Bokkos finest entertainment moguls: Ex-mina Snr, Jnr and Masara Kim during Coco Blast Show at Da Groove, Jos city #cc_bokkosnation.com.ng

Plateau 2015: Mr. Connection, Mr. Activist or Mr. Institution?



By Masara Kim
The recent debate organized for the governorship aspirants in Plateau state really left me wondering if Plateau people are ever going to find it easy identifying the right candidate if the words of the aspirants are to be accorded priority.
Contrary to what I initially thought was going to be an opportunity for some people to silence some, I was out to understand that every politician seeking the seat of the governor in the 2015 elections is sound and prolific in presentation.
Needless to say that all of the three candidates from the ruling People's Democratic Party, Labour Party and the leading opposition party in Nigeria, the All Progressives Congress have substantial knowledge of what governance is all about, and are all passionate about building a virile and prosperous Plateau State.
I particularly noted with keen interest the way and manner all of them spoke from varying experiences as far as politics is concerned, and their desire to see change in the coming years.
I equally was impressed with the way all of them identified some key lapses in the administrations of successive governments in the state, and ways to improve the lot of Plateau people.
For those that witnessed the debates live, particularly those that were at the conference hall of the Nigerian Film Institute, venue of the debate, the exercise was not just educative, but equally informative and entertaining.
There are indeed quite a number of issues that were hitherto unknown or unclear to me that the presentations of the candidates enlightened me about. This is in addition to the hilarious manner some of the candidates responded to some of the issues raised by both the moderator and the audience.
Of particular interest to me as an observer and participant was the attitude of the candidates during the debate. First of all, before the moderator raised the flag for the debates to begin, I think I saw palpable tension and apprehension of the unexpected on the faces of all the candidates. Aside the fact that none of them smiled within the first few minutes of their arrival, there was hardly a moment that any of them looked at the other person for up to two seconds.
Of course, they had a meeting with the organizers of the debate behind closed-doors shortly before the exercise. There, they must have been oriented on the rules for the game as well as the need for them to demonstrate togetherness and friendship on stage. Therefore, at least for the mere fact that they were being watched all over the place on the television, they ought to have even if just for the sake of it, behaved freely with one another. However, that was not what we saw.
In any case, that was not the main thing to note as the key reason for the gathering was to hear them speak. After their citations and the eventual commencement of the debate however, perhaps all of them forgot the number one rule of the exercise which was the need to observe time.
Only two minutes were allocated to each of them to respond to each of the main debate questions. The audience questions had one minute each for responses from the three candidates except for the first question which the moderator allowed two minutes each for the candidates.
One of the ways they all broke the rule of time was the preambles that preceded each of their answers. For Amb. Bagudu Hirse of the Labour Party, his opening words were mostly, “good question,” “well put,” or “thank you very much.”
For goodness sake time was going, and people only wanted to hear what they had to say about the issues raised in the questions. Of course most of the questions were (largely ‘how’), aimed at getting the strategies they would employ to tackle some of the issues. The former Nigerian envoy to Namibia however in my opinion made nonsense of himself on stage by also always attributing issues raised to his “7 point agenda” instead of straightforwardly answering the questions as raised.
For Barr. Simon Lalong of the APCs, perhaps he didn’t know he was too full of himself with the way he always made reference to his past achievements and how he already has everything mapped out. Although I adore his confidence, constantly referring to the past is purely a vain exercise for anyone who aims to move forward because not only do things change, the Lawyer was always caught by the time-keeper’s bell at the point he was to answer the question proper.
Sen. GNS Pwajok was yet another jokey who always had to make one philosophical statement or the other before properly answering the questions. For goodness sake your knowledge of the ‘book’ does not mean that you should always try to show yourself even when critical matters are at stake. Moreover, time was of paramount importance as far as the debate was concerned.
By and large, the debate was about the most interesting of such exercises ever organized in Nigeria as it gave me the opportunity to help Plateau people make informed decisions ahead of the polls. Since all of them were vibrant in their articulation of the issues raised thus creating an atmosphere for confusion as to whom to choose, perhaps by underscoring some of the personality traits exhibited by the trio in the cause of answering the questions would help.
First of all, it is pertinent to note that all of them spoke passionately with regards to the Plateau project. However, while one of them spoke like a public servant, one spoke like a campaigner as there still appeared the traits of an official in one of them.
While the public servant was more concerned with his reputation with the way he always played around some issues, the campaigner was always on the aggressive side. Though respectful, he was always confident about himself and critical of issues as officiated over by a certain administration. The official was more on the defensive side, always responding to issues in a way that tended to want to divert attention from the main issues.
The public servant spoke like an elder. He was slow but free in his presentation. He sounded well cultured, well travelled and well exposed. He was pragmatic and calculative in his arguments. He centered largely on policies as he however, imperceptibly hoped for the people’s endorsement to go in for the seat of the governor.
The campaigner attacked virtually every aspect of democracy within the past few years and hammered more on issues. He was however passionate and authoritative, cheerful and humorous, and yet stubborn and proud. He however sounded well experienced and knowledgeable in the affairs of the state, particularly the rural sector.
The official figure on his part was indeed prolific. He was articulate and fast enough to beat his timing. He spoke mainly based on ideas and professional experience. He was eloquent, intelligent, vast and well schooled in his disposition. His arguments however lacked substance as they only seemed to be aimed at appealing to the listening public and not aimed at enlightening the public on the policy thrust of his hopeful administration.
In summary, the February elections at the governorship level are largely a battle of the activists, the diplomats and the politicians on the Plateau. Whoever wins amongst these three however has the task of incorporating the other two into his programmes for the benefit of the state and I believe they can do it. This is because while the activist is concerned with his mandate, the diplomat is concerned about his reputation. Similarly, the politician is concerned about his career.
None of these can be achieved without hard work. Interestingly, all of the aspirants have an experience in government administration – Bagudu was Federal Commissioner and High Commissioner, Lalong a Speaker of the State Assembly and Chairman, Nigerian Conference of Speakers and GNS a Government Director General, Research and Documentation, Chief of Staff and a Senator.
Plateau people have nothing to fear because there exists nothing to lose whether or not the candidate of their choice wins. But the need to ensure that they make their votes count cannot be over-emphasized. Every party supporter has a duty to vote for his choice, protect the election materials and report any anomaly during and after the polls. The treaty for peace signed by the trio at the debate venue must also be respected. Every party loyalist must ensure that his party is not fingered as the first to break the peace agreement.
God bless Plateau State.

