Is Ribadu a Saint?
 

By Anothony Onoh 

WHEN the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) was established on the 4th of June, 2004, many Nigerians, especially those of us in Diaspora, rejoiced and breathed a sigh of relief. Hope for the eradication of corruption in our society was finally being restored. We hailed the initiative and congratulated President Olusegun Obasanjo for his vision, wisdom and foresightedness. Ribadu's announcement as the EFCC chairman and the confidence, fearlessness, strength and enormous authority he exuded quickly made headlines. His posturing before the media deserved an Oscar. Never in the history of Nigeria had any public officer displayed so much bravado and confidence. Like Che Guevara of Argentina, he stirred up things and made promises. He could not fulfil many of them. Armed with the EFCC act of 2004, he instantly became untouchable and almost invincible.

In 2005 the Commission began a selective arrest and investigation of suspected financial criminals. It was selective because it targeted political rivals and those who fell out of favour with the President. This move was motivated by the political greed of one man who sought to perpetuate himself in power by "illegal" means. The president employed the services of the Commission, using it to intimidate opponents. No one could believe what was going on. We screamed and cried foul. Ribadu had been swayed and gradually lured into the pursuit of an agenda defined by President Obasanjo. He had abandoned the cause. He remained silent on the third term agenda on which millions of tax payers' money had been spent. Our fears were confirmed when five democratically elected governors were impeached in very dramatic and controversial circumstances. It was speculated that the EFCC stage-managed the impeachments to serve the interest of President Obasanjo.

Another outrageous move by Ribadu was the publication (in the national dailies) banning some politicians from contesting the 2007 general election. I still have not seen where the EFCC was empowered to clear or ban anyone from participating in an election; and I think the Supreme Court quite agreed with many of us who believed and insisted that he had no power to do so. Evidently, it was clearly stipulated in the verdict on a suit brought before it by the then vice president of Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, challenging his ban and the action of Ribadu's EFCC. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and new voting papers that included the name of Atiku and others who had been excluded were published.

