From 50 Cent to 1 Pound on the BBC

Tuning in to BBC

Let’s just take a break from this tummy upset that has overstayed its welcome and seek a sense of mirth that I apparently missed in the news until it appeared on one of those American night talk shows.

Perfection Plastic Surgery and MedSpa is the business of Angela Kogan who amongst other things does help put the long in schlong quite perfectly, or so it seems. For that, she has gained some notoriety and a lawsuit, because she has in her promotional material suggested 50 Cent (Now to be known as 1 Pound in the light of the crash of the Pound Sterling), was a client. [Independent: 50 Cent suing Miami doctor for allegedly suggesting rapper had penis enlargement surgery]

There is a picture of them together somewhere and the inference from 50 Cent is that she has suggested that he tuned in to the BBC. I cannot say how many channels can be tuned into, but this public display of phallic endowment and the disputations that follow can quite easily lead respectable blogs like mine into the abyss of tawdry lewdness.

Please, don’t

Now, if this does make it to court, I doubt the core aspects of discovery would be limited to proving whether 50 Cent was a client, for anyone with serious legal chops would be expected to ascertain if indeed there has been an enhancement whether cosmetic or radical and who might in his history have tuned the knobs on his television to watch more than a live performance on the BBC.

I adjure anyone who reads and listens, please, go to court on anything and everything, but never on the premise of submitting your manhood as evidence, it never has a happy ending, regardless of what you are packing. At best, frighten the living daylights out of her and find a settlement, for you will never be able to sustain an objection when the jury is curious.

If I recall, this blog did once find a doctor offering these same services, it is heartening to know that both male and female specialists are in the game to ensure that the result is fit for purpose, whatever, that might be.

Blog - Hello Dr Dick, my friends need a ... (2015)

A sanction for barbs

Getting you for it

A comment made excites the instigation of a symphony of charges resonating with the court of the unimpressed, the culprit is denial, pleading not guilty, yet, their demeanour belies a sense of engaging criminality, that which they have a propensity for that is borders on the lascivious.

As an officer of the law, one cannot be imagining the involvement of our quarry in nefarious activities as the perpetrator is wont to making observations and commenting thereafter on things they should quite immediately ignore.

With no realisation of how grave their infraction is or the dire consequences that will result from their actions, the bench intervenes to acquaint and educate that ignorance is no excuse and being honest is no cover for injuring the pride and ego of another, the other being sorely unimpressed indeed.

Punishment fitting

As proceedings draw to an end, a case for mitigation is being made, but upon close scrutiny there is neither contriteness nor remorse. This person is prone to recidivism, they will as they have done before, do it again and so a sentence that serves as deterrent is all the more necessary.

The respondent is hereby guilty and sentenced to 6 weeks of custodial habitation with their co-conspirator who strains to avow the charges. The sentence will be served in an arranged Cape Town facility with hard labour – of love.

The case of the abusive co-passenger

A short and eventful journey

On the 18^th of December, last year, I was returning from a vanity trip to Paris to keep up my loyalty status with KLM/AirFrance. On arrival at Manchester Airport, I boarded the train for a 17-minute journey to Manchester Piccadilly Station. It was more eventful than I expected.

The coach I boarded was closest to the top of the platform and as the train was about to leave, it meant people were rushing onto the train through our coach. I could not put my bags away as other passengers were trying to get by. It meant, I had to lean over my seat, opposite me across the aisle, another passenger was leaning over his seat for the same reason.

It took a while for everyone to get through, but they all eventually did. It was at that point that my co-passenger on the other side accosted me and literally shouted in my face asking whether I would allow him to put his bags away. I ignored him because there was no reason to shout at me, but he continued being an irritant.

The abuse was a torrent

Then I answered him back, “If you want to address me, you do not shout at me.” He repeated what I said to ridicule me and then as he sat down he launched into a tirade of abuse. None of which I answered to until he got to say, “This is England,” and something along the lines that I needed to return to where I came from.

To which I responded, “I am English too.” Then another passenger adjured him to stop all that racist nonsense. Without pausing, he laid into the other passenger with torrents of unspeakable abuse. Meanwhile, someone else on the train had called the police and informed them of the ensuing altercation.

The train conductor came through, checked our tickets and then called me aside to ask about the fracas and whether I wanted to involve the police. The episode did not affect me that much, but I thought the man should not get away with such unwarranted and abusive behaviour, I acquiesced to having the police involved in the matter.

The goodly police acted well

When we arrived at Manchester Piccadilly Station, the police boarded the train, they invited me to state my case and got the offending passenger off the train, he was both shocked and surprised as they handcuffed him and took him away. I was taken to the police station where I was made comfortable, served tea and invited to give a statement.

