By Tunde Rahman

Former Vice President and roundly defeated presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, was a pitiful sight to behold on Thursday at the Shehu Yar ‘Adua Centre, Abuja as he sat like a wreck after addressing what he called a world press conference. He had gone on a wild goose chase to the United States in search of President Bola Tinubu’s certificate.

The former vice president however returned empty-handed after spending a fortune.

Atiku himself admitted his exploratory journey was at a hefty cost.

At the press conference, the Waziri Adamawa discovered no new thing; he found nothing incriminating or untoward against the President. He is only currently engaging in political sophistry.

Apparently deluding himself that he came back from the US with a smoking gun, at his press briefing, he sermonised on the important issue of leadership and responsibility. Alhaji Atiku assaulted the memory of the late irrepressible lawyer and human rights activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, claiming Fawehinmi inspired his shameful, worthless and self-seeking expedition.

Commending David Hundeyin, the rabble rouser who styles himself as an independent journalist, whose work he also said inspired him, it became apparent that both Atiku and Hundeyin were actually working together to embarrass President Tinubu.

Overwhelmed by his inordinate ambition, the failed PDP presidential candidate also shamelessly called traditional, religious, community and political leaders in the country including Labour Party’s Peter Obi and NNPP’s Senator Rabiu Musa Kwakwanso to rally round him in his political vendetta against President Tinubu.“This quest is not for or about Atiku Abubakar. It is a quest for the enthronement of truth, morality and accountability in our public affairs,” he said. And you wonder, what morality Alhaji Atiku was preaching. This is the same man who was indicted in the 2009 conviction of his accomplice, former United States Congressman William Jefferson, over bribery charges. Same man whose principal, former President Obasanjo, wrote a damaging testimonial on and whose years in Customs were signposted by corruption allegations.

If you have not read it, this is what former President Obasanjo said about Wazirin Atiku in  Volume 2 Pages 31-32 of  his book “My Watch”: “What I did not know, which came out glaringly later, was his parental background which was somewhat shadowy, his propensity to corruption, his tendency to disloyalty, his inability to say and stick to the truth all the time,a propensity for poor judgment, his belief and reliance on marabouts , his lack of transparency, his trust in money to buy his way out on all issues and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety truth and national interest for self and selfish interest.”

 It is pertinent at this juncture to clarify some of the issues that emerged from the deposition by President Tinubu’s former school, Chicago State University, in order to understand Atiku’s deliberate and malicious distortion.

Speaking on oath in the testimonies contained in a deposition made in the Office of Angela Liu, Atiku’s legal counsel, in Chicago, US, CSU Registrar, Caleb Westberg declared that President Bola Tinubu attended and graduated with honours from the institution in 1979. He in fact asserted that President Tinubu is the same person who attended the school from 1977 to 1979. “We believe Bola Tinubu who attended CSU is the same person who is the President of Nigeria today. Tinubu is an unusual name in the US. He matched the records in the file against the information provided by the student or on behalf of the student.”

On the insinuation by Atiku’s lawyers that the Bola Tinubu who attended the school was a female on account of a clerical error spotted against Tinubu’s name, Westberg disclosed that the admission letter issued to the Nigerian President evidently proved he was a male and attended the school between 1977 and 1979.

Probed further to confirm if the Tinubu that enrolled at the school was a male or female, the registrar insisted, “Tinubu applied to the university as a male and a letter of admission was issued to a male.

“There were materials in Mr. Tinubu’s records that show he was a male in the application to CSU. Mr. Tinubu identified himself as a male. His letter of admission identified him as a male. It says: ‘Dear Mr. Tinubu’”, he said.

It is relevant to point out that in the US, premium is not placed on certificates, otherwise called diplomas, as we do here. Certificates are merely ceremonial. The emphasis is on transcripts. Employers and schools offering admissions for higher education will only ask for previous transcripts.

In most cases, the certificates are also printed by third party vendors. Many certificates are left uncollected because what is important is the transcript. The CSU has diplomas that students didn’t pick up in its possession.

“I have the diploma that was made available to Mr. Enahoro-Ebah in our possession because Mr. Tinubu did not pick it up. I do not have the diploma that was submitted to INEC in our possession because he had picked it,” Westberg clarified while responding to another question.

