NEWS

• How to wreck a country

  Oct 6, 2017 by Admin / 346 Views

  

  How to wreck a country

  By anyone’s standards, Lybia is a failed state that threatens to destabilise the rest of Africa. The blame for this lies with NATO, writes Moffat Ekoriko

  US PRESIDENT Barack Obama must be gifted in euphemism. Asked about the outcome of the NATO intervention in Libya, he said it is a “mess”. The reporter who anchored the interview apparently taken aback wrote: “Mess is the president’s diplo­matic term; privately, he calls Libya a ‘shot show’.”

  The reality is that Libya, once one of the most stable countries in Africa with high ratings on the human development index (HDI), has become a failed state. Hell would have been a better four-letter word to describe a country with no functional gov­ernment, ridden with competing armed mili­tias and one of the three with territories held by the Islamic State. The chaos in Libya is down to the NATO military intervention in the country of 2011, which went ahead despite the protests of the African Union.

  As at the time of going to press, the gov­ernment of national unity formed at the instance of the United Nations in January was still based in neighbouring Tunisia. It was meant to end the feud between two rival administrations, one based in Tripoli and the other in the eastern town of Tobruk. The new government, made of 32 cabinet members, was the culmination of a UN- backed peace process. A nine member pres­idential council was set up and tasked with the mandate of appointing the new admin­istration. On the surface of it, this new gov­ernment should work. It has representatives from the two rival parliaments. Fayez Sarraj, a politician from the east will serve as the prime minister. Al-Aref al-Khoga, former interior minister from the west, retains his portfolio in the new arrangement. Khaled Nejm from the east will be responsible for information with Mahdi al Barghathi, an army commander from the east taking charge of defence.

  However, given the chaos prevalent in the country, the new government is unable to set foot in Tripoli. Reports say the planned relocation of the new unity government to Tripoli was thwarted by Khalifa Al Ghweil, the prime minister of the Tripoli-based fac­tional government. The new government is also suffering legitimacy questions following the inability of the internationally recognised parliament based at Tobruk to pass a reso­lution endorsing it.

  Aguila Saleh Issa, the president of the the Tobruk parliament, had called for debate to endorse the new government, March 28, but there are not enough members to form a quorum. Although the new government said late March, that the security arrangements for it to relocate to Tripoli were complete and that it was mindful of “saving Libyan blood” and therefore wanted to move there when there is guarantee of peace.

  Ghweil does not appear to be thinking of that peace. A day before the announcement, he closed the airports at Tripoli and Misrata following rumours that Sarraj was going to fly into the country to assume office., leaving thousands of travellers stranded at the airport.

  Even when the new government takes over, it will have to grapple with the wors­ening security situation in the country. Libya is now broken into fiefdoms controlled by different militia. Efforts to disarm the militia have been frustrated by the absence of a national army and a stable political authority. The government faction in Tripoli is backed by Islamist militia. What should be the national army is controlled by Khalifa Haftar, supportive of the Tobruk govern­ment but opposed to Islamists. In between the two major forces are tribal and town based militias.

  To compound the security crisis, the dreaded Islamic State (IS) has made Libya its third area of operation. With forces based in around Sirte, the home town of Gaddafi, the IS forces pose a threat to any attempt to impose a nationwide order. Apart from their trademark brutality, IS forces are kid­napping people from as far afield as Tripoli and Adjabbiya. Late last month, they exe­cuted three Libyan army soldiers seized while on leave from their duty posts in Benghazi. The presence of the group has also attracted the intervention of foreign forces. US troops have carried out regular air attacks against the group (without seeking the consent of any government in Libya). So have the Egyptians and the Emirati.

  As the security situation worsens, so has the economy. Oil production dropped to 396,000 barrels per day in February against peak production of 1.4 million barrels per day before the overthrow of the Gaaddafi government. The standard of living has plummeted as Libyans face shortages and spiralling cost of staple foods.

  It will be an uphill task to stop Libya from falling into complete anarchy not to talk of restoring it to stability. That Libya is in such a state is down to the recklessness of the NATO for effecting regime change and failing to take responsibility for stabilising the country after that. President Obama who led the military operation to topple Gaddafi, said he had believed that the Europeans (in this case, Britain and France) would invest in the follow up. Some Middle East experts like Alan Kuperman of the Texas University at Austin think the present crisis in Libya was totally avoidable since NATO had no real reason to intervene.

