Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
FASHOLA SHOCKS LAGOSIANS
BY: Chukwudi OHIRI
Contrary to the expectations of many Lagosians, Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola who spoke at the Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos on May 29, 2011 shortly after he was sworn in with his deputy, Mrs Adejoke Orelope-Adefulire bluntly told Lagosians not to expect too much from his new administration as the cost of running government has escalated. “The cost of running government has escalated as a result of many upward reviews of wages of staff across sectors and also as a result of the new minimum wage prescription. While we will do our best to run an inclusive government, we must remain mindful of, and balance the enormous cost associated with running a large government” Fashola said.
At exactly 10:57 a.m., the oath of office was administered to Governor Fashola by the Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Inumidun Akande to commence his second tenure. In the inaugural speech that followed, he said: “Today, I stand before you, extremely humbled by your support, your sacrifice and your unwavering commitment for four years, but equally very proud to assert that we have delivered on our promises to you and exceeded them in many instances”, as if to imply ‘mission accomplished’ already. He however pledged to consolidate on the already established gains of his first four years in office such as completion of many road projects his administration had embarked upon. He also promised to complete the on-going mega city project in the state.
During the campaign tour of the state, Fashola promised to decongest the metropolitan centre by creating new towns using six communities as pilot areas for the new town project, including; Onigbongbo Village in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Olowo-Ira Village in Kosofe Local Government Area, Agbenaje Village in Mosan-Agbado Local Council Development Area, Shasha/Oguntade Village around Ikeja and Alimosho local government areas, Isheri Village in Kosofe Local Government Area and Ologolo Village in Eti-Osa Local Government Area.
Governor Fashola restated his commitment to providing the people with good governance as he hinged his overwhelming success at the election to the victory of good governance. He called on Lagosians to cooperate with his administration so that more can be achieved saying: “If we must equal and exceed the standards of those societies by whose performance we assess ourselves, and I am certain that we can, then we must all reach a consensus from today to play by the rules, such as paying our taxes, driving in the proper way and on the proper lanes, trading in the proper and designated places, building only in proper and designated places and doing everything in accordance with the rules. As a Government, our task in meeting your expectations will certainly be made more easy if we all submit ourselves equally to the rules and regulations of our daily interactions and businesses, because not only will voluntary compliance reduce our cost of enforcement and citizens’ contact with law enforcement agents, it will leave your Government with more time and resources to focus on developmental issues that improves our lives collectively; a lawful and orderly society will certainly benefit more people”.
Fashola gave the hint that the revenues of the state has “unfortunately not grown in such proportions” as to meet up with all the expectations of the people and so his new administration “will have less to spend on capital projects until we find other sources of revenue…while [our] government will not relent in its effort, we cannot solve all the problems at once”. He attributed the reason why all the expectations of the people may not be met, not to deliberate complacency on the part of the government, but on financial circumstances of the state. In his words, “let me advise that in all these expectations, we will be limited only by resources, especially those of a financial nature that are available to us, and certainly not by our own complacency, passion or desire to work hard to serve you”. He further noted that some of the policies and actions of the government may not go down well with people but that whenever these policies occasion discomfort, Lagosians should see them as sincere efforts to make things better. “Please, bring your complaints for possible redress to us, without taking the laws into your hands or interpreting those policies as being specifically targeted at any group” he admonished. “Let me assure you all that as leader of the government team, I cherish the mandate (given to him by the people); I am fully conscious of the import for your hopes and aspirations and I remain as committed as I was in 2007 to fulfill those aspirations”, the Governor added.
Finally, the Lagos state governor acknowledged that his success story was not a product of his solitary effort and so he pledged to do his best for Lagosians in addition to investing more on security of lives and property in the state. “As I make this solemn pledge before you all and before God, let me remind all of us that the progress we have made was not made by me alone. Every law abiding Lagosian was a contributor. We achieved this progress by building a Government whose commitment to law and order was unmistakable and unequivocal. We will require an even greater commitment to law and order, not only to sustain what we have achieved, but also to progress upon it”, Fashola remarked at the end.
NIGERIAN MINIMUM WAGE WAR : COUNTDOWN TO THE BIG SHOWDOWN
The War Drums Now Deafening
By Chukwudi OHIRI
Three months after President Goodluck Jonathan signed the minimum wage bill into law, many state governments appear adamant over its implementation and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) under the auspices of the organized labour are set to engage the defaulting states in a major show down that is capable of grounding the economy of the entire country. The ultimatum issued by the NLC and the TUC would expire by 15th of July if negotiations with the FG and the respective states fail to reach an agreeable compromise.