Other passengers as we disembarked offered their names and addresses as witnesses to the episode, I felt buoyed by the support of all the other people who felt scandalised by the event. Going through the formalities, I was asked if I needed victim support, therapy and all sorts of help. I did not feel a victim even if I was shaken by the encounter and soon I was on my way home.

Charged and convicted

The man was kept in custody for the night and consequently charged with the offence of 'Racially / religiously aggravated harassment/alarm / distress by words/writing'. Apparently, as the case was being prepared, he committed another similar offence having not learnt the error of his ways.

The British Transport Police kept me informed of the developments through a liaison office, I was even invited to give a witness impact statement which I declined. Over months, a date was set for a court appeared and adjourned twice until it was completely resolved at the end of August.

The man pleaded guilty to the charges and he was fined £600 plus £100 legal costs, a chance encounter of unnecessarily boorish behaviour that he probably had gotten away with many times before had caught up with him and I am glad that I decided to allow the police to intervene, not so much for my sake, but to hopefully teach the man a lesson, that abusing strangers on a train may come with grave consequences and you never know which of those strangers could cause you avoidable grief.

That, I believe is the end of the matter, I will call the Witness & Case Officer later in the week to thank her for her help and support.

Opinion: Homosexuality and the confusion of beliefs in a secular setting

The duty of the state to children

Two cases of Christianity running into conflict with homosexuality in the courts bring to the fore the need for people with devout beliefs to understand the extents to which they by law will be allowed to influence debate in a broader secular society.

Both cases had to do with access to children and more pertinently access to the children’s minds in terms of fostering and teaching.

Good parents, indeed

There is no doubt that Mr and Mrs Johns, aged 65 and 62 respectively have been good foster parents having fostered 15 children with four grown children and grandchildren of their own, they deserve credit.

However, whilst they have license as parents to bring up their own children in the way they see fit, right, with love, with care and all the religious control they might have to bear on the impressionable minds of their own children – foster care involves the state.

The state is by and large secular, recognising people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and persuasions whilst protecting the rights of both majority and minority to operate with civility towards each other in the public space.

The changing society

It behoves the state not to place children in view of extant rights and protections in the parental care of people who might trammel the open-minded broader view of the world a child will have when interacting with society and this where fundamentalist religious beliefs and broader secularist thinking conflicts.

The state is not denying the Johns’ the right to believe whatever doctrines they adhere to, that is a right they exercise with full prerogative, but where the state feels that parental care under fostering guidelines will expose a child to teachings that will narrow a child’s outlook good as they might seem, the state must act in the interests of the child and protect that child from influences that could put it at some disadvantage when the child decides to express itself in a wider community.

The headline does suggests Christian beliefs lose out to gay rights [Daily Mail], but the broader issue is beyond that catchy title, the secular state must give all beliefs equality before the law and perform the balancing act of preventing the undue influence of those who have beliefs over those who believe differently or have no persuasion whatsoever to believe either way.

Don’t confuse entitlement with freedom of expression

The second case concerns Robert Haye [Pink Paper], a secondary school teacher in South London who as a Seventh-Day Adventist expressed reprehensible views about homosexuality before a class of students aged 15-16 and in another class of pupils aged 13-14 suggested those who worship on a Sunday are worshipping the devil.

Mr Haye is quite entitled to his beliefs and he is free to share them with anyone who is an adult, a free moral agent with the right, opportunity and mien to challenge such assertions if they deem fit.

However, when children are in a school, they are wards of the state that dictates a curriculum and programme of education that prepares the children for the world they live in.

Forgetting responsibilities

Mr Haye as a teacher is in a position of authority and influence, it means he has a responsibility to understand that his class is not an extension of the temple wherein he worships, he is paid to educate guided by a syllabus and not to fulminate contemning those who have a difference of opinion or beliefs from his own.

The children in his class will come from varied backgrounds many of which Mr Haye might find antithetical to his belief system but the state cannot allow a situation where a child is made to feel inferior for any reason in a school environment – the issue here again is not about Mr Haye’s rights to have his beliefs but about understanding his responsibilities in a secular setting under the employ of the state with access to influence children.

The society is diverse

That is where Mr Haye was lacking in perception and judgement; that he was relieved of his commission as a teacher was a just consequence and his lament that his career has been destroyed is a situation of his own making – it should not be blamed on Christianity or the abrading his rights to believe whatever he does but on the fact that he was lacking in judgement when he expressed those views in the wrong setting and before the wrong audience.

The judge was unequivocal in his assessment of the matter in saying, “This case is not about the right of a teacher to hold sincerely-held beliefs based on the Bible in relation to homosexuality or attendance at church on Sundays. It has been about how those beliefs and views are manifested in the context of teaching in schools with young people with diverse sexuality, backgrounds and beliefs.”