  So what went wrong? Towards the end of 2010, the Arab Street was very restive. A revolt had dramatically sacked the govern­ments in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt. The success of the protesters had started what was called the Arab Spring. The once impregnable autocrats of the Mddle East, not least Muammar Gaddafi, were looking vulnerable.

  In February 2011, following the arrest of a lawyer representing the families of 1,200 people who died in prison, protests broke out in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city and later spread to other urban areas. The security forces batded to contain the unrest, which were becoming increasingly violent. By the middle of March 2011, the protests had turned into a full blown rebellion but much of Libya lies bi ruins following NATO’s disastrous intervention the rebels were no match for Gaddafi’s forces. One city after the other, the security forces established order, save for Benghazi, which had become the de facto epicentre of the rebellion. It is at this point that foreign forces stepped in, claiming that Gaddafi was planning to massacre his own people there.

  Countries that had axes to grind with him quickly rallied round the rebels, investing their political and diplomatic capital to win them legitimacy. Media from the west and Gulf countries quickly swung behind the narrative. Aljazeera’s false report that Gaddafi’s air force was strafing and bombing civilians in Benghazi was seized upon by those pushing for a no-fly zone. The Saudi- owned channel Al Arabiya reported falsely that the death toll from the clashes was 10,000. Human Rights Watch documented only 233.

  Sections of the rebel leadership, much of which had been courted by the CIA for years, were emboldened. The height of this support was a Linited Nations Security Council resolution, which was obtained under the guise of preventing a massacre of civilians by regime forces. The UN Resolution 1973 (passed March 17, 2011) imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and autho­rised the use of all necessary means, save an occupation, to protect civilians. This sup­posed humanitarian intervention was a follow up to the sanctions and embargoes earlier imposed on the country three weeks before then.

  Unknown to many, including the Russians who abstained, the trio of the US, Britain and France secretly had regime change at the top of their agenda. Within 24 hours of that resolution, NATO forces attacked Libya. Targets of air strikes included members of the government. With such an advanced air force at their disposal, the rebels became hostile to all efforts at achiev­ing a political resolution.

  One of such efforts that was rebuffed by the rebels came from the African Union. After its opposition to military intervention was ignored, the AU came up with a peace plan. The plan was spearheaded by a high powered committee led by President Jacob Zuma of South Africa. Other members of the committee were presidents Mohammed Abdel Aziz of Mauritania, Amadou Toure of Mali, Dennis Sassou Nguesso of Congo Brazaville and Yoweri Museveni of Llganda.

  Under the plan, there was to be an imme­diate ceasefire, unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, protection of foreign nationals, dialogue between the government  and rebels on a political setdement and the suspension of NATO air strikes. The embattled Gaddafi, after meeting with Zuma and three other heads of state plus the foreign minister of Uganda in Tripoli, readily accepted the roadmap. But with NATO behind them, the rebels binned the plan. They insisted there would be no peace until Gaddafi and his sons stood down. NATO was equally dismissive.

  What was most shocking was the approach of the western media. According to the BBC in its report of the peace plan: “The situation is muddied by money. Col Gaddafi has bankrolled the AU for years and he has bought friends in Africa.” Translation: the AU has been bought by Gaddafi.

  Nothing could be farther from the truth. The funding of the AU is through the contribution of all member states and the ratio is pre-determined based on the financial capability of individual countries. Libya’s contributions would have been based on the agreed parameters. Even then, it would not have been more than the contributions of Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt. Besides, such funding would be by Libya as a member state and not Gaddafi as an indi­vidual.

  Even with the rebuff from the rebels and insults by the media, the AU did not give up. Zuma made a further trip to Tripoli six weeks later but NATO was in no mood to stop despite further concessions by Gaddafi. Contrary to the perception in the west, the AU dreaded the consequences of Gaddafi’s forced exit from power. There were three dangers: One, Libya could become a failed state. The tribal and ethnic mix of Libya was such that the forced removal of the government would make it difficult to build a political consensus for post- Gaddafi sta­bility. Having lived with consequences of Somalia, African countries knew the cost of having a failed state in the region.

  Two, Libya had a huge arms arsenal, which would be difficult to secure in such a vast country. AU felt that these arms would spread all over the region. Three, there were other Africans in the Libyan Army who would return home with military skills to pose a destabilising risk to their home coun­tries. Four, among the rebels were Islamists and terrorists and the AU feared the conse­quences of giving them a safe haven in an post-Gaddafi Libya. Gaddafi, himself, in a tearful letter to Obama, begged NATO to back off so that Libyans could decide its future “within the African Union frame”.