The Trade Union Congress (TUC), in a communiqué issued and signed by the five South-South states Chairmen at the end of its South-South Forum held at the Banquet hall, Aldgate Congress Hotel in Port Harcourt last month appealed to the Governors from the five states namely; Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta, Bayelsa and Cross River, to adopt and implement the new salaries for the civil servants in their various states. While thanking the President for the kind gesture, the communique also appealed that the new salary structure payment commences by ending of July. "We equally appeal to the South-South Governors, who are well-known for their Labour friendly disposition to adopt and implement the new salaries for the civil servants in their various states”, the communique read in part.
During the electioneering campaigns, some of the governors were either tacit or evasive in sticking out their neck on its willingness to pay the new minimum wage for obvious reasons. Now, with the elections over, many of the governors are busy citing reasons why the approved sum will not be feasible and some hell bent on not paying the minimum wage because of the financial circumstances of their respective states.
Aware of this flagrant resolve by some of the state governments to ignore the implementation of the N18, 000.00 national minimum, the TUC issued serious threats to any state that fails to abide by the law on the Minimum wage rumpus. The congress through its president Peter Esele and John Kolawole, TUC secretary-general, also called on President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly to immediately “take all necessary actions to improve workers’ wellbeing through a new wage structure that will affect every worker.” To ensure effective implementation of the new national minimum wage in both public and private sectors, the congress says it would “soon issue a directive to all its organs, affiliates and states’ councils to formally request the commencement and implementations of the agreed and legally binding new wage structure.” They expressed great worry over the disagreement already building up and likely to escalate from non-implementation of the national minimum wage Act as amended by some state governors. Esele and Kolawole urged all the states to desist from any action. They said that the congress viewed such comments as insensitive, selfish and without regards to the workers, who are under-paid despite their wealth of experience and contributions towards national development, as against their political appointees’ counterparts, who by the end of the month go home with huge salaries and other entitlements. Esele said: “As a responsible labour federation that holds its members in high esteem, we can no longer keep quiet to such negative statements that are capable of throwing the entire labour market and our nascent democratic experiment into utter confusion… It is also capable of further heating up the system that is already saddled with such issues as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) zoning controversies and the jumbo pay packages of members of the National Assembly”.
On their part, the governors, speaking through its Chairman, Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State had stated that without the review of the current Revenue Allocation Formula and removal of petroleum subsidy, it will be difficult for most of the governors to implement the new minimum wage structure of N18, 000.00 saying: “On the issue of the new minimum wage, members recognised the amended Minimum Wage Act as a valid law. However, the implementation will pose considerable challenge to a number of states. Consequently, members resolved to: “Engage Labour in a holistic manner so that they can jointly agree to a common implementation framework; “Review the Revenue Allocation Formula; immediate removal of the petroleum subsidy; the constitution of a committee to determine the financial implications and work out the implementations details; examine the realities this law imposes on the states and its implications for the workers.”
In a swift response to the stance of the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum, the organized Labour through a statement by the NLC Vice-President, Mr. Issa Aremu clarified that “the new wage is the result of collaborative effort between the federal, states, the private and public sectors representatives that included both the formal and informal sectors. He said that all the stakeholders mentioned above were actively involved in all the deliberations of the panel” and so cannot hinge its implementation on any new Revenue Formula. As such, “if there is a new revenue allocation formula tomorrow, there is bound to be a new minimum wage higher than the current N18, 000. “The point cannot be overstated; the new N18, 000 minimum wage is a product of painstaking two-year negotiation and consultation by the Tripartite Committee on the National Minimum Wage. “Critical stakeholders that negotiated the new rate included State Governments, Federal Capital Territory Administration, Organised Private Sector, Small and Medium Enterprises as well as informed opinions drawn from key institutions and professional bodies like Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Research, the National Productivity Centre, National Planning Commission, Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (as well as Nigeria Association of Small and Medium Enterprises…The N18,000 minimum wage is dependent on the current revenue allocation formula among other economic and social fundamental macro factors like the oil revenue, cost of working and living, non –oil sector performance, labour productivity and general level of poverty” according to the statement. On his part, Owei Lakemfa, the acting general secretary of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) described the governors’ position as diversionary and unacceptable insisting that that there is no state in the country that cannot afford to pay N18,000 as minimum wage. He warned that “to remove petroleum subsidy is to ignite the system.”
The executive Governor of Zamfara State, Alhaji Abdul’aziz Yari Abubakar in a recent interview with journalists stated categorically that “no state in the north, not even Kano, can implement the N18, 000. 00 minimum wage”. He opined that they would sit down with President Jonathan to officially state their stand as a way of seeking amicable solution to the impasse. He further argued that a state like Lagos, which generates about N23 billion as monthly internal revenue alone can easily afford to pay the minimum wage unlike Zamfara that generates N120 Million and Kano (which is about the highest in the North) generating N1.8billion monthly. “As of today,” he said, “we pay N1.1 billion as our wage bill and I have inherited a work force of about 28,000. By the time we multiply 18,000 by the number of workers in Zamfara, we will be looking at a bill of N3 billion and the total income of the state is between N2.3 billion and N2.5 billion”.
