Thursday, July 6, 2017
Corporate Social Responsibility: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
Corporate Social Responsibility: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION Inspite of all challenges Europe seem optimistic about the unity of its community. Of course it has been...
EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
Inspite of all
challenges Europe seem optimistic about the unity of its community. Of course
it has been looking optimistic because of numerous economic and human right
advantages that led to its formation until recently when British electorates
voted in a referendum to exit from the union.
Brexit has since then
generated a lot of heat within and without the community, not only about the
re-appraisal of its existence but also the process of exit and detailed
implications of member exit. Meanwhile the outcome of French elections, the
result of crucial and far-reaching referendum in Turkey as well as the imminent
G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany have collectively posed some challenges to the
stability of the union.
Prime Minister Theresa
May called an early election in order to consolidate and garner more support
for Brexit endeavors. However, June 8, 2017 election produced a lean harvest.
Even in the face of a hung parliament courage and patriotism became the
stabilizing factor in Britain on the verge of exit from EU.
French presidential
election produced a young President that holds the union to his chest, giving a
plus to the union during his tenure. To consolidate this position the
parliamentary election produced more female candidates than expected. This
unexpected feat apparently favors pro-Euro politicians.
After the attempted coup
in Turkey in 2016 President Erdogan proposed a number of constitution
amendments which significance was to enhance his powers to deal with the
various malaise. He won 51.4% support of the electorates. This electoral
victory is not popular in Europe because of excessive executive powers without
mechanisms to check those powers. This means that transparency and
accountability to EU’s standard may be missing; phenomena which the union
frowns at.
If you consider the fact
that most G20 countries come from Europe and a fortiori on the same page with
EU policies, the protests against its policies by human right activists, labor
and religious groups, one reckons the summit may not be a plus for EU. The
summit is expected to condemn protectionism which is inimical to global
interests, because of its effect on innovation and competition.
On a rather sad end
Helmut Kohl ex-German Chancellor that passed on recently was known for his
efforts towards unification of Germany and Europe; and so nicknamed a “great
European” “essence of Europe” etc. even at death. The tributes at his funeral
provided doses of optimism at a time the community needs it.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM
& CO
Corporate
Attorneys/Consultants
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Corporate Social Responsibility: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
Corporate Social Responsibility: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscep...
As Britain battles with Brexit negotiations the rest of the world have enormous lessons to learn from the development. In the past decades most part of the world embraced regional integration but discovered that the notion on itself does not provide all the socio-political and economic panacea envisaged.
As Britain battles with Brexit negotiations the rest of the world have enormous lessons to learn from the development. In the past decades most part of the world embraced regional integration but discovered that the notion on itself does not provide all the socio-political and economic panacea envisaged.
THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscepticism.
Britain did not embrace the idea of European Union which originated from the Treaty of Rome 1957. When she did, it was after a referendum that it finally joined European Economic Community (EEC) through the enactment of European Community Act 1972. Three years after joining she felt unsure whether she had made a wise decision or not, necessitating another referendum in 1975 which confirmed majority’s decision to join EEC.
When Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1992 with European Central Bank, Britain refrained from adopting Euro as her national currency and Sterling never yielded. Because of the far-reaching legal implications, it is not a project countries would like to embrace in a hurry. In the case of European Union, Britain is one country that pondered over the idea, debated and protested about it until they finally joined in 1972. But they skipped the monetary union. One of the reasons for doing so was the issue of sovereignty.
About June 30, 2015 when it had become abundantly clear that Greece failed its international debt obligation, Britain threatened to pull out of the EU, a threat that was made real a year later. Perhaps the pressure on European countries to fulfill their obligations to the avalanche of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc hastened UK’s action in pulling out soon.
Theresa May being the 2nd female Prime Minister (PM), was/is a pro-remain EU conservative, unlike Mrs Margaret Thatcher, late former Premier who was not in a hurry to drag Britain to Brussels; in her view that amounted to subjugation of Westminster. Within the episode the supremacy of parliament became the subject-matter of litigation to the Supreme Court.