  Africa is paying a high cost for NATO’s arrogance. The arms looted from Libya has found its way to armed insurgents in many different parts of the continent. The country itself has become a haven for ter­rorists, threatening the spread of IS. President Obama thinks the problem with Libya is that NATO did not enter the country with a force strong enough to rebuild Libya after the war.

  Kuperman thinks the president is wrong. “The error in Libya was not an inadequate intervention effort, but the decision to inter­vene in the first place. The AU is vindicated.”

  Read more »

• Anger over ‘Gulliver’s travels’

  Oct 6, 2017 by Admin / 617 Views

   

  

  President Buhari’s frequent globe-trotting has drawn ire from Nigerians, who say it is a waste of public money. By Sunny Idachaba

  SINCE HIS inauguration on May 29, 2015, Nigeria’s Muhammadu Buhari, has made a number of official trips outside the country earning him the nickname of ‘President Gulliver’. Well intentioned as these trips might be, the president and his party, the All Progressives Congress, (APC), are being rou­tinely criticised for their globe-trotting, with the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) saying he should spend more time at home solving the country’s economic prob­lems.

  The APC’s information minister, Lai Mohammed, stoutly defends the trips, saying they create a number of opportunities for the country, which may become only appar­ent in the long-term.

  Femi Adesina and Garba Shehu, two of president’s media aides, have also gone to great lengths to explain the benefits of foreign visits, principally that they gave Nigeria proper representation.

  Both attempted to put the issue in perspec­tive: When President Buhari arrived at Aso Rock, the seat of government, the country was ravaged by Boko Haram insurgents, who had killed more than 12,000 people in the northeast part of the country and left at least 10,000 Nigerians internally displaced. At the time, the terrorists held a number of local governments in their strongholds of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states, hoisting their flags there to declare the arrival of the Islamic State caliphate.

  Military strategists warned that if the fight against the insurgents were to be won, Nigeria must consciously collaborate with its neighbours bordering the northeast of the country to rout them. It was in that spirit that President Buhari embarked on what his critics described as his foreign jamborees.

  Aside from this, Nigeria’s reputation as a corrupt nation was reinforced by revelations that members of the previous government, led by Goodluck Jonathan, had had their hands in the till and made off with the money following their electoral defeat. This led to massive capital flight. 

  Although much talk was made of President Buhari’s autocratic tendencies during his first tenure of government as a military leader during the early 1980s, people were also aware that throughout his long political career he had never been tainted by so much as a whiff of corruption. Even as president, he continued to present himself as a humble figure not interested in the usual ostentatious display of wealth and power that most Nigerian politicians indulge in. This reassured his fellow leaders, favourably disposing them to Nigeria at a time when it was most in need of firm alliances and, of course, foreign investment.

  Just three days after his inauguration, President Buhari left Nigeria to meet with the leaders of three neighbouring countries which had also been affected by the Boko Haram insurgency. First, he travelled to Niger Republic to meet with President Mahamadou Issoufou and discuss the need to secure the Nigeria/Niger border, which had been used by the Islamists as an escape route. From there he travelled to Chad and Cameroon.

  Next he embarked on a visit to South Africa to attend a meeting of the African Union, where Nigeria chairs the peace and security council committee.

  Buhari entered the world stage, as it were, when he travelled to the US in July last year, meeting President Obama in the White House to discuss security, Nigeria’s economy and ways to tackle corruption in its govern­ment. He had already shook hands with Obama the previous month when he attend­ed the G-7 summit in Germany. Buhari dis­cussed threats posed by terror groups such as Boko Haram.

  In September last year, the president embarked on a three-day visit to France at the invitation of his French counterpart Francois Hollande. The focus was on further strengthening bilateral cooperation between Nigeria and France in the areas of defence, security, trade and investment.

  In the same month, Buhari made a one-day official visit to Ghana, ostensibly to secure the repatriation of Nigerian funds he alleged the previous administrations had stolen and stashed away there. Shortly afterwards he materialised in New Delhi to attend the third India-Africa Forum Summit, as well as to hold talks with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi about terrorism, climate change and poverty alleviation. Then it was on to Malta for the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, from where he immediately left for Paris to present Nigeria’s statement at the UN Climate Change Conference that opened on, November 30.

