and Bida-Ilorin in 1897.

When the military assumed political power soon after independence, it was no surprise that the media had to confront a new threat to our democracy. The media’s traditional role as the nation’s watchdog inevitably produced a head-on collision with the anti-democracy posture of the military regimes.

Thus for the second time in a century, the media found itself back in the trenches of the battle for democracy and national development. It is a sad fact of this era that the media suffered more in the hands of the military than even the colonial government.  The more notable landmarks in these military-media conflicts include the humiliation of Minere Amakri in 1974.

The Military Governor of Rivers State, Alfred Diete Spiff, ordered the reporter stripped and shaved for reporting something he did not like. There was the shackling and imprisonment of Ray Ekpu and Dele Giwa by the Babangida regime, and, of course, the tragic death of Giwa in 1986. The jailing of Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor by the Buhari regime under the infamous decree four did not end the cycle. The Abacha regime’s kangaroo court imprisoned Chris Anyanwu and Ben Collins Obi on the charge of coup plotting.

And so as Nigeria celebrates her jubilee, we should raise a toast to the Nigerian media for their great sacrifice for our freedom and national development. It is a credit to our media that Nigerian independence was won without bloodshed. And that was entirely because our nationalists preferred the power of the pen to the violence of the sword.
As we begin the journey to a new century of nationhood, the task of preserving the gains of the last fifty years remains a constant challenge for the Nigerian media.  

PARTNERING WITH THE UMPIRE FOR CREDIBLE ELECTIONS IN 2011

BY Basil Uzoma is of Corporate Dev. & Comm. Dept, HQs 

Radio Nigeria has a tradition of engaging the Nigerian People in a National discourse every month of October through the presentation of a topic of overriding national interest delivered by eminent and knowledgeable scholars in that field.  

As the pioneer broadcaster in Nigeria, Radio Nigeria’s policy thrust is on excellence with a view to promoting national unity and development. By creating political awareness through voter education, Radio Nigeria lived up to its billing when she held the 2010 edition of her Annual October Lecture.

This year’s Lecture the 4th in the series, took place at the Merit House Maitama Abuja on the 7th of October, 2010 under the distinguished chairmanship of Prince Tony Momoh. The theme of the lecture was "Free and Fair Elections: INEC’s Plan of Action" and was delivered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega who was the Guest Lecturer.
  
Attendance at the event was unprecedented as the 700 seating capacity auditorium was almost filled to the brim.
Prominent among the array of dignitaries that attended the event are the Edo State Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole; the Honourable Minister of State for Information and Communications, Mr. Labaran Maku; the INEC Chairman, ably represented by the Commissioner in charge of Operations Dr. Nura Yakubu. The Governor of Sokoto State had earlier arrived but could not wait for the programme to commence because of other engagements which were equally important. The Governors of Imo, Ogun and Lagos States were represented.

In a goodwill address, the Governor of Edo State, Mr. Adams Oshiomhole called on the Nigeria Police to work for Nigeria during the 2011 elections and not for the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP. According to Oshiomhole, "2011 elections must be won and lost at the polling booths and not at the law courts". The former NLC leader while acknowledging that he was rescued by the Judiciary, noted that the Judiciary should not be seen as a substitute for free and fair elections.

The erstwhile Labour Leader commended the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria for her contributions towards credible elections in 2011 and advised the editorial arm of the Corporation to key into the vision and philosophy of what the Director General of the largest radio network in Africa, the FRCN, preached.

The Director General, Barr. Yusuf Nuhu had earlier in his address of welcome stated that “this effort to bring all interest groups to a round table is the FRCN’s contribution to the nation’s collective objective of political advancement through credible elections". Bar. Nuhu reassured the nation of Radio Nigeria's commitment to fairness in reportage for the forth coming elections in 2011 as it had always done.

Prof. Jega said in his paper that the responsibility of ensuring hitch-free elections in 2011 and beyond is the collective responsibility of all Nigerians, adding that the conduct of 2011 elections will be treated as a special process that would be handled specially as opposed to the way and manner previous elections were handled. 

