Minister of State in the ministry of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), under President Goodluck Jonathan, Ms Jumoke Akinjide, has turned in to save from emaraasing detention, a Federal House of Representatives, Aliyu Ahman Pategi who stood as surety upon which she was released.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), today, Tuesday, withdrew the detention order on Aliyu Pategi when the former minister turned herself in at the Ikoyi office of the Commission in Lagos.
The Federal lawmaker, representing Edu/Moro/Patigi Federal Constituency of Kwara State was on Friday remanded in EFCC custody by a Lagos State Magistrate Court, Igbosere for failing to produce the suspect when needed by investigators and her failure to appear before a Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan for three proceedings.
Ms Jumoke, who has been evading arraignment in the Federal High Court Ibadan, presided by Justice Ayo Emmanuel, is facing a 24 count charge of Money Laundering in Suit No.FHC/1B/26C/2017.
The court had threatened to dismiss the matter if the prosecution could not produce her in court at the next adjourned date, 22nd June 2017. This prompted the prosecution to drag the surety before the Lagos State Magistrate Court to show cause why the N650 million bond will not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Pategi, however regained his freedom as information reached the court through his counsel that Ms Akinjide had presented herself to the EFCC. This was confirmed by EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo.
“I have just confirmed from operatives of the EFCC that Oloye Jumoke Akinjide has turned herself in at the Ikoyi Office. Since it was inability of the 2nd respondent to produce her that triggered our application, we would therefore in the interest of justice, apply that the suit be struck out in view of success of 2nd respondent to secure the appearance of 1st respondent”, Oyedepo said.
Upon submissions of both parties, presiding Chief Magistrate Afolashade Botoku struck out the EFCC application.
Jumoke Akinjide, alongside Oyo State PDP Chairman Yinka Taiwo are being accused by EFCC of fraudulently receiving the sum of N650 million from former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke out of the $115 million doled out by the former minister, allegedly to influence the outcome of the 2015 presidential election.
The said sum was alleged to be gratification received by Mrs. Alison-Madueke from various oil marketers such as Northern Belt Oil and Gas Company, Actus Integrated Investment Limited, Midwestern Oil and Gas Company Limited and Adesanya Leno Olaitab.
Based on evidence of her alleged involvement in the crime, Ms. Akinjide was invited to the EFCC office in Lagos on 9 August, 2016 and wrote a statement after which Mr. Pategi entered a bail bond of N650million to be forfeited should Ms. Akinjide jumps administrative bail.
The suspect, who presented herself to the Commission today after months of hide and seek, is currently cooling her heels in EFCC custody pursuant to arraignment on June 22. [myad]
The indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), a group agitating for the creation of the Republic of Biafra, under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu, has lamented what it called a mess into which Nigeria has been thrown by leaders who, it said, lacked mental capacity.
The group, in a statement, remarked that for the acting President, Professor Yemi Osibanjo, to have said that Biafra agitators are violating the provisions of “the General Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, confirms the widely held view that African leaders lack the mental capacity and discipline to operate a constitutional democracy in a modern world.”
The group insisted that its members are exercising their God given and inalienable right to self determination, adding that if the corrupt ruling class in Nigeria cannot distinguish between those rights that are sacrosanct, “such as freedom of association and freedom of expression under which IPOB operates, then the entire political edifice in Nigeria is a monumental mess.
“It is very shameful that a professor of law cannot situate the Nigeria constitution within the context and meaning of the right to self determination as recognized in international law. Somebody should please draw the attention of Professor Yemi Osibanjo to the provisions of the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which Nigeria ratified and went ahead to domesticate into her local laws.
“How can a professor of law threaten jail term for those exercising their right to self determination under laws adopted and ratified by Nigeria? This confirms again the widely held view that legal practice in Nigeria is one almighty joke. We are challenging Prof. Osinbajo to show the whole world how, where and when IPOB committed this offence he alluded to since the inception of the current phase of the agitation.
“The criminal political cabal that led President Buhari astray on the issue of Biafra agitation are at it again. By assuring Osinbajo that threatening language, mass arrests, illegal detention, killings and brutal crackdown will frighten IPOB into submission, this same group of corrupt criminals are setting up Osinbajo to fail the same way they caused Buhari’s failure.