  Earlier this year, Buhari visit Saudi Arabia and Qatar for a week. Buhari was accompa­nied by his minister of finance, Kemi Adeosun, the minister of petroleum, Ibe Kachikwu, and the minister of aviation, Hadi Sirika. He was also accompanied by the state governors for Zamfara, Borno, Osun, Katsina and Ogun states. This drew the ire of Nigerians, with many claiming it was a waste of the country’s resources to travel with so many governors. However, in terms of investments and a stabilising of the global price of oil, which has hurt the Nigerian economy hard, the government insists that the visit was worth its weight in gold.

  In March during a visit to Equatorial Guinea, Buhari was accompanied by his min­ister of defence, Mansur Dan-Ali, and the national security adviser, Babagana Monguno, for bilateral talks on regional security

  Critics maintain that all these trips exceed those of his predecessors and are funded by the tax payer. The PDP spokesperson Olisa Metuh said, rather than embarking on foreign jamborees, the president should concentrate on fixing the economy., which has nose-dived since he took office.

  Ayodele Fayose, the governor of Ekiti state in the country’s southwest, claimed that Buhari’s excursions had already cost the country millions: “Foreign trips won’t solve our problems for us and the president’s inces­sant travels are already bleeding the economy, with about Jim being spent per trip,” he fumed.

  He added: “The way the president is going, foreign trips alone might gulp 20 per cent of the federal government budget and that would be disastrous for the dwindling economy of the country.”

  Fayose suggests that most of the visits cold have been led by the vice-president or a min­ister, saving the country the huge amount spent in ‘estacode’, that is the so-called estab­lishment code that dictates the travel allowances given to government officials. A hangover from colonial days, these are usually very generous. .

  Meanwhile, Emmanuel Onwubiko of the Human Rights Writers Association, said he needed concrete evidence of how ‘Gulliver’s travels’ benefit the country. “In as much as I am not against any trip, be it foreign or local, embarked upon by the president, I want to see the benefits of those trips on Nigeria so that we can give the president the thumbs up,” he said.

  “But anything outside that is a serious drain on the lean resources of the country.”, Information minister Mohammed recently told journalists that foreign trips were critical to the implementation of the administration’s key policies of enhancing security, jump-start­ing the economy, creating jobs and fighting against corruption.

  While Nigerians had the right to ask ques­tions about the trips of their president, they should ask them from an informed perspec­tive, he added.

  “The president was in Germany shortly after his inauguration on the invitation of the G-7 to solicit support from the industrialised nations for the war against terrorism. No one who has witnessed the killings and maiming in the last seven years by Boko Haram will call such trips frivolous. After all, the security and welfare of the citizens are the reasons for the existence of any government,” the minister continued He went on to explain that most of the president’s trips to were devoted to rallying global and regional supports for the war against terrorism.

  The president’s media aide Garba Shehu said, “While Nigerians are yearning for change you need someone who will set up the infrastructure both at home and abroad. President Buhari is busy doing that. The change is manifest in where he visits. In the delegations accompanying him abroad, President Buhari has slashed the numbers bringing them down to a bearable minimum. He went to the UN General Assembly in September 2015 with an unbelievable 32 offi­cials on his trip. His predecessor in office went with as much as 150 officials and family members the year before.”

  Garba wondered why people did not see the international approval President Buhari's foreign trips had brought to bear on the country: “What would Nigerians say of their leader when they see the arrays of world leaders assemble and their own president is missing from the table? Those of us who were around during Abacha’s days remember all the taunts that labelled him a sit-at-home leader. Abacha was despised for not repre­senting his country abroad. The visit by any president to another country is the highest act in international relations”.

  The president’s foreign trips were working to strengthen diplomatic relations, trade and security of the country. According to him, the president had presided over meetings aborad with entrepreneurs that brought country billions in investments.

  Countries like France, UK and the US were supporting Nigeria with intelligence gathering and training of the military against Boko Haram and the economic saboteurs in the Niger Delta region.

  “All heads of state around the world now take Nigeria seriously. His foreign trips are for business, security of the country and bilat­eral contacts that get actualised by follow- ups. Today, the world is in warm embrace of President Buhari. Nigerians should be proud of that attention, love and admiration,” he concluded.

