Campaign for the eradication of illicit drugs from Lagos State is yielding positive results as Operatives of the Lagos State command of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) impounds a Hilux vehicle belonging to the Ondo State Government allegedly used in conveying 316.65kg of dried weeds found to be cannabis. A group of female believed to be the brain behind cannabis trafficking and two male drivers with the Ondo State government had been smashed. The suspects last week met their waterloo when they were arrested along Lagos Ibadan expressway on their way from Owo in Ondo State.
bags of cannabis
NDLEA Lagos State Commander Aliyu Sule gave the names of the suspects as Mr. Olasupo Taofeeq Olabode, 31 years, a driver with the Ondo State government; Mrs Rose Ossai, 39 years, sells kerosene and drinks and Mrs. Grace Adejo, 40 years, a trader who used to sell clothes. According to the commander, the suspects smuggle cannabis from Owo in Ondo State and distribute in Lagos.
olasupo taofeeq olabode
“This group made up of women cannabis merchants and two drivers specialise in inter-State distribution of cannabis. They operate cleverly and smoothly using official vehicles as a cover. We got the information and have been working hard to arrest them. We must work hard in making Lagos drug free” Aliyu stated. He added that one driver and two women who are members of the group but currently at large are being hunted by officials of the command.
Chairman/Chief Executive of the Agency, Ahmadu Giade noted that the use of official vehicle belonging to the State government is an indication of the desperation of drug barons. According to the NDLEA boss, “this is worrisome because these are mothers with children distributing cannabis to other children. I urge members of the public to report suspected cases of drug trafficking to the Agency. The consequences of these drugs on the society are grave. Drug barons are constantly looking for who they will engage in their illicit trade and it is wisdom not to yield to their deception”.
rose ossai
The suspects have made confessional statements on their involvement in the criminal act and investigation is still ongoing. Mr. Olasupo Taofeeq Olabode, a driver with the Ondo State government explained that one Ogidan Kayode the official driver of the vehicle used in smuggling the cannabis was responsible for his involvement. “My daughter was sick and I needed six thousand naira for her treatment. I met my colleague Ogidan Kayode for help and he promised to assist. He later drove his official vehicle to my house in Akure and told me to convey cannabis from Owo to Lagos. That was how I got involved. All I wanted was to take care of my sick child but unfortunately, we were arrested” Olasupo stated. He hails from Akure, Ondo State.
One of the female suspects, Rose Ossai, a 39 year old divorcee residing in Lagos said that this was her very first time in the criminal trade. “I was told that there is much profit in hemp sales. I entered into the trade because I wanted to pay for my rent. I am a divorcee with four children. I sell kerosene and drinks and I beg for pardon in the interest of my children and this is my very first time” Rose stated. He hails from Ndokwa West Area of Delta State.
grace adejo
Another female suspect who is also allegedly involved in cannabis sales in Lagos is Grace Adejo, a widow with two children. She pleaded for mercy adding that she regrets her action. “I am a widow with two children. This is my second trip to Owo to buy cannabis. I have realised my mistake and pray for mercy because of my children. I used to sell clothes in Jos to sustain my family after the death of my husband. Unfortunately, I lost my shop and everything to the Jos crisis and I relocated to Lagos where I was lured into cannabis trade” she stated.
President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan has appointed a 4-member Federal Government delegation to attend the burial of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, who died last Friday. The burial is scheduled for 1600 (Saudi Time) tomorrow, October 25, 2011.
The delegation to be led by the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammed Saad Abubakar III will depart from the Presidential Wing of the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport , Abuja at midnight today, October 24, 2011.
Other members of the delegation are the Minister of Defence, Alhaji Haliru Bello Mohammed, the Minister of State II, Foreign Affairs, Dr. Nuruddeen Mohammed and Prof. Daoud Naibi.
Over the years, I heard of Reverend Father Ejike Mbaka, especially, about his then long running conflict with Chimaroke Nnamani, the then governor of Enugu State. Lately, for the first time, I listened to a few of his CDs. They are usually a combination of songs, exhortations and sermons.