“If Osinbajo continues to heed their evil counsel by using threatening language when addressing IPOB he will end up a failure like Buhari. Nigeria must understand how ready we are to go to prison. They should build more illegal detention facilities because we cannot stop agitating for our right to self determination until the Nigerian government accepts the need for a date for referendum on the question of Biafra.
“Professor Yemi Osibanjo should have consulted superior legal minds to advice him before coming on air to make such misleading comments. The Nigerian Constitution and its provisions cannot supersede international charters and treaties freely entered into by the Nigerian state where such treaties appear to render null and void the obnoxious provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
“Those that wrongly advised Prof. Osinbajo to embark upon the citation of the ill conceived constitutional reference to the indissolubility of the Nigeria, should refer to the landmark Nigerian Supreme Court judgement on the case of Abacha Vs. Fawehinmi. United Nations charter on the rights of indigenous people and African charter which was ratified and signed by Nigeria is still in place till today and overrides the Nigerian Constitution on the rights for the indigenous people to the self determination.
“We are warning the vocal few rented saboteurs and uneducated public commentators in Nigeria to stop the perverse insinuation that Biafra agitation is all about war. IPOB is not asking for war, rather what we are asking for is self determination and the only way to achieve that is through the internationally recognized instrument of referendum or plebiscite.” [myad]
The Oba of Lagos, Rilwan Akiolu, has insisted before an Ikeja High Court, today, Tuesday that he remains the rightfully elected monarch of Lagos, as he resumed hearing of a suit challenging his right to the throne as Oba of Lagos.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that on May 22, the last adjournment day which was a day to the 14-year anniversary of his coronation on May 23, 2003 as the Oba of Lagos, Akiolu, citing historical sources, had told the court that he is the bona fide monarch of the state.
Akiolu’s title is being challenged by Prince Adedoyin Adebiyi and Prince Rasheed Modile who are both of the Akinsemoyin Ruling House of Lagos.
It woulde be recalled that Adebiyi and Modile were candidates chosen by the Akinsemoyin Ruling House to contest the Obaship title in 2003 after the demise of Oba Adeyinka Oyekan, the then Oba of Lagos in 2003.
They lost the race to Akiolu who they alleged had no rightful claim to the throne.
Joined in the suit as respondents are the state governor and the Attorney-General of Lagos State, Prince Awobade Pearse, Others are the representative of the Ologun Kutere Ruling House and Chief J.J Junaid – Eko and the head of the traditional white cap chiefs of Lagos.
Other respondents include Prince Kola Balogun and Mr Musibau Kelani, who are the respectively the Head and Secretary of the Eshilokun Royal Family.
While being cross examined by Mr Babatunde Fashanu (SAN), Akiolu reasserted that the age-long traditional customs and traditions were followed in his selection as an oba.
Responding to claims that he was elected less than 90-days after the demise of Oyekan which is contrary to customs, Akiolu said that such a rule was non– existent.
“There have been 21 Obas of Lagos before the late Oba Oyekan, in the Lagos State selection of Obas, there is no 90-day rule.
“By the grace of God, I am a lawyer, I am duty bound to speak the truth, I have a duty to assist the court.
“The 90-day rule does not exist in the selection of Obas,”he said.
Akiolu disputed the claims of Adebiyi and Modile that he was not a descendant of Oba Ologun Kutere, a former Oba of Lagos who reigned from the late 1700s to the early 1800s.
“Oba Ologun Kutere had five children, one of which was Akiolu, Akintoye was the last child and Akiolu and Olusi were the older children.
“Akintoye was three months old when Oba Ologun Kutere died, I don’t know how old Akiolu was when his father died.
“By the grace of God, I am a direct descendant of Akiolu Ologun Kutere.”
When asked by Fashanu to state in order of seniority, the children of Oba Ologun Kutere, Akiolu retorted “I don’t know, I don’t work at the births and deaths registry.
“What is important is that Akiolu is the child of Ologun Kutere.
“There have been three members of the Akiolu family who ran for the Oba of Lagos including an Akiolu family member known as Baba Ita-Ado, I can’t remember when he ran and I cannot tell lies.
“All Lagos princes who have no curse placed on them are entitled to run for the kingship, it is however the prerogative of the king makers to choose who will be king.
“Many are called, few are chosen,” he said.
Akiolu noted that his being capped as Oba during his coronation ceremony by a representative of the Eleboro family was not illegal despite the fact that it was not presided over by Chief Eleboro, who personally caps Obas of Lagos.