In a split judgment of 8 to 3, it took the Supreme Court four days in December, 2016 to decide the appeal from the High Court in favor of an Act of Parliament to kick-start the process of leaving European Union. Before the landmark decision, Prime Minister Theresa May thought and expected the role of parliament in the episode to be that of a by-stander, or complimentary. Rather than waiting and concurring with the British government’s procedures as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty, the Supreme Court declared that indeed the legislature is in charge of the template to chart the retreat to the disappointment of the PM. For the PM it is unnecessary “parliamentary interference”; and for the opposition Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty requires amendment “to prevent the conservative from using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven”.
Article 50 TEU provides for notification in case of Brexit but commentators hold the view that there may be other ways. But does notification connote exit and exonerations from every legal obligations binding through membership? The real basis of EU was signatory to Lisbon Treaty 2007 which consolidated the Treaty of Rome 1957 and Masstricht Treaty 1993.
The PM thinks the repeal of European Communities Act 1972 and communication to Brussels by her government are all required, while the Supreme Court felt there is something more serious in it that requires parliament to legislate on it, to trigger of exit negotiations. There seem to be consensus that once activated Article 50 is irrevocable; i.e no going back to European Union after exit. However, some commentators relying on Article 49 feel it is revocable as they also refer to the High Court’s case of R (Miller) V. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The referendum is only a wish, proclamation of sort which has done nothing yet to remove Britain from EU at least two years after the referendum.
There is no doubt now that Brexit has caused tremendous uncertainty for the regional economy and global business. It started by the EU Summit on Tuesday 28th June, 2016 the first after Brexit, featuring its global economic implications.
EU law incorporates European Convention on Human Rights, European Human Rights Commission, European Court on Human Right and any member country that joins is bound by these provisions and of course the fact that the rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable; but when exiting what components of the bargain go with exit?
There are now heated debates both inside and outside UK parliament as to what would be left for citizens after Brexit: certainly “Europe’s last dictatorship” is not an option. Therefore Leading lawyers and legal experts in their letter to ‘the Observer’ are warning that Brexit could trigger a human rights crisis in the UK that threatens to have a ‘domino effect’ across Europe.
Apart from a group with the tag ‘89up” which has embarked on a bandwagon mission of making Europe ‘a more open, pluralistic and democratic place’, the bunch of eminent legal luminaries have also joined the protest. Over 50 British lawyers, including silks, Baroness Kennedy QC, Lord Lester QC, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC expressed concern in a joint letter to the PM about the modalities of ensuring compliance with the rule of law in Britain after exit.
Their fears:
“We are calling for the EU to make Britain’s membership of the ECHR a legally binding requirement for any future free trade deal with the UK. The rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable when new countries join the EU.”
The action taken by these eminent lawyers points to the fact that in a democracy the government and state institutions alone cannot define the modalities of pluralist state. The need for inputs from civil societies is the hallmark of democratic and transparent governance.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney @
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
https://corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com.ng/
The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscepticism.
Britain did not embrace the idea of European Union which originated from the Treaty of Rome 1957. When she did, it was after a referendum that it finally joined European Economic Community (EEC) through the enactment of European Community Act 1972. Three years after joining she felt unsure whether she had made a wise decision or not, necessitating another referendum in 1975 which confirmed majority’s decision to join EEC.
When Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1992 with European Central Bank, Britain refrained from adopting Euro as her national currency and Sterling never yielded. Because of the far-reaching legal implications, it is not a project countries would like to embrace in a hurry. In the case of European Union, Britain is one country that pondered over the idea, debated and protested about it until they finally joined in 1972. But they skipped the monetary union. One of the reasons for doing so was the issue of sovereignty.
About June 30, 2015 when it had become abundantly clear that Greece failed its international debt obligation, Britain threatened to pull out of the EU, a threat that was made real a year later. Perhaps the pressure on European countries to fulfill their obligations to the avalanche of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc hastened UK’s action in pulling out soon.
Theresa May being the 2nd female Prime Minister (PM), was/is a pro-remain EU conservative, unlike Mrs Margaret Thatcher, late former Premier who was not in a hurry to drag Britain to Brussels; in her view that amounted to subjugation of Westminster. Within the episode the supremacy of parliament became the subject-matter of litigation to the Supreme Court.