In the year 2007, a new administration was sworn in and Ribadu, having confidently secured his new four year tenure, continued to handle "business as usual"; arresting people indiscriminately, dumping them at the EFCC detention centre without trial, systematically, obstructing defence lawyers' efforts to have them arraigned in the court which would obviously, grant them bail and, continuing to define justice in his own terms. He felt so sure about his future, perhaps, because he helped to ensure that "their right man" (Yaradua) got the job and became the new President of Nigeria. But like in many stories of "Godfatherism" and political "boy" break ups, Yaradua's case was not going to be an exception.
While on training at the NIPSS (Kuru, Jos), Ribadu was demoted to his former rank of DCP. On the 13th of November, 2008, NIPSS course 30 was invited to meet with the President, all his course mates were dressed in their official uniforms, Ribadu deliberately dressed in a civilian outfit, thereby, greeting the President with a hand shake instead of a salute. Ribadu was quickly beginning to abandon the discipline of the Police force he served for several years. On the 24th of November, 2008, an invitation from the IG (Inspector General of police) was crossed to him, inviting him to discuss relevant matters, he ignored the invitation. He was disgracefully removed from the graduation of NIPSS course 30 and was posted to a new destination in Benin city. He refused to report to his duty and instead, he threatened to sue the police force for his demotion and subsequent posting to a place he considered inappropriate for his "dream" rank. He was queried for instituting legal actions against the IGP at the federal high court in Lagos without proper authorization from the force he served. He was seeking the enforcement of his constitutional rights, something he never spared his victims. He was accused of breaching section 352 and 367 of the police act and against rules 030402 of the police service rules of 2006. Ribadu refused to answer the query and turned down a summon to defend himself before a police tribunal. He, instead, sought refuge in the legal system that he so despised. He was eventually dismissed from service and was confirmed in a statement made on the 23rd of December, 2008 by the police spokesman, Akpoebi Agberebi. He was in no doubt, beginning to receive a taste of his own medicine.
He immediately declared legal, political and media war against the state of Nigeria. Since then, he had been in one statement or counter-statement to refute or accuse someone. He remained in the news and today, the embattled former EFCC boss Nihu Ribadu is back again on the news over his standoff with the government of Nigeria which he accused of plotting to kill him. There have been so much publications by Nihu Ribadu on the national newspapers in an attempt to sell his inexplicable victimization. Ribadu is once again at what he knows best, public manipulation and media hype. This time, his accusation has been accorded the merit of a nuisance. He is virtually pointing finger everywhere and accusing everyone of holding "beef" with him.
To me, it sounds silly and pretentious when he speaks about persecution from the government. Is there any truth to this whole episode or is it just a hoax and a carefully devised plan to project his more than obvious ambition to return to power in Nigeria? Power (they say) intoxicates. Ribadu told the world that he was removed because he stepped on toes by investigating powerful men, however, evidence has shown that it was all the contrary; he actually, shielded the powerful. For example, every petition written against his former boss, ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo, was never given minimum attention and almost, did not survive four days in the national news; Ribadu was quick to announce that the investigation had been conducted and subsequently "cleared" from any wrong doing. Ribadu managed the press, the court, the state lawmakers and national debate.
He exploited the public clamour for justice and the insatiable interest of the ordinary Nigerians to "hang" any money bag politicians whom they consider corrupt and arrogant. So, he would give us sometimes, some kind of consolation by arresting the likes of Tafa Balogun, Dr Nwabara and others who fell out of favour with the presidency. While the likes of Bode George and Fani Kayode were shielded from any investigation. I find it a malicious distortion and a deliberate omission of the truth to question or challenge his removal from the office by President Yaradua when he knows that the EFCC Act empowers the president to "remove any member of the commission at any time for inability to discharge the function (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct or if the president is satisfied that it is not in the interest of the commission or the public that the member should continue in office". Ribadu was the chairman and a member of the commission and therefore, was subjected to the law that established and empowered it. He was not a demi-God, although he acted as one. The agency was by providence, made subject to the fundamental law of the land and Ribadu cannot just be above the law. As a matter of fact, the same act that established the commission boldly indicated that "the commission may be sued in its corporate name", thereby, giving legal guarantees to any aggrieved person that may want to enforce his or her fundamental rights. It may sound unbelievable but the fact remains that almost everyone who sued the commission lost and every Judge that granted a restraining order against it was branded "corrupt", intimidated and even frightened.
Nihu Ribadu wielded so much power during his reign as the EFCC boss. He virtually became the judge, the jury and the executioner while in the office. He is a smart, brilliant lawyer who knew the procedure and a common legal term of "jurisdiction", yet he would arraign a suspect in places like Kaduna and most notoriously, before Justice Binta Nyako in Abuja. He carefully chose friendly Judges and would use them to legitimate his illegalities when caught up in the mess. The arraignment of James Ibori in a high court in Kaduna, when it was obvious that the accused, Ibori, was neither born nor lived in Kaduna, and the crime for which he was charged was, evidently, never committed in the Kaduna court jurisdiction. Perhaps, he fell out of favour with Justice Binta Nyako (a woman of great integrity and untainted principles), hence his relocation to Kaduna. She perhaps, realised that she was being used to legitimate his (Ribadu's) illegalities. EFCC was endowed with so much power, designed in the representation of the Nazi Gestapo and crowned with unlimited authority to function as an independent anti-financial crime agency. According to the EFCC Act of 2004, the agency was doted with democratic a principle which allows the inclusion of the office of the attorney general of the federation, the inspector general of Police, the director of the state security service (SSS), etc. However, Ribadu basically, seized power and used it to his personal interest and the interest of the only one in the act who has the power to remove him, the Presidency. I t was undoubtedly designed and created for the personality of Ribadu, a power drunken individual and a protagonist in his own personal play.
Ribadu was part of a very repressive government that disregarded legality, embraced illegality and disrespect for the rule of law. Those opposed to the evil plans of Obasanjo's third term agenda were persecuted, hunted down and dealt with. Among them are Senator Uche Chukwumerije, ex-Gov. Orji Uzo Kalu, ex-Vice President Atiku and many others who were expelled from the ruling party. Nigerians could smell the fear in the senate as the national dailies were constantly fed with fictitious news of EFCC investigation of almost every opponent of President Obasanjo.
Saharawi report's publication of 30th of December, 2008, titled "Evidence that the Obasanjo Presidency forcefully doctored Nihu Ribadu's work" shed more light to the truth that was consistently denied by Nihu Ribadu. If Ribadu was so honest as he would like us to believe, why didn't he resign when he found himself teleguided by the administration of Obasanjo? Why did he pretend that he was in control while someone else was singing the tune of his music? Was Ribadu a part of the regime that was viewed with temerity and scorn? Why did Ribadu refuse to investigate Obasanjo, even when it is obvious that he corruptly enriched himself, family and close friends? As you can see, there are so many unanswered questions here. Would Ribadu have the courage to come clean and unveil the secret of Obasanjo's regime and practically, position himself on the side of the progressives? Can Ribadu tell us why it was necessary to fight illegality with illegality? I rest my case and remain doubtful about his credibility. I sympathize with him as a human being whose fundamental rights should be respected. However, he was no saint and deservedly should receive a taste of his own medicine.

• The views express in this article are those of the author, not those of ObodoOyinbo or its publishers

  ---

  The evils of godfatherism in Nigerian politics

By Anothony Joseph Onoh

"Godfatherism" in Nigerian politics has become more rampant in recent years. Irresponsible and self-centred men and women roam the streets of the US and the UK searching for upwardly mobile Nigerians to lure to their doom. They invite them to participate in elections and contest for a public office, with the argument: ‘Nigeria needs people like you to heal the ills of her people'. Some have naively interpreted the invitation as a call to a noble cause, but the invitation only leads to doom.

There have been many cases of "Godfathers", self-acclaimed elites, who have fallen out with their political puppets. The liaison between Chief Jim Nwobodo and Senator Chima Nnamani ended in disgrace. Both of them hail from the same county in the South-east of Nigeria and because of this loyalty was supposedly guaranteed. However, Senator Nnamani grew powerful and disloyal. Business as usual was quickly replaced by business as dictated by the Boss. Their acrimonious break-up was only a matter of time. When it happened, the newspaper screamed it to the world: "Nnamani and Nwobodo at logger heads".