I found them very impressive. I was captivated by his directness and candor. I have always respected and admired those who can honestly express themselves: saying things the way they see it or feel it. These are the exceptional few, the courageous and honorable few, who can live their lives not swayed by promises of reward or threats of punishment.
Courage comes from God. Therefore, every true man of God, that is, those with the calling and unction of God must be courageous. Any priest, pastor, evangelist, etc that professes Christ but remains gutless and spineless and is tossed about by fear of possible punishment or anxiety over potential rewards is an impostor – a con artist and a pathological lair. Such a “man of God” does not have the calling of God, but took to the ministry for pecuniary and other incentives.
Secondly, Ejike Mbaka’s message is a refreshingly different from that of most Nigerian preachers. It goes beyond the usual trite palliatives of pay your tithes and sow your seeds, and then, prosper and the prosaic doctrine of get born again and inherit eternal life in the hereafter. He addresses the problems of the day, issues that affect us directly in this world.
He indicts the power elite of their multitude of wickedness, theft, corrupt dealings and abuse of power, and urges them to mend their evil ways. As I listened through his songs and unequivocal and defiant sermons, I was fascinated especially by one song. It was his rendition of a song by the people of Imo State against an unbridled act of impunity:
Onye ahu tiri father ihe (He that beat up a Reverend Father)
Chorus: Ogahi achi anyi oso (He will not govern us again)
Ohakim tiri father ihe (Ohakim that beat up a Reverend Father)
Chorus: Ogahi achi anyi oso (He will not govern us again)
The song expressed the prevalent mood in Imo state after Governor Ohakim’s security men, at the direction of the governor, beat up and detained an elderly priest. The priest’s only crime was that he did not hurriedly drive his car out of the way as the governor’s siren blaring motorcade sped through.
The people of Imo state were outraged by what was by any standard a sacrilege. It was a behavior that smacked in the face of everything the people of the state held dear. And they vowed that he will not govern them again. Refreshingly, Ohakim did not govern them again, they voted him out. In Nigeria where elections were previously fixed by political godfathers in total disregard for the electoral preferences of the electorate, this expressed power of the electorate in removing an unwanted governor is exhilarating. For once, the real essence of democracy triumphed over the forces of arrogance and insensitivity in Nigeria.
It must have taken utmost recklessness and total “I don care” to beat up an elderly priest in a predominantly Catholic State. It was the height of the arrogance of power, disdain for tradition, and scorn for the beliefs of the people and total contempt for the Catholic Church.
In the old Igbo tradition, to beat up someone older than you was awful. To beat an older man who is also a priest was abhorrent. And to do it for no legitimate reason was abominable. It was an act that must have deeply offended the sensibilities of the people of the state. But that was not the first time that Nigerians were profoundly affronted by the excesses of the Nigerian power elite. However, generally, they helplessly stomached such affronts because the power of the vote was emasculated by an ignoble oligarchy that disregarded the people’s electoral choices. To successful wield the power of the vote against a governor for bruising the sensitivity of the people is very new in Nigeria.
It was Ukpabi Asika, as the administrator of East Central State, who once said: nobody put me in power and nobody can remove me. Arrogant parlance it was, but then, that was under military rule. He served at the will of gun tooting soldiers that shot their way into power, and held the people in submission to the gun.
But then, even under democratic dispensations in Nigeria, such supercilious choice of words was not uncommon because most elected officials served not at the will of the people, but at the pleasure of the political godfathers. For example, Chimaroke Nnamani, at the height of his murderous binge, in Enugu State, could have made a similar statement because he needed not the people’s accent, but his party’s dexterity in electoral fraud and the approval of his political godfathers, to remain in power.
Having been rigged into power by a corrupt collusion of the People’s Progressive Alliance (PPA) chieftains and Morris Iwu led Independent National Election Commission (INEC), Ohakim must have been buoyed by a similar mindset. So, as he (through his security men) assaulted and humiliated a priest, violated the sacrosanctity of the Catholic Church, and by extension, insulted the susceptibilities of the whole Catholic votaries of the state, he must have felt that nobody put him in power and, as such, nobody could remove him from power. Poor Ohakim, he failed to realize that times were beginning to change. And that the Nigerian electorates, for once, will effectively exercise the power of the vote. Thanks to Goodluck Jonathan and Attahiru Jega.