news/features: When the Gun/Uniform Becomes Tool for Oppression

news/features: When the Gun/Uniform Becomes Tool for Oppression: By Masara Kim
As an ordinary observer, I always prayed for a situation where military/civilian cooperation in Nigeria would return t...

news/features: FG vs. ASUU; The Battle and the triumph

news/features: FG vs. ASUU; The Battle and the triumph:
By Maliya Amagon
Since 1944 during the colonial era, governments in Nigeria have expressed commitment s to education in the believe th...

FG vs. ASUU; The Battle and the triumph


By Maliya Amagon
Since 1944 during the colonial era, governments in Nigeria have expressed commitment s to education in the believe that overcoming illiteracy and ignorance will form a basis for accelerated national development as evidenced by British colonial participation in educational provision, the (UPC) of the western and eastern regions in the 1950s and 1976 National Universal Primary Education (UPE) and the current Universal Basic Education (UBE) programmes.
Though the legacies of the colonial government have always been blamed for the economic backwardness of the country, the roots of strike action and the nerve ripping rot in the tertiary education system particularly the nation’s universities can be traced to failed educational policies in the post independence era. Worthy of note is that the country’s educational policy at independence was most concerned with using schools to develop manpower for economic development and Africanization of the civil service, thus the educational policy was narrow in scope and did not meet the hopes and aspirations of Nigerians.
Hence, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) was founded in 1978, succeeding the Nigerian Association of University Teachers (NAUT) formed in 1965 primarily to strike a balance in the running of the system by serving as a rallying point for the nation’s universities to iron out issues affecting their smooth operations as well as providing a check on government policies affecting the nation’s universities.
The union was active in struggles during the military regime in the 80s. In 1988, the union organized its first national strike to obtain fair wages and university autonomy. As a result, the union was proscribed on 7th August 1988 and all its properties seized.
It was allowed to resume in 1990 but after another strike was again banned on 23rd August in 1992. However, an agreement was reached on 3rd September 1992 that met several of the union’s demands including the rights of workers to collective bargaining.
Since then, ASUU has remained resolute in its quest to ensure that Nigerian universities enjoy fair treatment as compared to their counterparts in other parts of the African continent.
In July 1, 2013, ASUU began a nationwide strike over alleged Federal Government’s refusal to implement the 2009 agreements entered into with the union. The Federal Government in its quest to quench the raging fire of the union’s demands which was reverberating across the globe with a sustained patronage from both the civil society, media and other stakeholders in the continent’s educational sector evolved several measures to calm the union and return the lecturers back to the classroom but the union remained steadfast in its struggle, a development that attracted the applause of human rights activists including a renowned legal luminary in Nigeria, Femi Falana who described the struggle by ASUU as worthwhile.
Although the union lost one of its arrow-heads in the struggle for sanity in the nation’s university system, aside threads by FG to freeze the salaries of the lecturers as well as sack the members if they didn’t return to the classroom, members of the union could not relent in their efforts to push for infrastructural and other development in the nation’s universities that would enable them to compete favourably with their other counterparts across the continent.
As a result, the FG was left with no option than to call the union leaders back to the discussion table as a way of finding an amicable resolution to the issues therein, hence the suspension of the strike on December 16, 2013 after diligent and careful appraisal of various reports especially the resolutions signed by it and the FG as explained by its President, Dr. Nasir Fagge in a press briefing in Minna.
Educational commentators have since the resolution of the industrial dispute praised the union for its firm stance against educational injustice and all indices of underdevelopment in the nation’s educational sector and are therefore calling for support from all proponents of development to enable the union succeed in its efforts to place Nigerian universities among the best in the world.