Jubilation filled the street as some saw it as a hope for a new and promising future. What many people did not envisage was how dangerous it would later become to let loose a power-drunken person like Nnamani. Enugu state was left in total disarray and social injustice reigned supreme. What thrived though was a strong propaganda machine aimed at manipulating public perception of the despicable ruin the state had become. In this case, the Godfather was disarmed, reduced to nothing and relegated to the league of silent observers. Like in the old American story of "wild wild west", there was a new sheriff in town, a new Godfather was born.

Another ugly incident which involved two young men took place in Anambra State. The squabbles between Governor Ngige and Chief Chris Uba's reached the pages of the national news media. Uba being the Godfather was allegedly deceived by Ngige with an invalid resignation letter, a move to secure his investment in Ngige and guarantee the loyalty of his political "boy". Eventually, there was open confrontation and Governor Ngige was abducted allegedly with the complicity of the then state police chief. He was later found alive and their tussle ended with the removal of the governor by the electoral tribunal. His erstwhile Godfather Uba had testified that he master-minded the massive rigging that brought Ngige to power. The Godfather, in this case, was emboldened, strengthened and reinforced with more powers and he continued to operate outside the law.

But the most notorious and perhaps the deadliest of all the "Godfatherism" episodes was the incident between Adedibu and Ladoja of Oyo state. Adedibu was a local chief, a motor park tout and a stark illiterate. Sources say that he only knew how much money he demanded from his political protégés, but never knew how to count the money. Adedibu was so vile, violent and feared by his political associates. One thing he never had was rivals. He was the powerful man of Ibadan politics. The removal of Ladoja from the office of the governor was arranged in a 48-hour coup style impeachment. However, the Supreme Court of Nigeria invalidated the whole process and restored Ladoja to office. Still, his political life was short-lived as he was removed from the party, forcing him to join a new political party with little influence and zero chance of attaining power. Eventually, Ladoja lost out and became a political cadaver.

Why does "godfatherism" exist in Nigerian politics? Some say that it is a result of greed and insatiable craving for power. In my view, it has got nothing to do with greed or hunger for power; it has got to do with a society and a system that are so corrupt and inclined to embrace darkness. There is no light in the entire country. Constant power failure and absolute dark nights depict the name black (dark) Africa; so our heart is, dark, filthy and engulfed in so much secrecy. It has got to do with a society and a system that failed to create equal opportunities for its citizens, making it difficult for honest and hardworking persons to attain to positions of royalty and public responsibility. Godfatherism in Nigeria politics has got to do with the so-called elites who create chaos and the game of divide and rule. They manage and manipulate public information to create deceit. One only needs to have a few millions in a bank account to join the league of the elites in Nigeria. No academic qualification or verifiable achievement is needed. All it takes is money.

Anthony Joseph Onoh is a student of Journalism & International Politics at the University of East London, London.

By Lamin J Darbo 

In our age of instant communications, United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sessions offer the perfect platform for the world body to display its schizophrenic character in full view of a global audience. When New York plays host to leaders, and rulers representing the 192 member states of the UN, the dynamic of providing protection to such a diverse group of visiting dignitaries stretches the US Secret Service to breaking point. In the same city, and under one roof, are executives of the free world, the presidents and prime ministers of leading democracies where the rule of law anchors the tapestry of domestic governance. At the other extreme in that same geographic space are the absolute rulers who preside over captive and traumatized populations at home. In between are those undecided between accountability and lawlessness in public life. All are theoretically equal in the meaningless talk-fest in that greatest of chambers situated on First Avenue at 46th Street.

Representing The Gambia at the 64th UNGA was its great leader, His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr Yahya A J J Jammeh (the Professor). Not even his detractors can accuse the Professor of lacking in ambition, but his performance at UNGA 2009 was not nearly as significant as Binneh Minteh postulates. Notwithstanding Binneh's "critical and objective analysis", the glaring hollowness of this greatest of speeches by "a Young African Leader of modern times" was inescapable.

In typical fashion, the Professor railed against the usual suspects allegedly responsible for Africa's degraded position in the international community. As the primary culprit, the West bears responsibility, directly, and by proxy, for: Africa's absence in the Security Council; the misconduct of multinational corporations in their allegedly rapacious exploitation of the continent's natural resources; the intricate question of Palestine; the continuing US diplomatic wrangle with Cuba and its adverse economic consequences for the island state; the status of the Republic of China on Taiwan; racism; the "Animal Farm" syndrome at the UN; etc, etc.

Ecstatic over a rather brilliant performance by the Professor, Binneh gave us the "critical and objective" chapter and verse of greatness in the Gambian ruler, and argued for a celebration of his newfound hero's excellent articulation of earthshaking ideas newly discovered by acclaimed "scholars" in international affairs. How very commendable that the thoughts of renowned "scholars", and those of the Professor, fully coincided on the critical questions of international political and economic governance.

