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.

The case for State law over religious guidance

Civic responsibility above religious beliefs

In the light of the tussles between religious beliefs and civil obligations, I could not have wished for a better reference for legal opinion than one that was part of the rejection of an appeal based on a sacking the appellant believed was religious discrimination.

A marriage guidance counsellor with Relate [1] – a secular relationships guidance organisation – refused to offer counselling to same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs which were Christian in inclination leading to his being relieved of his duties.

The UK has seen a number of cases of civil servants refusing to perform their objective work functions on the grounds of it prejudicing their beliefs and hence withholding public services from people who do not seem to conform to their standards or moral values.

The gravitas of religious leaders contemned

In this case the former archbishop of Canterbury, Lard Carey even made representations to the Lord Justice on this matter and there has been a certain Christian persecution complex that has been gaining activist fervour with the subtext that Christians are no more allowed to express themselves with conviction – the converse of which is the appearance of prejudice and bigotry in Christian attitudes that are less than communal and inclusive.

Lord Justice Laws made some very far-reaching statements that could prove useful in dealing with religious laws in Nigeria whilst give all citizens equal access to a uniformly accepted set of laws dispensing justice and protecting rights without depending on any belief system apart from plainly being a member of that society.

The legal case is made for completely keeping religion out of State, civil matters and the law, the full text of this judgement should for all purposes be required reading for any student of law and I liberally quote from the statements made in the article as written in the Guardian [2].

Justice cannot be given a religious tint

He said, “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.”

The Archbishop called for a special panel of judges with a "proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues" to hear the case. He went on to say, recent court decisions involving Christians had used "dangerous" reasoning and this could lead to civil unrest.

This is not to suggest that the archbishop was intent on invoking a mob to run riot against judges that weigh the facts of cases before them objectively without the influence and prejudice of religious faith, but that could deny non-adherent justice if civil issues are adjudicated by a panel of clergy-like lords.

Uniform laws for all

The Lord Justice then went on to say, “We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

I do not think any stronger statement can be made for eliminating Sharia Law from being a part of the legal system in Nigeria on the basis that even in Northern Nigerian were the majority might be Muslim, all people do not share uniform religious beliefs.

"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

Taking religion out of civil society

This is where it gets untenable, if the people are to be free, the state has to think for itself and not be bound by religious laws over which there can be no reasoning or it can be subject to malevolent interpretation in the hands of those whose religious influence might not necessarily be commensurate with the required legal training to administer justice fairly and honestly.

Whilst Lord Carey was at liberty to say, “The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as 'discriminatory' is crude and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief.” It can also be said that religious faith that cannot comprehend or tolerate difference in humanity is insensitive and inimical to societal cohesion.

In essence, religion must well be kept in the religious houses where the people congregate for worship and where the 'religious' people mix with other facets of society the character, personality and quality of the person by reason of their beliefs should not be obvious; adequate discretion must be exercised as to what you have faith in.

Source

[1] Relate | About Us

[2] Christian counsellor loses court fight over sacking | UK news | guardian.co.uk

The Grand Old Duke of Pakistan

I love the English

The English can be so wicked; dressing up the most scathing criticism with the novelty of a nursery rhyme exemplifies that kind of pretend kindness that is equivalent of taking long knives in the back whilst seeing everyone smile at the event.

The debacle that Pakistan has settled into is not only puzzling but farcical; a tin-pot general who thinks his incumbency would be threatened by the judiciary imposes emergency rule and sacks the bench and puts his puppets on the bench.

Pulling all stops

He stops people from gathering to protest his megalomania as the constitution is caught between the limbo of being suspended and being the basis of the rule that is martial law in everything but name.

The election date became a moveable feast that moved from January to February and then back to January, but nobody is free to campaign for elections that would take place in less than 60 days if they do.

The khaki-thug who commands an air of grudging respectability from the West because of the perverseness of the war on terror might just find that his firstname Pervez is really a colloquial corruption of perverse as people get corralled into prison with impunity and house arrest orders get imposed and removed; the cordons and barricades swung in and out of place like a matador coaxing a bull – and I am in Spain – Pakistan might well run out of prison space as the brigands in police uniform mob the public with sticks and staves and slaps.

Drunk with intoxicating power

When he said imposing this rule which seems to have no focus apart from whims that seem to chart the course of a completely inebriated man on his way home in the witching hour was the hardest thing he had ever done – one can see how power-drunkenness that lead one to do foolish things.

However, enough of this and let us see how history would remember the Grand Old Duke of Pakistan and notice that history just has a way of repeating itself location not withstand – the similarities are left for you to note.