This new found power of the vote in Nigeria is remarkable. If wielded strategically, it can begin the process of sanitizing the democratic process by weeding off the undeserving and undesirable elements that suffice the Nigerian corridors of power. As we can now insist and actualize that as for those greedy and indolent legislators that make 10 times as much as the United States of American senators and 4 times as United States’ president by saying yays and nays; they will not legislate for us again. That those voracious and underperforming governors steep in the theft of public funds; they will not govern us again.
In addition, we can also demand and effect that that ineffective president, purposely chosen, by his political godfathers, for his docility, who cannot tackle the problems of the country, but wants to elongate the president’s term of office and remove the fuel subsidy; hewill not preside over us again
As the National Assembly Election Petitions tirbunal sitting in Awka races against time to meet up with the time stipulation for the conclusion of cases before it, the case between Mr Dozie Nwankwo of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and Iyom Uche Ekwunife,of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) the incumbent, both of who contested for the Njikoka,Dunukofia and Anaocha Federal Constituency in the last general elections would be decided this morning.
The submissions and presentations by the parties, their candidates and the Independent National Electoral commission , INEC were concluded last week while judgement was slated for today.
Guardian inquiry revealed that extra security arrangements have already been made for the premises of the tribunal. This includes limiting of vehicular movement and traffic in and around the area
Also the two political gladiators and their supporters have made arrangement to celebrate the verdict in style. Nwankwo was said to be very popular among the electorates but was robbed of victory by INEC at the collation centre, a supporter told journalists in Awka yesterday
Recent events in the life of the nation especially the numerous acts of bombings and mass murders in Borno and other Northern states and Abuja have impelled me to write this piece. Before the election of President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011, many people had tried to use these of bombings and mass killings to discredit him as a weakling who could not act as commander-in-chief. Fortunately, all of that came to naught and a great majority of Nigerians came out and voted for him in an election which was generally certified as free, fair and credible by both the local and international observers.
Now, even after his swearing-in and more than 100 days into his presidency and counting, the bombings and mass murders in Borno and Jos have not abated despite the good intentions and efforts of the Jonathan administration. Fortunately, however, there has been a large measure of peace in his native Bayelsa State. His Governor, the young Chief (Dr) Timiprie Sylva had the foresight to commence a process of reconciliation with the militants who had made the State and the entire nation ungovernable. Not long thereafter, the then president, Umaru Musa Yar’Ardua (now late) and his able Vice, now president, saw the wisdom in this approach and established the Amnesty Programme. Today, relative peace has returned to the creeks of the Niger Delta and the nation’s crude oil production capacity has jumped from about 750,000 barrels per day to more than 3 million barrels per day. This has yielded substantial revenue for national development at all tiers of governance.
This is where the worrisome development in Bayelsa State arises. Who wants to disturb this relative peace in the Niger Delta in general and particularly in Bayelsa State? Who wants to destabilize Bayelsa? Is it intended to be used to further attack and disparage the president as a man who cannot keep the peace even in his own home? Or as some skeptics would ask, is Mr. President trying to use his federal might to orchestrate the current state of suspense in Bayelsa?
For most people not steeped in the mucky waters of Nigerian politics it may be difficult to know where all this is going to. But as everyone knows, the governorship election in Bayelsa State did not hold in April, 2011 along with those of 5 other States. Before the High Court overruled INEC, the parties had held their primaries, elected their candidates for governorship and submitted same to INEC. By that ruling, the governorship election in Bayelsa was postponed to ————————-2012. So many months after the general elections, INEC has now woken from its slumber and is pressing for a ruling to the effect that the High Court was wrong in extending the tenure of the affected governors.