He could not do it

No one was asking Mr Haye to recant his beliefs, what the state was asking of him was if he is to be placed before young people as an employee of the state to teach, he should keep to the script. Where he has opinions on a subject outside that remit he must be conversant of the fact that the young people before him, are from such diverse backgrounds that his views must be all-encompassing for inclusiveness not for division and discrimination.

If Mr Haye cannot pass that basic test, he has no business being a teacher in a multi-cultural, multi-dimensional and highly diverse setting like an inner-city school.

Further reading

In other blogs, I have been impressed with the way judges have been able to absent themselves from sentimentality and promote the secularist nature of our democratic societies and nowhere was that better expressed than in this blog - The case for State law over religious guidance.

The bit that caught my attention was this – “Legislation to protect views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified, it is an irrational idea and it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

Click on the link to read the rest of the views of the aptly named, Lord Justice Laws.

Opinion: Finding Against The Gospel of NOT - That EHRC Judgement

The rise of religious politics

Each time I think about the ministry of Jesus Christ when he trod the lands of Judea and Samaria as depicted in the gospels I am at times wont to channel Mahatma Gandhi when he was purported to say, “I like your Christ but dislike your Christians.”

Over the last few decades or so, a brand of this religion has emerged which looks very much like modern-day expressions of other Abrahamic faiths, political Judaism with its cauldron in Israel has held the world to ransom with Gentile guilt for the Holocaust and other pogroms that go back centuries, political Islam first expressed in Saudi Arabia, then radicalised in Iran before it was hijacked to be become a potent terrorist movement once spearheaded that the Al Qaeda crusade and political Christianity.

This, I dare say is more widespread and finds expression in social issues that polarise, attempt to ostracise and in terms can be quite discriminatory in a world that is tending more towards secularity than the Dark Ages of moralising sententiousness.

The Christian right and wrongs

In America, it started with the abortion wars, then the issue of homosexuality, gay marriage and stem cell research. God or at least the Christian God is inserted into every debate of the right to have slaves then to prayer, to bear arms, to limit opportunity where a majority of Americans are not by any stretch of the imagination native to the land they have colonised corralling the Native Americans into reservations with money-making casinos and attendant mental issues.

In Africa, they have not rallied round the cross Jesus so succinctly said they should bear and follow him but around an obsession with homosexuality as observed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and a gullible flock of bees feasting on the narcotic pollen of the prosperity gospel.

The activist Christian

In Europe, homosexuality and gay marriage and aggression secularism taking hold in our societies have become the gospel of Not as preached by the Holy Padre in the Vatican, who without much distraction cannot have been oblivious of the clergy who have said mass in the name of the Catholic Church whilst satisfying their lascivious tendencies with the innocence of the small – much prosecuted for redress and justice in North America and Europe but no one has lifted the lid on possible heinous deeds in Africa, Latin America or Asia.

The issue of women having titular roles in the Anglican Church is as engaging as it is disheartening much as gay marriage, abortion issues, reverse missionary journeys – where Africans are coming to Europe to open churches along with pervasive issues of financial impropriety or excess – our televisions have become the means of intruding on our lives without necessarily affecting our lives.

It isn’t Christians in the love for humanity

The most compassionate of our humanity campaigning against grinding poverty, debilitating disease, bad governance or war are hardly religious, they are pop stars and billionaires who openly shame the many followers who have long departed from the ideals of the founders of their systems of faith and have become activists portraying a sense of being under siege from the world around them and being discriminated against.

That many have conflated persecution which comes from adherence to faith with discrimination which is borne of taking social positions against secular norms that allows for diverse strands of humanity to live in some semblance of communal bliss is most interesting and it is exemplified in symbols and beliefs that seek to discriminate and differentiate, ostracising those who in a secular setting have a right to service denied them by those paid in public service to be professional about their vocations.

The cross and the belief

Four Christians having exhausted all legal process in the UK when to Europe to seek redress and a judgement on the matter was pronounced on Tuesday.

Two of them were challenging the decision of their employers to exclude and sanction them for wearing crosses and the other two working for social service organisations put their beliefs before the interests of people who presumably have lifestyles they disagree with.

I am glad that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) proffered arguments that came out in support of one and against the other three.

Christian identity most morose

On the matter of wearing a cross, whilst it might well be symbolic of Christian faith, it is not mandated as an expression by law or doctrine that practitioners of the faith should wear a cross to portray what some have called a Christian identity.

Christian identity in my view is political-speak and if what that means is wearing jewellery moulded as a cross and a representation of the amazing gospel of the man that walked the roads of Judea and Galilee two millennia ago, then we are much poorer for what it really represents apart from the fact that it has patently lost its power to affect people’s lives.

Christianity is supposed to be a light and lamp, a light to gain perspective of beauty and a lamp to show the path when one walks in the dark. That same light when shone brightly into the eye for all the goodness and pleasure it bring to sight and vision, risks blinding the person – In other words, it should never be in-your-face whilst at the same time efficacious.

