What Senator Biodun Olujimi (PDP, Ekiti South) did with her presentation of a bill on gender and equal opportunities on March 15, is the equivalent of trying one’s luck. But she deserves praise for her courage and progressive views, and for forcing the issue so well. The subject has generated useful debate and the Senate President has been forced to reassure the public that the bill will be re-presented, after it has been re-drafted “to address some of the reservations that were expressed on the floor of the Senate.”

This is the third time that the Senate will throw out this same bill.  Senate President Bukola Saraki knows too well that to address the expressed reservations is to kill the bill completely. There may be no hope of a misogynistic Senate passing a Bill that seeks to empower women and the girl-child, protect them from discrimination and violence, rescue them from being treated like chattel, and ensure that women play more prominent roles in public and private decision-making processes.  The Bill further seeks to protect the rights of women in marriages.

It should not be surprising that the male-dominated Senate (102 men to 7 women) rose against the Bill. A few male voices supported Senator Olujimi, but those against the Bill were determined. They quoted the Bible. They cited the Quoran. They dismissed any thought of women having more powers or voice or being treated like equals to men. They even cited culture and tradition. One newspaper stated matter of factly, that Senator Olujimi “incurred the wrath of Northern Senators”.  When the matter was put to a vote, the naysayers of course won. So, given the gender imbalance in the Senate and the shortage of enlightened men on the floor, if that Bill is presented a thousand times, the outcome is predictable. It is perhaps for this reason that a different kind of strategy will be required to make any progress in the important fight for the treatment of women’s rights as human rights.

Nigeria is signatory to different international conventions on the elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women. The Constitution also forbids discrimination against any person on the grounds of gender and circumstances of birth. Long before the internationalization of the struggle for women’s rights and its NGO-nization, there have been records of valiant Nigerian women pushing the envelope and demonstrating through advocacy and individual accomplishments that women are capable partners in society’s development, and that they deserve full citizenship rights.

But just as was demonstrated again on the floor of the Senate, religion, culture and male chauvinism are major stumbling blocks. Even some of the most educated men around cannot stand the idea of women being given more opportunities. Those male Senators who shot down the Olujimi Bill must have been wondering what gave her the effrontery to suggest that men and women should begin to share power and opportunities as equals. The man who led the assault against the bill and who reportedly later celebrated the victory is actually the same man who was once publicly upbraided for marrying a 13-year old girl, a girl about the age of his granddaughter! In that same Senate, one of the members while declaring his assets sometimes last year, listed his two wives as part of his assets!

A gender and equal opportunities Bill should help provide stronger legislative framework for protecting women from all forms of discrimination, but legislative intervention may well not be enough. The real battle-field is in the identified areas of religion, culture and tradition, and the absence of political will to enforce relevant laws that promote social justice. Societies don’t just move from one level of enlightenment to the other: leadership is required. But as it is, Nigeria has leaders who are male chauvinists, whose attachment to culture and religion prevents them from understanding the true meaning of human rights.  This is why it seems so difficult to convince Nigerian patriarchs that certain religious and cultural practices simply do not make sense.

What kind of culture or tradition allows a man to marry a child, for example?  What kind of tradition recommends that a widow should be humiliated and subjected to inhuman practices in 2016?  In some communities in the East, a woman cannot taste the new yam of the season as they call it.  Men must taste it first. Among Igbos, even the most enlightened man will not allow a woman break kolanut in a gathering of men. Leviration is still practised in some Nigerian communities.  One year after the millennial deadline on gender equality, there are still families in Nigeria where the girl-child is considered fit only for marriage, and so when male children are sent to school, the girls are asked to hawk wares, until they are ripe enough to be married off. In other places, wives cannot inherit their husbands’ estates, and daughters are disinherited on the basis of gender. Patterns of this discrimination against the female gender exist even in workplaces today, and significantly in politics. I recall the case of one of these banks, which once instructed female employees not to get pregnant, within the first year of employment! And in politics, women are organized as separate groups with someone called Woman Leader, whereas there is no such equivalent for men.

The manifold existence of constructive gender discrimination explains the speed and alacrity with which the gender and equal opportunity bill is always dismissed whenever it is brought up in the National Assembly. The advocacy for women empowerment and an end to gender discrimination is also severely limited. It is restricted to non-governmental organizations, and a few influential voices in society who understand the issues, attend international conferences and who over the years have been organizing workshops and rallies to conscientize political, religious and traditional leaders.  But this has not quite helped, and this may well be because the majority of the core affected women are excluded from the campaign.

The Biodun Olujimis of Nigeria are not necessarily the ones seeking freedom from discrimination. They can hold their own, they can negotiate power at many levels; the ones in need of help are the poor women and girl-children who are trapped under male domination, poor, disempowered, voiceless, and incapable of realizing their potentials to the fullest.  The ones in need of help are those poor widows who are humiliated by in-laws, the millions of girls who are out of school just because they are female, the under-aged girls who are married off to old men, against their wish, and the army of dispossessed women whose lives have been condemned to a routine of raising children, fetching water and working on the farm.