In a nation where all the parties are agreed on the fact that the judiciary is up for sale to the highest bidder (remember the Salami saga?) the question now is: who is beating the drum for this latest bravado by INEC? But before you hazard any guess, it is important to speculate what will happen in Bayelsa and the 5 other states should the Court of Appeal come to a different ruling from the High Court. Strictly speaking, the Governors and their deputies will automatically step down and the Speakers of their various Houses of Assembly will assume the mantle of leadership. Then the sleeping EFCC will wake up from its slumber, chase the ex-governors and their deputies for just or for no cause whatever as the ‘harmless’ president and his enforcers in Abuja anoint his chosen ones to run on the ticket of the ruling party.
On paper this sounds very simple. But I can assure you that this is a harbinger for instability the like of which the nation has not seen in a long time. To be sure, the governors will not go down without a fight. To chase them off before the elections with EFCC and the Courts will further scandalize the anti-corruption agency and lower its already low standing in the eyes of right-thinking members of our nation and the international community. Secondly, there will be no better way to heat up the polity than embarking on this gambit. Third, the unrepentant militants who have remained dormant for some time now will find the excuse and the space to come back to ‘business.’
The other thing the ruling PDP must consider is the combined effects of sections 33 and 35 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. Can any party legitimately hound a governor who is yet to be convicted out of a race for which he has been nominated by the party in a primary and his name has been submitted to INEC as the party’s representative merely because the election was delayed by an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction? I respectfully submit that it is not open to a party to substitute a candidate whose name has already been submitted to INEC as the party’s candidate on the mere ground that that election was postponed by order of court. The only condition under which the party is allowed to substitute a candidate is where the candidate has died or is incapacitated or has voluntarily withdrawn from the race or from the party and he has put his position in writing to his party.
As several commentators have stated, the PDP will be handing over the reigns of power in the affected States to the opposition by default if it ventures to substitute candidates it had already submitted to INEC for the same elections. On mere technicality, the opposition will clinch victory from the jaws of defeat.
All said the wise path to follow is either to allow the primaries already held to stand or to use the current State party structures to hold new primaries if directed in writing to do so by INEC. If the second option is followed all the parties will be affected and none will take advantage to clinch the position merely by resort to litigation. Finally, though we all strive to have an independent INEC, where as in this case, its pursuit of the current appeal might lead to a breakdown of law and order, then it must be prevailed upon to abandon its appeal and work hard towards giving Nigerians an even freer and more credible election.
By Bala Salihu Dawakin Kudu
It is not surprising at all for some people to stoop so low as to mutilate and misrepresent the truth for monetary inducement or other selfish benefits. This was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read a conspicuously sponsored write-up by one Ahmad Baballiya in the Leadership newspaper of Thursday, October 20, 2011. The article, which appeared under the same title as above, made a number of false claims regarding Kwankwaso’s reformation of the Kano State Hisbah Board.
It is a well-known fact that Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso was the instrumental figure behind the introduction of Sharia in Kano state in the first instance. As such, during his first tenure in 1999, he created all the Sharia-related structures in the state. There can never be truth in the claim that Kwankwaso who first introduced Sharia in Kano would now work to undermine it or any of its supporting structures, which included the Hisbah Board. Even before kwankwaso’s return to government following his victory in the last elections, there have been serious dissatisfactions in many quarters over former governor Ibrahim Shekarau’s blatant politicization of the Hisbah Board.
It was widely acknowledged that the Hisbah Board under Ibrahim Shekrau was just a poodle used to portray his sanctimonious regime as a God-fearing one. Most of the people who preside over the affairs of the board then were cronies of the former governor who had no clue over the tenets of Islamic or Sharia law. Those people trusted with the responsibility of managing the so-called “ever-vibrant” Sharia Commission, Zakkah and khubsi Board offered nothing positive to the board other than sheer greed and reckless attempts to emulate the financial embezzlement of their principals in the last cabinet. This trend was the reason why many of the philanthropists who contributed from their personal wealth to Islamic causes lost confidence in the Zakkah board.
Again, during kwankwaso’s first tenure, there was only on bona fide Hisbah body that was committed to the implementation of Sharia law. Any other “parallel bodies” were either a band of Shekarau’s sponsored thugs or just imaginary creations of delusional writers like Baballiya. And this bona fide Hisbah body received the backing and support of Kwankwaso who then acknowledged their patriotism in protecting the interests of Islam in Kano state.