  President Buhari has pledged to address three priority areas, namely: corruption, economy and insecurity on the day of his inauguration. Many Nigerians feel is admin­istration has largely been able to address the problem of insecurity, which his supporters say is a direct result of his globe-trotting. “Today, Boko Haram is almost history as they can no longer hold on to territories like before even though there are pockets of soft target bombings here and there,” Mohammed declared. “Arrangements are now being made for the displaced persons to return to their homes as the military has restored order in those volatile areas.”

  On corruption, he said a number of people have been arrested in connection with money laundering activities. This is as a result of eco­nomic intelligence reports the president received while abroad, especially in the US and the Mddle East.

  Plans are underway to turn round the economy, which is largely hinged on the passage of the 2016 Appropriation Bill. 

  Read more »

• ‘We are far greater together than apart’

  Oct 6, 2017 by Admin / 422 Views

  

  Vice-President of Nigeria, Yemi Osinbajo, reflects that the legacy of the Biafran War should be the quest for the country’s lasting unity

  I was 10-years-old when my friend in primary school, Emeka, left school for good one day. He said his parents said they had to go back to East, war was about to start. I never saw Emeka again. My Auntie Bunmi was married to a gentleman from Enugu and I recall the evening when my parents tried to persuade her and her husband not to leave for the East. She did and we never saw her again.

  I recall distinctly how in 1967, passing in front of my home on Ikorodu road almost every hour were trucks carrying passengers and furniture in an endless stream heading east. Many Igbos who left various parts of Nigeria, left friends, families and businesses, schools and jobs. Like my friend and aunty some never returned. Many died.

  The reasons for this tragic separation of brothers and sisters were deep and profound. So much has been said and written already about the whys and wherefores that analyses will probably never end.

  This is why I would rather not spend this few minutes on whether there was or was not sufficient justification for secession and the war that followed. The issue is whether the terrible suffering, massive loss of lives, of hopes and fortunes of so many can ever be justified.

  As we reflect on this event today, we must ask ourselves the same question that many who have fought or been victims in civil wars, wars between brothers and sisters ask in moments of reflection: What if we had spent all the resources, time and sacrifice we put into the war, into trying to forge unity? What if we had decided not to seek to avenge a wrong done to us? What if we had chosen to overcome evil with good?

  The truth is that the spilling of blood in disputes is hardly ever worth the losses. Of the fallouts of bitter wars is the anger that can so easily be rekindled by those who for good or ill want to resuscitate the fire. Today some are suggesting that we must go back to the ethnic nationalities from which Nigeria was formed.

  They say that secession is the answer to the charges of marginalisation. They argue that separation from the Nigerian state will ultimately result in successful smaller states. They argue eloquently, I might add, that Nigeria is a colonial contraption that cannot endure.

  This is also the sum and substance of the agitation for Biafra. The campaign is often bitter and vitriolic, and has sometimes degenerated into fatal violence. Permit me to differ and to suggest that we’re greater together than apart.

  No country is perfect; around the world we have seen and continue to see expressions of intra-national discontent. Indeed, not many Nigerians seem to know that the oft-quoted line about Nigeria being a “mere geographical expression” originally applied to Italy. It was the German statesman Klemens von Metternich who dismissively summed up Italy as a mere geographical expression exactly a century before Nigeria came into being as a country. From Spain to Belgium to the UK and even the US, you will find many today who will venture to make similar arguments about their countries. But they have remained together.

  The truth is that many, if not most nations of the world, are made up of different peoples and cultures and beliefs and religions, who find themselves thrown together by circumstance. Nations are indeed made up of many nations. The most successful nations are those who do not fall into the lure of secession, but who through thick and thin forge unity in diversity.

  Nigeria is no different; we are, not three, but more like 300 or so ethnic groups within the same geographical space, presented with a great opportunity to combine all our strengths into a nation that is truly more than the sum of its parts.

  Let me say that there is a solid body of research that shows that groups that score high on diversity turn out to be more innovative than less diverse ones. There’s also research showing that companies that place a premium on creating diverse workplaces do better financially than those who do not. This applies to countries just as much as it does to companies. The US is a great example, bringing together an impressively diverse cast of people together to consistently accomplish world-conquering economic, military and scientific feats.

  It is possible in Nigeria as well. Instead of trying to flee into the lazy comfort of homogeneity every time we’re faced with the frustrations of living together, the more beneficial way for us individually and collectively is actually to apply the effort and the patience to understand one another and to progressively aspire to create one nation bound in freedom, in peace and in unity.