These victims themselves need to be mobilized into the struggle for the full recognition of the human rights of women.  They need to be given a voice.  It is not a task for NGOs alone. The struggle must become more inclusive. We have Ministers and Commissioners in charge of women affairs and social development.  They are busy travelling from one international workshop to the other. Such a department of government can do a lot more. To get Nigerian men to respect the human rights of women, the womenfolk must work together and support each other, and develop the kind of advocacy that was defeated last Tuesday into a sustainable, organized movement.  The tone of the advocacy should also change: too often, gender and equal opportunity issues are presented as pleas, as if women are seeking favour and understanding from the men: please-give-us-more-powers, allow-us-to-also-exercise-authority; we-want-more-women-in-government. For as long as the language of negotiation sounds that beggarly, not much progress can be made.  Nothing short of an organized women’s movement around the core issues is what is required.

In the long run, education is probably the best policy option. Every child must go to school and no child should be allowed to be an artisan until after secondary school education.  Once upon a time in this country, the social welfare department used to arrest any child found on the streets during school hours. The disparity in the education of men and women in Nigeria is alarming, given the fact that women constitute about 50% of the national population. The school drop-out rate for the girl-child is as high as 44%! There are extant laws, which prescribe punishment for parents who keep their children out of school; such laws must be enforced. State governments should vigorously promote education at all levels.

Education is the strongest weapon for liberating people from the clutches of harmful religious and traditional practices. Education in this regard means being enlightened enough to know what parts of religion and tradition are humane and progressive. Even where these prove resilient on the basis of social legitimacy, the truth is that it will be difficult to maltreat a woman who is fully aware of her rights. The Senators opposing gender equality and rights would never allow their own daughters to be exposed to any form of indignity. They quote culture and religion out of sheer hypocrisy. Their reliance on the Holy Books to justify the inferiorization of women as the weaker sex is dubious.

Successful women should be prepared to support other women. More women should take interest in politics, and seek political power at all levels. Nigerian women must get into the arena and seek decision-making positions, to enable them influence and implement policies.  Let Nigerian women form their own political parties and contest the public space with the misogynists. The women’s movement in Nigeria has lost its steam. Some Nigerian women are involved in partisan politics but they either end up behaving like the men, or they claim they are technocrats with no interest in feminist matters. They reinforce stereotypes and even work against the interest of other women seeking progress. Such women cannot lead the struggle; new recruits and role models are needed. To give meaning and bite to Senator Olujimi’s kind of intervention, progressive Nigerian women must unite and re-organize. [myad]

In December last year, the Supreme Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on April 11, 2015 and undertook to adduce reasons for each of the judgments at a later date. Last month, the court announced the reasons for the decisions. Essentially, the apex court vehemently disagreed with the judgments of the Court of Appeal which had set aside election results which emanated from manual accreditation instead of the card reader machines prescribed by the INEC. For not validating the use of card reader for voter accreditation some commentators, including lawyers, have criticized the verdicts of the apex court. The criticisms which have greeted the judgments are not unexpected given the controversy which trailed the use of card reader for the elections.

Before subjecting the position of the Supreme Court on voter accreditation by the reader machine to a critical analysis it is germane to review the introduction of the electronic device into the electoral process. Following a successful and comprehensive compilation of biometric registration of Nigerians of voting age in 2011 the INEC decided to improve on voter accreditation for all elections. The device was designed to deal with the manipulation of election results through the declaration of bogus votes that have no correlation with the number of registered voters. Thus, with the use of the card reader machines the number of total votes cast in an election cannot exceed the number of accredited voters. The strident opposition to the use of card reader for voter accreditation by seasoned riggers of elections was borne out of the realization that it could substantially eliminate the manipulation of election results

Although the national assembly had approved fund for the purchase of the card reader machines in the Appropriation Act of 2014 the then ruling party wanted to use its control of the federal legislature to discredit the electronic device. Hence, the immediate past chairman of the INEC , Professor Jega was summoned to the Senate to justify the introduction of the card reader for voter accreditation. In taking up the challenge Professor Jega demonstrated the use of card readers and its capacity to eliminate electoral fraud perpetrated at the accreditation stage of election. At the end of the exercise the Senate was compelled to endorse the use of card reader for the 2015 general election. Thereafter, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which sought to legitimize the use of card reader was unanimously passed by both chambers of the national assembly. The Bill was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 20, 2015.

Prior to the amendment section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting. But following the amendment of the provision the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it determined to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election.