In his own contribution, the Minister of State for Information and Communications, Mr. Labaran Maku reiterated the Federal Government’s resolve to ensure credible elections that would be universally acceptable.

A panel of Discussants which comprised of Dr. Kabir Mato of University of Abuja, Dr. Farouk Umar Jubril of Bayero University Kano and Dr. Doyin Abiola from Lagos, was on hand to do justice to the subject of the day.  
 
The event, which was transmitted live on the Network Service of Radio Nigeria enjoyed wide media coverage as more than 30 reporters from both the electronic and print media were present to give it the coverage it deserved.
A good number of the registered political parties were represented so where civil society groups, schools, embassies and non governmental organisations.

The insecurity that pervaded the nation at time following the Abuja bombings of  October1 explained why the venue of the venue was heavily policed.     
 

NIGERIA @ 50: A LONG WALK TO NATIONHOOD

 BY DAN EDE is of the News Directorate, Headquarters.

The pomp and ceremony that marked the celebration of Nigeria @ 50 can better be appreciated against the backdrop of the heuristic formative process of the Nigerian state.

It is a historic fact that what is today glibly referred to as the most populous black nation of the world is a by-product of the western imperialist interest.

It all began in 1849, when the British colonial authorities stormed the west coast of Africa in furtherance of their economic and strategic interests.

The first major step was the creation of a Consulate for the Bight of Biafra and the Bight of Benin, as part of efforts to sanitize them from the ‘stain’ of the slave trade. This measure sparked off a chain reaction that led to a deeper involvement of the colonial master in the economic and political life of the people of the two Bights.

The intrusion of the white man was however not smooth-sailing as he met stiff resistance among the natives. There was also bitter rivalry between the British and the French that resulted in the partitioning of the coastal area.

With time, the Consulate of the Bights of Biafra and Benin, as well as its immediate hinterland, was converted into the oil protectorate; and later, in 1893, transformed into the Niger Coast Protectorate. By the middle of the 20th century, this protectorate came to be known as Eastern Nigeria.

In 1862, the British annexed the Lagos Lagoon area and its environs, converting them into a ‘crown colony’. This, according to them, was to abolish slave trade which used the area as export point.

Nigerian historians however unmasked their real intention which was to be better able to protect their interest in the vital trade route that ran from Lagos, through Ikorodu, Ibadan all the way to the Niger waterway in the north and beyond.

As the imperial irredentist moves continued, the rest of the Yorubaland was conquered and attached to Lagos in 1897. This flank became known as Western Nigeria in the 1950s.

The third and final step came in 1888, when the British changed the National African Company to Royal Niger Company after its trade conquest in the Lower Niger. The Royal Niger Company became chartered and  acquired political and administrative powers over a narrow belt of territory on both sides of the river, from the sea to Lokoja, as well as over the vast area which in the 20th century, came to be known as Northern Nigeria.

The birth of Nigeria is, in the main, a story of how these three neighbouring but distinct entities were forcibly brought together, first administratively; and later, politically.

It is instructive to note that even after the amalgamation of 1914, the colonial master deliberately ensured that the three territories never intermeshed. As it has been remarked elsewhere, the amalgamation was a colossal administrative hoodwink as it existed mainly on paper and in the person of Lord Frederick Lugard, rather than in an interlocking bureaucracy and political system.

Lugard refused to create a central secretariat for two reasons: the fear of having his power attenuated; and the need to shield the Northern Protectorate from the blizzard of westernization sweeping through the Southern Protectorate.

The upshot was that the amalgamation did not bring about a central bureaucracy. Besides, Lugard made sure that contact between the technical departments of the north and the south was kept at the barest minimum.

After 1914, Lugard created a body known as the Nigerian Council which met once a year to listen to his address on the state of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. The body had no legislative powers whatsoever.