Other matters also came up during the over five-hour interrogation session that I  do not want to bore you with in this piece. However, it is surprising that Atiku and co would claim President Tinubu forged his certificate simply because the CSU Registrar said he could not authenticate the certificate presented to him by Atiku’s lawyer as the document Tinubu presented to INEC for the 2023 Presidential Election. He said he cannot confirm because only Tinubu has the certificate which he ordered and which had been picked up for him and that the school does not keep students’ certificates. Nowhere in the interrogation did Westberg use the word fake or forged as Atiku’s lawyer tried to make him say so. Fact is there is no scintilla of doubt that President Tinubu attended and graduated from CSU. As my colleague, Temitope Ajayi, pointed out in his widely-publicised tweet, “You can only forge a certificate you never earned.” President Tinubu honourably earned his degree and he had no reason to forge the certificate of a degree he had in his kitty. He graduated Summa Cum Laude, with distinction. He was on the Vice Chancellor’s Honour List for all his years in the school. Insinuation by anyone that he forged a certificate he worked for is sad and misleading.

Indeed, attempts by some to liken the situation with those of the disgraced former House of Representatives Speaker, Salisu Buhari and former Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun are disingenuous.

Former Speaker Buhari forged the certificate of Toronto University he never attended. He was removed from office for the forgery. Former President Obasanjo later pardoned him. As for former Minister Adeosun, those who brought her to limelight and sponsored her for the ministerial appointment arranged a fake NYSC exemption certificate for her to scale Senate screening. The same people did her in when disagreements broke out between them, giving her away as a certificate forger over which she eventually resigned. The cases are markedly different: President Tinubu earned his stripes.

In the final analysis, it is yet unclear how Atiku plans to benefit from whatever he claims to have brought back from the US. Certificate forgery was not pleaded in his election petition now at the Supreme Court. Without being a lawyer, this is a civil case and I understand you can’t make new pleas or present new evidence in a case that has passed the court of first instance and is at present on appeal at the Supreme Court.

What the Waziri Adamawa has demonstrated in all of his Shenanigans is that he is a sore loser. Will he gain what he failed to get at the ballot through his present indecent and unpatriotic overseas search and unfounded and hollow discovery, making a mountain where there is even no molehill, unnecessarily heating up the polity and denigrating the Justices of the Supreme Court? I don’t think so!Rahman, former Editor of Thisday on Sunday Newspaper, is a Presidential Aide.

By Dakuku Peterside

Last Saturday’s  presidential election marks a new beginning for Nigeria, if not literally, then clearly symbolically. Nigerian voters defied hunger, Naira crisis and appropriated that moment as a clear point of departure from the past. They embraced the election as if their lives depended on it.

The general high level of enthusiasm lifted voter turnout and reinforced confidence in democracy. Young people saw it as a chance to “get back their country”, plagued by bad leadership and underdevelopment. The fanfare and zest with which Nigerians trooped out in their numbers to perform a ritual that may not have rewarded them in the past but still managed to sustain their hope of a better future was electric. The presidential election revealed a divided, disillusioned, and disaffected Nigeria. Despite whatever will be the election’s outcome, most Nigerians believe the electoral process is a radical improvement on previous exercises, considering the size and complexity of the country. Previous polls have been anticlimactic both in process and outcome.

Nigerians hope that this election will usher in a genuine democratic leader that represents the choice and voice of the people. The elections were generally peaceful and orderly, save for pockets of skirmishes in flashpoint states where thugs disrupted the polls, carted away ballot boxes, or tactically disenfranchised voters.

Regrettably, bad habits of thuggery and violent disruptions of the process resurfaced. Blatant violent hooliganism in states like Kogi, Lagos and Rivers overwhelmed security arrangements.

According to media reports and from the account of observers, youths turned out in their numbers to vote. Voters’ turnout from observation, in general, may be better than in the recent past, where voter apathy was prominent, and there was a continuous decline in the number of voters in each subsequent general election. Most persons who observed the polls I have spoken to are cautiously optimistic that it would be a relatively free and fair election, thanks to the recent amendment of electoral act which gave legal backing to Bimodal Voter Identification System ( BVAS) and other technological devices. From snippets of results, old political fiefdoms seem to be crumbling. Nigerians have rejected politics of hate, violence, and intolerance. If this is the case, it will mark a watershed in the political history of Nigeria.

Discerning persons must have observed four different echoes and reverberations with the elections. The first echo is that INEC prepared better this time around when compared with previous elections. The level of the organisation before and during the polls shows an improved INEC operation. INEC carried out voter sensitization, conducted mock exercises and reasonably assured the public of its best intentions . The use of technology was good, as voters can even find their polling units online. The identification method in polling units was remarkable, and we must commend INEC for even using the technology in remote parts of Nigeria. The BVAS technology generally worked, with failure in few places. Overall, the quality of the election conducted has improved. This evidences that Nigerian institutions can work if we are ready to do the work required to improve them.