In a split judgment of 8 to 3, it took the Supreme Court four days in December, 2016 to decide the appeal from the High Court in favor of an Act of Parliament to kick-start the process of leaving European Union. Before the landmark decision, Prime Minister Theresa May thought and expected the role of parliament in the episode to be that of a by-stander, or complimentary. Rather than waiting and concurring with the British government’s procedures as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty, the Supreme Court declared that indeed the legislature is in charge of the template to chart the retreat to the disappointment of the PM. For the PM it is unnecessary “parliamentary interference”; and for the opposition Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty requires amendment “to prevent the conservative from using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven”.
Article 50 TEU provides for notification in case of Brexit but commentators hold the view that there may be other ways. But does notification connote exit and exonerations from every legal obligations binding through membership? The real basis of EU was signatory to Lisbon Treaty 2007 which consolidated the Treaty of Rome 1957 and Masstricht Treaty 1993.
The PM thinks the repeal of European Communities Act 1972 and communication to Brussels by her government are all required, while the Supreme Court felt there is something more serious in it that requires parliament to legislate on it, to trigger of exit negotiations. There seem to be consensus that once activated Article 50 is irrevocable; i.e no going back to European Union after exit. However, some commentators relying on Article 49 feel it is revocable as they also refer to the High Court’s case of R (Miller) V. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The referendum is only a wish, proclamation of sort which has done nothing yet to remove Britain from EU at least two years after the referendum.
There is no doubt now that Brexit has caused tremendous uncertainty for the regional economy and global business. It started by the EU Summit on Tuesday 28th June, 2016 the first after Brexit, featuring its global economic implications.
EU law incorporates European Convention on Human Rights, European Human Rights Commission, European Court on Human Right and any member country that joins is bound by these provisions and of course the fact that the rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable; but when exiting what components of the bargain go with exit?
There are now heated debates both inside and outside UK parliament as to what would be left for citizens after Brexit: certainly “Europe’s last dictatorship” is not an option. Therefore Leading lawyers and legal experts in their letter to ‘the Observer’ are warning that Brexit could trigger a human rights crisis in the UK that threatens to have a ‘domino effect’ across Europe.
Apart from a group with the tag ‘89up” which has embarked on a bandwagon mission of making Europe ‘a more open, pluralistic and democratic place’, the bunch of eminent legal luminaries have also joined the protest. Over 50 British lawyers, including silks, Baroness Kennedy QC, Lord Lester QC, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC expressed concern in a joint letter to the PM about the modalities of ensuring compliance with the rule of law in Britain after exit.
Their fears:
“We are calling for the EU to make Britain’s membership of the ECHR a legally binding requirement for any future free trade deal with the UK. The rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable when new countries join the EU.”
The action taken by these eminent lawyers points to the fact that in a democracy the government and state institutions alone cannot define the modalities of pluralist state. The need for inputs from civil societies is the hallmark of democratic and transparent governance.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney @
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
https://corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com.ng/
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND NPOWER
THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND NPOWER
As the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) embarks on fiscal performance monitoring of government policies the major one appears to be the social investment and NPower project. The direction and implementation of Federal government’s policy on social investment and NPower remain unsatisfactory if the feedback from people across the nation is anything to go by. Feedback of any nomenclature is appropriate for the government that put the scheme in place, for response and adjustment or scrapping. In other words its success and failure can be measured by the feedback so far.
I am aware that the scheme has three main layers with school feeding being implemented in phases of states across the country. Just the same way 9 states were designated as pilot states. What criteria was adopted in the grouping of states that constitute the first, second and so on? Apparently asserting the equality of states the Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun once said that “Every state is a center of prosperity”. Without further inquiry nothing more than executive discretion appear to be the only criteria. This grouping of states has been criticized for the same reason why former Goldman Sachs economist, Jim O’Neil was criticized for coining group of nations: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as MINT and so on. The concept with economic problems of those nations as undertone was wrongly taken for investment concept.
However, for the conditional cash transfer scheme the first group of states comprising 9 states commenced the payment of N5,000 to the “most vulnerable” in the society amidst confusion as to what eligibility criteria is adopted or to be adopted by states and their communities. Be that as it may, the implementation took off in earnest. Meanwhile fingers are crossed as to how that pans out.