Reasonableness always wins

I can very when agree that it is reasonable to wear a cross in the workplace as long as there are no requirements for sterility in a controlled environment like a hospital. It would be trite to bring up the matter of whether cross wearers do sterilise their crosses and that is beside the point that there are many who wear crosses that are hardly Christian in belief or in practice.

In the case of the other two, one with professional duties of conducting marriages on behalf of the state and the other trained to provide relationship counselling, in a society comprised of diverse belief systems and governed by a compromise of secularity that seeks to get everyone to co-exist, it is antithetical to professional conduct to refuse to despatch services you paid to provide because of a sentiment.

Our secularity is paramount

The need to separate church and state cannot be more pertinent than to have individuals arrogate to themselves rights that conflict with community in order to prove a religious point – we do not live a theocracy and we do not believe the same.

It goes without saying that I am of the opinion that if such people intend to place their beliefs above secular co-existence, they should seek employment where only their beliefs are paramount.

The moment we engage with the public we become subject to the norms that promote societal cohesion as is necessary for the compromise of secularity we have adopted in our somewhat mature civilisations that confers the freedom to religion but not that right to use it to discriminate and contemn the lives of other members of our diverse humanity.

Where I stand

I take no positions on any of the matters I have raised apart from these reasonable views, we should protect our children from sexual exploitation and pursue to the ends of the earth anyone who have abused and violated children for any ends.

The matter of abortion should be between the woman, her doctor and her conscience, if health issues are of significance, then the law should support the safety of the female over the consequences for the unborn.

That the Israeli-Palestinian issue should be brought to a resolution that allows Israel to exist safely whilst restoring a greater sense of dignity to the Palestinians in their land with all that rightfully belongs to them.

To reason to all

That the separation of religion and state must be inviolable, Christians do not own the institution of marriage and whilst their beliefs are widespread their views cannot be allowed to denigrate the beliefs and lives of others – we need to reach an accommodation and that is mostly on the side of religionists than on the side of secularists.

I applaud the judgement of the ECHR, there was no discrimination in the case of the three that lost; they tried to assume victim status to excuse their unprofessional obstinacy that many including the judges saw through.

The Gospel of Not has lost against the fight to live and let live – long may it be so.

Nigeria: What Rape Victims Face in Court

Caught my eye

The headline was what got me as it appeared on one of my Twitter lists - Ex-Corp Member Weeps in Court When Asked to Show Her Private Part [1] – it was irresistible to my curiosity I had to view the circumstances of such an outrageous request.

A prominent traditional ruler had been accused of the rape of a 23-year old lady who was in youth service within the domain of the ruler.

The lady must have been caught in circumstances beyond her control when the lecherous ruler first attempted to gain carnal knowledge of her through the belittlement of throwing money at her which she rejected before he allegedly forced himself on her raping her.

Seeking justice

When she made a case of it, he offered her money not to make a scandal of it and considering the high thresholds of credibility needed to bring rape cases to court against quite influential members of the public, it must have been an ordeal to have gotten this far.

The story does not say when she was raped and the time that had elapsed between the alleged incident and when the case was heard in court but that is beside the point.

Beyond belief

What is quite shocking and brazen in its effrontery and insensitivity as the news story portends is that it says the monarch himself asked the victim to show her allegedly bruised private parts to confirm to the court that she had been raped.

It goes on to say the counsel for the respondent did on cross-examination of the witness demand, NOT ask, but demand that she expose her privates for the scrutiny of the judge, the present counsel and prosecution to ascertain the veracity of her claim.

Now, even if the court doubled as a gynaecological unit and the all the learned purveyors of the ways and means of the law were certified consultant gynaecologists, this request would have been utterly improper at best.

This direction of questioning after being overruled should have had the counsel sanctioned with the risk of contempt by reason of deliberately outraging public decency.

If the monarch had also spoken out in initiating this line of questioning, he should have been sternly cautioned but the news story offers no such detail.

Bad handling of a sensitive situation

In my opinion, the purpose of that line of questioning was no doubt geared towards first embarrassing the victim, then humiliating her in her quest for justice before seriously upsetting her that she might lose all her composure to the advantage of the defence.

I am concerned that the judge appeared to be a tad lackadaisical in dealing firmly with this affront to polite proceedings where the counsel should have for bringing the legal profession into disrepute risked disbarment.

However, the sadder picture exemplified in this case is the lack of courtesy and sensitivity to victims of rape in open court and the effrontery and brazenness of patriarchy at the plight of victimised women.

What victims face

Men of power and influence behave as if they have right and authority to demand and obtain sexual favours whilst being unable handle rejection or negation of their desires.