Are the "scholars", and the Professor, right in touting cooperation as the wave of the future in international political and economic governance? Whatever the answer, there is no escaping the fact that the reality is manifestly different in the daily intercourse between nations.

For such astute observers of international affairs like the Professor, and Binneh, they require no reminding that the UN grew out of war, and that its critical organ - the Security Council - was itself a creature of the spoils of war. Unpalatable as it may seem, international politics is about clout, about political, economic, and military power. For example, at the core of the UN Charter is the aspiration to make violence in international relations a thing of the past. Coming on the heels of World War II, and barely a generation between that war and the equally devastating World War I, it is understandable that the victorious powers expressed a wish to consign war to the archives of history.

Indeed, the concern with violence was ostensibly so overwhelming that the Preamble to the Charter aspires thus: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." Article 1 aspires to "maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace". In a nutshell, the Preamble to, and Article 1 of, the Charter, read together, articulate the logic and fundamental principles underlying the formation of the UN, i.e., an international organisation with a systemic commitment to peaceful coexistence between states.

The air of optimism notwithstanding, the leading architects of the UN - themselves leaders of countries steeped in the art of conflict and warfare - were in no doubt regarding the human propensity for violence, an appreciation arguably reflected in Article 1 in its reference to "threats to the peace" and "the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace". This recognition notwithstanding, Article 2(4), albeit in qualified form, expressly prohibits force by states in their dealings with each other, although its second prong permits the use force where consistent with the purposes of the UN.

Witness the spectacular failure of UN aspirations in the area of international peace and security in the six decades since its creation. From the Korean conflict in 1952, the fingerprints of leading military nations are all over the place when devastating conflicts with international implications are forensically examined. Clearly, when the leading nations - especially those that comprise the Security Council - talk about international cooperation, what they actually mean is ‘cooperation' on their terms, even if that is not expressly articulated. Since the vast majority of international intercourse is transacted at the bilateral level, the UN, as the preeminent centre of multilateralism, is not nearly as significant when it comes to identifying the real centres of global influence.

Even in the diplomatic sphere, the orthodox principle states that "diplomacy is war without the guns". Witness the barely veiled threat of Obama's predecessor in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that those nations not with America, must be against that colossus on the global stage. Even with an expanded Security Council, the crux of international life will always be about enforceability, and in the absence of a standing army as stipulated in Article 47 of the Charter, the Security Council, pursuant to its Chapter VII powers, must remain reliant on member states individually, or in groupings, for implementation of authorised enforcement operations aimed at restoring international peace. For Africa, mere invitation into the permanent membership of the Security Council will not necessarily come with clout, and I am unsure whether this means anything for the Professor, and Binneh.

In its conventional context, ‘cooperation' as understood by the Professor, Binneh, and his unnamed "scholars", is not a significant feature of international political governance. It never was, and it never will be in an international system dominated by nations following the dictate of narrow interests. In analysing the Professor's speech, Binneh himself recognised the tendency of parochialism in foreign policy when he argued that "the Gambian leader not only defended his Foreign Policy and the interest of the Gambia, but made compelling calls that are in line with the new multi - lateral global order". To the extent that "new multi - lateral global order" is a reference to the economic side of international ‘cooperation', I concede that an outfit like the G20 played some role in alleviating the rather drastic effects of the recent meltdown in global finance. Even here, Africa inhabits the peripheries of that limited international project, and for the continent, it was nothing to boast of.

Even though Binneh used the term "scholar" four times to support his view that the Professor's contentions before the UNGA coincided with scholarly opinion on global political and economic governance, he only cited Joseph Stiglz, the author of Globalization and its Discontents. In Binneh's words, Stiglz "accuses the IMF of placing flawed economic demands on developing nations which have demonstrably resulted in further economic ruin for many of those nations which have sought aid at the doorstep of the IMF". Although a popular contention of the Professor and his ilk, the rant against the so-called IMF conditionalities is a difficult argument to make. When national rulers deliberately steered their ships of state from deep oceans of prosperity to shallow straits of economic stagnation through corruption, or sheer incompetence, they deprived themselves of moral standing to castigate those who threw them lifelines.

I take the view that economic experts would appreciate the logic of financial institutions extending loans with conditions. Even in The Gambia, private banks generally extend loans to those individuals with the collateral to underwrite the repayment obligation. When the Gambia Commercial and Development Bank dispensed with this basic protocol of financial governance, it ended up costing the State hundreds of millions of dalasis in bad debts. In the sense that the IMF does not seek to intervene in basket case economies, financial experts like Binneh are better occupied promoting fiscal responsibility as opposed to engaging in populist condemnation of the one who extends a solicited lifeline. I would rather enquire whether African countries are right in their generally eager pursuance of a permanent client relationship with the Bretton Woods financial institutions!

On whether the Professor deviated from statesmanship when he referred to multinationals as "locusts", and the UN as "Animal Farm", I must say that kind of characterization signifies nothing. It is akin to the Professor calling journalists "illegitimate sons of Africa", or announcing his readiness to murder Gambian citizens for merely entertaining dissenting views. The colorful descriptions may exemplify the mindset, but means nothing in the sense that what language is employed in describing either multinationals, or the UN setup, remains clearly immaterial in the larger scheme of international life.