But judging from PMB’s first executive order on the recruitment of 10,000 police officers across the nation that failed to produce desired result because of eligibility criteria, one wonders whether the government learned any lesson from that experience which may come handy for application in the present scenario? This was quickly followed by the proposed recruitment of 500,000 graduates across the nation as teachers. Now one of the questions trailing the experiment is how ‘national’ is the scheme with the kind of disparity seen among the states with competing populations?
This issue of disparity were raised by the proposed beneficiaries from their different states. For instance looking at their data some states like Bayelsa, Akwai Ibom, Bornu produced poorer data (2000+) than Kogi, Lsgos (4000+). What eligibility criteria led to this disparity? And why did federal character balance provided by s.43 of the 1999 Constitution not applied to assuage claims of improper balance?
Perhaps one of the perennial problems with governments when it comes to policies such as this social investment and NPower is inadequacy of publicity. Since they are information-driven schemes, only major urban cities get the quantum of publicity that generate huge responses as opposed to relevant counterparts in non-urban remote states. How was this acknowledged fact handled by the authority to balance the disparity? Or do we say that they were indolent to be domiciled in non-urban states as opposed to their cosmopolitan counterparts.
The stark result is that the policies are real and palpable in cosmopolitan states in relation to less urban states. I believe that the intensity of publicity of the information gave rise to the disparity of awareness reflected on the response level by various states. Therefore it c an be seen that enlightenment in one state appeared more in some communities than the others. That brings to the fore the question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that information of these critical policies receive grass-root awareness, mobilization and implementation. Yet some of the problems appear circumstantial when you consider the fact that for instance no local government or community is without cybercafés; whereas in states like Kebbi, Akwai Ibom, Ebonyi etc cannot boast of such luxury. With programmes such as social investment and NPower and many others which are information-driven and online applicability the disparity is bound to be obvious, therefore shifting the burden of balancing the disparities on the authority.
Iyke Ozemena Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
ideaworkshop@live.com
As the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) embarks on fiscal performance monitoring of government policies the major one appears to be the social investment and NPower project. The direction and implementation of Federal government’s policy on social investment and NPower remain unsatisfactory if the feedback from people across the nation is anything to go by. Feedback of any nomenclature is appropriate for the government that put the scheme in place, for response and adjustment or scrapping. In other words its success and failure can be measured by the feedback so far.
I am aware that the scheme has three main layers with school feeding being implemented in phases of states across the country. Just the same way 9 states were designated as pilot states. What criteria was adopted in the grouping of states that constitute the first, second and so on? Apparently asserting the equality of states the Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun once said that “Every state is a center of prosperity”. Without further inquiry nothing more than executive discretion appear to be the only criteria. This grouping of states has been criticized for the same reason why former Goldman Sachs economist, Jim O’Neil was criticized for coining group of nations: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as MINT and so on. The concept with economic problems of those nations as undertone was wrongly taken for investment concept.
However, for the conditional cash transfer scheme the first group of states comprising 9 states commenced the payment of N5,000 to the “most vulnerable” in the society amidst confusion as to what eligibility criteria is adopted or to be adopted by states and their communities. Be that as it may, the implementation took off in earnest. Meanwhile fingers are crossed as to how that pans out.
But judging from PMB’s first executive order on the recruitment of 10,000 police officers across the nation that failed to produce desired result because of eligibility criteria, one wonders whether the government learned any lesson from that experience which may come handy for application in the present scenario? This was quickly followed by the proposed recruitment of 500,000 graduates across the nation as teachers. Now one of the questions trailing the experiment is how ‘national’ is the scheme with the kind of disparity seen among the states with competing populations?
This issue of disparity were raised by the proposed beneficiaries from their different states. For instance looking at their data some states like Bayelsa, Akwai Ibom, Bornu produced poorer data (2000+) than Kogi, Lsgos (4000+). What eligibility criteria led to this disparity? And why did federal character balance provided by s.43 of the 1999 Constitution not applied to assuage claims of improper balance?