However, there is also an elixir of mixed feelings about INEC’s preparation for this election. INEC allowed many familiar slip ups in logistics. Backup batteries for BVAS devices were not available in most places. INEC staff turned up late in a number of places. Voting started late or did not even take place in isolated instances. But given the tripartite problem of cash scarcity, fuel scarcity and infrastructural deficiency, one can only imagine the enormous challenge of organising this election in almost one hundred and seventy seven thousand polling units nationwide. Given the recurring logistics challenges in our elections, INEC must develop better ways of solving these problems to improve Nigerians’ voting experience. It is unfair that voters turned out to vote and either did not see INEC officials or the officials came late.

This lead to some voters being disenfranchised completely, or voting spills over to the following day. Besides, INEC officials could not upload the results from the polling units. This is a  critical low point of the elections. Electoral fraudsters will probably “doctor” the results to their advantage — the same complaint all over the Federation.

The second echo is the high turnout of youth voters. Traditionally, Nigerian youths are dispassionate with politics and the electoral process. This was a shame, given that they comprise a more significant part of the population. In previous elections, voter apathy among youths was high, and most young people would rather be doing anything else than queue to vote in elections. Previous election post- mortem analyses often lambast youths’ lack of interest in the electoral process. The number of young people engaged in this election is remarkable and marks a departure from the old. The overwhelming youth turnout reinforced the future as the domain of youth.

This is significant in three ways: first, it may be a sign that the youths have suddenly realised that they have a part to play in selecting the country’s leaders. Youths’engagement in social media  has made them adept at sharing their political views and championing political ideas. The second is that this large turnout signifies rebellion against orthodoxy. Young people are dissatisfied with the status quo and have decided to influence their future through political mobilisation and participation. Students of political sociology may need to chart the youth’s political consciousness through the various conflicts between the young people and the system (institutions, agencies, government), as seen in the ENDSARS revolt and other pro-youth agitations. These movements have crystallised in youth political advocacy. The third is that the large turnout of youths signifies their willingness to use their strength in number to take back political control from older leaders who have captured power in Nigeria for a generation. We hope that the extension of this considerable youth turnout in the next few years will signpost the young presenting themselves in more significant numbers to be voted for and metaphorically taking back their country.

The third echo is that many Nigerians have started demonstrating faith in the electoral process.

There was also a higher than usual awareness of democratic rights as voters strongly pressed their rights and opposed those out to violate those rights. The level of political awareness is encouraging and remarkable . The mantra in this election has been that “your vote counts”, and with the new voting technology, election rigging is brought to a minimum. This has inspired confidence in many people to vote. This will deepen our democracy and its corollary good governance in Nigeria. It is also significant to note that this is the first election since 1999 where none of the presidential aspirants came from the military. Nigerian democracy is gradually growing away from the control and influence of the former military generals who captured power and have defined our politics for over fifty years. Nigerians in this election have demonstrated their love for democracy and are willing to participate when they believe in the process. I hope that subsequent actions and inactions of the political gladiators and institutions post- election will be democratic. The calling of the election result, the declaration of victors, the litigations and appeal routines, the transition process and forming of the new government are all flashpoints that must be followed with caution and due democratic tenets to sustain the democratic bubble this election has created.

The fourth echo is that Nigerians want a new Nigeria and are full of new expectations from the incoming president. The new leadership faces high expectations from Nigerians who believe we are at the breaking point and things are no longer at ease. Nigerians expect the president-elect to chart a new course for the country towards economic, technological, social, and political regeneration that will improve the living standard of Nigerians. Nigerians are tired of suffering and living in the hope of a better Nigeria which honest leaders can build from our endowments. Whoever emerges as the president has his job cut out and must quickly act before Nigerians lose their patience. Whoever is declared victorious has no option but to embark on radical reforms on all fronts. He must initiate policies and programs that address youth concerns, particularly education, employment  creation,  insecurity, infrastructure, and good governance.

There is no doubt that Nigerians, both at home and abroad, are expecting a new and better Nigeria going forward. The election has sent echoes reverberating across time and space for a new beginning—a fresh start for more incredible things. Building the Nigeria of our dreams is a task for all and getting the leadership right is the first step towards achieving a greater Nigeria. We must continue with the passion and optimism of the election and put them to better use in productivity and innovation. I hope our youths are awake and in tune with the realities of our time. The future is for them, and they must work hard to build it. Economic and political participation is necessary for such growth. I implore all Nigerians to dare to dream of a better, greater, and prosperous Nigeria.

