The Ribadu debate (Otive's submission's dimension) III

Dear All,
I must first salute the courage and sense of historical responsibility demonstrated by Otive in placing his position forward in explicit terms. In the absence of any mechanism for holding representatives of that amorphous content of "civil society", which his position as well bemoaned, he could as well have taken the position of zipped lips.

With Otive's strength of character which from years of work together I can vouch for + his having been in support of Ribadu hitherto, I think his inkling of information available to him leading to a view that Ribadu's dismissal was justified is enough food for thought for Ribaduists. What I would expect in a sense of making sense -possibly- of that position's invalidity is for the friends and supporters of the rib' to ask "could we please be privy to this info too, to as well clear our heads of the ribadu-fog that has sunken into them?"

I think that Chidi's question (#1 of his submission) is rather superfluous. Otive's position was clearly one of mitigation when he said he would have pleaded for leniency. I would think in legalesse it amounts to the difference between judgment (guilty or not guilty) and sentence (from strokes of cane in a sharia court to lethal injection in Texas...but which could be mitigated based on clemency...)

I also think that while the length of time given to Ribadu to respond is important, the question should be if that did or did not correspond with the time allotted for such defence within the statute books establishing the PSC. Also in his #3; talking of selctivity of lifespan of cases in the case of someone who had talked of selectivity being in the nature of even nature itself...?

A key point within Otive's submission which Chidi supports is how to steer away from pluralist stake-holding becoming a trap of incorporation and co-optation. ..being active in the trade union movt. for over a decade now; I should know!

Trade unionists have been serving on several other boards apart from the NSITF....but you hardly ever get reports of what they are doing there at any organ meeting. This shows that in finding a way for CS reps to be selected and work in state bodies with accountability to the CS, we need more than structures/organisation. There should be consciously fashioned out mechanisms for this.

The struggle 'over the years' was not primarily for CS representation on these bodies. Conversely this is basically consequential to the struggle for democratisation of the spaces of governance and authority within a broader struggle for social transformation. Thus even as the issue of establishing an accountability- mechanism comes up, it should not boil down to a 'peer review mechanism' of EDs/CDs and the other appurtenances of civil society's bureaucracy. This can be avoided only when knowledge-action linkages which bring the mass of CSO members and elements within the gamut of society which it they claim to represent becomes the norm

As '09 beckons, with all the signs of a year pregnant with e go pass be careful ahead....I hope our lessons from '08 would have been learnt to guide us through the pitfalls we will come across. And hopefully... .we will not learn to make nouveau mistakes, again and again.

Regards,
BA

Baba Aye

Zimmer 10, Heckershauser Str., 19A

D34127, Kassel, Germany

+49-1628714379

babaaye.blog. co.uk (titbits of my life, sort of)

solidarityandstrugg le.blogspot. com (on theory and practice)
Skype name: iron1lion

"if you are the big tree, we are the small axe, ready to cut you down"
- Bob Marley

"We will no longer hear your command, we'll seize the control from your hands
we will fan the flames of our anger and pain....Amandla, Ngawethu"
- UB 40

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, Ibrahim Jibrin wrote:
From: Ibrahim Jibrin
Subject: Re: [FOIcoalition] Otive Igbuzor's position on Nuhu Ribadu's dismissal
To: FOIcoalition@ yahoogroups. com, Otiveigbuzor@ yahoo.co. uk
Cc: "Paul Okojie" , "Abdulraheem Tajudeem" , "Kole Shettima"
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 11:27 AM

Thanks Otive and Chidi for raising the intellectual and political level of the Ribadu debate. It is time that we look at the issue more dispassionately.

A couple of years ago, EFFC launched the civil society component of its anti-corruption advocacy known as the Fix Nigeria Initiative. I was the key note speaker. Ribadu was pleased with himself that day. It was the day he successfully removed Fayose from power. The civil society audience composed mainly of Nollywood stars and musicians were great fans of the Ribadu phenomenon. I was a critic and a sleptic. I told Ribadu that his approach of selective justice, of blacmailing state legislators etc was undermining the rule of law and will end up back firing and subverting the rule of law. I drew his attention to the failure of politically organised anti-corruption campaigns under the Murtala and Buhari Administration and called on him to focus on institution- building. I was booed. Adams, then President of the NLC spoke after me and succeeded in ridiculing my arguments. He tarted a chant - rule of law ke - which Charlie Boy and the nollywoodians took on ridiculing the rule of law.