Earlier, all the five eastern states governors, after meeting in Enugu last month said they can’t pay the N18000 minimum wage unless there is a review of the revenue sharing formula in favour of states. The governors announced that no workers in the states should expect the new minimum wage until such a time when the Federal Government will address the revenue sharing formula.
The south-south governors on their part also met in Port Harcourt, Rivers State shortly after the South Eastern governors. In a rather diplomatic language agreed that their states could pay the new wage, but that the Federal Government will have to review present revenue formula speedily. According to the governors, “We have agreed to pay the new wage but we are asking the Federal Government to review the revenue because no state in the zone can pay the new wage under the present revenue sharing formula.
Both the NLC and the TUC are already sharpening their sword for a duel in the various defaulting states. The NLC has sent strong warnings to state governors to pay the legally stipulated minimum wage or watch out for battle. They insist that going by their findings with facts and figures, all the states in the Federation could pay even the initial N52.200 it demanded not to talk of a paltry compromise N18,000.000 it termed ‘a starvation wage’. TUC President General, comrade Peter Esele has warned that the workers would go to any length it deems viable against Governors who refuse to pay by June, the expected implementation date. He said, “We shall go to any length to tackle governors who have decided not to pay the minimum wage. Those who do not want to obey the laws of the land are inviting anarchy.” Abdulwaheed Omar, the National President of the NLC regretted that the governors are suddenly reneging in an extensively negotiated and concluded agreement of which they were a party to. He lamented that “no relationship whatsoever between the governors demand for a review of the revenue formula with the implementation of the new national minimum wage. If I take you back memory lane, after workers demanded for a new minimum wage, the Federal Government established a tripartite committee, comprising government, employers and workers which worked for over one year negotiating, discussing and analysing and eventually came to a conclusion and a agreement of N18000 was reached as a new minimum wage. And these governors were adequately represented. I remember that the Lagos state Governor, Gombe state Governor and Enugu state were supposed to be on that tripartite committee. The only unfortunate thing was that none of them ever appeared in person but were represented. “However, whatever the case may be they were there as governors representing other governors as stakeholders. So, for anybody to say that unless the revenue sharing formula is reviewed is out of the question. We will support any revenue allocation review that will enhance good governance and will ensure that the welfare and the wellbeing of the people are also reviewed but not giving it as a condition for the implementation of the new national minimum wage”.
In the South-West, apart from Lagos State Government that had earlier approved N18, 780 as minimum wage for its public servants many other states appear obstinate on their stand leaving the organized labour with no choice than massive protests. Oyo and Ondo state workers are leading the pack in the strike action that will soon engulf the entire nation. As at press time, Mightier than sword was unable to reach the TUC president, Comrade peter Esele again to ascertain with more certainty, the exact plan of the TUC as the clock ticks. One Wunmi, a staff of the TUC at its Maryland office said he had traveled out of the state.
Following the two weeks ultimatum by the Organized labour, some of the governors have come out to say that they will pay while many others have remained adamant. Those that accepted to pay gave conditions that will invariable affect such acceptances ranging from downsizing of the work force, jettisoning developmental projects to negotiating the take home of higher level workers since the law only mentioned the minimum of N18,000.00.
Comrade Adams Oshiomole has declared that it is illegal not to pay the minimum wage. Other commentators have said that negotiating the 18,000 is a breach of the constitution as Ondo workers deed. They argued that "it is criminal for people to agree to breach the constitution".
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
SYRIA AND YEMEN CRISIS: ANOTHER RWANDAN GENOCIDE LOOMS
BY Chukwudi Ohiri
Another ‘Rwandan genocide’ is in the making and the International Community is very busy contemplating on whether to intervene or not. Parliaments across the globe are busy making permutations on the rationality or otherwise of coming to the aid of Libyans while Gaddafi is busy slaughtering his own people, attacking cities and oil facilities with planes, tanks and heavy artillery. Perhaps, the world is waiting to allow the killings get to a particular degree where innumerable souls may have been lost before it can be ‘justifiable’ to intervene.
In 1994, it was the Tutsis versus the Hutus in Rwanda. While an estimated 800,000 people were being decimated in Rwanda, the International community continued to debate on what really constituted ‘genocide’. For about a hundred days, the Hutus massacred the Tutsis while debates were still on. In the end, both the United Nations and the United States had to apologize to the world for not acting fast. In the words of Bill Clinton, the then president of the United States,”… We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past. But we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear, and full of hope ..." This speech became known in political parlance as the "Clinton apology”, but the deed had been done.