Perhaps one of the perennial problems with governments when it comes to policies such as this social investment and NPower is inadequacy of publicity. Since they are information-driven schemes, only major urban cities get the quantum of publicity that generate huge responses as opposed to relevant counterparts in non-urban remote states. How was this acknowledged fact handled by the authority to balance the disparity? Or do we say that they were indolent to be domiciled in non-urban states as opposed to their cosmopolitan counterparts.
The stark result is that the policies are real and palpable in cosmopolitan states in relation to less urban states. I believe that the intensity of publicity of the information gave rise to the disparity of awareness reflected on the response level by various states. Therefore it c an be seen that enlightenment in one state appeared more in some communities than the others. That brings to the fore the question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that information of these critical policies receive grass-root awareness, mobilization and implementation. Yet some of the problems appear circumstantial when you consider the fact that for instance no local government or community is without cybercafés; whereas in states like Kebbi, Akwai Ibom, Ebonyi etc cannot boast of such luxury. With programmes such as social investment and NPower and many others which are information-driven and online applicability the disparity is bound to be obvious, therefore shifting the burden of balancing the disparities on the authority.
Iyke Ozemena Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
ideaworkshop@live.com
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
ANTI-CORRUPTION AND TERRORISM WAR
ANTI-CORRUPTION AND TERRORISM WAR
As Prof. Itse Sagay-headed presidential Advisory Committee on corruption swings into action, few points deserve comment and note. The personification of corruption by president Muhammed Buhari (PMB) when he said: ‘If Nigeria fails to kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria’ left no one in doubt that the war would be between the hunter and the hunted. It would be brutal and total, otherwise the repraisal or revenge would be grave for the government, Nigeria and the poor masses. The reason is that it would present a graphic picture of where two elephants are fighting.
This point was aptly illustrated by the comment credited to the Chief Justice of Kenya, Willy Mutunga on the state of the government’s anti-corruption and terrorism war. For him the definition of corrupt practices includes terrorism and needs to be tackled with the same intensity as terrorism. In order to gather the speed required to deal with the cankerworm in the life of this administration no one should be treated with kid gloves.
In this regard, the vice president Prof. Yemi Osinbanjo in one of his campaign speeches said “When you fail to reform the system, corruption increases.” In advancing the quest I found Dr Kolawale Olaniyan’s comprehensive definition of corruption in his new book ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa’ very apt: “…the deliberate, intentional mass stealing of public wealth and resources by senior state officials entrusted with its fair and honest management, for the common good and achievement of human rights, whether carried out individually or collectively, but with the support, encouragement, or acquiescence of the state, combined with a refusal to genuinely, thoroughly and transparently investigate and/or prosecute the mass stealing and recover stolen assets, which violates the human rights of the economically and socially vulnerable.”
Since the inauguration of this administration in May 2015, the signal sent across the world is that of total warfare against corrupt practices and terror. Unjust enrichment is both criminal as well as a breach of trust. It is rooted in the mindset of greed. The first anti-corruption probe by the late General Murtala Mohammed’s 200-day administration of the 9-year administration of General Yakubu Gowon, as unannounced as it was found some governors and ministers who served in the government incorruptible. No surprises at all; the species are available.
Similarly the president’s appointment of Dr Emmanuel Kachikwu as the new Group Managing Director may not necessarily have anthing to do with his being an “outsider” since he had been part of Nigerian private sector which has never been insulated from corruption. In other words corrupt practices is a thing of the mindset. Many would be tempted but some would still remain untainted.
When the word ‘corruption’ is mentioned any where in the world in connection with Nigeria, invariably what crosses the mind is Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) because of the mono nature of the economy. There is no doubt therefore that whoever the president appoints to head that institution does not only receive the hardest search light on him but should also consider himself as anti-corruption war czar for the president. That is why Dr Kachikwu’s appointment is critical and sensitive.
The ban on those Very Large Crude Carriers implicated in stolen crude oil and illegal bunkering, as well as the sack of some NNPC top officials including the managing director, are probably the best shots in the sector. But beyond that the apprehension and trial of those implicated are necessary corollary to that preliminary purge. Apart from savings from the down sizing purge, it clears the way to probe and audit the relevant accounts and connections, including but not limited to Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Department of Customs, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) apparently not backed by legislation since 2010, Nigerian Maritme Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).
