The UK: Exercising a prerogative of protest at the prorogation of principle

This is trouble brewing

Amidst the other uncertainties that have occupied my time and space, it was a sense of powerlessness and numbness that caught me when I read that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had asked the Queen to suspend Parliament. [Channel 4]

This could easily have been a constitutional crisis, but the decision was purely political, a gambler’s last stance at a poker table to get #Brexit over the line where the power of persuasion, the force of argument, the exchange of ideas and robust debate had failed to bring Parliament over to the intentions, agenda and programme of Her Majesty’s Government.

A brigandage in Downing Street

The Prorogation of Parliament is rarely used in a high stakes drama like this, almost never in living memory except for peers of the super-septuagenarian set. It is in this case an act of malevolent Machiavellian statecraft that would have far-reaching consequences for the way the traditions of our parliamentary democracy can be gamed in the interest of ideology over national interest.

The Queen by terms has the prerogative power but is bound to act on the advice of her government and the Privy Council. Whilst she might offer advice, the monarchy has the solemn duty to be above the fray that it cannot interfere even of she as a person and sovereign of our nation has had the great fortitude of inviting 14 Prime Ministers to form a government since she was enthroned in 1952. Sir Winston Churchill was her first.

A disorderly mess

Our distorted, rancorous, and disorderly exit from Europe has left many carcases in its wake, we are on our third Prime Minister and for over three years, not one side of the people’s representation in Parliament has been able to claim a decisive victory in the quest for either exiting or remaining in Europe.

An advisory referendum, poorly implemented, badly fought and corruptly won has hamstrung the country and sucked oxygen out of any viable activity in the UK, yet, the creed stands strong in the hurtling down this precipice in a display of everything redolent of English bloody-mindedness.

Europe is not the problem

I do not believe that Europe has ever been the problem, it is the people we have sent to Europe that has left us with a raw deal. Where other nations sent their best, we found the eccentric, the rabble-rousers and fringe politicians to negotiate on our behalf, the likes of Nigel Farage whose penchant for insult, rudeness and cringe-worthy soundbite would never have with the best ideas in the world be able to win a consensus or an agreement in any committee.

He, as a member of the fisheries committee only attended 1 of 42 sittings, and he had to audacity to board a fishing boat throwing dead fish in the Thames to make the point about seizing back control of our waters.

We, as an electorate have ourselves to blame the most, those who came out to vote won over by questionable arguments, those who allowed apathy to rob them of a say in how they are governed has led to a representation of gamblers. David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, they all owe their rise to people gambling on their future or hoping their single vote can send a message, which is fine, but many messages can end up choosing the wrong representative and lead us down the road to an uncertain future as Brexit portends.

How Europe gives clout

Being in Europe still matters, the evidence of that is in how the Republic of Ireland with just 4.9 million against the almost 70 million of the UK has clout by reason of being backed by the heft of the EU-27, the UK stands alone looking in from the outside with an outsized view of her influence that was progressively lost after two World Wars.

All the trade deals we now want to negotiate after Brexit, we already have as part of the European Union, we are not going to get better deals than those that the EU has already won with hard bargaining, the numbers, the skill and the statesmanship. The UK in the hands of these peddlers of vacuous optimism who have the temerity to question our patriotism when we challenge their baseless assertions leaves one terrified of the future.

Not this cacophony of jesters

Yet, we are full of fight, the last has not been heard of this matter, for if at any time there was a leader of the calibre of Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher amongst this lot, there might have been a slight chance that they can pull off a successful Brexit, I doubt a hundred of them together can successfully manage a piss up in a brewery, they would likely piss away our future on the altar of privileges they have come to expect as their entitlement to rule without taking responsibility for any failings.

The Parliament is supposed to be sovereign. At this juncture, where the country faces a momentous decision as to our future, we have a Prime Minister who has no electoral mandate putting the mother of all Parliaments in the cooler to allow his government carry the country divided as it is through to a conclusion many of his cohort including himself have severally said to be anathema.

We already have the best deal

A no-deal Brexit is the worst-case scenario with no upside to it as the pound languishes at about 25% below its value before the Referendum, businesses are closing or moving to Mainland Europe, EU citizens who have made their home in this country are none the wiser of their status post-Brexit and the retired Brits out on the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and further afield in the Canaries have to contend with unnecessary geriatric anxiety.