  That, in a sense, should be the Nigerian Dream – the enthusiasm to create a country that provides reasons for its citizens to believe in it, a country that does not discriminate or marginalise in any way. We are not there yet, but I believe we have a strong chance to advance in that direction. But that will not happen if we allow our frustrations and grievances to transmute into hatred. It will not happen if we see the media as platforms for the propagation of hateful and divisive rhetoric. No one stands to benefit from a stance like that; we will all emerge as losers.

  Clearly our strength is in our diversity, that we are greater together than apart. Imagine for a moment that an enterprising young man from Aba had to apply for a visa to travel to Kano to pursue his entrepreneurial dreams, or that a young woman from Abeokuta had to fill immigration forms and await a verdict in order to attend her best friend’s wedding in Umuahia. Nigeria would be a much less colourful, much less interesting space, were that the case. Our frustrations with some who speak a different dialect or belong to a different religion must not drive us to forget many of the same tribe and faith of our adversaries who have shown true affection for us.

  Let me make it clear that I fully believe that Nigerians should exercise to the fullest extent the right to discuss or debate the terms of our existence. Debate and disagreement are fundamental aspects of democracy. We recognise and acknowledge that necessity. And this event is along those lines – an opportunity not merely to commemorate the past, but also to dissect and debate it. Let’s ask ourselves tough questions about the path that has led us here, and how we might transform yesterday’s actions into tomorrow’s wisdom.

  Indeed our argument is not and will never be that we should ‘forget the past’, or ‘let bygones be bygones’, as some have suggested. Chinua Achebe repeatedly reminded us of the Igbo saying that a man who cannot tell where the rain began to beat him cannot know where he dried his body. If we lose the past, we will inevitably lose the opportunity to make the best of the present and the future.

  In an interview years ago, the late Dim Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, explaining why he didn’t think a second Biafran War should happen, said: “We should have learnt from that first one, otherwise the deaths would have been to no avail; it would all have been in vain.”

  We should also be careful that we do not focus exclusively on the narratives of division, at the expense of the uplifting and inspiring ones. The same social media that has come under much censure for its propensity to propagate division, has also allowed multitudes of young Nigerians to see more of the sights and sounds of their country than ever before.

  And for every young Nigerian who sees the internet as an avenue for spewing ethnic hatred, there is another young Nigerian who is falling in love or doing business across ethnic and cultural lines; a young Nigerian who looks back on his or her NYSC [National Youth Service Corps] year in unfamiliar territory as one of the valued highlights of their lifetime. These stories need to be told as well. They are the stories that remind us that the journey to nationhood is not an event but a process, filled as with life itself with experiences some bitter, some sweet. The most remarkable attribute of that process is that a succeeding generation does not need to bear the prejudices and failures of the past.

  Every new generation can take a different and more ennobling route than its predecessors. But the greatest responsibility today lies on the leadership of our country.

  The promise of our constitution which we have sworn to uphold is that we would ensure a secure, and safe environment for our people to live, and work in peace, that we would provide just and fair institutions of justice. That we would not permit or encourage discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, beliefs or other parochial considerations. That we would build a nation where no one is oppressed and none is left behind.

  These are the standards to which we must hold our leadership. We must not permit our leaders the easy but dangerous rhetoric of blaming our social and economic conditions on our coming together. It is their duty to give us a vision a pathway to make our unity in diversity even more perfect.q

  This is an edited version of the keynote address given by Yemi Osinbajo at the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja in May on behalf of the Ford foundation and the Open Society initiative West Africa under the heading, ‘Memory and Nation Building - Biafra: 50 years after’ 

   

  Read more »

• ‘Things can only get better’

  Oct 6, 2017 by Admin / 300 Views

  

  As the state celebrates its golden jubilee, Governor Wike outlines his vision for a future that aims to consolidate the gains of the past and make up for lost opportunities

  While unveiling the Golden Jubilee logo, Governor Nyesom Wike captured the essence of the Rivers at 50 celebrations, saying: “Over the past 50 years, we have travelled quite a marvellous journey. We have made significant progress, no doubt, but we have also made mistakes and lost valuable opportunities. However, this Golden Jubilee inspires a new direction to build a prosperous state we can all be proud of. This is the spirit of the new vision.”

  As a state possessing the second largest economy in the country after Lagos and with plenty of prospects for further expansion, there was a great deal to not only celebrate but also to look forward to, he added.