“Contrary to claims that in the history of Lagos, no Oba has been capped by any person other than Chief Eleboro, Oba Adeniji Adele was capped by Chief Gafir.
“The Eleboro family capped me,”he said.
Akiolu denied holding grudges against individuals who he allegedly disliked by preventing them from succeeding him as the monarch in future.
“The claimants had wanted to meet with me somewhere to sign a document regarding the succession but I refused.
“It is not an individual position; it belongs to the past, present and future.
“All human beings should not hate each other, we are equal in the eyes of God but not equal in our love for God,”Akiolu said.
Justice Adebowale Candide-Johnson adjourned the case until July 5, 6 and 11 for continuation of trial.
“Let us continue to counsel the misguided elements among our youth, who think that ethnic confrontation is a game and that words can be thrown around carelessly without repercussion.”
These were the advice given by the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo when he had a consultative meeting with traditional rulers and other prominent leaders from the North at the Aso Rock Presidential Villa today, Tuesday.
Osinbajo told the royal fathers that the divisive rhetoric and agitations coming out of the youths in the South East, going by the name of IPOB and the North are unjustifiable, unacceptable and often times illegal.
“The reason for these series of meetings is well known to all of us; it became necessary in the wake of a spate of divisive statements, in recent months and weeks, pitching the South-East against the North.
“We are all aware of the so-called ‘ultimatum’ issued by a group of Northern youths, asking that all Igbos living in the North vacate the region.
“Before then, there was the clamour, and it’s still on-going, by some south-eastern youths, operating as IPOB and affiliated groups, demanding secession from Nigeria at all costs and by any means.
“In all our previous engagements with Northern and South-Eastern leaders, we all came to the consensus that Nigeria is stronger and better together, and that these hate-filled and divisive rhetoric and agitations are unjustifiable, unacceptable and often times illegal. And I would like to reiterate that today.”
The acting president said that the traditional rulers had a great role to play in checking the divisive tendencies in the country, stressing that Nigeria had already seen enough violence and bloodshed during its history.
According to him, the price of Nigeria’s unity has already been paid with the blood and lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians lost.
Recalling President Muhammadu Buhari’s commitment to one Nigeria from his experience in the military, Osinbajo said that Buhari fought side by side with Nigerians of every tribe and faith.
The acting president said: “We must protect each other, put our lives on the line for each other; we were brothers even in the face of death. This is the type of nation we must maintain.
“As royal fathers and leaders, I think you will agree with me that we all have a role to play in countering the voices of divisiveness, and the elements who seek to take us down a bloody path.
Osinbajo assured the traditional rulers that the “government is not deaf to the legitimate concerns and frustrations in parts of the country.
“Every part of Nigeria has its own grievances. But these have to be expressed graciously and managed with mutuality rather than with scorn and disdain.
“I would like to assure you all that we are here to listen and to answer, and, very importantly, to reassure everyone that we are committed to the unity of Nigeria, and that upon the foundation of that unity we can together build a prosperous and great country.’’
He urged all Nigerians never take the nation’s diversity for granted, saying the fullness of the nation’s strength “actually lies in that diversity.
“And we must wield that diversity, not as divisive tool, but instead as a binding agent.
“As we round up these consultations tomorrow with a meeting with governors, it is clear to me that we are all resolved to by words, conduct and action, promote the unity of our dear nation.”
He assured that the government would ensure that “the entire apparatus of government is deployed to ensure that no one threatens Nigeria’s territorial integrity and that no one threatens the lives or livelihoods of any Nigerian living anywhere in the country.”
He thanked the traditional rulers for their unyielding cooperation and support, Osinbajo prayed that almighty God would continue to give them the wisdom and the strength to preside over their Kingdoms and the good health to reign long and reign well.
Among those who attended the meeting included the Sultan of Sokoto, Sultan Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III; Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi and the Etsu Nupe, AlhajiYahaya Abubakar.
Others were, Alhaji Muhammed Isah Muhammed, theEmir of Jama’a in Kaduna State; Justice Lawal Hassan, the Emir of Gummi; the Coordinator of the Northern traditional rulers council, Sakaruyi of Karo Dr. Emmanuel Kyauta, and the representative of the Emir of Katsina, Prof. Sani Lugga ,the Waziri Katsina.