They believe if they have the physical means to overpower the woman, then they can have their way without consequence.

They expect that the shock and shame of being raped presents a barrier to prosecution as the victim has to wade through hurdles of location, situation, opportunity, motive, circumstance, believability and influence to start off the process of justice.

As society will probably first find fault with the victim before it considers the egregious criminality of the perpetrator.

What to do

There is every need to have stronger support networks for rape victims regardless of the probable cause and the availability of evidence necessary to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, all those accused of rape.

As another human-being and sadly of the male species, I have the fullest sympathy for the victim and I hope that those involved in this contemptible show of chauvinism too vile for expression are visited with opprobrium, shame, disgrace and obloquy as a deterrent to any other counsel who might think sailing close to the wind in rude discourse can be done with impunity and without dire consequences.

Source

[1] Ex-Corp Member Weeps in Court When Asked to Show Her Private Part - Nigeria DailyPost

Editorial: In court with or at the court of Al-Mustapha

All sensational theatre

The past week has provided amazing sensationalist fodder in Nigerian courts with the long-awaited trail of the former Chief Security Officer of Sani Abacha, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha.

He stands charged and accused of the murder in June 1996 of Kudirat Abiola, the wife of Moshood K. O. Abiola, the generally accepted but unaccredited winner of the June 1993 Presidential Elections. He seems to have his hands deep in all sorts of criminality all of which should be proven in court and then met with adequate sanction if found wanting.

Now, Al-Mustapha’s trial is literally headline news and though I have posted a number of tweets on the matter, this blog was inspired after certain reactions to his testimony have begun to obfuscate the quest for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Much to process

Facebook being where a short status along with a quote can be pasted and elicit rather strong passions; there is a time that one needs to step back and examine the circumstances and hopefully interject with the hope of letting reason prevail in these somewhat uncertain times.

For all the claims and counterclaims in reaction to the testimony being given in court, what is in the courthouse is really what matters and that is what we must focus on, those who have been tarred by the testimony have it within their prerogative if able to submit incontrovertible defence, those who cannot defend themselves because they are dead might will become casualties of history.

However, I am of the belief that those revered dead were of the old school of journal keeping and meticulous documentation of their affairs; those journals might well need examination because the events to which they have been linked are not in any way insignificant.

The reality of advocacy

The most important thing is to understand what the defence strategy is and hopefully the prosecution does not end up being mesmerised with the entertainment that they are in dereliction of their brief – judges however should not be expected to do job of either the prosecution or the defence, they are there to ensure that the course of justice is served and to the letter, hopefully, the spirit of the law is adhered to.

For all said and done, this is where things are, Al-Mustapha was in court narrating his side of the story as any defendant would. Everyman no matter how imperfect our justice system is should be allowed the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

In court or at court

If the prosecution has not found grounds to truncate his “diatribe” with a convincing objection by suggesting to the judge that Al-Mustapha is argumentative, speculative, suggestive, diversionary, digressing from the substance of the issues and/or failing to contribute to the essential matter of adequate defence strategy, then we will have to hear every big and little story Al-Mustapha has to tell.

If on cross-examination the prosecution cannot take each assertion and use it to destroy the basis, premise, character, dignity, standing and credibility of the witness, then his testimony becomes germane to essential investigation for the truth and veracity as pertaining all those mentioned - death or alive.

Maybe Al-Mustapha is a dying man clutching at straws; even a dying man sometimes has a few last words - note them.

However, not to afford Al-Mustapha his full, rightful and untrammelled day in court after a 12-year incarceration will amount to a travesty and miscarriage of justice.

A fat brief

We can so easily get reactionary with every sensationalist claim made, it will not change what is being said, maybe there are people who do need to answer for a lot and there are other dots that need to be joined up - in the end, with all the keen interest and theatre of the macabre that this presents, it is incumbent on the prosecution to determine without doubt who the murderer is, who the accomplices are, who the conspirators are and who benefited from that sordid and sad part of Nigerian history.

It is a fat brief and the prosecution had better be up to the task or justice will be served but there will be no justice for all concerned.

Nigeria: The Court of Goodluck I - Special Advisers

Don’t waste this mandate

Nigeria is an amazing place; it boasts many things that span the extremes of poverty and potential, merit and mediocrity, service and self-service.

As President Goodluck Jonathan begins to bed in as a substantive president of the country with his own mandate since every other substantive political post he has assumed has been by the accident of his predecessor’s misfortune, the last have succumbed to the scythe of the Grim Reaper, there have been great expectations of this man.

I have also been caught in the wave of this because the thinking was he not being of the typical garrulous, mendacious, megalomaniacal, Machiavellian and rent-seeking political class presented the possible shift in Nigerian political values and direction.