For those who want to leave and those who wish to remain, we have a greater issue at stake, the reckless abuse of and usurpation of power by the executive in silencing the elected representatives of the people with the revising chamber for the presumed will of the people, which first was advisory, which was superseded by a general election, which should have had the full-throated agitations of the Parliament and having not won the argument, the government should have conceded defeat or sought another mandate.

We will fight this

This is a travesty and I believe there will be civil unrest for the fact that if taking back control was not to give it back to the sovereign Parliament, but for the executive to arrogate those powers to itself, our democracy is at an impasse and we need to revisit the fault lines of the separation of powers and how the Parliament should by rights be able to hold the executive to scrutiny and sanction for every action they take in the name of the people.

Nigeria: Can we radically rethink our political machinery?

Resisting the laughable

I was not surprised when I heard on BBC Radio 4 in the very early hours of this morning that just 5 hours before the polls opened in Nigeria, they were postponed for a week. [BBC]

It would be convenient for me to write from the western comfort of my abode to rant and rave about the systemic dysfunction that bedevils Nigeria and runs counter to the words of Sir Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa on the day of independence, when he said, “We are called upon immediately to show that our claims to responsible government are well-founded, and having been accepted as an independent state we must at once play an active part in maintaining the peace of the world and in preserving civilisation. I promise you, we shall not fail for want of determination.” [AkinBlog][Dawodu]

The courage of reality

In that assertion at the dawn of independent Nigeria, the claims and the want are no more the subject of debate, the conclusion is an everyday indictment of a nation that is full of potential and that is all we have, potential.

Yet, for all accusations by the main political parties that the postponement could presage the manipulation of the vote in favour of either, I must commend the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for having the courage to realise they were not ready and taking the difficult but necessary decision to postpone.

The pressure to carry on regardless would have been immense but having recognised that certain locations would be denied suffrage and appreciating the logistical problems of getting election materials to the various places that might have been sabotaged, this was the only reasonable option.

The saboteurs gaming the system

The problem with Nigeria is myriad, we have a rentier class of political jobbers who have no occupation apart from peddling influence, they suck the oxygen out of every other viable and productive sector of the economy, society and government, such that things can only work with their agreement.

Then, amongst them, because the remuneration within politics far exceeds that which can be acquired out of qualification, hard work or merit, they employ every means to disrupt and sabotage the electioneering process that represents the will of the people in order to entrench themselves in positions where they can control the commonwealth arrogating to themselves untrammelled fiat over the helpless masses who are best kept in the vassalage of only having begging bowls, living hand to mouth and driven by survival by the belly.

That is the failure of Nigeria that has resulted in postponing the elections for a week. There are people who have a vested selfish interest in what they can usurp to the detriment of others and without any scruples as to whether anyone gets hurt or killed in the process.

Rethinking our political machinery

Sometimes, I wonder what it is that can fix Nigeria in the state that it is, but we can start with one thing, slash the remuneration of the political class to just basic allowances for board, meals and transport. If they need additional income, they should earn it like everyone else.

Nigeria cannot afford a fulltime legislature, at the exorbitant cost at which it is run today, there is no reason to feather the beds of the legislators when ordinarily the middle classes on their earnings cannot afford the basic things without the temptation to malfeasance, corruption or fraud.

The legislature should have a term time with a clear agenda like a syllabus of activities and bills to debate, run with the efficiency of a principal of a secondary school, clearly with objectives and penalties for not producing results. An Office for Government Accountability having the independence to review and sanction the executive and the legislature when they fail in their responsibilities.

As a consequence of this

Taking the remuneration surplus out of politics would immediately divert the eyes of the heretofore political jobbers to other honeypots and troughs, whilst hopefully allowing Nigerians with a sense of altruism and commitment into politics. At least, they would not be politicking for the money but for the opportunity to serve.

Then, reduce all political terms to one term, none should seek re-election without having been succeeded once, within that, cascade the elections such that the executive branch is not elected in the same year as the legislative branch. This is radical, but I think it would go a long way to taking the leeches out of the decision-making framework of Nigeria.

There is still hope

There is a likelihood with this rethinking of Nigerian politics, we might come close to the what Sir Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa dreamt was possible in Nigeria, “that our claims to responsible government are well-founded.”