In spite of the initial hiccups encountered by voters with respect to the use of the card reader machines it is generally agreed on all hands that the technological device enhanced the credibility of the 2015 general election. Indeed, a number of the election petitions filed by aggrieved candidates were anchored on the gap between the number of voters accredited with the card reader machines and the fake election results declared by some returning officers. At the election petition tribunals the INEC, through its lawyers, canvassed rather curiously, that the directive on accreditation of voters with the aid of card reader machines was not backed by any law. And that failure to comply with the directive could not vitiate any election conducted by the INEC.

Some members of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the submissions of the INEC lawyers. In their judgments they ignored the figures of accredited voters obtained via the card reader machines. Others were however convinced that the directive on the use of card reader was backed by the letter and spirit of the Electoral Act. In the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje Ogbuinya JCA traced the genesis of the card reader when he said “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this core it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledging electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage. The concept, owing to its recent invention by INEC, a non-legislative body, traces its paternity to the manual for election officials, 2015.”

The above view of Ogbuinya J.C.A was adopted in toto by Ejembi Eko J.C.A. in the case of Umana v Emmanuel … when he stated that “I do not believe that with the fast pace of development globally and the whole world embracing the latest IT technologies, that resistance should be placed to emerging technologies geared towards transparency in elections, by backward thinking interpretations that can only be deleterious to the system. Holding otherwise would be to truncate the great efforts of the 3rd respondent (INEC) in its bid to ensure a credible election and in so doing attempt to plug all loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous persons.”

Regrettably, the Supreme Court did not share the progressive view of both Ogbuiya and Eko JJ.C.A on the legal validity of the technological device. Thus, in the case of Edward Okereke v Dave Umahi the apex court held that the appellant failed woefully to prove the allegation of over voting as he did not tender the voters’ registers along with the card reader reports. Justice Cletus Nweze who read the leading judgment of the court held that “Indeed, since the Guidelines and Manual, which authorized the use and deployment of the electronic Card Reader Machine, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, the said Card Reader cannot, logically, depose or dethrone the Voters’ Register whose judicial roots are, firmly, embedded or entrenched in the selfsame Electoral Act from which it (the Voters’ Register) directly, derives its sustenance and currency….since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any Petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the Card Reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.”

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections, it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act, they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimized the use of card reader for voter accreditation.

From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the Supreme Court did not declare the card reader illegal. However, it is the view of the apex court that the card reader is a supplementary measure to manual accreditation. With respect, the appellants did not pray the court to ignore the voters register which were tendered and admitted in evidence at the various election petition tribunals. What was in dispute was the validity of the power of the INEC to replace manual accreditation with voter accreditation with the aid of card reader machine. Since manual accreditation was susceptible to manipulation it was replaced with electronic accreditation by the INEC in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Electoral Act. In Shinkafi v Yari (unreported suit no 907/2015 of 8th January, 2016) John Okoro J.S.C. rightly noted that “… the function of the card reader machine is to authenticate the owner of a voter’s card and prevent multiple voting by a voter.” Since the INEC has replaced manual accreditation with electronic accreditation the law does not require a petitioner to tender evidence of manual accreditation along with the report obtained from the card reader machine.

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections, it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act, they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimized the use of card reader for voter accreditation. No doubt, the legitimisation of the card reader would have had dire consequences on the results of the disputed governorship elections.

Finally, in view of the clear provisions of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Act 2015 it is indubitably clear that the INEC acted within the ambit of the law when it issued the directive for the use of card reader machine for voter accreditation during the last general election. To that extent, the suggestion that the law be further amended to legalise the use of card reader is totally uncalled for.

Femi Falana, SAN wrote in from Lagos. [myad]

Two things prompted this write-up: just last week, I traveled to Kano to collect my result, certifying me as a graduate of mass communication with 4.07 as my cumulative CGPA and the second best graduating student, secondly, the world happiness report released by the United Nations sustainable Development Solutions Network. The survey ranked countries based on their abilities to provide basic necessities of life for their citizens thereby making them happy .The report published on several news outfits ranked Denmark the “ Happiest Nation, Burundi, the least happy” and Nigeria 103^rd least happiest in the World.

But to start with the first one, as usually the case with many students who graduated and are awaiting mobilization for National Youth Service, I started browsing the street of some major towns and cities in search of a temporary job to earn a living and avoid being dependent.

I visited several secondary schools in Kano to see if I could be appointed a classroom teacher, of all the schools I visited, the school principal pulls out dossiers of applicants waiting to be called for an interview. I wasn’t discourage, I visited some private radio stations where some of my friends work, one of them whispered: “ we haven’t been paid salaries for three months”. What!