When the Gun/Uniform Becomes Tool for Oppression


By Masara Kim

As an ordinary observer, I always prayed for a situation where military/civilian cooperation in Nigeria would return to the way it was in the days of old when orderliness was the order of the day in the Nigerian Armed Forces whether in crisis or orderly situations.
A friend told me of how he was brutally battered by some ‘men in uniform’ along with one other young man who eventually passed on after the drill and I started an aggressive campaign against military-civilian brutality to draw attention to the untoward situation.
My passion for this course grew even higher and stronger when an innocent son of a retired Police Inspector was unsuspectingly picked from his family residence in Jos by some military men supposedly to answer some questions about a certain offense involving some two young men who dropped him off and unknowingly drove along a restricted area while returning. The boy on arrival however did not get the chance to answer any question or even express himself as he was instantly subjected to radical torture by the men who happened to be members of the Special Task Force serving in Jos until he passed out and eventually gave up the ghost.
I always felt that the gratuitous use of force against unarmed civilians by men of the Nigerian Armed Forces was a gross violation of the rights of law abiding citizens of this country particularly in a non-violent situation but never had a close knowledge of what it feels like to undergo military brutality until I was lashed with a heavy mystifying slap by a so-called military personnel for attempting to express myself against an unprovoked harassment by another ‘officer’ supposedly working with him who tried thwarting me from walking along a gangway in a motor park even though others were. I humbly apologized and was walking away from the other side when he raised his voice and started hurling invectives saying “If you do anyhow you will see anyhow”, meaning, he was going to deal with me if I wasn’t careful. That sounded a kind of bewildering and very embarrassing knowing I had not in any way tried to challenge him so I tried to express my displeasure. The young man knowing he was wrong in the first place immediately maintained absolute calm but when a by-stander came inquiring what was happening and I was trying to explain, the next thing I realized was a hard landing slap on my face that sort of threw me out of balance for some seconds by a different character who just plunged into the scene. As a man, I was tempted to retaliate until a soft voice in me together with some onlookers tried persuading me to keep calm and respect myself in order not to create a scene.
Although I was able to hold control of myself and allowed no further situation of chaos, it took me a while to forget that day and hour. After all was said and done however, the only beautiful thing about the experience was that it exposed me to the practical reality of the military-civilian brutality that had always been talked about.
A conversation with a retired Military General (names withheld) however revealed that men of the armed forces are trained to behave ‘gentlemanly’ while coordinating themselves in an orderly manner at any given time. But what we see of late is a constant use of force both in violent and non-violent situations whereas in the real sense, the ethics guiding the operations of every Force member I understand clearly specify that force should only be used when it becomes critically necessary.
Additionally, in a crisis situation, there is no hard and fast rule to determine whether a particular degree of force would be reasonable. The commander on the ground is expected to be the one to decide taking the prevailing circumstances into account. He and his troops are responsible for their actions, hence the need to act in the spirit of humanity. Whenever a soldier uses force, it is important that he should be able to justify it and give reasons for the amount of force used in the circumstances as he may be required in a court of law to give his justification in great detail, hence the need to record events as they unfold, as actions taken at each stage are paramount to the justification for the use of force.
It should be noted also that it is the soldier that uses force himself rather than his superiors, who would have to make such justifications. The guidelines for the use of force as backed by Section 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code which are expected under “must” to be observed at all times maintain that force is unjustifiable unless the immediate effect can be achieved by using it within the soldier’s or policeman’s legal power. As aforementioned, even in violent situations, not all circumstances require force. In low-key protests for instance, there are non-violent methods of maintaining order which could involve oral persuasion, warning of the crowd through the reading of the Riot Act and advancing in strength by the troops towards the crowd as a show of force among others.