On May 7, 1998 in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, the then U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan joined in tendering apology to the Parliament of Rwanda saying "... The world must deeply repent this failure. Rwanda's tragedy was the world's tragedy. All of us who cared about Rwanda, all of us who witnessed its suffering, fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough--not enough to save Rwanda from itself, not enough to honor the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of Rwanda ...". It appears now that all these promises have become mere rhetoric. The world is yet to learn its lessons from the past.
At the moment, there appears to be a crack in the wall of the Western powers over what steps to take in arresting not just the Libyan crisis, but the entire revolutions in the Arab world and Cote d’Ivoire. While the crises continue to deepen and even escalate, the international community has been quite slow in taking decisions as events keep unfolding faster than anticipated, some, taking less envisaged dimension.
Initially, it seemed the Libyan rebels were on the verge of rattling Gaddafi by taking over some major cities, but recent development appears to be tilting the victory in favour of the Gaddafi forces that have pushed the rebels back and away from the recently taken Ras, Lanuf and Zawiya.
Some analysts are beginning to suggest that the UN and US government are once more politicizing the crisis while exhibiting what can be described as ambiguous stances. The United Nations and the United States are still dilly dallying, giving room for discordant tunes on a matter as serious as human rights violation and reckless killings. The African Union on its part has restated its rejection of any idea of foreign military intervention in Libya. Instead, they continue to send so called ‘high powered’ delegation to prevail on a man who has vowed to die a “martyr,” rather than give up power in Libya. This is very unfortunate and coming only 17 years after the Rwandan experience.
The Syrian government is vehemently against any foreign intervention in Libya. The Syrian Foreign Ministry was quoted in a statement as saying that foreign intervention "is considered a violation of Libya?s sovereignty, independence and territorial unity (even when Human rights are being fragrantly abused by a dictatorial regime)". For the Turkish government, it has remained opposed to no-fly zones or other military intervention in Libya, putting the regime at odds with many of its NATO allies. Despite the increasing numbers of casualties, Turkish leaders still insist that intervention is “nonsense” and would prove counterproductive. It therefore accused western countries of eying Libya's oil reserves. Of the 27 countries of the European Union, only about 7 seem to have recognized the Libyan rebels while 20 are either non-aligned or have openly condemned any form of external intervention at least, for now. Italy, Germany, Russia as well as U.S. and Canada are less keen on intervention whereas the United Kingdom and France want immediate action. However, UK and France clarified that “any foreign action within Libya, including a no-fly zone, could take place only if it had wide international support”. This position was an aftermath of the meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers in which a no-fly zone that will take effect after a thorough planning was proposed for Libya. On her part, the Arab league has lent its support to the call for a no-fly-zone in Libya, but condemned any form of direct intervention from foreign countries. In spite of the lack of consensus amongst the International Community, many individuals and states have raised their voices in calling for immediate international intervention on the Libyan quagmire.
In a comment he made prior to European Union meetings penultimate week, former South African Archbishop, Desmond Tutu unequivocally called on the international community to 'do all they can to stop the carnage' in Libya. 'When government is unable or unwilling, then the international community should intervene,' he said. The Libyan delegation to the United nations also called upon the international community to come to their aid, not only militarily, but with humanitarian aids to save its citizens from untold hardship.
As the call for intervention hips up, experts have also called for caution to avoid worsening an already bad situation. This is because, Gaddafi is already known to be a brute who would stop at nothing in his fight for Survival. Some analyst believes he is more hardened than Saddam Hussein of Iraq. More so, it is also believed that in the 70s and 80s, Gaddafi had stock-piled lots of sophisticated arms that he might be forced to roll out if pressured or pushed to the wall. These, perhaps, informed the foot dragging now being witnessed among the major western powers. The current interventionist debates in the form of military intervention, which has so far been avoided but which remains an open option may have been influenced by these realizations.
Writing on the implications of a military intervention in Libya, Sami Hermez , a political analyst with a PhD in Anthropology from Princeton University opined that “ Military intervention comes in many forms, such as all out invasion, targeted strikes, military and arms support for opposition forces, and an enforcement of a no-fly zone. Indeed, while many have called for a no-fly zone, this would effectively equal military intervention, since its enforcement would entail patrolling the Libyan skies, shooting down planes and otherwise disabling the Libyan air force, a scenario that would surely win Qaddafi many more supporters”. On the other hand, he raised concern over the use of indirect intervention whereby the opposition forces will be aided by supplying them with military capabilities. This, he feared “will only make it easier for Qaddafi and his loyalists to cast these forces as unpatriotic tools of “Western” interests, confirming the regime’s original accusations about the West’s purported role in fomenting the current unrest and intensifying the fighting”.
With diplomatic talks going on across the globe on the rightness or otherwise of an intervention in Libya, the world may not forgive the U.S., United Nations and other international governmental organizations for another pogrom or genocide in Africa. A stitch in time, they say, saves nine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)