A friend and classmate who resides in Gombe told me of a newly established Radio station—Progress FM. He advised I visit him to see if I could be lucky this time around. I conceded. Upon entry into the reception of Progress FM in his company, I demanded contact with the General Manager which I got within a couple of minutes. I tabled my issue immediately. She replied, though in a very encouraging tone at least not to get me demoralized. “We have over 40 staff already” wow!

I thanked my friend for his support and left for Bauchi, my home state. Upon arrival, another friend of mine who studied mass communication at the Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi and have completed his NYSC but is still jobless told me to hold on a second.

“ I thought you have been an Editor-in-Chief of Bayero Beacon and THE READER, your school based Newspaper and Magazine? He interrogated. Yes. I replied. And you also have more than four points as your CGPA? Yes. I answered again. Then you have a chance to work with the Daily Trust Newspaper, he said. No. Daily Trust only employs best graduating students and I am the second. I replied in a rather low tone of hopelessness.

What about other National Dailies such as Vanguard, The Guardian, Sahara Reporters, Premium Times, Greenbarge Reporters and other online newspapers? He further queried. Probably they only employ more experienced writers and seasoned journalists, but unfortunately I’m not one. I conceded.

But you can apply for Graduate Assistant in your University or Polytechnic where they teach Mass Communication, what about that? He continued with his mind boggling questions. This time around, he mentioned what I like doing most, but I was getting angrier with his questions. Universities no longer employ graduate assistants, and even if they do, you need the support of someone very influential to bag the job, I told him.

Just hold on, after your NYSC, you can apply for Nigeria Defence Academy and join the Army, he insists. I also have interest in joining the army. And I believe I have something to offer, especially in the areas of strategic communication. I believe, with a well coordinated strategic intelligence and communication, the army will unequivocally defeat the Boko Haram insurgents, I declared.

But if I could not get job in all the places I mentioned earlier just because I am not an anointed candidate and lack the support of those in position of authority, I wonder how I could have access to join the army.

These are my predicaments, and no doubt of thousands of graduates in Nigeria who are still jobless for no fault of theirs. And whose future is still cloudy. Aren’t these enough to make me sad? If you think these reasons are not enough, then hold on.

As I said earlier, Denmark is ranked the first “happiest nation on earth” and Nigeria is 103^rd least happiest. Do you know that only Nasarawa state is richer in terms of mineral resources than the entire Denmark? Denmark has Natural gas, Limestone, Chalk, Clay, Sand, Gravel, Salt, Wind, Water, Solar and fuel trading.

In Nassarawa state, all the above resources are available plus;    Beryl (emerald)   Asquamirine and   Haliodor), Dolomite/Marble, Sapphire, Tourmaline, Quartz-   Amethyst (Topaz, gamet), Zireon, Tantalite, Cassiterite,  Columbite, Limenite, Galena, Iron-Ore, Barytes,  Feldspar, Limesstone, Mica,  Cooking coal, Talc, Cay, Salt, Chalcopyrite. Not to talk of oil, richer agricultural land, our sea and water ways. Isn’t this enough to make you sad?

In Denmark, a lawmaker takes 38,000 US Dollars as his annual salaries while a Nigerian lawmaker takes more than four times that per month (181,974 US dollars), yet a graduate in Nigeria cannot afford three square meals. In one year, a Nigerian lawmaker takes $2183688 US which is equivalent to four hundred and thirty million, one hundred and eighty six thousand, five hundred and thirty-six naira (N430186536) and his Danish counterpart has to work for more than 57 years to earn that salaries.

Not only that, a Nigerian worker who earns N18,000 minimum wage has to work for more than 190 years before he will bag what a “distinguished” senator will earn in one year. Aren’t all these enough to make you sad? Then hold on. Do you know that a Nigerian Senator earns more than Barrack Obama of US and David Cameron of UK? A lawmaker in Sweden has to work for 12 years before he/she will earn what a senator in Nigeria will take home in 12 months.

Despite all the jumbo salaries of our lawmakers, about 300,000 children die annually of, guess what? Malaria! But no child dies of malaria in Denmark. As of 2015, our infant mortality rate (number of babies dying before they reach one year per 1000 birth) was put at 57 children while only 3 children die in Denmark before they reach one year. Isn’t this enough to make you sad?

Even citizens from war torn countries like Libya, Somalia, Lebanon and Tunisia are happier than Nigerians according to the ranking.

While countries like United Arab Emirates are appointing Minister of happiness to “align and derive government policy to create social good and satisfaction”, Nigeria should appoint its first ever minister of sadness to mobilize and coordinate sad people in Nigeria and at least remind them that President Buhari is in charge, probably things may get better.

I am calling on PMB to appoint me as his first minister of sadness, but my worries for now lies on the fact that I may not pass ministerial screening especially in the event that the National “Legislooters” (Legislators) become upset with my article

Haruna Mohammed Salisu writes from Bauchi. He could be reached at 08063180608 or harunababale@gmail.com. [myad]