Article 51 of the UN Charter specifically states the customary international law principle underlying all rules of engagement, that is, the inherent right of individual and collective self defense against an armed attack. International law requires that any use of force armed or unarmed be in response to hostile acts or a demonstration of hostile intent.
I tend however to agree with the school of thought that suggests that most men of the Nigerian Armed Forces are either ignorant of the internationally acceptable rules of engagement in any operation or completely uneducated to be aware of the aforementioned. Otherwise, I see no reason for the wanton oppression and constant harassment of innocent citizens by men of the military. The gun and uniform in time past used to be an instrument of security for the unarmed civilian whose protection lies with the personnel, but now, it is being used to intimidate, extort and commit all sorts of crimes because the constitution has made it a crime to raise a finger against an “officer of the law”.
While my respect for the force remains integral with no equanimity against all odds, suffice it to say that if the present situation is not checked while there is still time, sooner or later, what is happening in other parts of the world where indigenous rebels are constantly fighting against constituted security operatives could be inevitable. Something had better been done because unlike before when the military was seen to be working hand-to-hand with the civilian citizens to advance the cause of peace-building and see to the provision of certain social services as demands the law guiding peace-keeping operations, the military in several situations have been reported to be culpable in certain attacks.
In Plateau State for instance, there has been a large outcry against the backdrop of military deficiency in the task of restoring peace and order since the civil unrest of 2001 which led to the death of many including women and children in the Jos and Bukuru metropolis. In 2010, women from all parts of the state came out in their numbers, dressed in black and staged a march around the city of Jos down to the Governor’s Lodge and Office in Jishe crying for the removal of the military in the State.
While the presence of the military in many crises riddled areas has somewhat brought calm and reassured the masses security wise to some degree, the fears that have continued to characterize the minds of many Nigerians as to the safety of lives and property in a military dominated area are long over-due for the desired action.
The President of the federation in his last independence message indeed charged the military operatives serving in different parts of the country to respect their rules of engagement just as is often emphasized to them in the parade ground, but since there has been no substantial arrangement to monitor and sanction the misdeeds of military personnel on field operations or anywhere else, the trend of unlawful oppression of innocent civilians has continued unabated.
The lackadaisical attitude of constituted authorities towards issues of non-compliance with laid down rules and regulations particularly the violation of the rights of citizens has left more questions than answers as to whether or not the government is serious about the security and rights of its citizens.
To this end, the fears of many as it affects their perception of the military have grown to translate into palpable anger and possibly hatred for the force that if not promptly and adequately controlled could culminate into a guerilla action against men of the military someday.
Having said that, suffice it to note here that everyone who faithfully and effectively executes his duties without any breach of the law certainly deserves to be commended. This therefore goes to say that while there is a need to set up a special monitoring mechanism for the regulation of the conduct and operation of military operatives at any given time, the need to identify and reward good works by men who distinguish themselves in their various areas of assignments cannot be overemphasized. This would go a long way in checking some of the unruly behaviours of some of the operatives who are most likely to be persuaded to do well and behave themselves anywhere they find themselves.
There should also be a provision for refresher courses and higher training programmes for men of the military in order to keep them abreast of global practices as far as military operations are concerned.