In the meanwhile, I hope that when Nigerians do finally get the opportunity to elect their political leaders and representatives in a week, INEC would be ready, the people would have chosen wisely and their express will be presented in the validated results.

Long live Nigeria and God bless Nigeria.

The UK: Asserting rights and affirming status by minorities in our courts

Somewhere in England

A quietly deliberated and adjudicated event a few weeks ago requires some pertinent commentary, in which abused entitlement was found wanting by the assertiveness of the knowledge of right, privilege, history and the law.

After #Brexit, the government of the day went into an overdrive of assumptions of what they thought the referendum meant to the exclusion of the views of the almost divided nation that voted 52% to 48% in favour of leaving Europe.

Unravelling the Brexit conundrum

What ‘Taking Back Control’ meant was completely undefined, it was not a question in the referendum and if the government was not going to return to the people to determine the detail of what their desires for #Brexit were, one would have thought the final arbiter would be with the representatives of the people in the Parliament of Westminster.

Instead, the government was on a course of excluding the legislature out of the final determination and direction apart from the courtesy of a rubber stamping the decisions. This is where we are introduced to Gina Miller.

Standing up to convention

Gina Miller, born in British Guyana, long term resident of Great Britain, a successful investment management expert thought the government, the executive was going about #Brexit by excluding the legislature, by that the Parliament and so with other parties sought judicial clarification as to how to go about #Brexit and in the end won the case at the Supreme Court.

What Gina Miller did which was to assert the rights that any indigenous British-born person with generational lineage and knowledge of the Constitution, history and the law could have done. That it fell to someone else to do this is not particularly unfortunate, it had to be done and Gina Miller did it.

Then a lawless peer wrote

However, this opened Gina Miller to splenetic opprobrium, abuse, death threats and violations of her person and standing, chief amongst the purveyors of this abusive onslaught was a Rhodri Philipps, the 4^th Viscount St Davids whose aristocratic lineage stretches as far back as 1299. In him was the embodiment of entitlement and privilege along with a sense of aristocratic hubris that tempted him to consider himself above reproach and beyond sanction.

Railing against Gina Miller on Facebook, he placed a bounty with the words, “£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant.” His tirade then descended into the utterly reprehensible by calling Gina Miller a “fucking boat jumper” and further questioned her status with this atrocity, “If this is what we should expect from immigrants, send them back to their stinking jungles.” [Guardian]

The law would not stand for it

This sickening onslaught did not stop with Gina Miller, he seemed to have garnered a penchant to not only be abusive but to suggestively inspire to violence anyone who could be enticed by his bounties to cause harm to others he did not like or agree with.

Whilst Arnold Sube had neither clout nor resource to fight back, Gina Miller was a different prospect. Having challenged the Establishment and the orthodoxy and won, she must have considered taking an uppity aristocrat and peer of the realm to the courts was a lesser challenge with a greater prospect of winning through.

Whilst we might forget that Rhodri Phillips was of mixed nationality parentage, his mother being a Chilean, I have concluded that hypocrisy is a coveted virtue of an entitled class without the ability to reflect before expression. For his show of stupidity, the 4^th Viscount St Davids was on the 13^th of July sentenced to 12 weeks in prison. Not long enough a deterrent in my view, but it is a humbling of an overbearingly offensive miscreant. [The Independent]

Know your status and know your rights

That minorities in the UK suffer so many forms of slight, abuse, threats, menace and attacks is not particularly news, I recently faced abuse on a train journey where the perpetrator pointedly questioned my status in the UK, not knowing that I was British-born despite my race. It landed him in court and I should soon be hearing the verdict.

It is not an issue of political correctness; some behaviours are just unacceptable today and must be vigorously prosecuted to the fullness of the law. At its core is the need to ensure that every law abiding person resident in the UK is not subject to unwarranted abuse in the first place and consequently be free from the threat of harm or the violation of their person.

In Gina Miller, we have found a reaffirmation of status and right, the right to pursue all legitimate means of redress in terms of constitutional law as a private citizen and the right regardless of presumed status to have the law deal sternly with anyone who threatens our safety out of malice, spite, racism or anything bad inspired notion of inciting violence against us.

Nigeria: That Finance Minister and House Committee Meeting

The video showing the beginning of the proceedings before the committee. 

Courtesy of Premium Times. The news story.

The video that sensationalised the proceedings and attracted much commentary. 