The ambivalence of the colonial master in keeping Nigeria politically divided was more evident in the Clifford Constitution of 1922.Though that constitution introduced the elective principle for legislative houses, the Legislative Council which replaced Lugard’s Nigerian Council made laws for only the South while the Governor legislated for the North through proclamations.

The first major step towards the political integration of the country was taken in 1946. The constitution promulgated that year by the then Governor General, Sir Arthur Richards, had as its objectives the promotion of the unity of Nigeria and granting of greater participation to Nigerians in discussing their affairs.

Major provisions of this constitution included the establishment of a re-constituted Legislative Council whose competence covered the whole country; the abolition of the official majority in the council; the creation of regional councils consisting of a House of Assembly in each of the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces, and the creation of House of Chiefs in the North whose roles were purely advisory rather than legislative.

Nevertheless, whatever was the gain of the Richards Constitution of 1946 was whittled down by the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which established a lopsided federation in which one region, the North, was larger than the other two regions - East and West - put together.

Thus, at independence in 1960, the Nigerian state was characterized by weak constitutional and institutional bases for development politics; an unbalanced federation; regionalism which engendered mutual fear and distrust; as well as regionally- based political constituencies.

The divergent tendencies of the multifarious ethnic  groupings in the country prior to independence was such that the leader of the defunct Northern Peoples Congress, NPC, Sir Ahmadu Bello, was constrained to remark that: “Since 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and their customs, and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite….

“Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country. Many Nigerians deceive themselves by thinking that Nigeria is one…. This is wrong. I am sorry to say that this presence of unity is artificial and it ends outside this chamber.”( Coleman, 1964).

In the same vein, the leader of the defunct Action Group, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, observed that: “Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English’, Welsh’ or ‘French’. The word ‘Nigerian’ is an appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not” (Coleman, 1964).

The politics of the First Republic was played on regional basis, with the National Council of Nigerian Citizens led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe holding sway in the East;  the Obafemi Awolowo-led Action Group controlling the West; while the Northern Peoples Congress led by Sir Ahmadu Bello took charge in the North.

The wobbly tripod on which the unity of the country was anchored almost collapsed in 1966 following the first military intervention in the nation’s politics. With ethnic bias read into the execution of the coup, and a counter coup by the northern elements in the military, a major national crisis ensued. First, the North threatened to pull out of the union in 1966. When General Yakubu Gowon took over the reins of power, he alluded to this fact. In his maiden broadcast on the 2nd of August 1966, the General remarked that “putting all considerations to test –political, economic as well as social – the basis for unity is not there”.

The following year, 1967, the East practically pulled out of the federation and declared its autonomy as the Republic of Biafra. It took 30 months of gory civil war to whip them back to line.

Indeed, a purposeful and determined approach towards forging a real national integration never began until after the civil war. It is therefore right to say that the over two million casualties of that war are the real martyrs of the Nigerian nationhood as their blood has sealed the county’s covenant of unity in diversity.

Worthy of acknowledgement is the ‘No Victor, No Vanquished’ policy of the Federal Government at the end of the war, driven by the triple programmes of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Reconciliation.

Since then, successive administrations at the centre have come up with many policies and programmes aimed at consolidating the nation’s bond of unity. Notable among them are the introduction of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Scheme; creation of states and local governments; the relocation of the federal capital to a more central area; and the establishment of the Federal Character Commission.

As the country clocks 50 as an independent nation-state, one national question that seems to have been settled for good is the indissolubility of the federation. Both those who desire it and those who do not are unprepared to pay the costly price of attempting to break up the nation. It was principally for this reason that the country survived the unpopular annulment of the results of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and the controversial enforcement of the Sharia legal code by some northern states early in this millennium.
 
It is therefore incontrovertible that Nigeria at 50 has attained the status of nationhood. It is essentially fit that Nigerians rolled out drums to celebrate on the 1st of October this year at the golden jubilee of the nation’s independence.