To his credit, Nuhu Ribadu continued to invite me to speak at EFFC functions and I maintained my criticisms of some of his tactics. During the period, I discussed extensively with my friend Femi Falana, who situated his own support for the Ribadu style on the incapacity of the legal system to syccessfully prosecute any big thief who can hire a SAN. Femi also insisted on the importance of Ribadu's unquestionale record of performance in creating a new legal culture in which hogh level corruption is no longer conforted with impunity. While I accepted the validity of Femi's core argument, I maintained my own reasoning that when there are no rules of the game, clubs become trumps and you cannot guarantee who the clubs will be used against.

My major concern on the Ribadu debate is our lack of sufficient reflection on improving the institutional capacity of the administration of justice to sanction corrupy public officials. I am also concerned that we are allowing the Yar Adua administration to occupy the terrain of the rule of law debate. Rule of law is about the dispensation of justice. It is about equality before the law and the absence of sacred cows. The fact that the 31 one corrupt governors are not in jail today is a subversion of the rule of law and we need to show how this subversion is occuring and combat the antics of the regime.

Since Ribadu's removal from the EFFC, I have expressed my concerns about the implications. My understanding is that the government is giving a clear message to the political class - continue corruption withour fear. The igbenedion judgement confirms the message.

I express my sympathy on Ribadu's persecution by the regime. We should continue to defend him. At the same time, I do not think it is possible for him to remain in the police given his own acts of commission and ommission and the promotion benefits he had received through the subversion of the rule of law.

Our focus should be two-fold. Contesting the Yar Adua regime's subversion of the war against corruption and addressing isues that cripple the capacity of the justice system to successfully prosecute corrupt public officials.

As Chidi is sitting on a large pot of money from MR Soros, he might which to sponsor reflections and strategic action development along these lines.

Jibrin Ibrahim PhD
Director
Centre for Democracy and Development
4,Kikuyu Close,
Off Nairobi Street, Off Parakou Crescent
Off Aminu Kano Cresent
Wuse II
P. O. Box 14345, Wuse
Abuja, Nigeria
Tel - +234 (0)9 6716454/ 2731445
Fax - +234 (0) 9 6703292, 6726090

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, Vanguard Law wrote:

From: Vanguard Law
Subject: Re: [FOIcoalition] Otive Igbuzor's position on Nuhu Ribadu's dismissal
To: FOIcoalition@ yahoogroups. com, Otiveigbuzor@ yahoo.co. uk
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 2:52 AM

Dear Otive,

Warmest compliments of the season.

Your posting is both thought-provoking and courageous. Some people in your position may have taken the more convenient position of hiding behind the institutional responsibility of the PSC. I don't know how popular this will make you with your colleagues on the PSC and don't wish to speculate. Your decision to state your position clearly suggests you do take seriously your constituency responsibilities and that deserves to be acknowledged and complimented.

I had thought of sending a private response to you but given the soul searching that must have gone into composing your message and the issues you raise, it seems to me important to follow up in this forum on some of your points as they affect the processes of the PSC in this case and to the extent that they advertise the workings or limitations of decision making in our public institutions. In the fullness of time, hopefully, the courts will enlighten us all on the legality and limitations (if any) on the powers asserted in this sorry tale. I confine myself for the moment to a few narrow points of fact and procedure raised in your posting:

1. You think that dismissal was "too harsh" and you would personally have "canvassed a more lenient punishment" but you were mercifully absent from the meeting at which the decision was taken to dismiss Mr. Ribadu from the NPF. Nevertheless, considering the amount of information available to you, you cannot, "in good conscience hold a contrary view." I hope you will forgive my confusion but please what is your position? In your opinion (we don't have to agree) does the information at your disposal justify dismissal or doesn't it? Are you saying you disagree with the decision of your PSC colleagues (in your absence) to dismiss or that you agree?