Courtesy of Channels TV.

Update

These are two additional video Courtesy of Channels TV where the Chairman of the House Committee on Finance was interviewed.

   
Part 1

Part 2

For the time he was allowed to talk beyond the biased obstreperous interviewing technique of Harriet Agbenyi, a better picture of the reasonableness of the committee to the unreasonableness of the Finance Minister playing to the gallery exploiting the subjectiveness of Nigerians is evident.

Videos unlimited

When the second video was released in December, many jumped on it and excoriated the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Finance, Dr. Abdulmumin Jibrin for disrespecting the honourable Federal Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.

Whoever stitched together the second video was no doubt up for mischief and enough mischief was wrought by it. However, from the get-go, I was of the opinion that the Minister was haughty, wrong and troublesome, whilst the committee gave all due consideration before they came to the ruling that she should leave to return on another day.

This new video [The topmost one on this blog] corroborates my views, and I hope that viewers of both videos [The first showing the beginning of the engagement and the second showing how it ended.] which offers a more complete view of that engagement would review and reflect dispassionately and without sentiment.

Once we extricate ourselves from the gender and age politics, yes, the Minister is female and 22 years older than the Chairman, which could mean a lot in the Nigerian setting, and concentrate on institutions, process and procedure, we would be better informed of the fundamental issues.

The synopsis

The Minister was invited to appear before the House Committee, she was given the floor and with excuse seeking pity and whatever else, she said she was very ill, implied her colleagues might be fatigued, for they had not slept for days and offered to tackle the questions from the Committee almost half-heartedly because of her condition.

The committee sympathetically considered her condition, gave her the questions they were to ask her and advised her with all due courtesy to return at another time, two weeks hence.

The Minister took umbrage at this and questioned process and decorum of the Committee as the Chairman containing his exasperation and possible anger, told her she cannot face a gruelling grilling by the committee in her condition.

This after earlier letting her know that the Committee was as flexible as to make the maximum allowances for understanding that the Minister’s health was paramount, and they would have postponed in consideration of that.

The exchanges degenerated, the Committee ruled, the gavel came down, the session should have ended there and then but the camera kept rolling and that was theatre for Nigerians.

Separation of Powers

Broadly, we have a system of government in Nigeria that practices Baron de Montesquieu's theory of the separation of powers. An Executive presidency with a cabinet of ministers, a National Assembly – the Legislature comprised of the Senate and the House of Representative and the Judiciary.

Again, somewhere between the theory and the practice, the Legislature has oversight of the government and has powers into invite or summons the Executive about issues relating to governance, budgets and much else. The graphic below captures the general idea of what we should expect of the arms of government.

Source Wikipedia.

Now the event

That lays the groundwork into the how and the why of the Minister appearing before a committee of the House of Representatives.

As far as the video is concerned, the Minister was late in appearing before the committee, that is the first slight and show of disrespect to the House Committee that the Chairman overlooked without comment, and the Minister did not apologise for.

Then when the Minister was given the floor to speak, rather than address the serious matters of the days head-on, she had a more important human limitation, she was unwell and her colleagues were seriously fatigued, she would do her best, but implicitly, the Committee should have consideration and not grill her, or words to that effect.

Open book test

The Chairman, by observation decided that the gruelling activity of appearing before the committee should not be taken lightly, they had prepared 50 questions already, but seeing the condition of the Minister, the committee was willing to let her attend to getting well.

Meanwhile, here was an open-book test, take the 50 questions away, answer them and the Committee would invite you at a later date to discuss.

At which point the Minister for whatever reason contemned and impugned the Committee about orderly and respect, as she perked up, she was suddenly well, ready and able to face the Committee.

After the gavel

The Committee Chairman, overruled her, made a ruling and the gavel came down. The Minister should have packed her sheaves of paper and left because the session was at that time over, the Chairman said as much to her but she laid into the committee, suggested she had been disrespected and much else.

In my view, if we are to have strong institutions in Nigeria, it is important that all arms of government appreciate where they stand in the scheme of things. The Minister of the head of her ministry but answers to the legislature on matters concerning her ministry.

In that setting, the committee orders the proceedings and whoever appears before the committee should clearly respect and submit to the primacy of the committee in their deliberations, decisions and rulings.