Although the multinational question is somewhat complex, these international business entities generally establish contact with national authorities in the countries they entered, or are proposing to enter. When no guns are involved, a sovereign nation with a fully-fledged machinery of government must be presumed as having the ability to decide whether an investment proposal from outsiders offer any potential benefits for the host country. In a set up as we have in The Gambia, the Professor must bless all significant investment proposals, and when he nudges the transaction forward, citizens are right in assuming government acted with its eyes wide open. Considering the Professor's grievance is both current, and historical, I herewith juxtapose the conduct of two nations in dealing with investment proposals from different multinationals.

A spectacular example of a serious government on the multinational investment question involved Singapore's dealing with the defunct multibillion pound Luxembourg-registered Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). When nations were tripping over themselves to attract some portion of the bank's questionable billions, tiny Singapore refused the then giant international financial house a licence to operate in that Southeast Asian country. BCCI was not a multinational in the sense of the extractive industries the Professor was referring to, but the larger nature of engagement remains the same. The pertinent lesson to draw from Singapore's conduct in the BCCI affair suggest that if the process of due diligence encounters a deliberate brick wall, all association must be terminated, or at the very least suspended, until such time that the potential investor demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with requisite disclosure.

In the other example, and one that underscored the general decay and incompetence at the heart of our First Republic, a group of American ‘investors' sold shares in some ‘business' ostensibly based at the World Trade Centre - Memphis. A high-level Gambia Government delegation visited Memphis in September/October 1993 to conclude the 'investment' transaction. In the delegation was His Excellency, the President of the Republic, the Secretary General, Cabinet ministers, and Permanent Secretaries, as well as the Chief of Protocol, other lower level functionaries, some spouses, and Gambian security officers. The delegation travelled to Memphis in a chartered plane to conclude an ‘investment' that it thought would cost the Gambia government a mere US$50,000.

Lured to Memphis, their black American 'partners' confronted them with the incredible claim that in prior correspondence, they inadvertently left out a zero in the original quotation and agreement with the Trade Ministry, and State House. The Americans apologised for their slight error, and the Government happily concluded this ghost transaction, shaddling our national treasury with a whopping US$500,000 obligation, an unbelievable 900 per cent more than the original cost. Incredibly, the Government accepted the clearly new contract by signing it!

Assuming the US$50,000 figure was indeed the correct amount, the question must be why a planeload of official Gambia, including the President, and with such high incidentals, travelled to Memphis to complete such an insignificant ‘investment'. This query is not trivial in light of the fact that US$50,000 was the figure that originally drew this high-powered delegation to Memphis. And do remember that the cost of this trip was far in excess of US$50,000. If this were to happen anywhere to 1975, we may exercise some understanding of the scandalous incompetence embedded in the blatantly fictitious transaction. But this was 1993, a whole three decades of experience, when wisdom was supposed to dominate in the government's dealings with international hustlers and other crooks.

For contemporary examples of Gambia's scandalous dealings with multinationals, I merely refer to the disastrous relations with Alimenta, and more currently, Carnegie Minerals. In these matters, the Gambian public was fed blatant misinformation that made it none the wiser about the real facts at the heart of these commercial disputes, but what is not in doubt, in the Alimenta affair at least, is that it cost the national treasury millions of dollars in compensation payments to the aggrieved multinational.

As this kind of scandalous conduct remains routine occurrence in government circles up and down Africa, is it any surprise that we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt. More like banker bonuses in countries such as the United States, and the United Kingdom, the thinking is less about the long term health of national economies, and more about what is presently in it for officers entrusted with public power to advance the interest of The Gambia. When it comes to most of Africa, multinationals are fully aware of the terrain in which they operate, and with no incentive to play by the rules in their home countries, they are more than happy to play by the corrupt and lawless rules of host countries, with all the disastrous consequences that entail.

A more disingenuous pronouncement by Binneh, and one that strongly suggest his principal motivation to be other than "critical and objective", was his assertion thus:

The Gambian leader only fail short to use this occasion as an opportunity of appealing to the World Body, to assist in bridging the political divide in The Gambia through a national reconciliation. The occasion was indeed an opportunity for President Jammeh to usher in a new chapter in the midst of all the controversy that surrounds his administration.

Clearly, this is an impossible argument considering the Professor remains in full control of the police power of the Gambian state, and he employs that terrifying instrument as he fancies. The last I checked, there was no armed insurgency controlling any part of Gambian territory, and I fail to appreciate the significance of "national reconciliation". Binneh cannot even summon the conviction of calling on the Professor to drop his repressive policies and mend his atrocious human rights record in the interest of moving The Gambia forward for all her people.

I nevertheless do not condemn Binneh for his unmistakable feelers to Professorland in the propaganda piece he calls "critical and objective". Leaving outside a native country - especially if not by choice, and even where the host society is the United States - can present immense difficulties in the best of times. Like nations, and the multinationals his mentor derisively refers to as "locusts", humans are generally motivated by self-interest, and Binneh's purpose appears readily discernible in his now uncritical approach to tyranny. A nation is nothing if not its human capital, and in The Gambia, the Professor degrades that commodity to practical irrelevance.