The next in the probe line is that of petroleum subsidy regime. There was no transparency in the way it has been handled by succeeding governments through the NNPC. More disclosures are called for about the transactions and their operations: the public needs more disclosures similar to those provided by the Petroleum Industry Bill. Although Price Waterhouse & Cooper has started part of the probe those culprits in the deliberate refusal to pay incomes of NNPC into Federation Account according to s. 162 of 1999 constitution, should be dealt with according to the law. The top officials sacked and those remaining at the NNPC should declare their assets as part of the ongoing war.
The former minister of petroleum was chairman of NNPC and until the NNPC Act is amended future ministers would keep the post. In this dispensation it is imperative that no political office holder is allowed to be chairman of NNPC. That way the institution would be insulated from corrupt tendencies of politicians. Already NNPC has been accused by Transparency International to have the worst disclosure record out of 44 international and national energy companies analysed in a 2011 report.
As prices of oil dwindles fetching less and less income the tendencies for corrupt practices, especially by international oil companies (IOCs) even as the government comes under pressure to reduce taxes and exploration costs of the up stream in response to global practices. This led some governments to flaunt the shield of contractual obligation come rain, come shine. It may not be possible to alter conditions and terms of agreement unless there is an arbitration clause or alteration of terms mid-way included in the agreement.
Corruption is bound to trail local content Act. The IOCs were reluctant to receive Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) because about 95% of assets in the industry belonge to them; all ownership and operatorship of off-shore Rigs and Marine Vesels belonged to them; oil field techniques; Research and Development came from foreign firms. At the same time technical and complicated legal services are still being organized from abroad, as over 95% of industry spend was made outside Nigeria. Naturally these details were threatened by the existence of the Act. Therefore sabotage, which is act of war cannot be ruled out.
Often times combatant forces are accused of offences against humanity when acting on the orders of the government as principal. Who is then culpable: the soldiers or the government? S. 218(3) of the 1999 constitution authorizes the president to “deploy armed forces for operational use” defined in S.8(3) of the Armed Forces Act to include the military power fo the purpose of maintaining and securing public safety and order in Nigeria. Accordingly PMB had recently ordered the Armed Forces to clear the insurgency stable in three months. The order does not need assembly’s confirmation for efficacy. What determines the outcome is the preparation, warfare arsenal and professionalism of the military. This is where the probe of arms supplied to Nigerian Armed Forces from 2007 becomes relevant
.
That Ban Ki Moon’s invitation of PMB to World Leaders Forum taking place in New York for UN Resolution Against Terrorism is not only a boost, it has already signaled global attack on Boko Haram.
Finally the Committee would probably consider how the first budget under this regime should reflect the anti-corruption stance of the government; as well as proposed reforms on the inadequacies of ICPC, EFCC, ACJA Acts meant to fight corruption.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
As Prof. Itse Sagay-headed presidential Advisory Committee on corruption swings into action, few points deserve comment and note. The personification of corruption by president Muhammed Buhari (PMB) when he said: ‘If Nigeria fails to kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria’ left no one in doubt that the war would be between the hunter and the hunted. It would be brutal and total, otherwise the repraisal or revenge would be grave for the government, Nigeria and the poor masses. The reason is that it would present a graphic picture of where two elephants are fighting.
This point was aptly illustrated by the comment credited to the Chief Justice of Kenya, Willy Mutunga on the state of the government’s anti-corruption and terrorism war. For him the definition of corrupt practices includes terrorism and needs to be tackled with the same intensity as terrorism. In order to gather the speed required to deal with the cankerworm in the life of this administration no one should be treated with kid gloves.
In this regard, the vice president Prof. Yemi Osinbanjo in one of his campaign speeches said “When you fail to reform the system, corruption increases.” In advancing the quest I found Dr Kolawale Olaniyan’s comprehensive definition of corruption in his new book ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa’ very apt: “…the deliberate, intentional mass stealing of public wealth and resources by senior state officials entrusted with its fair and honest management, for the common good and achievement of human rights, whether carried out individually or collectively, but with the support, encouragement, or acquiescence of the state, combined with a refusal to genuinely, thoroughly and transparently investigate and/or prosecute the mass stealing and recover stolen assets, which violates the human rights of the economically and socially vulnerable.”