The nursery rhyme

O! The Grand old Duke of York

He had ten thousand men

He marched them up to the top of the hill

And marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up

And when they were down, they were down

And when they were only halfway up

They were neither up nor down.

This is as I remember it, we marched, stood up and sat down to the events depicted in the nursery rhyme none the wiser about the fact that we were making fun of an army general.

I would not pen the Pakistani version, there are literary proponents ad poets in that country better talented to give us a nursery rhyme that depicts the events in Pakistan today for posterity.

General Pervez Musharraf would be remembered well maybe not the way he would want to be remembered but that shows how much control we have of the present and none particularly of the future and history.

Preferences

Pakistan’s Political Crisis

The lion is the jewel - Wole Soyinka

The man over the boy

The contrast cannot have been any clearer as to see the HardTalk interview of the 1986 Literature Nobel Laureate; Professor Wole Soyinka by Stephen Sackur this morning putting the ordinary and lack-lustre Chief Ojo Maduekwe - the Foreign Minister of Nigeria in the shade.

It would contemptible to offer to compare these two personalities, but I was both pleased, impressed and proud to hear Wole Soyinka address the issue of his vocation and activism in relation to the politics of Africa.

It was also interesting that Wole Soyinka was not interviewed as a playwright on the sister programme HardTalk Extra, but on the substantive HardTalk programme with a live audience in Lagos that applauded at the end of the interview.

Nigeria is not a democracy

The Professor rubbished the context of Nigerian democracy highlighting the fact that the elections were seriously flawed and democratic institutions had been undermined by the executive in the tenure of the last President.

He was disgusted by the fact that political thuggery found expression and patronage from the ruling “democrats” but lauded the fact that despite repression and dictatorial tendencies the freedom of the press has been sacrosanct; maybe in another forum he can address the issue of quality.

Many would agree that it takes a special kind of temperament to get involved in Nigerian politics, even my foray into student union politics has taught me too much already – the Professor contented that he had a bigger forum with his work, writing and expression than to be subsumed into what is essentially a quagmire.

Complacency in Nigeria

He talked of his membership of a forum that is concerned about a creeping complacency and resignation to issues that have been abused in the country, especially that of the electoral process.

The fear is that many have placed their optimism for resolution in the future without really addressing the problems now. Another point he mentioned was that Nigeria is becoming a powder-keg ready to go off as people realise how resources are plundered to the detriment of others. The example he gave of shared poverty being a shared prosperity in Tanzania was quite an insight.

We should remember that the day before, the views of Wole Soyinka about the political situation were discounted by the Nigerian Foreign Minister, but it was Wole Soyinka that was invited by the US Congress to testify on the matters of the election.

A conflagration about to consume

In the end, the Professor is not advocating violence, his struggle is to bring the complete democratic process into all facets of life; but he also sees where resentment might eventually flare up into an unmanageable situation – our leaders need to take note of the fact that the people would only allow themselves to be taken for fools for so long after which, nobody knows what might really happen.

This interview was part of the BBC “Why Democracy?” season, it is a question that needs to be answered because like the Professor said, at independence, there was an aspiration and vision to bring radical change to Africa, all of which has floundered in the depictions that emanate from Sudan and Zimbabwe as the worst cases of egregious abuse of power in Africa.

Playing by the rules

Nigeria however finds itself in a situation where the rulers abuse the rules and processes with impunity and hubris, but we who seek justice and fair-play have to use the democratic rules of due process, the respect of the rule of law and an assuredly independent judiciary – impartial in its analysis, fearless in its judgements and courageous in debunking megalomaniac potentates.

From that point, Wole Soyinka represents a beacon of hope for Nigeria, he may never vie for President but he is a worthy president and representative of the hope and aspirations for a better governed and equitable Nigeria - He is the lion and the jewel [The Lion and the Jewel (1963) is one of Professor Wole Soyinka's best known plays] stating how precious democracy is to the real development of Nigeria.

It also means that those in power today might still be deprived of the mandate to rule if the electoral tribunal elects to invalidate the flawed elections of April 2007.

The interview (Real Media file, you can obtain RealAlternative [Link to executable] to play this back in Windows Media Player).

Turkey belongs outside Europe for now

Is this a democracy?

I have been watching events in Turkey lately and I think we can now conclude that it does not belong in Europe, it is best kept at the periphery of almost-European but never attaining the stature of a truly free society with European values.

Turkey is presumably a democratic country where a party with Islamic leanings holds the majority in parliament having been voted in by the people of Turkey.

The parliament exercises the right to elect a president who would in most cases be a member of the ruling party.

However, there is a fearful and uncomfortable undemocratic situation enveloping the country as certain vocal elements in the country try to derail the process in the name of keeping Turkey in its strict and suffocating secularist model.