That notwithstanding, Binneh ought to ponder whether his personal safety can ever be guaranteed in a country where school children were slaughtered without so much as an investigation, where citizens are killed, or, disappeared, without judicial oversight, where they languish in prison without the benefit of due process, where the president openly promises death for mere dissent, and where fear is a palpable and constant aspect of the landscape. When the history books on the Second Republic are written, the focus would be on what the Professor did for, and to, The Gambia, especially to her human capital, not what he said about matters he can never control at the virtually meaningless talk-fests of the UNGA.

In so far as the Professor, Binneh, and Binneh's "scholars" are mistaken about the true nature of international public life, what they say lacks significance in its disconnect from reality.

I would rather urge the Professor to embrace the rule of law where it really matters.

Jammeh's UN speech: The pot calling the kettle black

By Baba Galleh Jallow

When Gambian president Yahya Jammeh took the stand at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly, it was inevitable that he would go on a verbal rampage, pointing accusing fingers, throwing punches in the air, and making grandiose pronouncements about Africa's refusal to allow itself to be exploited or oppressed any further. In fact, he was so delusional as to give an ultimatum to the world body to "ensure that the continent of Africa has at least two permanent seats at the Security Council with full veto powers or else any resolution passed by the Security Council will not be binding on Africa or any AU Member State by the end of 2010." How Mr. Jammeh hopes to enforce this threat beats the imagination.

It is true that Africa is marginalized and disadvantaged on many fronts within the international and United Nations systems. It is also true that Africa is being exploited by multinational corporations through their control and manipulation of world market prices and the failure to accord the continent the respect it deserves on an international political stage that is ostensibly one of equality of sovereign status. The irony is that Mr. Jammeh fails to realize that it is precisely because the international political and economic systems are interested only in the pursuance of their own selfish interests that he manages to get away with his ranting against exploitative "locusts" and his oppressive policies in his own country. He also fails to realize that he is able to stand before the world body and hurl invectives against Africa's perceived enemies because of the world's respect for freedom of expression, which he blatantly denies his own citizens at home.

In this article, I propose to expose some of the many ironies and paradoxes of Jammeh's UN speech by highlighting the fact that what is true of the international system, is also true of the national system that he lords it over. The world is composed of a series or layers of systems ranging from the global to the local and domestic. And what is not okay at the global level is not okay at the local or domestic level. If exploitation and oppression is not okay at the global level, it is also not okay at the regional, sub-regional, or national level, a fact that is clearly lost on our self-anointed African revolutionary leader. A few examples and quotations from his speech will illustrate this point.

Jammeh starts off by declaring that "all nations big and small must adopt multilateralism and dialogue in fostering international partnership, and all matters of common concern to global peace and development." Of course, in Jammeh's estimation, such matters of concern to global peace and development do not include fair governance, respect for human rights, human security and respect for the rule of law at the national level. It is precisely African governments failure to accord due respect to these concerns that make possible their oppression and exploitation of innocent people and leads to the outbreak of conflicts and around Africa. Does Jammeh have the moral authority to champion the cause of "universal justice under the rule of law and equity" when he is himself one of the greatest violators of the tenets of justice, equity, and the rule of law in Africa?

What with Jammeh's call on the United Nations to ensure that "impunity is abolished and the principle of equality among nation states . . . are (sic) safeguarded"? What best characterizes his regime and the regimes of most African dictators if not impunity and disrespect for the principle of equality among human beings? If equality among nations is desirable, what makes it undesirable among citizens of a country? Jammeh declares that "there cannot be peace and security in the absence of justice for all" and that "there cannot be justice if there is merciless exploitation, suppression, and criminal invasions of sovereign states." Is there justice for all in The Gambia and other African countries? Is there not merciless exploitation, suppression and the criminal invasion of sovereign bodies in his own country? Of course, Jammeh is incapable of imagining that the concept of sovereignty applies to much more than the political state; that each citizen is a sovereign body within the general body politic. If sovereignty needs to be respected at the international nation-state level, it needs to be respected at the individual citizens' level.

Casting himself, albeit unsuccessfully, in the role of an African revolutionary leader offended at the injustice of the international capitalist economic system, Jammeh repeated the age-old accusation that in spite of Africa's vast mineral wealth, the continent remains poor because of the nefarious activities and exploitative practices of multinational corporations (he calls them locusts). He baldly declares that "it is no fault of ours if we Africans are poor today." While it is true that the international capitalist system is exploitative, and that Africans are being dealt a very bad hand by international finance capital, the era of blaming the West for Africa's woes is passé. If there are international locusts, there are also continental, regional, and national locusts in the form of corrupt African governments and greedy despots who prey on the resources of their countries around the continent. Is Jammeh not wealthier than the Gambia government? Is he not the chief capitalist entrepreneur in The Gambia today, with business interests ranging from supermarkets to hotels, transportation, butcheries and bakeries? Africa is not poor in material resources but Africans are the poorest of the poor because we have corrupt governments and greedy and grabbing leaders like Yahya Jammeh who hold our nations hostage.