The Emir of Ilorin, Alhaji Ibrahim Gambari; Alhaji Mustapha Agwai II, Emir of Lafia in Nasarawa State; Alhaji Kyari Umar El-Kanemi, Shehu of Bama representing Shehu of Borno and the Gbong Gwon Jos, Jacob Buba Jang, also attended the meeting.
Also at the meeting were Alhaji Abubakar Shehu Abubakar, Emir of Gombe; Ndakwo Ameh Oboni II,Attah Igala,Kogi State; Alhaji Muhammadu Ibn Abali, the Emir of Fika in Yobe;, Alhaji Attahiru Ahmed Muhammed Emir of Anka in Zamfara and Prof. James Ayatse, the Tor Tiv.
Alhaji Adamu Baba Yinusa, the Emir of Abaji, FCT; the Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari; Minister of Science and Technology, Ogbonaya Onu; Minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Danbazzau; National Security Adviser, Babagana Munguno, and Speaker of the House of Representatives,Yakubu Dogara also attended the meeting.
Osinbajo will tomorrow, Wednesday meet with the 36 governors of the federation as part of the on-going consultative meetings with stakeholders in the “Project Nigeria” [myad]
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), today, Tuesday, made it clear that they have not violated any law of Nigeria, and international convention in their bid to have Biafran Republic out of the present Nigeria.
The Igbo group, who reacted to the threat by the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo to deal with both the agitators for the Biafran Republic and the Northern Youths that handed Igbos in the North three-month quit notice, said that they won’t be intimidated by Osinbajo.
The IPOB’s statement, which was issued in Awka, Anambra State by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, insisted that there was no law empowering Osinbajo to jail any group in the country that are seeking for self-determination.
The group said that it is empowered by charters and conventions under international law to seek self-determination as an indigenous people even as it accused the acting President of standing the law on its head.
Saying that domesticated charters and conventions are binding on member countries, the group said “For such a statement to escape the lips of a learned fellow like Prof. Osinbajo confirms the widely held view that African leaders lack the mental capacity and discipline to operate a constitutional democracy in a modern world.
“If the corrupt ruling class in Nigeria cannot distinguish between those rights that are sacrosanct, such as freedom of association and freedom of expression under which IPOB operates, then the entire political edifice in Nigeria is a monumental mess.
“It is very shameful that a professor of law cannot situate the Nigeria constitution within the context and meaning of the right to self-determination as recognised in international law.
“Somebody should please draw the attention of Professor Yemi Osibanjo to the provisions of the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which Nigeria ratified and went ahead to domesticate into her local laws.
“How can a professor of law threaten jail term for those exercising their right to self-determination under laws adopted and ratified by Nigeria? This confirms again the widely held view that legal practice in Nigeria is one almighty joke.
“We are challenging Prof. Osinbajo to show the whole world how, where and when IPOB committed this offence he alluded to since the inception of the current phase of the agitation.
“Nigeria must understand how ready we are to go to prison. They should build more illegal detention facilities because we cannot stop agitating for our right to self-determination until the Nigerian government accepts the need for a date for referendum on the question of Biafra.
“Professor Yemi Osibanjo should have consulted superior legal minds to advise him before coming on air to make such misleading comments. The Nigerian Constitution and its provisions cannot supersede international charters and treaties freely entered into by the Nigerian state where such treaties appear to render null and void the obnoxious provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
“United Nations charter on the rights of indigenous people and African charter which was ratified and signed by Nigeria is still in place till today and overrides the Nigerian Constitution on the rights of the indigenous people to the self-determination.
“We are warning the vocal few rented saboteurs and uneducated public commentators in Nigeria to stop the perverse insinuation that Biafra agitation is all about war. IPOB is not asking for war, rather what we are asking for is self-determination and the only way to achieve that is through the internationally recognized instrument of referendum or plebiscite.” [myad]
At their respective plenary on Thursday, June 15, 2017, the Senate and the House of Representatives played the devil’s advocates with respect to the extent they could go in considering, scrutinising and altering the provisions of appropriation bill presented to them for approval by the president. They superciliously defended their repugnant act of budget padding and, almost, succeeded in trivialising the serious matter.
Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Bala Ibn-Na’Alla (APC, Kebbi), and Hon. Lawal Abubakar (APC, Adamawa), in their motions on the floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives, called attention to a statement allegedly credited to the acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, to the effect that the National Assembly has no powers to introduce new projects in the budget before passing it.
