SINCE we were involved in the failed campaign to retrieve Bakassi Peninsula from Cameroon, we might as well give it an appropriate post-mortem analysis now that it is gone for good.

While the debates raged on the pages of Vanguard and other media forums, the nation was greeted with absolute silence from presidential quarters until the President, Goodluck Jonathan, travelled to New York on Tuesday, September 25th 2012 to address the plenary of the United Nations on the Rule of Law.

He shocked millions of patriotic Nigerians by saying Nigeria would continue to abide by the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), thus apparently foreclosing the pursuit of a review of the 2002 judgement of the Court awarding the Peninsula to Cameroon.

Then, on Thursday, October 4th, barely five days to the close of the ten-year window for review, the President appeared to have had a rethink and set up a committee to examine the fresh evidence that could be taken to the Court for review and possible reversal of the verdict. Evidence from many members of the committee suggest there was no real meeting nor commitment by the Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke, to do as the President said. Instead he issued a statement saying Nigeria would not revisit the case, as the time to do so was too short and going there would “hurt” Nigeria’s diplomatic image! Then he hinted at the possibility of a “buy-back” option.

To me, this strange fancy footwork from the Presidency amounted to a dribbling of Nigerians, and it was so shoddily done that the crass lack of will was there for all to see. We had all of ten years to seek for fresh facts. We woke up, five days to deadline, to discover time was too short! There were no fresh facts because the President and his teams were not interested in looking at what was being pushed under their nostrils. Otherwise, what did we have to lose, especially as seeking a review did not amount to disobeying the ruling of the court?

“Buy-back” laughable

The issue of a possible “buy-back” was as laughable as it was fraudulently meant to give false hopes. Pray, does Cameroon want to sell? Can you buy a commodity that is not for sale? Has a buy-back option ever been tabled in over forty years of Bakassi controversy? How smart is a nation that gives away its territory only to go and buy it back?

The fact is that Bakassi was just an available booty for the ruling establishment. General Gowon used it to win a war. Olusegun Obasanjo used it to try and win a Nobel Prize for Peace, while the lawyers he hired went home with billions of naira (who knows what other concessions) for merely going to work with their Cameroonian counterparts to go with our land. Jonathan used it to maintain his image of an international “good boy”, a policy he has pursued in his attitudes to the crises in Cote D’Ivoire, Libya and Mali, where the vital interests of Western powers seemed to override our own national and regional interests.

Deal sealed and delivered

Now that Bakassi Peninsula has been permanently ceded to Cameroon, the options towards cleaning up after the party are very simple. Bakassi is in Cameroon. Bakassi indigenes are now Cameroonians, even though they are Efiks. They should return to their country. The so-called resettlement centre in Akpabuyo should be shut down. However, any Cameroonian (including those from Bakassi) who desires to live and make a living in Nigeria should obtain their papers and feel free. After all, there are millions of Nigerians living happily in Cameroon. In any case, Bakassi will not be the only place where a Nigerian ethnic group spills into a foreign country. There are Yorubas in Benin Republic and many Nigerian clans along the eastern border bestride the two countries.

I am totally opposed to the issue of “resettlement” of Bakassi people in Nigeria. Nothing good will ever come of it. The land in which they are being “settled” already belongs to Akpabuyo people. Even before now, Bakassi castaways had been disenfranchised because they are foreigners. Now that the cession is complete, they will be no better treated than the Liberian refugees camped in Ogun State since 1991 when their civil war broke out. They are no longer under our flag. Why live the miserable life of refugees when you can go back to your homeland where you really belong?

The “Resettlement” racket

Resettlement” is being packaged by the likes of so-called Mama Bakassi, Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, after the post-amnesty deal, whereby the Federal government pumps money to ex-militants through noisy local brokers and not-so-noisy repentant “ex-generals”. Those asking for “resettlement” of the Bakassi displaced persons only want to benefit from a post-amnesty look-alike racket. It is the same racket that those clamouring for amnesty for Boko Haram terrorists have been angling for. Therefore I say “No” to Bakassi indigenes “resettlement” in Nigeria just as I opposed a Federal government-funded amnesty deal for Boko Haram. Local elites angle for these “deals” for their own selfish interest.

The Bakassi people and their surrounding kinsmen participated fully in the conspiracies that led to the confiscation of their land by Cameroon. For forty years they laid back supine and allowed buccaneers from other parts of the country to stomp all over them. In fact, the Igbos were more passionate and vocal for the return of Bakassi to Nigeria than the people who owned the land.

Two options are open to them. Number one is to ask for a plebiscite for self-determination from the UN. In this Nigerians will be solidly behind them. Number two is to join the onerous struggle for a Republic of Ambazonia.

Whatever they choose to do, I wish them good luck and goodbye!

The All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) has expressed concern over the continued absence of a law to protect Nigerians in the cyber space.

The party in a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Chief Emma Eneukwu, said its attention has been drawn to media reports where stakeholders in Nigeria Defence, Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other security agencies were worried with the emerging threat of cyber-crimes in the country.

It said the situation has worsened with the ongoing policy of cashless society driven by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

“With many businesses going online and Nigerians being encouraged by the government to embrace mobile phone, e-payment and internet banking, our great party is worried about the safety of the users of these services and the truth that our great nation is not prepared for the threats and vulnerabilities of the information age,” the statement added.

Cyber crime is defined as offences that are committed using modern telecommunication networks such as internet and mobile phones.

The ANPP spokesman expressed regret that the crime was taking its toll on the socio-economic wellbeing of Nigerians.