As ones patience is reaching exhaustion one somehow has to retain the semblance of the benefit of the doubt that this man embodies positive change for Nigeria in the four years he has been given to be at the helm of Nigeria’s political hierarchy.

How special is advice?

He has now been engaged in the process of building a team to help dispatch his duties and one does wonder if the whole process has not been overrun with political machinations and the pretentions to change that on closer scrutiny looks phoney at best.

Besides the screening of ministers that number over two score to help in the delegation of executive function and power, he has appointed Special Advisers with titles that make the names of Snow White’s seven dwarves seem like a serious rocket-science exercise.

Looking at the list of special adviser roles, it is important to comment on what they might mean and if any of the roles inspire any confidence in Nigerians hoping for meaningful change from this regime.

Special Adviser on propaganda

Special Adviser to the President on NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa's Development), much as there is a need for focus on Africa’s development, there are issues with what developmental process the president advocates for Nigeria beyond seemingly vacuous words.

Special Adviser to the President on Research and Strategy, it remains to be seen if this is really about objective technocracy or propaganda, I will plumb for the latter because the man in this role; Oronto Douglas runs the social media persona of the president which takes the art of obsequiousness to a level exacerbating violent emesis.

Special Adviser to the President on Energy; any Nigerian would hope that the person in this role has some good short-, middle- and long-term ideas that can be realised in tackling the energy issues of Nigeria from the good management of our mineral resources to the harnessing of natural sources of energy for the development of our infrastructure.

Phoney Adviser of ethics

Special Adviser to the President on Social Development; on does wonder exactly where this fits, for human rights, education, health, security, safety, equality of opportunity, social mobility and many other things that would give Nigerians the pride of existence and nationhood.

Sarah Jibril, the lady who earned one singular vote in the ruling party presidential primaries now has the role of Special Adviser to the President on Ethics and Values. This sound laudable and noble as it is pretentious. Cynically, one would easily think this is advise on what the president might get away with as opposed to raising the standard of government and governance to deal with corruption and the way audited sources of income allows for thieves to hold sway in the corridors of power and escape justice with impunity – Honestly, one is not impressed.

Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters; that is the snake-pit of Nigerian politics and the excess that Nigeria can hardly afford where those who have a duty to moderate executive power whilst promulgating legislation appear to have their snouts super-glued to the trough of Nigeria wealth that there is no time to them to sniff the air of reason – this job is probably important and it needs someone knowledgeable in the witchcraft of our obscure legislative system to wave the wand of getting things done in an affordable and hopefully an altruistic way.

Special Adviser on clueless antics

Special Adviser to the President on Niger Delta Affairs, this matter is well beyond advisory to one needing effective and useful action, the past few regimes have shown themselves clueless with militancy taking the spoils of amnesty whilst the people themselves still wallow in deprivation with the militants and terrorists pretending to represent their people.

Special Adviser to the President on International Relations; much as we need someone in this role, the greater example will be in running the country well. Special Adviser to the President on Special Duties; it would appear this would be the person to project the office and influence of the president in some as yet undefined assignment, they somehow seem to rise to command the influence of chief adviser.

Rueben Abati, the erstwhile Head of the editorial board of the Guardian Newspaper becomes the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, this in my view overlaps with that of Research and Strategy, that makes two propaganda demons ready to wage war on the sensibilities of Nigerians – we would not be assimilated into that quagmire, if we can help it.

Special Adviser on the interesting

Special Adviser to the President on Gender Issues; this will be a tough task, be it that of the emancipation of women, the matter of infant and maternal mortality, genital mutilation, domestic violence, childhood marriage, primary healthcare delivery from immunization to the rights of women in conservative regions that subjugate them on the premise of religious adherence and obligations and it should also address the matter of minority groups – this would be an uphill battle with societal norms, religion, traditions, customs and a stridently patriarchal system of power that we have acquiesced to without debate.

Special Adviser to the President on Technical Matters; how that would keep the next satellite launch from falling out of orbit remains to be seen as it could overlap with matters that concern infrastructure, power, effective transport, the proper documentation of government material for adherence to the Freedom of Act as well the effective adoption of Information Technology services in government.

Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters (Office of the Vice President); Special Adviser to the President on Legal Matters (Office of the Vice President) and Special Adviser to the President for Special Duties (Office of the Vice President), the need of all these seemingly duplicated posts albeit in the office of the Vice President would be an interesting recipe for political intrigue.

Can we afford this?

The president cannot in and of himself be the sole repository of ability and drive to run the country but there must be a basic quality of leadership and nous to do the job with the advisors in some case just helping to fine-tune the ideas and reframe them into working and implementable policies – you have to wonder what is the validator of good advice over sycophantic subservience to the president.

It is arguable whether the executive arm of government does really need all these advisers who must find the ear of the President to dispense advice that might be useless, accepted or ignored. Where the roles overlap, the people might be seeking to curry favour as those in the court of the President play factions against each other with glee.