Osinbajo was quoted to have said while signing the 2017 budget on Monday, June 12: “The first report is about who can do what. When you present a budget to the National Assembly, it is presented as a bill, an appropriation bill. And, secondly, do not introduce entirely new projects and all of that or modify projects. This is something that we experienced last year and this year again. It now leaves the question about who is supposed to do what.”
I presume that this may be the true position and correct interpretation of the constitutional provisions regarding the limits of legislative power and control over public funds or appropriation. Doubtless, Osinbajo’s concern centres on responsibility, liability and due process. The budget is the fiscal policy document of the Federal Government but bears the evidential imprimatur of the executive branch, which has the responsibility to implement it in line with set objectives.
If the executive branch fails to implement the budget as proposed, it would receive the flaks. That is liability. Interestingly, the executive has, over the years, been receiving the flaks for failure to implement, 100 percent, the budgets as always, but rather unfortunately, altered by the National Assembly. The blame should have been placed at the doorsteps of both arms of government. This is the reason it matters a great deal for proposers of budget to be different from their approvers.
The Constitution is clear about the responsibilities and powers of the three arms of government. And because of the possibility of acting ultra vires, there is the provision for checks and balances in the exercise of the separate and disparate powers of the trinity of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
When an arm of government continues to appropriate to itself the powers that are not expressly vested in it by the Constitution, steps should be taken to seek judicial intercession to find out if the extra powers are implied and/or discretionary. After 18 years of this controversy, this is what Osinbajo should now do, beyond frowning at the characteristic insertions by the National Assembly of new projects into the appropriation bills presented to it by the executive.
Assuming, arguedo, that the acting president did not even make that observation; that does not detract from the fact of alterations to which the legislature has always subjected the national budget submitted to it by the president. True, nothing prevents a dispassionate contemplation of the issue by well-meaning Nigerians who crave the passage of a well-considered budget that is aimed at stimulating the nation’s socio-economic and political growth.
As a layman, I hold the view that Osinbajo’s position cannot, therefore, be said to be erroneous within the ordinary understanding of the provisions that are amply referenced in section 59 under “mode of exercising federal legislative power money bills” and sections 80-83 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) 2011 under the powers and control over public funds.
It is very clear that the power vested in the legislature, according to the explanatory note of section 81, is that of “Authorisation of Expenditure” and not the usual power to prepare, make or alter the proposals of the executive as contained in the appropriation bill. Much as the approval issue is moot, it has historically and largely accounted for the perennial frosty relationship between the executive and the legislature since 1999.
The legislature has always altered the provisions of the budget and inserted projects, which were originally not captured by the executive. But to be sure, the legislature is not the executive. Therefore, the intervention of the judiciary by way of judicial interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions will help to properly define whether appropriation, being a special bill, should be placed, strictu sensus, in the context of authorisation/approval or the full process of law-making such as to warrant the insertion of about 4,000 new projects as happened to the 2017 budget.
On the other hand, the executive is not the legislature; and, it is, consequently, constitutionally circumscribed from approving its own proposed budget estimates; otherwise, it would not need to submit the same to the National Assembly. The approving body is the legislature, which should ideally never contemplate the introduction of new projects into the budget, except it had lobbied for and harmonised such projects with the executive during the budget-making process.
It is against the backdrop of the above that the action of the legislature to insert entirely new projects in the budget derogates from its constitutional power of authorisation/approval and represents the usurpation of the power of proposal exercisable by the executive. This does not, in my views, limit the relevance of the legislature in the budgetary process. Rather, it gives the legislature the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the bill, and be in a better stead for oversight during the implementation phase.
The intendment of the framers of the Constitution was not to turn the legislature into a rubber-stamping body. The primary purpose is to ensure that the budget proposals reflect a national outlook, connect promises to actions and stimulate real economic growth which is underpinned by equality and justice in the distribution of infrastructure development projects and creation of income and wealth.
In doing that, the legislature works within the policy framework of the budget presented to it. The budget figures are not padded or distorted. But it can query allocated funds on the projects proposed by the executive and get the buy-in of the executive to either increase or decrease budget figures. Indeed, new projects are not to be introduced into the budget in the misconstruction of its power of approval, which does not include the freedom to insert entirely new projects without recourse to the executive.