Moreover, what exactly constitutes national poverty goes beyond the material or the fiscal. Africa remains financially poor because we are intellectually poor, because our greedy and grabbing despots have not allowed the prospering of constructive ideas that alone can lead to national development. Every piece of technology anywhere, every scientific innovation, every development, however great or small, is a product of the human mind. The systematic suppression of innovative thought in our continent from independence to date is primarily responsible for our financial poverty. Africa remains poor, materially, largely because our governments suppress our most precious resources - our minds. Needless censorship and the criminalization of speech is the chief culprit for our continued stagnation, not Jammeh's so-called locusts, to whose grabbing community he himself belongs at the national level.

When Jammeh declares that the multi national corporations' "insatiable appetite for massive wealth at any cost has pushed them to the point of blindness and insensitivity to human suffering and loss of human life in the developing world especially in Africa," the biting irony of his statement is lost upon him. Also lost upon him is the irony of his statement that "we must respect the fact that humanity is created to be diverse" and that "therefore there is bound to be diversity . . . in the way we live and differences in our beliefs." He goes on to self-righteously declare that "diverse as we may (sic), we are part and parcel of the one human family created by the one and only God" and that "if we accept this principle that we are all human beings equal before the only God that created us, that differences . . .do not make one less human than others then we will all live in perfect peace and harmony in this global village called the world." The problem, he further says, "is that some play God and believe that . . .they are better than the rest of humanity and should dictate to them how they should live . . ." Who plays God better than Jammeh and his fellow African despots who try to dictate what words and thoughts are acceptable in countries that belong to all citizens equally? Did he not play God by declaring recently that he will "make sure" that people he sees as bringing disorder to his country are dead?

If Jammeh just stopped for a moment and listened to himself, if he really believed in what he said at the United Nations, then he would have been a different person than he is. His irony-ridden speech is merely the proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black. Injustice, exploitation, and oppression are wrong and deserving of condemnation and opposition, no matter where within the global system they happen to be taking place. Respect for diversity is as good for the international system as it is good for the national system. Equality of humanity is not a virtue only at the international level, it is also a virtue at the national and domestic levels. African leaders should stop whining and blaming the West for Africa's poverty and underdevelopment because the greater bulk of the blame lies squarely on their shoulders. Ideas are the oil with which the engine of development is greased. Stop killing ideas and Africa will be well on its way out of its seemingly chronic stagnation.

Omar al-Bashir must cede power now or be ousted, says Dr. El Tom 

By Edorodion Osa 

UNFOLDING events around the world may have relegated the crisis in Sudan to the background on the international agenda, but for Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), an organisation involved in the conflict in Sudan, the fight to redress decades of marginalisation of the ninety five percent majority by a tiny five percent minority is intensifying, and plans are already in place to invade Khartoum and oust Omar Hasan Al Bashir from power before the end of the year.

In an exclusive interview with Obodo Oyinbo, the organisation's Director of Training and Strategic Planning, Dr Abdullahi Osman El Tom, said that although Sudan's problem is political and should be resolved politically, as long as Bashir's government continues to deliberately impede the path to a peaceful resolution, military solution becomes the only justified cause of action: "We tried before and failed but this time there is no room for failure. We know that they (government) also have their plans to stop us but we are determined. Darfur cannot afford to become another Palestine with second and third generation refugees."

He stated that instead of waiting to be swept out of government, it is in the long term interest of the minority government to cede power peacefully now as they would have the opportunity to share power based on proportional representation: "If they continue to hold on to power, they will be ousted and never have power again. People are not going to sit and take injustice forever. They might take it for a while but not forever."

Dr El Tom (pictured above) said that decades of control by the tiny minority has reflected badly on the country in all areas, and that "Arabisation" of Sudanese cultures since independence has led to the perception of Sudan as an Arab state: "Arabic is not the only language spoken in Sudan. Although it is the lingua franca, there are other languages which have been destroyed by the ruling minority. Now, the history of Sudan is the history of Saudi Arabia, and the educational curriculum has been "Arabised" to the extent that African culture is not even given a whispering mention."

He pointed out that the objectives of JEM are to reshuffle and redistribute the power in Khartoum in such a way that all regions in Sudan will participate in the exercise of power and the distribution of economic resources based on proportional representation and equal influence, and to promote Sudan as a culturally diverse society.

According to him, JEM will ensure that access to power and economic resources is based on the population of each region, positive discrimination is adopted to encourage disadvantage areas to catch up with those areas that have long benefited from political power, and extra resources are deployed to regions that have been devastated by war.

Dr El Tom added that the fundamental issue which the organisation is fighting for, and will implement when it comes to power, is the treatment of all Sudanese and their cultures as equals. He said that the cultural diversity of the country has to be reflected in how Sudan is portrayed, and equal educational opportunities should be given to all Sudanese regardless of the region they come from: "This is why we rejected the Abuja Agreement because it retained the status quo in Sudan by allowing the five percent minority to continue to hold on to power. The only peaceful way forward is for the minority government in Khartoum to implement the Goodwill Agreement."