Once the gavel came down, there was nothing else to discuss, the manner in which the gavel came down of no consequence, the reason why the gavel exists in the committee room is to maintain order, in process, proceedings and rulings. End of story – the rest is idle banter.

This uppity minister

That the minister decided to escalate the matter into a histrionic fit as depicted in that video is unfortunate and the chairman did well to make her understand that she cannot countermand the ruling of the committee.

In the process, it appeared the Minister was badly treated, but when we watch both videos, it is clear that the Minister simply pushed the matter to the point where it degenerated to – that sadly defines the unfortunate mess of a jumble of separation of powers we operating in Nigeria.

I stand by my original premise, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in that setting was unprepared, uncouth, rude, wrong, ill-disciplined, ill-tempered, melodramatic and disrespectful, and all that as someone unwell.

That the executive when appearing before the legislature had to be handled in that way is order that has grown into a storm in a teacup – the committee prevailed, just as it should, anywhere that system of government exists in the world.

Nigeria: Splitting hairs on Senate funding

The intent is clear

This is an update to the blog I wrote yesterday about the directive of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) advising Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) about providing funds to other organs of government which should for their purposes be fully-funded for their activities.

In what is looking like splitting hairs, the spokesperson of the Nigerian Senate is now trying to interpret that message and achieve an understanding that is clearly not the intent of the SGF.

Live within your means

The fundamental principle simply is, every organ of government should be fully funded or prudently manage their budget to facilitate whatever activities they need to carry out within the law and their legal remits.

If that organ of government does not have sufficient funds, it should apply to its line of management to secure sufficient funds or can the proposed activity – it is a commonsense idea of living within your means.

Conflicts of interest

The National Assembly serves the dual purpose of enacting laws and providing oversight; to fulfil all righteousness in carrying out its duties, it should clearly be financially and structurally independent of the other arms of government.

Regardless of rules of engagement, it is only proper and ethical to avoid situations where the slightest influence can be leveraged through MDAs facilitating or offering funds to the legislative organs of government.

In fact, it is disingenuous of the Senate to expect that MDAs sponsor or facilitate so-called capacity building exercises which are to ensure the Senate delivers on its constitutionally authorised duties of oversight.

There are too many avenues for abuse if the budgets of any of the Senate committees are not completely under the purview of the Senate administration.

Maturing into an example democracy

Regardless of examples the Senate portends to happen in other legislatures in the world, the concept of facilitation should strictly be the availability of personnel, information and access to whatever is needed to ensure the legislature has all the detail necessary to reach the right conclusions for government.

Nobody would be against that, the monetary aspect should be completely off the table, if only to protect the fragile state of our democracy that is still trying to mature into one that fully recognises the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers.

Nigeria runs a presidential system of government, the government should not then allow for obfuscation that makes it appear it is running parliamentary system – the separation of powers including funding for facilitation must be sacrosanct.

Clear intent

I think the clear intent of the SGF was to prevent budgets within the Executive being imprudently disbursed to organs outside its control; this would definitely include the legislature and the judiciary.

Each organ has a job to do, if they cannot get their jobs done due to insufficient funding, the planners need to review their projections and make contingencies for unexpected circumstances – the law should clearly require that MDAs have no right to pass moneys out to the National Assembly.

There should be no debate on that matter at all.

Nigeria: Ministries banned from funding National Assembly

Don’t give

Once again, one does not see tectonic shifts in reform but the small steps one sees are significant.

The Secretary to the Federal Government (SFG) has sent letters to Ministries, Departments and Agents (MDAs), advising them that every arm of government has its own budgetary allocations to fund their activities and so they should not be sponsoring activities for other organs of government especially those of the National Assembly.

This came about after the illegal disbursement of funds from the Ministry of Health to both the House of Representatives Health Committee and the Senate Committee on Health.

Bad gifts

These funds were part of the N300 million excess that the President had ordered the Ministry of Health to return to the treasury but lead to an elaborate scheme to embezzle the funds disguised as Christmas bonuses, this lead to the resignation of the Ministers and the indictment of administrators of the Ministry.

Offering N10 million each to the committees in the National Assembly would have compromised the oversight and lawmaking functions they have over the Ministry of Health; the House of Representatives committee returned their share whilst the Senate committee went on a jaunt in Ghana.

Obvious conflicts of interest

Though, the Senate did not see anything untoward in accepting funds and cleared the chairman of the committee of wrong-doing, better sense has prevailed upon others in the Executive that there is a clear and attributable conflict of interest in that kind of transaction.