What should be done in the circumstance in which the legislature is interested in the inclusion of some projects in the budget is to activate pre-budgeting consultations in order to synergise with the executive through the Budget Office before the appropriation bill is presented by the president to the joint sitting of the legislature for consideration and approval.
The responsibilities of the executive include making proposals and implementing the budget. It is not for nothing that the legislature is empowered to authorise or approve and this is an important power which it can never ever delegate. But the legislature cannot usurp the executive function of proposing projects in the budget and, at the same time, is the one to approve it and conduct oversights on the same budget.
I believe that the intendment of the framers of the constitution ab-initio was not to create the seeming mischief. But since the controversy has assumed a life of its own and lingered for far too long, the judiciary should be invited to cure the mischief by giving a clear interpretation of the laws in this respect. The acting President is urged to pursue this course of action.
The special adviser to the President Muhammadu Buhari on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina on Monday, June 19, 2017, celebrated fathers day in arrears with his pilot son, Oluwatobi Adesina.
Adesina revealed his pilot son picture through his Facebook wall captioned: “FATHER AND SON IN THE COCKPIT.”
He opined “On Monday, June 19, 2017, a day after Fathers Day, I had the privilege of being flown for the first time from Lagos to Abuja by my son, Oluwatobi Adesina, who is a pilot with Arik Airline. It was truly an extension of Fathers Day, as I had the privilege of sitting in the cockpit.”
“Did I see anything as the Boeing 737 cruised through the azure sky? Not the foggiest thing. The wonders of our God, and of technology. To Him be all the glory.” [myad]
I attended a meeting recently at the headquarters of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board in Bwari, Abuja: the post-2017 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination review meeting chaired by the JAMB registrar, Professor Ish-aq Oloyede. Participants included Professor Oloyede and his technical team, field officers and other staff, all the Chief External Examiners who supervised the 2017 UTME, across Nigeria, mostly Vice-Chancellors of universities, and provosts/rectors of polytechnics and colleges of education, in addition to major stakeholders from civil society.
The JAMB Registrar presented a detailed report on the conduct of the 2017 UTME, matters arising were identified and the meeting took certain decisions about the way forward, the details of which have since been published. The 2017 UTME was conducted throughout Nigeria between Saturday 13th and Saturday 20th May 2017, at 140 examination centres, 642 Computer-Based Test Centres, with 7,000 invigilators and monitors and 1, 722, 236 candidates.
It was the first examination to be conducted under Professor Oloyede’s watch as JAMB Registrar. He was full of appreciation for the efforts and contributions of everyone, including the civil society and security agencies who helped to ensure the success of the examination. The meeting noted that Oloyede and his team had also done an excellent job in organizing a commendable Computer-Based Examination across the country. In recent years, JAMB has insisted on computerizing its examinations, and under Oloyede, there has been not only an emphasis on this but also on the integrity and credibility of the examination. The Report presented by the JAMB Registrar was comprehensive, confident and informative.
In 2017, JAMB examined the highest number of candidates in its forty years of existence: 1.7million, with the highest number of participating external officials and monitors. The first point the meeting noted however, was that the figure of 1.7 m does not actually reflect the true number of candidates who sat for the examination. More than 300, 000 of the candidates engaged in double or triple registration, and where it could be established that any candidate sat for the examination more than once, such a candidate was automatically disqualified. A total of 666 cases were reported in this regard.
For planning purposes, the figure of 1.7 m was misleading, a fact that was worsened by the fact that more than 50% of the candidates do not even have the pre-requisite qualifications, and in reality, more than 70% of all candidates applied for courses in the Arts and Social Sciences, whereas for national manpower development purposes, the expectation is that the Sciences should produce up to 70%.
The message here is clear: higher education admission processes ought to reflect the country’s manpower needs, and there is no doubting the fact that at the moment, there is a mismatch between our country’s manpower production processes and the job market, and this is perhaps in a way responsible for the country’s unemployment crisis. As it were, Nigeria’s higher education system produces graduates that do not fit into the demands of the job market.