He revealed that when JEM takes over power in Khartoum, they will make sure Bashir goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer the charges of Genocide and crime against humanity: "We have made it clear on many occasions that if any of us is indicted by the ICC, we will send that person to the Hague to clear his name. Bashir should do the same."

The long walk to Europe: Woes and travails of illegal migration

LAST week the world rudely awoke again to the harrowing news that at least 21 people have drowned and hundreds more are believed missing after two boats carrying migrants to Italy sank off the coast of Libya in separate incidents. Ben Ukwuoma, Oghogho Obayuwana and Olalekan Okusan write on the woes, travails of many Nigerians and indeed Africans who in search of way out of poverty, want to enter Europe through the back door.

The time was 4 am and the day was April 10 2008. Passengers heading to Lagos from Cairo International Airport were ushered to the spacious departure lounge of the airport.

At the other side of the lounge was a group of middle aged Nigerians looking pale and grossly emaciated. With eyes permanently fixed on the sky, it was apparent they were not there on their own volition.

After all the boarding formalities have been completed, two plain cloth Egyptian security personnel quietly escorted them to the back seats of the plane. They were on their way back.

It was not an comfortable four hours flight for most of the passengers on board the aircraft as the odours oozing out from the supposed illegal immigrants pervaded the air.

"Is this the kind of horrible experience some of these illegal immigrants go through when they are deported to country," one passenger lamented after alighting from the aircraft.

Now consider this sad story of a man who threw his two children overboard after they died of starvation in a migrant boat on their way to Italy.

The man and 74 other migrants were rescued after setting sail from Libya. They were picked up by the Italian coastguard a day the government declared a state of emergency over illegal immigration.

"The night we left Libya, the youngest one died in my arms and we were forced to throw him in the sea, the 30 year old Nigerian was quoted by Reuters as saying in Italian newspapers. A day later, the three year-old daughter also died, he added.

"She wanted water and something to eat. She suffered a lot, resisted a bit longer, but did not make it in the end," he narrated.

The case of Mr. Azubuike Onuorah, a 27 year-old trader at Mandilas, Lagos Island graphically captures the excruciating pains many Nigerians had to go through in their desire to enter Europe through the back door. He felt that he was wasting time in Nigeria and needed to travel to Europe to "make it big".

His friends that left the country barely two years ago were sending cars back to Nigeria and building houses in Lagos and Onitsha. That excited him.

He sold all he had, including his car, a Mercedes 190E, and headed to Germany. He could not reach his destination as he was repatriated almost immediately. His traveling documents were faked. But that did not deter him. He tried again.

With about 20 other hustlers, they set out for Europe through the desert. For two weeks they thronged on with little or no food. But the dream of reaching Europe could not be realised as they were stranded in Egypt for eight months. To survive for these torturous months, he told The Guardian he did all kinds of menial jobs. "I swept the streets, cleaned public toilets and many other things I would not like recounting," he stated.

Azubuike was later picked up by Egyptian immigration officials along with others repatriated to Gambia.

This is the lot of many Nigerians and other Africans who want to enter Europe through the back door in search of a way out of poverty.

For many Nigerians, the only means of reaching Europe is by taking the risk of crossing the Sahara Desert to one of the North African countries.

Cases of dug out canoes ferrying illegal African migrants capsizing off the coast of Spain, Italy and France abound these days. In most of the incidents, many occupants of these rickety boats got drowned.

Recently, Libya has become the most preferred country of transit for illegal immigrants from the sub-Saharan Africa, from where they embark on a more suicidal journey of crossing the Mediterranean Sea into Italy.

Many are making this arduous journey on their own volition; spending days and nights going through dunes and mountains, violence and suffering, risking their lives in temperatures sometimes reaching 50C. Other hazards faced by the emigrants include possible abduction by several rebel groups.

Increasingly, among these migrants are young girls, who are lured into this journey under the pretext that they would work either in Libya or in Italy.

Sadly, these girls end up in brothels, subjected to horrible sexual abuses, until they die in the hands of their captors. A few lucky ones are rescued by the police or the Nigerian Mission in one of the transit countries. Unfortunately, for most of them life would never be the same again, as they are infected with HIV/AIDS while in these brothels.

Life in Libya for most Nigerian emigrants is pathetic. With almost no chance of crossing into Europe, no work or decent habitable place, in addition to the harsh reality of trying to adapt to a strange cultural and social environment, many resort to crimes, like drug trafficking, prostitution, brewing and selling of alcohol, theft.

In the past two years, the Libyan authorities have repatriated thousands of illegal immigrants, including Nigerians.

However, shock, despair and a strange apprehension reverberated through most parts of Nigeria last week in the knowledge that Africa's giant is the main source of persons being trafficked to Europe.

The bodies were found after a boat bound for Europe carrying about 250 people sank off the coast of the North African state, the officials said on Monday.

No fewer than 23 people were rescued by Libyan coastguards when a second boat packed with migrants went down, but another 342 people on board were still missing by the beginning of this week according to global news organs.