2. How much of this information at your disposal came from Mr. Ribadu or his duly authorised representatives? How much of an opportunity did the PSC provide to him to inform your colleagues' decision making?

3. How much time was there between the lodging of the complaint against Mr. Ribadu and the decision to dismiss him? And how does this duration compare with the life-span of other complaints before the PSC? What is the average duration of a complaint before the PSC?

4. The powers at issue here are the powers of the PSC under S. 6(a) (appointment and promotion of NPF personnel other than the IGP) and S6(b) (to dismiss and exercise dsiciplinary control over personnel of the NPF other than the IGP) of the PSC Act No. 1 of 2001. Did the PSC simply adopt the decision of the internal inquiry of the NPF or did it hold its own investigations? In either case, did the PSC independently hear from Mr. Ribadu or any other Police officers against whom there were allegations of disciplinary infractions or did it merely rely on the assurances of the NPF that such hearings had taken place?

5. Was it not the NPF/IGP who was the complainant to the PSC in the Ribadu dismissal case? How confident is the PSC about adopting the conclusions or say so of a panel established by and under the authority of the same IGP in acting against an officer in a case or against whom the IGP or his NPF were principal complainant( s)?

6. Did the PSC at any time delegate to the NPF the function of investigating or disciplining senior Police officers?

7. Was anything so urgent about the dismissal of Mr. Ribadu that the meeting had to be convened and the decision taken after at some member(s) of the PSC had gone on Christmas/end of year holiday?

8. You do raise important issues about the role of civil society and citizen groups in public policy making. There are examples that predate the PSC and NEITI models. The Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) which, until the establishment of the pensions system by the last regime, was probably the single bigggest repository of investment capital in Nigeria has the leader of the NLC as its statutory chair. There are no uniform models of civil society participation or stakeholding but a question that surely does arise is where the line is to be drawn between stakeholding and co-optation? How do(es) civil socety (or indeed other independent constituencies such as organised labour or the Nigerian Union of Journalists) ensure that its/their nominee(s) to any of these entities reflect(s) the outcome of intra-constituency consultation and decision making rather than the whim of a powerful politician or President? How do they walk the fine line between co-optation and efffective participation? How do they ensure that important or far reaching decisions are not taken at meetings convened - whether deliberately, inadvertently or coincidentally - to the exclusion of their representatives on these bodies?

Many thanks once again for your most insightful posting and fraternal wishes for a challenging 2009.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

--- On Mon, 29/12/08, otive igbuzor wrote:

From: otive igbuzor
Subject: [FOIcoalition] Otive Igbuzor's position on Nuhu Ribadu's dismissal
To: FOIcoalition@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 29 December, 2008, 9:16 PM

29^th December, 2008

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for the efforts aimed at the development of our country. In the past eight months that I have been in the Police Service Commission, I have been amused by how decisions are taken in general, reportage in the media and positions taken by CSOs. It is not in my style to conduct most of my struggles for societal transformation through the internet but I have read many amusing things and insinuations in several places.

I have decided to write this e-mail because I think that I owe the Movement Against Corruption (MAC) a responsibility as a member of the Steering committee and the civil society because I represent civil society at the commission. The actions taken by the Police Service Commission since inception have generated a lot of responses, the most controversial being the reversion to former ranks of 140 police Officers (including Nuhu Ribadu), the promotion of whom the commission believed did not follow due process and was in most cases outright nepotism. It is important to point out that the Police Service Commission before ours under the Obasanjo regime took the same position on most of the cases (including Nuhu Ribadu-You can cross check from Ms. Ayo Obe- who was representing civil society on the Commission). From the memos that were presented to us at the commission, any person who fights for fairness and justice will definitely support the reversion to former ranks. Please recall that in many of the cases, the Police Service Commission did not issue promotion letters to the affected Officers.