Indeed, the unity the country achieved in the past 50 years is certainly not attributable to the ‘Lugardian’ amalgamation. It is rather a product of the supreme sacrifice made by millions of Nigerians that the country may be one.
The war against balkanization having been won, what is to be addressed now is the issue of harmonious co-existence of the federating units and individual citizens, based on equity and justice, without which the nation can never prosper. 

CHILD UPBRINGING: THE DILEMMA OF WORKING PARENTS

By Onyinye Orji Kalu is of the CD&C Dept,HQs

 From the moment of conception, parenting is demanding, exhausting, ennobling. It brings out the best in every being; it highlights the worst. It is the love for the child that makes both parents strong as well as vulnerable.

Parenting is the process of promoting and supporting the physical, emotional, social and intellectual developments of a child from infancy to adulthood. It entails providing safety, shelter, clothes, nourishment, protection and physical development by introducing the child to exercise thereby inculcating good health habits in him.

On intellectual security, the parents also provide the conditions in which a child’s mind can develop thus providing an atmosphere of peace, justice, respect to one’s dignity, an environment without fear, threat and abuse.
It is also a parental task to support and provide school related learning, teach social skills and etiquette and give moral and spiritual development, as well as creating ethical value systems with social norms that contribute to the child’s beliefs, culture, and customs.

On emotional security, parents help protect the child’s psyche by providing a safe environment which guarantees love and acceptance, giving emotional support and encouragement by caressing, hugging, touching, etc.
Parents also have the task of developing the child’s ability to love, care, and help others by showing empathy and compassion.
Parents ought to provide good space for the child to play which helps with physical, emotional and intellectual development.
It is also part of the task of the parents to bring up a child with the religious principles especially through exemplary lifestyle.
Since every child has positive and negative qualities, parents are expected to help develop the positive and “weed out” or “prune” the negative.
Children’s talents are developed through organized leisure activities, thereby challenging their children to think critically and to speak properly and frequently especially with the adults.

Traditionally, parents had enough time to take care of their child in an atmosphere of love, concern, care, structure and peace but we don’t live in an ideal society anymore because our society has developed to the point where if the family is going to obtain the things it needs, then both will have to work to be able to meet up.

Traditionally, parents in times past, spent more time with their child but in the present age the reverse is the case. This lack of care by parents is really telling on the society in that it is not difficult to see who are not well behaved. They exhibit such acts as dropping out of school, armed robbery, kidnapping, militancy, prostitution and teenage pregnancy among others.
Working parents always grapple over issues of fairness when it comes to child care. It is never easy for full time working parents to give all it would take to keep the family running smoothly.
Child rearing is complicated, no doubt. Parents struggle with what to do with their children when they return home from school.

The challenge of getting ready early in the morning leads to unhealthy breakfast choices or worse, none at all for parents. They have lots on their minds about their child’s welfare. Working parents no longer have time to bring up their child morally and they leave their child at the mercy of Day-Care-Services or house helps.
Parenting is a high stake venture. The ruin of a child often begins when parents ignore a young toddler’s disobedient look or rebellious words because it is inconvenient to administer correction.

Parents should be able to provide a conducive environment free from fighting/quarrelling in the presence of the children.
Parents should create time out of their working tight schedule to spend with their children, check their school books and assist with their homework, take time to visit their school to find out how they are faring.
Working parents should be careful not to take stress out on their children.

They may not understand why you are stressed, but they can sense your moods. Be aware that many children especially teenagers are under stress too. So working parents should plan time to talk with their kids. Ask them about school and any problems they are having. And make sure they have plenty of time for just being with other kids and having fun. Check out who their friends are.
On the society, there is a proverb that says that “A child is not owned by one person”. With the above it could be seen that a child is owned by the society so one cannot see a child going astray and let him because if one lets a child go a wrong way and the child turns out a bad fellow in future, it all falls on the society. So the society on its part plays a big role in the upbringing of a child.

Finally, as a parent, you are responsible for correcting and guiding your kid in line with the popular saying that “We should train a child he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it”.