Since the inauguration of this administration in May 2015, the signal sent across the world is that of total warfare against corrupt practices and terror. Unjust enrichment is both criminal as well as a breach of trust. It is rooted in the mindset of greed. The first anti-corruption probe by the late General Murtala Mohammed’s 200-day administration of the 9-year administration of General Yakubu Gowon, as unannounced as it was found some governors and ministers who served in the government incorruptible. No surprises at all; the species are available.
Similarly the president’s appointment of Dr Emmanuel Kachikwu as the new Group Managing Director may not necessarily have anthing to do with his being an “outsider” since he had been part of Nigerian private sector which has never been insulated from corruption. In other words corrupt practices is a thing of the mindset. Many would be tempted but some would still remain untainted.
When the word ‘corruption’ is mentioned any where in the world in connection with Nigeria, invariably what crosses the mind is Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) because of the mono nature of the economy. There is no doubt therefore that whoever the president appoints to head that institution does not only receive the hardest search light on him but should also consider himself as anti-corruption war czar for the president. That is why Dr Kachikwu’s appointment is critical and sensitive.
The ban on those Very Large Crude Carriers implicated in stolen crude oil and illegal bunkering, as well as the sack of some NNPC top officials including the managing director, are probably the best shots in the sector. But beyond that the apprehension and trial of those implicated are necessary corollary to that preliminary purge. Apart from savings from the down sizing purge, it clears the way to probe and audit the relevant accounts and connections, including but not limited to Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Department of Customs, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) apparently not backed by legislation since 2010, Nigerian Maritme Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).
The next in the probe line is that of petroleum subsidy regime. There was no transparency in the way it has been handled by succeeding governments through the NNPC. More disclosures are called for about the transactions and their operations: the public needs more disclosures similar to those provided by the Petroleum Industry Bill. Although Price Waterhouse & Cooper has started part of the probe those culprits in the deliberate refusal to pay incomes of NNPC into Federation Account according to s. 162 of 1999 constitution, should be dealt with according to the law. The top officials sacked and those remaining at the NNPC should declare their assets as part of the ongoing war.
The former minister of petroleum was chairman of NNPC and until the NNPC Act is amended future ministers would keep the post. In this dispensation it is imperative that no political office holder is allowed to be chairman of NNPC. That way the institution would be insulated from corrupt tendencies of politicians. Already NNPC has been accused by Transparency International to have the worst disclosure record out of 44 international and national energy companies analysed in a 2011 report.
As prices of oil dwindles fetching less and less income the tendencies for corrupt practices, especially by international oil companies (IOCs) even as the government comes under pressure to reduce taxes and exploration costs of the up stream in response to global practices. This led some governments to flaunt the shield of contractual obligation come rain, come shine. It may not be possible to alter conditions and terms of agreement unless there is an arbitration clause or alteration of terms mid-way included in the agreement.
Corruption is bound to trail local content Act. The IOCs were reluctant to receive Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) because about 95% of assets in the industry belonge to them; all ownership and operatorship of off-shore Rigs and Marine Vesels belonged to them; oil field techniques; Research and Development came from foreign firms. At the same time technical and complicated legal services are still being organized from abroad, as over 95% of industry spend was made outside Nigeria. Naturally these details were threatened by the existence of the Act. Therefore sabotage, which is act of war cannot be ruled out.
Often times combatant forces are accused of offences against humanity when acting on the orders of the government as principal. Who is then culpable: the soldiers or the government? S. 218(3) of the 1999 constitution authorizes the president to “deploy armed forces for operational use” defined in S.8(3) of the Armed Forces Act to include the military power fo the purpose of maintaining and securing public safety and order in Nigeria. Accordingly PMB had recently ordered the Armed Forces to clear the insurgency stable in three months. The order does not need assembly’s confirmation for efficacy. What determines the outcome is the preparation, warfare arsenal and professionalism of the military. This is where the probe of arms supplied to Nigerian Armed Forces from 2007 becomes relevant
.
That Ban Ki Moon’s invitation of PMB to World Leaders Forum taking place in New York for UN Resolution Against Terrorism is not only a boost, it has already signaled global attack on Boko Haram.