Oloyede was more agitated about matters of integrity, credibility, accountability and transparency. He asked the meeting to take a close look at cases of examination irregularities and malpractice and take a decision. We were informed that a total of 1, 386 candidates all properly identified and documented were guilty of the following offences: impersonation, possession of prepared answer scripts, smuggling of foreign materials into the examination venue, possession of electronic gadgets including telephone, copying and spying from foreign materials, unruly behaviour, violent conduct, collusion, multiple registration and examinations. We were all shocked when Oloyede asked his staff to present to the meeting, concrete evidence of examination malpractice. We were shown shirts, with presumed answers written out in the inner lining, slippers, belts, handkerchiefs, and all kinds of strange devices that candidates across the country smuggled into examination centres.
It turned out that a criminal gang had developed around the UTME, involving persons who deceived candidates into believing that they had access to examination questions. Such questions with prepared answers were sold to candidates ahead of the examination. But according to JAMB, this was meaningless, because the examination questions were sent electronically to the centres only on the day of the examination, and JAMB did not use the same set of questions, at any time, either in the morning or the afternoon.
The bigger problem came from the operators of the Computer-Based Test Centres, who colluded with candidates and parents to compromise the examination. Many of these CBT centres collected gate fees, ranging from N2, 000 to N20, 000 and higher, they recruited thugs, they deliberately created technical problems to assist candidates to cheat (in some cases, the CCTVs installed by JAMB were either switched off or covered up); some centres also ran parallel communication cables to secret rooms where ghost candidates who had done what is called 8 x 2 fingerprinting, involving a candidate and a substitute, ghost-wrote the examination. Oloyede reported that JAMB did its best to track down all the fraudulent centres, across the country, 25 centres were involved in centre-induced malpractice, with 57, 646 candidates. Some other centres had technical issues, and in total, JAMB proposed that 72 centres in 18 states of the Federation should either be delisted or suspended.
We considered the report on every affected centre on a case-by-case basis, with each Chief Examiner responding to further enquiries, and at the end, the meeting resolved that 48 centres involved in extortion and malpratices should be delisted, while 24 centres should be suspended for a year. The statistics on 2017 UTME malpractice is noteworthy. Most of the affected states are from the South East and South South as follows: Abia (381 cases), Imo (193), Anambra (152), Enugu (114), Cross River (78), Ebonyi (48), Akwa Ibom (44) while the states with the lowest number of cases are from the North viz: Kebbi (1), Kaduna (16), Kano (29), Katsina (2), Kogi (7) Sokoto (25), Taraba (4), Zamfara (1). Yobe and Jigawa states had no reported case of examination malpractice, only 2 cases of multiple registration from the latter. Could it be then that students and CBT operators in the North are more honest than their Southern counterparts, or perhaps less computer savvy? Does the 2017 UTME say anything about national character?
Our deliberations did not cover this particular detail, but the meeting became more exciting when the involvement of parents, particularly mothers, was reported. In one centre, a mother was said to have approached the Chief Examiner to ask him to assist her daughter to pass the examination. The Chief Examiner reportedly told her to leave the examination venue, but she insisted that if the Chief Examiner was ready to help, as requested, she was prepared to pay in kind. The alarmed Professor and Examiner told her it was not part of his function to do what she wanted. The UTME, he said is a merit-based examination.
The woman, not giving up, asked for the hotel where the Professor was staying. She offered to join him in the hotel later in the day! In another state, an invigilator lured a young lady to the control room with the promise that if she would co-operate with him, he would help her to pass the UTME. Other invigilators caught the two of them and promptly reported the matter. When the young lady’s mother was informed about what had happened, her response was most unusual. She was not willing to press charges, or talk about the scandal. She was in fact not bothered at all. She would rather talk about something else. What did she want? She wanted JAMB to compensate her daughter with additional 10 marks or more, to make up for the sexual harassment. We were all alarmed. Strange things really happen.
Someone then remarked that JAMB should take a decision and ban mothers from following their children to examination centres and all husbands should be advised to keep an eye on wives who will go to any length to mislead their children. Again, the meeting did not concentrate on this delicate subject. But someone made a point: “You see this thing called corruption. It starts from the home. Many parents are setting very bad examples for their children. There is too much desperation in our country. The anti-corruption campaign should start with parents.”
Nonetheless, the meeting resolved that JAMB should introduce the use of electronic jammers at examination centres as part of measures to discourage centre-induced malpractice, the results of 1,386 candidates found guilty of examination malpractice should be cancelled, 57,646 centre-induced malpractice results should also be cancelled, while a supplementary examination should be held on July 1, for candidates who lost time due to the malfunctioning of servers, technical and log out issues, Biometric Verification related issues, late registration due to no fault of theirs, incomplete results and candidates of centres with mass malpractice but who are deemed innocent.