As a Political Scientist, I have no doubt in my mind that there are some interests in all these issues. When Nuhu Ribadu was the Chair of the EFCC, I was one of the greatest supporters. Even though I criticized the selective application of the laws, I was of the view that the war should not stop only on the account of selection. I was sure and said it publicly that as from 2007, there will be another round of selection but that no innocent person should be selected. I did not imagine then that this would be the pattern of selection. Any student of power understands that in many places and in most cases, power is used selectively. This is why I have always argued that Nuhu Ribadu is a victim of the system.

This brings me to the role of the civil society and the media as watch dog of the society. The civil society ought to fight against selective use of power and act in the overall interest of society especially the poor and excluded. In this matter, I think that the civil society has tried to play its role but what worries me is that at times, the overall interest of the society and the most vulnerable are not placed in their proper position.

Let me state my position on the issues at stake. I supported the reversion of the 140 officers to their former ranks based on the information presented to us. In one particular case, the officer superseded his seniors by more than 2000 places. I am sure that most of the promotion of the 140 officers is nothing but nepotism. On Nuhu Ribadu, I have a lot of respect for him as an efficient, hardworking and courageous Officer. I think that he deserved special promotion but not twice within a space of four months in an institution where other otherwise hardworking officers remain in one rank for over ten years. I condemn his posting out of EFCC and the unusual focus on him by the government. But I think that it is not correct for him to refuse to resume duty after his NIPSS course. I wholeheartedly support his right to go to court but he should have assumed duty pending the determination of the case. I do not think that any organization (including an NGO) will tolerate that. In any case, I think that dismissal is too harsh a punishment. I was not present at the meeting where the decision was taken because I had already gone on Christmas break and I was organizing a program in Delta State . I would have canvassed a more lenient punishment.

Perhaps if I were not in the Police Service Commission, my views might have been different. But considering what has been presented to me and the amount of information available to me, I cannot in good conscience hold a contrary view.

Now back to civil society. Over the years, we have canvassed for civil society representation on government bodies. These advocacies have now paid off and there is civil society representation on NEITI, Procurement Commission and Police Service Commission. There are challenges that go with this. First is how do you select civil society representatives to these bodies. The second is how do we hold these representatives accountable ? I think that these two issues need to be discussed because the challenges are going to become more complex as we struggle for deepening of democracy and transformation of society. It will be counter productive for people to make irresponsible insinuations and calling on people to resign if they disagree with a decision made by an organ with civil society representative without a discussion with the representative.

One insinuation that has been made in this matter is that former corrupt governors have reached out to the members of the Police Service Commission and bribed them. This is to say the least nonsensical. I and my track record speak for me.

Another issue is a call by a few people that I should resign. I also find this counter-productive. These people have not asked me to give a briefing. Neither have they ever bothered to find out the workings of the Commission. Even if I resign, does that mean that no civil society person will ever go into the commission or any other body requiring civil society representation? What then happens to the legitimate concerns and voices of civil society?

My views on the governance of Nigeria (including this administration) are well known. I recognize that I represent civil society on the Police Service Commission and will be willing to be bound by the wishes and aspirations of civil society but things must be done in an orderly manner and with potential for impact and change in the society. When the discussions started on representation of civil society on the commission, we had a discussion with some comrades and we decided to take up the position because of the possibility of effecting some changes in the security sector. But in the last eight months, there has been a little focus by civil society and the media on other issues that have capacity to bring change to the security sector. I did not realize at the time of taking up this position that I will be faced with these monumental challenges but I think that it is the price of leadership. I hope and will strive for a situation where issues will be looked at from all its ramifications and in the final analysis, there will be transformative change.

As a way forward, I think that the civil society needs to strategise on representation of civil society in government bodies and procedure for holding them accountable. In addition, there is the need for a strategy to utilize the opportunities we have in these bodies to the fullest. For instance, can we brief them on issues pending before them if we have more information or provide support to enable them deliver? Otherwise, the unity and genuine representation of civil society required to push forward the struggle will be broken.

Otive Igbuzor

Otive Igbuzor, PhD
Plot 590 Cadastral zone,
2nd Floor, NAIC Building,
Central Business Area,
Abuja.
Tel: 234 9 2348480 & 3 (office)
"Leaders are not born...They are produced during the course of the Struggle" ...Amandla