Finally the Committee would probably consider how the first budget under this regime should reflect the anti-corruption stance of the government; as well as proposed reforms on the inadequacies of ICPC, EFCC, ACJA Acts meant to fight corruption.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL TRAVAILS
OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL TRAVAILS
It is ‘third time around’ for the homeboy! This time, for
business: Global Entrepreneurial Summit, Kenya. Besides the scourge and
travails of coming from one of the minority races in the land of opportunities,
Barrack Obama pursued his dreams to power amidst numerous challenges. There were successes recorded too; but none
of them, according to his autobiographical account was given or thrust on
him. He achieved them by dint of hard
work and detertmination that stood firm for success.
The tremendous work he did in Chicago attracted support to
become the state’s congressman and later a senator. Though he was not the first black senator but
he became the first black senator that became the 44th president of
the United States of America in 2009.
Commentators on his ascendancy to power always refer to his speech
at the California Democrat’s convention in 2004 to be the catalyst to his
recognition of his capacity and political endowment to lead the party. No other person than the present Secretary of
State, John Kerry facilitated the momentum.
His citizenship and legitimacy to contest the presidency
under US constitution was challenged to the Supreme Court and he won. Also his religious
life was called into question, with his Church Pastor Jeremiah Wright
castigated, when he was accused of making racial comment. The alleged racial
comment adversely influenced many to believe that Obama being a member of his
church would be unsuitable to become
neutral and unbiased president.
However, it was one of the Pastor’s sermon that Obama used with
slight adaptation, as title to his best seller book: “Audacity of Hope”. Like
the late minister and motivational author, Dr Myles Munroe noted: “Success is
determined by the opposition a man has encountered and the courage with which
he has maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds.” The opposition against Obama’s candidacy was
almost overwhelming, especially from Republican party and far right
groups. Yet Obama overcame all those
odds.
Sometimes negative publicity meant to pull someone down do
turn out to be beneficial. Napoleon
Hill, that great author of “Think and Grow Rich” said: “Every adversity, every
failure brings with it the seed of even greater benefit”. Obama’s case proved that.
When he rose from the ashes of that religious controversy and allegation that he was not a Christian due to his Kenyan family background, mostly
non-christians, he became strong enough to contest the presidency.
His election thereafter broke the jinx that the White House
was ment for white presidents. His
swearing-in was performed twice which made his presidency unique. When a former White House staff, Sarah Fagen
referred to him as “a lame duck” he looked the other way and went ahead to
introduce a new tradition “Easter Prayer Breakfast” at the White House. Christian leaders across American states
gathered in attendance.
Obama administration has been stormy and challenging especially assuming office at the peak of
global economic melt-down. Even though
he commenced with democrat’s majority at the congress and representatives, he
soon lost them to the Republicans due to mid-term elections. He was fortunate to garner enough support to
pass the Obamacare Health Insurance meant to extend health care to more
ordinary Americans who could not afford better health care than ever before.
Since the law came into force he had not slept with his two eyes closed because
Republicans have threatened to repeal the law.
Litigations towards achieving the repeal commenced more than a year ago
and just some weeks ago the president triumphed. But John Borhner, Republican speaker inspite
of the Supreme Court decision in favor of Obamacare , it is still “Aluta
Continua”.
That is not the only success visible on the screen. The first Latina Supreme Court judge in the
name of Sonia Sotomayor nominated by Obama and confirmed congress came with
criticisms which were also overcome.
His campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
where terrorist and dangerous suspects were detained lingered on into his
second term because of much controversy that trailed the decision. Yet he overcame.
No less controversial was his nomination of Loretta Lynch as
Attorney-General. The criticism and opposition that trailed the nomination
manifested in the dilatory atmosphere that pervaded the congress. As the
nomination tarried, it became quite clear that the congress never liked Mr
President’s candidate a bit.
As Obama visits Africa the third time he would be fondly remembered
for being the first sitting American president to visit Ethopia. Besides, his administration
has maintained a policy of strengthening and empowering regional and sovereign
nations to embrace and practice liberal democracy, through training,
collaboration and exchange of policies and ideas. Those are the value Africa
must take from his visit.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU
O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate
Attorneys/Consultants
www.corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)