It would make one wonder what the Turkish democracy is for and what the people of Turkey have required if the party they have voted into power cannot then exercise prerogative and privilege because some sections of society suspect the ruling party would de-secularise the country.

Protectors of democracy

Whilst the ruling party has had certain Islamist policies it has maintained if not protected the secularism of Turkey regardless of the fact that the wives of the ruling elite wear scarves.

This unholy alliance of undemocratic forces which now includes the opposition parties, the wayward army and even the judiciary have thwarted every attempt to present a viable candidate for the presidency from the ruling party such that the Prime Minister has now called for elections to be held on the 24^th of June.

Evidently, it appears the Islamic party is keen on protecting the democratic credentials of Turkey whilst the opposition is keen on protecting the secularism of Turkey regardless of the harm it does to democracy.

Between democracy and the secularist dogma, democracy should signify in the most certain terms what the people want; even if it includes ditching the secularist millstone.

The power of democracy

It would be interesting to see the result of this election especially if the Islamist party is returned to power.

The pragmatism of the Islamist party is commendable; they have also suggested that the president be popularly elected by the people of Turkey.

In fact, one can say that only the Islamic party is able to make Turkey a European entity and without them, Turkey would continue to be a proudly backward-looking country with a weighty heritage of being hamstrung to secularism when in fact it is the fear of religion that has kept them from respecting the very basic tenets of popular suffrage and democracy.

For now, Turkey belongs outside Europe, way outside Europe for the foreseeable future.

References

Turkey PM condemns court ruling

Court ruling deepens crisis in Turkey

Preparing for a one-party state

The numbers are dangerous

We can safely say that the numbers peddled as results of the Nigerian Election in 2007 would be the basis for a lot more than we reckoned.

Already, people are looking forward to 4 years time and I really think that is being naively optimistic.

The ruling party has just swept about 70% of the vote for both the Executive and Legislature which gives them the ability to enact incumbency laws, gerrymandering commissions and change the constitution probably without the help of any member of the opposition.

You only have to look at the type of person who is going to the Nigerian Senate, the son, the assistant to the son and the son-in-law of Chief Lamidi Adedibu, the stark illiterate and celebrated hoodlum from Oyo State.

It only takes one idiot to look at the might of the PDP to start advocating a one-party state and that would go through the House and Senate in a breeze; just like the incoming President was able to spearhead the institution of Sharia Law in his state and the follow-ons in other Northern States.

Our Mark of the Beast

If we do not sort out this charade that is masquerading as democracy now, be prepared to be a card-carrying member of PDP to get anything done in Nigeria. We would have signed up for the proverbial "Mark of the Beast" and there would be no April 2011 for multi-party elections.

Four years is a long time in politics and plenty of time for a overwhelmingly powerful party to subscribe to the cult of eternal incumbency.

The examples of lame oppositions are rife in Africa and Nigeria is about to join that list. Africa used to have the most one-party states most of which went into decline in the 1990s giving birth to pluralism and multi-party politics, but if the state apparatus is so engrained in the ruling party it would be impossible to effect change except through revolutionary means.

We might all read this in denial, but just as sure as night follows day, we are already on that slippery slope to a one-party state, it would take a seriously disciplined executive and legislature to prevent that, if the Judiciary does not rise to claim our democracy from the tyranny of megalomania.

If I am just being a Prophet of Doom, please forgive me.

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.

Galvanising by gay-bashing

There are three issues the President of the United States can use to divide the American People and galvanise his conservative electoral base in an election year.

In order of increasing potency -:

1. Outlaw all stem cell research (ambivalent support)

2. Constitutionally outlaw abortion (supported but can split the less fundamental conservatives)

3. Constitutionally ban gay marriage (widespread support)

We all know that this tack was used in the 2004 elections where 10 of the 11 states that had the gay marriage ban on the ballot during the presidential election went to the Republicans and the Democrats have still not cottoned on this sleight of hand.

To put paid to the dwindling polls that are reaching record depths, a God-fearing bible-bashing President is the tonic for calling the Lazarus polls back from death.

However, the technique is not so much to attack gay marriage per se, but to fault sections of the judiciary and denigrate them as “activist courts”, well, that is new parlance for the election – it would be heard, time and again.

With the Supreme Court beginning to look like cardinals in a conclave, we might as well find argument that would make the subjective and prejudicial look reasonably objective, but I am still not clued in as to how gay marriage affects traditional marriages.

You cannot use the courts to deal with ambivalent sexuality, but in America, we have a President who can divide the people like no other.

Sometimes the West is a community divided by its morals and united in its hypocrisy.