With the second coming of Kwankwaso, the Hisbah Board was only empowered the more. The appointment of its new commander was a testimony to this. Babballiya contradicts himself by conceding this when he wrote that Kwankwaso appointed “a respectful Islamic scholar was appointed as the Commander General of the Hisbah board by Governor Kwankwaso”. In addition, since a new head was appointed to head the Hisbah board, there will naturally be the need to restore the Board to its primary position. Therefore all the efforts of the new Hisbah Commander were geared toward making the Board into a more effective instrument of Sharia implementation than the political tool it was turned to during the Shekarau era.
Another amazing allegation labeled against Kwankwaso by Baballiya was his claim that the overhead cost of the Hisbah board, which was N1 million before was reduced to a miserable N100, 000. These claims are simply tissues of lies perpetrated by the writer for his own selfish reasons. At least the fact that the Hisbah board members are working round the clock to discharge their duties has contradicted that claim. Equally, if it was true that the Hisbah Board members were not paid their allowances as Babballiya again claimed, why then do they decide to stay in the service?
Moreover, when the Deputy Governor Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje visited the Hisbah Board a few months ago, he mission was to promise empowerment to the board and to warned them against involvement in partisan politics. This sharply negates Baballiya’s lies that the Deputy Governor was there to promise punishment for some of the Board member’s support for the opposition ANPP government during the last elections. Any sensible person knows that there was no way anybody could have known if any Hisbah member voted for ANPP or PDP during the last elections. Elections are purely a matter of personal choice and as such, it could be stated declared unequivocally that the ANPP simply lost the elections as a result of its gross abuse of people’s sensibilities and resources even though it tried to use some of the rotten eggs in the Hisbah Board to rig elections. This explained why in some ANPP quarters many of the Hisbah members were nowhere to be found immediately Kwankwaso was declared winner of the governorship elections.
Conclusively, people like Baballiya ought to be monitored by security agents in Kano to avert a situation where they will attempt to moblilize thugs under the cover of “independent Hisbah” in order to disrupt peace in the state. This is especially necessary considering the fact that the Hisbah Board as it is currently constituted has been dutifully discharging its responsibilities without complaints. Therefore, Kwankwaso as a man committed to respect for the rule of law would not shy away from dealing decisively with any individual or group that attempts to create tensions in the society.
D/Kudu is the Press Secretary to the Deputy Governor of Kano State
It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African
Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
Regional Unity as an Obstacle to the Creation of a United States of Africa
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when
only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
Gaddafi, the African Who Cleansed the Continent from the Humiliation of Apartheid
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
Are Those Who Want to Export Democracy Themselves Democrats?
And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and
counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
What Lessons for Africa?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Information available to 247ureports.com indicates that the State administration of Anambra State under the leadership of Governor Peter Obi has yet to release the September 2011 salaries to the Civil Servants of the State.
According to the information gathered, the governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi who had promised/threatened to withold the September 2011 salaries to civil servants who participated in the mass action labor strike, and later recanted following a signed agreement with the labor unions – that he will not punish the striking workers by witholding their September 2011 salaries, has opted to not release the salaries.
And the government house in Awka has remained silent over the non payment of workers salaries. Calls placed and text messages sent to the mobile phones of the Chief Press Secretary [Mike Udah], the Media Assistant to the Governor [Valentine Obienyem], and the Information and Culture Commissioner [Maja Umeh] regarding the non payment of salaries were not responded to.
In talking to the labor leaders in Awka, Anambra State who confirmed that the salaries were yet to be payed told 247ureports.com that Gov Peter Obi had pledged to release the September 2011 salaries. The labor leader added that it is unconstitutional for the Governor to withold workers pay over a Mass Strike Action. This he noted while stating that the release of the salaries were probably just delayed.
Libya’s Col Muammar Gaddafi was killed in crossfire after being captured in his birthplace of Sirte, officials say. Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said he had been shot in the head in an exchange between Gaddafi loyalists and National Transitional Council fighters. He confirmed that Col Gaddafi, who had been taken alive, had died before reaching hospital. Nato’s governing body, meeting in the coming hours, is expected to declare an end to its Libyan bombing campaign.