The JAMB Registrar further informed us that the examination body was ready to go to court where necessary to prosecute persons involved in examination malpractice, and that should any manager of a CBT centre find it necessary to challenge JAMB in court, he and his team would be glad to meet such persons in court. I like Oloyede’s spirit and the enthusiasm of his freshly energized team. The larger question is why examination, something considered a serious routine in other countries, is such a nightmare in Nigeria. Students cheat, parents collude with agents to help their children to cheat, examination consultants are worse, the kind of reports we receive daily about examinations in Nigeria sound fictional but they are worrisome because they are real. It is tragic that our public examinations are no better than Nigerian elections!
Just before the meeting ended, the representative from Akwa Ibom stood up and said he had a letter for the JAMB Registrar – one of the JAMB officials who served as a Proctor in Akwa Ibom state would need to assist the police with investigations into a case of examination malpractice and give evidence in court.
“I heard about that case. I have directed that the lady should leave for Akwa Ibom and stay there until you are through with the investigations. Who is her direct supervisor?’, Oloyede asked.
One of the directors raised his hand.
“Ha. Doctor. That lady is excused from work until further notice. She should relocate to Akwa Ibom and assist with investigations. We will pay her DTA and provide whatever support she needs. Wherever there is any reported case, we must follow it up to prove that we will not tolerate any form of corruption or malpractice where our examinations are involved. The examiner from Akwa Ibom, you can keep her for as long as you want until you get to the root of the matter. Mee-ting! Approved?”
The National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) has said that the appearance of the first astronomical lunar crescent for June 2017 will be recorded in Nigeria on Saturday, June 25, 2017, between 6: 29 p.m and 8:40 p.m. Once the crescent is sighted, this year’s Ramadan fast will come to an end, the agency said.
The report quoted NASRDA’s Head of Media and Corporate Communications, Felix Ale, as saying in a statement that the “first appearance of the moon can only be sighted with the eyes given a very cloudless sky without any atmospheric disturbance, while the first lunar crescent can be best sighted with the aid of charged couple device imaging, astronomical telescope or any optical astronomy instrument.”
He explained that the proper sighting of the crescent with the eyes will bring to an end to the ongoing Ramadan fast as would be officially announced by the Sultan of Sokoto to all Muslim faithfuls in line with Islamic tradition, the newspaper said.
The report further quoted the space agency as explaining that “the first astronomical lunar crescent on the 25th June 2017 between 6:29 pm and 8:40 pm will have Port Harcourt, Adamawa, Maiduguri, Taraba, and Damaturu as first to witness the appearance of the first young lunar crescent at about 6:29 pm concurrently to 7:20 pm; while the Lunar Crescent will be sighted lastly in Sokoto state between 7:49 pm – 8:40 pm.
“All other states of the federation will experience the lunar crescent between the estimated time of 6:29 pm and 8:40 pm on 25th June 2017.”
According to the report, the results released by NASRDA indicated precise dates, appearance time of the first crescent, sunset as well as moon set time for all the states capital of the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory.
The Ramadan fast commenced on May 27 and would be in its 29th day on June 25.
Muslims fast obligatorily for 29 or 30 days every year in fulfillment of their religious obligation.
The end of the exercise is usually determined by the sighting of a new moon. If it is not sighted on the 29th day, the fast will last for 30 days. [myad]
The General Overseer of the Latter Rain Assembly, Pastor Tunde Bakare has warned those who are wishing President Muhammadu Buhari, who has been on medical bacation in Lodon, to desist as they may die before him.
Pastor Bakare, who gave a hint that the President is recovering well from the sickness that has kept him out of office, said that no one knows who would die first.
“Between the man in the intensive care unit and the doctor treating him or wishing him dead, you don’t know who will die first.
“If God sent Isaiah back to go and tell Hezekiah that He was adding 15 years to his life, He is the only one who can do what He wills to do. Nobody should wish another person dead. We should just pray, because you would put Nigeria in disaster.”
The pastor, who was running mate to Buhari in the 2011 Presidential election, said that whenever leaders served with diminishing energy, a leadership vacuum would be created. [myad]
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