The Psalmist talked of the noisome pestilence, you can imagine how fatigued the President can become with the paralysis of analysis and the deluge of advice that he has no time to think through one set of ideas before they are overtaken with new ones for political expedience.

Many are called

Ultimately, running the Nigerian ship of state is not easy task but it begs the question whether Nigeria really can afford this model of democracy that appears to convert every principal piece on a chessboard into a pawn aspiring to promotion that will never materialise as the President surrounds himself with enough cannon fodder that he can so easily insulate himself from opprobrium and responsibility.

I fear that some of these activities all seems like quid pro quo for assuming office than one that engenders confidence in the possibility of a changed Nigeria, I must however give the President the benefit of the doubt much as I am quite unpersuaded of that result, I can handle pleasant surprise.

The least we can do is welcome the Court of Goodluck I and his courtiers of lords, chiefs, elders, thieves, sycophants, advisors - Nigerians all, proud to serve and be served.

Source of news story

234Next.com - Jonathan to swear in special advisers today

The detail of the special advisers was excerpted from a news article on 234Next.com, I uncharacteristically forgot to reference it in my original publication of this blog and I apologise.

Nigeria: Umar Farouk alone in court

Charged with news

There was some catching up to do on the news front, going through my staple of UK based news websites represented by broadsheets, CNN, BBC, Reuters and a smattering of international news aggregators.

I did not expect any particularly new information regarding the arraignment of Mr. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [1] since the newswires had reported that he had plead “Not Guilty” to the 6 charges of indictment, none of which contained any derivation of the word terror.

I fail to see why US courts put those on federal charges in leg irons apart from a sanctimonious moralising stance of humiliating the accused – it is unlikely the person would bolt having been handcuffed surrounded by armed security personnel.

It is not like the prisoners have feet like lethal weapons of some obscure martial art manoeuvre ready to decapitate or defenestrate the deputy, the overkill exaggerates beyond the laughable.

Un-present representatives

The BBC sketch [2] of the young man’s day in court suggests he had a hobbling gait possibly due to the lap burns he suffered when his underwear lit up but did not blow up – God have mercy, incredible.

It was interesting to note that there was a delegation from the Nigerian embassy in Washington taking front row seats having flown to Detroit – I cannot say if they were there to protect his interests, ensure Nigeria’s name was not further besmirched or seeking some international publicity riding in the misfortune of another countryman.

One of the diplomats confirmed to the correspondent that none of the family members had come [to court or to the United States of America? One cannot say.]; This is a man with at least 10 siblings with whom he could claim paternal affinity, a mother, an absolutely rich father [whose global business interests have been inadvertently saved the taint of terrorism by conveniently snitching on his son], a possible troop of extended relations and not one of them could deign to make an appearance at court.

Image versus fraternity

The child has seemingly been disowned for the “shame” he must have brought on the family that they would rather never be found anywhere near him – I would not read too much into this but I am sure, if any of his family had requested a visa to be present with him it would have been granted on compassionate grounds – in times of trouble, one would think families would pull together and pull all stops to offer the moral support of physical presence.

I would suppose like it has been all his life, the big-wig daddy has probably thrown filthy lucre at the problem and the wads of cash would now stand as support, succour, shoulder and shield. It is a sad commentary but one has to wait and see.

To suggest the public image and status of this influential and respected banker’s family is paramount and more significance to them than fraternal loyalty to their misguided son would be a cruel damnation.

Brief or briefed?

What I found rather surprising was that Umar Farouk might not have heard the judge correctly about what level of school he had reached because generally speaking college in English usually refers to secondary school education whereas Americans read that as university education.

The judge then asked if he had attended secondary school which really comes across as daft because it is clear from the basic information we all have about Umar Farouk that he attended UCL in London and read mechanical engineering – whilst that is University College London, the emphasis in English would have been on the university rather than the college element of that name.

Hopefully, the judge is in the element of his brief and has been properly briefed about the cases he is presiding on and this, for instance, requires the judge be quite smart and sharp by which I mean should take time to read up and be informed on the cases in his docket, particularly from other information gleaned about Umar Farouk who has a Bachelors degree and was undergoing a Masters degree programmed he should not have been slighted with the question about whether he had attended secondary school.

Make yourself clear

An affront of prejudicial and denigrating belittlement totally uncalled for, one would say; you would think the judge just arrived from Mars and was swept into court completely oblivious of the news or what he was doing in court; I am not impressed at all and it will not augur well if it is put down to a procedural question or plain absentmindedness.

It would appear the judge has to put in the effort to make himself understood because Umar Farouk again stumbled at the next question about whether he had taken medication in the last 24 hours, the detail sunk in later on and Umar Farouk corrected himself.