  One of the high points of the Rivers State Golden Jubilee Celebration has been the launch of the 50-year strategic economic and social development plan for the state that aims to consolidate the gains of the different programmes and projects implemented by successive administrations.

  Its framework has been approved by the State Executive Council and a committee has been established to drive the process forward with a series of public meetings at which all stakeholders will have the opportunity to make a contribution. 

  During his speech the governor also talked about the Golden Jubilee Projects his administration was planning. He said: “The state government is set to execute a number of landmark projects throughout the year to commemorate the Golden Jubilee, advance the promise of economic independence and improve access to public services as we set forth on new pathways to create an unimaginable future of peace, unity and prosperity for our state.”

  The government has already commissioned a number of projects spread across the three senatorial districts of the state.

  A mini-investment summit, titled Corporate Rivers, also forms part of the Rivers at 50 celebrations  and will bring together development and economic experts and other stakeholders under the umbrella of the New Rivers Vision Development Blueprint.

  Meanwhile, Governor Wike is pressing ahead with the promise he made on his election two years ago of a new beginning for the state. Despite its oil and gas-based economy, the capital Port Harcourt and its environs have never enjoyed a functional public water supply. That is about to change with the conclusion of the preliminary process for the Port Harcourt Water Supply and Sanitation Project, a joint venture between the African Development Bank, the World Bank and the Rivers State government, which will construct a water supply network across the capital and the Obio and Akpor local government areas.  Since last year, project management consultants Rambol Environ of Denmark have been laying down the groundwork and training critical technical personnel.

  The governor is also aware that the state’s development agencies need to be reinvigorated. They include the Rivers State Sustainable Development Agency, Rivers State Micro-finance Agency , Greater Port Harcourt City Development Authority, the Housing and Property Development Authority, and Rivers State Agricultural Development Programme. It is agreed that they all have to go beyond politics if they are able to cope with the challenges of the next 50 years, extending their frontiers to make way for new investment opportunities offered by international donor and development agencies.

  Governor Wike added: “Even as we are all excited by this milestone, we must also not forget that the Golden Jubilee presents both opportunity and challenge; an opportunity to celebrate our proud heritage and the challenge to harness our vast resources to fully realise our potential to be the best in Nigeria and secure enduring progress and wellbeing for our people.”           

  Read more »

• Algérie: les migrants arrêtés conduits à Tamanrasset avant leur expulsion

  Sep 29, 2017 by Admin / 432 Views

  

  En Algérie, ils ont été arrêtés dans la rue sur leurs lieux de vie ou sur les chantiers. Plusieurs dizaines de migrants d’Afrique de l'Ouest et d'Afrique centrale, interpellés il y a une semaine, sont en cours d'expulsion. Ils ont été emmenés en bus à Tamanrasset, dans l'extrême sud du pays. Une nouvelle vague d’expulsions massives après celle intervenue en décembre dernier, quand plus de 1 500 migrants avaient été arrêtés.

  Pour le moment, les autorités n’ont donné aucune explication à cette vague d’expulsions. Il y a bien eu une déclaration du gouvernement pendant l’été, qui annonçait que l’Algérie allait régulariser des migrants, et en expulser d’autres. Cette semaine, il y a eu une directive du ministère des Transports, qui interdit aux bus et aux taxis de transporter des personnes en situation irrégulière.

  Il y a donc peut-être une nouvelle politique vis-à-vis des migrants, mais les choses ne sont pas claires. Car cette semaine, les migrants arrêtés à Alger l’ont été dans leurs lieux de vie, dans leurs chantiers. Comme au mois de décembre dernier, ces personnes, qui viennent de différents pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest et d’Afrique centrale, ont été emmenées en bus, jusqu’à Tamanrasset. Après plusieurs jours de détention à Tamanrasset, jeudi soir, les forces de l’ordre leur ont annoncé un départ pour la frontière, sans que l’on sache où ces migrants seront relâchés.

  Au mois de décembre dernier, la moitié des migrants arrêtés avaient été relâchés à Agadez, dans le nord du Niger. Ensuite, il a fallu plusieurs jours pour que leurs pays d’origine organisent leurs rapatriements. Mais jusqu’en 2012, l’Algérie relâchait les migrants arrêtés à Tinzaouatine, à la frontière malienne, en plein désert.

  Chronologie et chiffres clés

  • 
     ALGÉRIE

  Read more »