“Such crimes threaten our nation’s security and financial health. In fact, Nigerians have not fully recovered from the shock of the recent discovery that Nigeria’s State Security Service (SSS) pension details were released online, which was later seen to be a manifestation of internet hackers’ job; or the gruesome murder of Cynthia Osukogu, who was killed by friends she met through the social media. It is also a fact that the escapades of the so-called yahoo boys gave Nigeria a bad reputation in the global community.

Eneukwu recalled that in 2004, the Nigerian Cybercrime Working Group (NCWG) was constituted to draft the first bill on Nigerian Cybercrime Act in order to facilitate the enactment of a cyber-law for the nation.

He lamented that up till now the law has not been enacted.

“It is a manifest truth that where there is no law to serve as a deterrent to potential criminals, the society is at a risk of witnessing the mushrooming of diverse offenders. Surely, such a law is needed to provide an atmosphere for fair punishment as well as discourage intending cybercriminals from carrying on with their plans, as the now common availability of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs), like Blackberry, Smart phones and I-pads, has made such crimes easy to perpetrate.

“The ANPP therefore calls on the Federal Government to update the nation’s IT security framework to align with the global emerging ICT trend and its evolving security threats.

“We also call on the National Assembly to hasten the harmonisation of the Nigerian Cybercrime bills, in order to safeguard the nation’s banking sector, security and social interface. We believe that no matter the resources and personnel voted to the war against cyber-crime in Nigeria, without a well-structured enabling legislation, the fight will end up as mere words, at worst, and as another white elephant venture as best,” he said.

At the Just concluded International Monetary Fund/World Bank Group Annual Meetings, all the finance ministers of the world and the governors of central banks met to assess the state of the world’s economy and finances so that each country will get to know what is happening and take adequate measures to either protect its economy or adopt measures to foster its economic growth in the content of trends and developments around the world.

This is the major reason of the annual meetings. It was also a venue where nations seek advice on how they can manage their economies in the context of the global environment and many shared experiences. Nigeria was represented at the meetings by the Finance Minister, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala and CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.

From the various seminars, papers and discussions at the meetings, it was clear that there was high level of uncertainty in the global economy. Several discussants submitted that there may be further slow down of the global economy describing the gains so far made as very fragile.

52ND ANNIVERSARY CAKE: President Goodluck Jonathan flanked by Gen.Gowon (third left); David Mark, Dr Alex Ekwueme; Vice Prresident Namadi Sambo (second left) and other dignitaries during the cutting of the 52nd Independence anniversary cake Photo: Abayomi Adeshida.

Two central themes came on board the discussions – that of ravaging disaster wreaking havoc across the globe as a result of climate change and the need to build into national planning, disaster management; and the urgent need for nations to build buffer to contain external shock in the event of economic recession and for managing disasters when they do occur.

While these issues took center stage in Tokyo, Japan, President Goodluck Jonathan presented the 2013 appropriation bill to the National Assembly. The bill has since generated heated debate especially on what should be the right benchmark for crude oil price for the 2013 budget proposal before the National Assembly.

In the current budget debate as to the rationale for using $75 as benchmark price for crude instead of $80, it is pertinent that Nigerians take cognisance of what is going on globally, in order to position the nation for economic development to take place. It must not be personalised and it should not be about who wins the argument. It should be about what is good for Nigeria in the context of present realities.

If the budget benchmark is moved from $75 to $80, the question to ask is; what advantage will the ordinary Nigerian derive from it? Moving the benchmark to $80 or more, will not in any way increase the revenue accruing to the nation. If Nigeria produces two million barrels per day and sells at the international market for $100 per barrel, the revenue generated will be $2 billion.

That the budget is based on $75 will only mean that Nigeria will spend $75 from every $100 earned and save $25. If the benchmark is moved to $80 per barrel, Nigeria will spend $80 of every $100 earned and save $20. What this means is that the executive arm of government is saying ‘let us save an extra $5 now that prices are good’ while the National Assembly members are saying ‘no, spend $5 more now and save less.’

It also means increasing the amount available for sharing among the three tiers of government from the common pool. There is no increase in revenue generation into the federation account.

As it is in economic history, a poor country caught in poverty trap will always want to consume every kobo it earns while those climbing the ladder of wealth would always save part of their income. It is from savings that funds are released for investments to be made whether at household, corporate or national level. Without savings, no investment can take place. Nigeria needs to save now instead of squandering what it earns now on subsidy that is fraught with corruption.

A budget oil benchmark price of $75/barrel for the 2013 period is below current world market prices and based on moving averages of the world oil price, allowing for uncertainty in world oil price movements. The question is what the extra amount will be spent on? Already, the budget is 72 per cent recurrent and 28 per cent for projects that will benefit the common man. Will it not be better for Nigerians to focus on areas where additional revenue will be generated from? Why are we so fixated on sharing and not on baking the proverbial national cake?

The bigger the cake, the larger will be each component’s share of it. Nigerians keep thinking that oil price will hold firm, of which there is no guarantee, nobody can guarantee that. Nigeria needs to make sure it has alternative resources in the event of the collapse in the price of oil. Has the National Assembly given thought to the fact that the various reforms going on in the power sector, port, and infrastructure can generate much more revenue for the country than oil?

Is it not shameful that Nigeria still imports fuel and spend billions on fuel import subsidy? The National Assembly should convince the nation why the benchmark should be $80 outside spending more on wages, salaries and entitlement of a few privileged Nigerians in public service.