If he did suffer burns injuries, it is likely he would be on strong painkillers which can have the effect of causing drowsiness or tardiness and that has to be taken into consideration but one would think the judge would have been briefed about all this considering this is a high profile suspect in a case that attracts global interest.

In any case the whole procedure appeared to take just about three minutes and the correspondent could read no emotion from Umar Farouk’s face but once again as he looked around courtroom, his life’s story was read back to him in slow motion, my parents are once again AWOL – he is again, alone and lonely.

Poor child!

Sources

[1] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2] BBC News - Abdulmutallab impassive in court

Nigeria: On transparency about Yar'Adua's health

Between the personal and the presidential

Last Thursday, the High Court in the Federal Capital Territory at Abuja, the federal capital of Nigeria barred [1] President Umaru Yar’Adua from suing until he leaves office.

It would appear the purposes of justice could not be served if Mr. Yar’Adua sues on a matter of personal issues but is able to cloak access to matters of interest to both the defence and the court under the wide-ranging presidential immunity that he enjoys.

The President was suing the Leadership Newspapers Group and all its chief personnel for defamation, in fact, the five-count charge read as follows – that they had “allegedly conspired to indulge in illegal act, defamation of character, injurious falsehood, painting or engraving matter known to be defamatory and sales of painted or engraved materials containing defamatory matters.”

Interestingly, the President had engaged the services of the State through the Director of Public Prosecution such that what could have been a civil case attuned to libel had been escalated into a criminal case punishable under the Penal Code Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

This judgement however infers that the President cannot use the machine of State to advance the defence of a personal issue. Defamation applies to a person, however in the capacity of President, sedition might be adequate but too much of a nuclear option to stand objective scrutiny, it would have prosecutors laughed out of court.

We don’t know how well he is

At issue was the report the newspaper published on November 8^th 2008 that the President was ill. The truth or falsehood of this report is beside the point. It is common global knowledge in the public domain that the President of Nigeria suffers an ailment that could be considered incapacitating at certain times.

This common knowledge might well be false but it is not helped by the President not having levelled with Nigerians the truth about his health and the rumours that we have heard about him having a possibly serious kidney or renal ailment.

We have in many ways gleaned information for all sorts of sources and the seemingly sudden travels abroad by the President veiled in secrecy have not put paid to the possibility that something more sinister might be afoot.

A medical report can help

In an decently organised setting, it would incumbent on the President to present a medical report of health and capacity to hold office and really it is only within reason that anyone buffeted with claims of incapacity whilst another truth is self-evident should present incontrovertible proof contrary to the reports and at once close all debate on a topic that gathers undue interest because of the lack of transparency.

It is no fault of reporters, journalists, newspapers or bloggers that rumours abound about the President’s health, it is squarely the fault of the President and his handlers that these rumours have thrived and nothing has been done to quash them by reason of useful evidence, rather they have resorted to legal menace and harassment to maintain this unacceptable situation.

This situation has allowed some apparatchik to institute a case for defamation for allegedly filing a false report on the President’s health and the prosecution thought it could push the case through court without having to produce evidence of the state of the President’s real health along with the possibility of being evaluated by experts retained by the defence.

I would suggest this dismissal spared the President his blushes about what could have been an unedifying revelation of every biopsy, treatment, drug and assessment made by doctors over at least 2 decades.

Who holds the levers of State?

The concern is, if indeed there is cause to believe that the President can be incapacitated by an ailment such that he cannot perform the calling of the office of the President of the Federation of Nigeria and we do not see the effective transfer of articles of power and responsibility to the vice-President as required by the constitution, the whole ship of state falls into the hands of faceless mandarins, cohorts and handlers who are not accountable to the electorate and possibly cannot be called to order by other arms of government.

This would be untenable and really cannot be allowed to continue, but it is on this basis that the case the President bought must collapse, not necessarily on the possibility that the report made by the newspaper was false but on the system of events and mismanagement of information along with the dereliction of duty to the electorate to assure us that his health as President is good and that none of the presumed problems he might have with his health leave him incapacitated to fulfil the needs of the office of the President.

Transparency trumps privacy on health

Holders of public office must realise that they should not be impervious to scrutiny but where that scrutiny impinges on the person’s privacy there should be sanctions, however, when it comes to the health of that person with the corollary that the person may not be able to perform their duties, transparency trumps privacy and the onus is on the person to provide truthful verifiable information that puts paid to rumour and conjecture.

The only reason this was news was because it was the President and after he has left the Presidency, the case would be moot, meanwhile, the President has one simple duty to perform for Nigerians, provide the basic evidence that proves he is hale and hearty and we can go ahead and shoot down all the rumours that have been spread about our healthy and strong President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Source

[1] Court bars Yar’Adua from suing for defamation | Vanguard News