The letter of the SFG clearly addresses the responsibility of chief executives of government organs in the stewardship of their resources and conformance to existing financial laws whilst warning that their prudence should ensure they are not caught in criminal conduct.

It also seeks to address avenues of patronage that might lead to corrupt practices.

Clear separation of powers

In general, a clear separation of powers is being advocated by removing inducements; without saying it in words; whilst hoping to promote a transparent and professional relationship between the Executive and the Legislature.

The fallout from the Ministry of Health embezzlement is no all bad; I think it strengthens democratic structures in a progressive and positive manner.

Once again – Good Job, Yardy!

Listing to the insignificance of the EFCC

The presumption of innocence

In a democracy one would expect the preponderance of the rule of law and in view of that due process that allows for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Where legal issues are concerned, one would expect that mere accusations are quite below the threshold of any professional standard, especially, if those accusations are not converted to proper indictments and the accused is given the opportunity to defend themselves in the properly appointed forum.

This might be before a jury of their peers where appropriate, else the case prepared against the accused would just be argued before a panel of judges who with their expertise in the relevant jurisprudence would review the evidence and presentations adjudicating thereafter.

The expectation of due process

It is in the light of this that I have issue with the release of a list of 135 names of politicians by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in a letter to political parties about persons they deem unsuitable for office or rather should be ineligible to participate in elections through party representation.

This is completely wrong-headed, the appropriate agency to decide the suitability of any candidate for elections should be the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or some appointed organ to screen, vet and approve candidates.

In September 2006, we were informed that 31 of 36 state governors in Nigeria were under investigation, that was probably newsworthy, but what stage has been reached with the investigations and who has been charged with a crime or misdemeanour?

A case of utter incompetence?

Prominently, a case was prepared against the Vice President who has had a protracted falling-out with the President, none of which has passed muster. It makes one wonder if the EFCC is completely incompetent in preparing cases that are presentable and acceptable to the courts considering the number of cases that have not progressed beyond indictments before high courts have quashed the applications.

Alternatively, there is a growing inclination to the idea that the EFCC has become an instrument of vindictiveness – a puppet of the President – to besmirch and smear anyone who has deigned to challenge the Presidency especially in that failed bid to gain a third term last year.

Generally, I have been of the view that Chairmanship of EFCC and the lines of reporting responsibility should be outside the Presidency and Executive arm of government and high up within the Judiciary, probably at the level of the Minister of Justice but appointed by the legislature on the advice of the judiciary rather than the executive.

The people

This is not to say that people on the list and many more surreptitiously and blatantly left out are not guilty of graft, corruption and probably murderous crimes, but they cannot be adjudged guilty until duly proven to be so, short-circuiting the process through letters of presumptive guilt is beneath contempt.

The way times have shifted in Nigeria has allowed for the mendicants, robbers, brigands and thugs of yesterday to present themselves as benevolent and compassionate persons desirous of leading Nigeria out of the doldrums that were the results of their acts years before.

It is seriously gratifying to see that the ex-President Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida had to pull out of the primaries for the presidency knowing momentum and wealth were not on his side to lead Nigeria into a greater nightmare than one he started in the 80s which culminated in the Presidency of the sociopath Sani Abacha.

Reforming the EFCC

Whilst the ideas and policies that lead to the formation of the EFCC are laudable and should be continued, I am not sure that the headship and direction of the organisation has been properly served by a junior functionary being elevated into the spotlight of gung-ho personality vandalism or character assassination, though some of the work of the organisation has been commendable.

The people who have plundered Nigeria’s means and resources need to be fearlessly brought to book through transparent and internationally acceptable legal processes that are beyond reproach and exude commendable legal professionalism.

We cannot have cases been ridiculed in high courts found wanting in necessary preparation to pass the scrutiny of aggressive legal examination and thrown out at the first hurdle – these matters are in need of better heads and hands.

As for the list, Nigerians would just have to decide – if allowed a free and fair election based on their ability to have registered properly – who is worthy of office, when evidently the detail of the cases against the listed cannot have been judiciously addressed in court giving them the opportunity to defend themselves or seek redress for possible defamation or libel before the elections in a few months time. This activity has been pre-emptively disingenuous and has done no one any good.