Lockerbie Case: Gaddafi’s Death Is A Setback…
But Gaddafi’s death is a setback to campaigners seeking the full truth about the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie in Scotland of Pan Am flight 103 which claimed 270 lives, mainly Americans, and for which one of Gaddafi’s agents was convicted. Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, said: “There is much still to be resolved and we may now have lost an opportunity for getting nearer the truth.” “That’s for Lockerbie,” said the front-page headline in the Sun, Britain’s best selling daily newspaper. / Gaddafi /
Amnesty International Wants True Facts On Gaddafi’s Death…
On the other hand, Amnesty International, a human rights group, called on the NTC to make public “the full facts” on how Gaddafi died. “It is essential to conduct a full, independent and impartial inquiry to establish” whether Qaddafi was killed during combat or after he was captured, the organization said on its website. The uprising was part of the region’s so-called Arab Spring, which also unseated the leaders of Egyptand Tunisia. While Africa’s largest oil reserves may enable Libyato rebuild its economy faster than Egyptand Tunisia, the challenge facing the interim government is political as it struggles to unite the factions that challenged Qaddafi’s rule since February. The NTC has said that control of Sirte will begin an eight- month countdown to elections for a national council, a first step toward a promised democratic system.
Daunting Challenges Remains… / Gaddafi
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday that the death of Libya’s ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya, while admitting there is still a long road ahead for the country. Expert noted while Gaddafi’s death clears an important hurdle for the country to move forward, daunting challenges remain in its path toward rebuilding the war-ravaged country and establishing a functioning government. However, no one is optimistic enough to say that Libya’s future will be a smooth sailing. As a matter of fact, almost everyone agrees that the country’s road forward will be full of daunting challenges. The lengthy list includes “repairing the extensively damaged infrastructure, replenishing a drained treasury, and reconciling pro-Gaddafi tribes (primarily in the western part of the country) and the largely eastern-led interim government,” said Ted Carpenter, senior fellow with the Cato Institute. / Gaddafi /
Who Will Be The Real Protagonists..? / Gaddafi
globalnewspointer.net: The main point of interest remains on the NTC’s priorities and the role of the West.
Libya without Gaddafi is by itself a new social and political reality both for the country itself and also for the broader North African region.
When NATO decides to stop its air power campaign, a new and most important phase of post-war re-building and social stabilization must be start.Libyacan be easily a newIraqorAfghanistan… The main question is who will be the protagonists of the new era and which role the international community is going to have in that effort?
On the other hand, the current conditions of global economic crisis with serious financial consequences in both the Europe and theU.S.really restrict the availability of developmental resources forLibya, in the part of international community.
Finally, the people of Libya have to prove themselves by taking action and creating a democratic society. But are they ready..? / Gaddafi /
Reacting to the death of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, the Holy See has asked “that the Libyan people might be spared further violence due to a spirit of revenge,” and confirming relations with the governing National Transitional Council in Libya.
The killing of Qaddai “marks the end of a much too long and tragic phase of a brutal struggle to bring down a harsh and oppressive regime,” the Vatican said. The statement said that the bloody conflict in Libya illustrates the “immense toll of human suffering” in any society whose government “is not based on the respect and dignity of the human person, but rather on the prevailing affirmation of power.”
The Vatican voiced its hope that Libya’s new leaders can restore order and rebuild the country under the rule of law, and that international leaders will lend support to that process.
The Vatican noted that the Holy See “recognizes states and not governments,” and therefore has not formally recognized the National Transitional Council (CNT). But the statement notes that “the CNT is now acting effectively as the government in Tripoli,” the Vatican see that body as “the legitimate representative of the Libyan people,” and Vatican representatives have established friendly contacts with the new leaders.
L’Osservatore Romano remarked: “It will certainly not be easy to reconstruct the country after seven month of war–with thousands of victims, hundreds of thousands of refugees and terrible destruction–but Libyans must find the strength to begin again.”