Dakuku Peterside is a policy and leadership expert.

By ‘Tope Fasua
Myriads of lessons have been learnt from the cash swap and currency redesign experiment in Nigeria in the past few months. As much as a currency redesign should be a routine function of a central bank in any country, still it emerged that such a simple process could become very problematic when combined with other goals – such as curbing money laundering or reducing currency in circulation – not to talk of political imputations.

Next time, adequate planning would be required, and complexity must be added to planners’ imaginations, not just simple reliance on what may be faulty, academic statistics that have little bearing with reality. At the end, the chief lesson remains that a policy that has adverse effects on the wellbeing of the people must be quickly amended, squelched, adjusted or generally abandoned. Quick actions and reactions are required whenever we are dealing with the general populace.
But today, I intend to look at one germane aspect of the experiment. And that is the adequacy or fitness of Nigeria’s financial architecture. Of late, Nigeria has generally moved with the rest of the world in terms of the digitisation of everything. That is great. However, this ‘demonetisation’ exercise showed that we may have again put the cart before the horse, as we are wont to. Very embarrassingly, Nigeria found out that we had more bank branches in the rural areas in 1984 than we had in 2023 – 39 years later. In my part of the country, many rural areas had Cooperative Bank, National Bank, Wema Bank, Savannah Bank, Allied Bank, Societe Generale Bank, Owena Bank, First Bank, Union Bank, UBA, and many more, back in the day, sprinkled all over the old Ondo State – now Ondo and Ekiti States. There were many other indigenous banks spread all over the country, in which bank managers did not peer down on their customers like they were vermin. Life was simple and analogue. There were no computers. Accounts were kept in huge ledgers. And the economies of our rural areas saw some growth, no matter how little. Now, those economies are shrinking to extinction.
It was General Babangida who bought the Western idea of far-right capitalism. Then we started concentrating on whatever brought the raw profits. In time, we have seen a total abandonment of our rural areas. Our banks have evolved in digital, lean and mean machines that extract money from millions of Nigerians on a minutely basis, through different online charges. Customers of banks have become mere digits, ciphers, in the ethers of their psychedelic machines and servers and, of course, the cloud. Nobody owns anything anymore, not even relationships. Billions of dollars keep turning in as profits from these lean and mean banks, most of which end up abroad, as Nigeria itself – with its dying rural areas and few crowded urban spots – has no absorptive capacity for even the huge profits that the banks, oil companies, telcos, and their staff are making. The Nigerian economy became totally externalised. I mean that we seem to exist for the sole purpose of pumping money outside to ‘countries that work’, even as our youngest, most-privileged, and smartest, are heading out to ‘the abroad’, in torrents.
The ongoing demonetisation project (very ill-advised and it is different from ordinary currency redesign), exposed that our banking infrastructure is inadequate. Branches are totally non-existent in about 450 out of 774 local governments in Nigeria (60%). Many were closed down because of the same skewed development, which led to armed robberies in rural banks. Others were closed down in our many series of bank consolidations and mergers, because they made no profits and the new owners were not obliged to leave them open. For this category of closures, what mattered more was that head office needed to post huge profits and impress shareholders and executive managements. Of course, another victim of this misguided reform are the small bank workers at the base of the food chain. Too many of them have been summarily wasted, used and dumped like trash. The financial sector became as usual, a playground of hyenas; chancers, users, scavengers, opportunists, cheats, and bullies.
With what we have seen, should we not be talking about reforms? A senior friend of mine, Professor Richard Verner – ex-Oxford University – has a theory about the growth of economies. As a scientific economist who seeks empirical evidence, he states that the countries that have developed around the world – like China, UK, USA, Japan, Germany – have done so because they expanded their banking infrastructure, especially in the rural areas. I used to have misgivings about the ideas of proliferating banks, but the more I engaged with the theories of Professor Werner, the more I see the cogent points he makes. Nigeria does not need fewer banks. We indeed need more banks – in terms of brands and branches. But we need to approach banking differently. Our previous experiments with community banks and microfinance banks collapsed because of several factors, some of which are lack of discipline on the part of owners, some of whom saw those banks as opportunities for quick extraction of profits, bad corporate governance, greed, ostentation (even MFBs want to buy and use big SUVs like those guys in Victoria Island), and bad business models imposed by regulators (e.g. that MFBs cannot raise funds locally). At the end, what we have are big banks that don’t give a toss about their customers, and small customers who throng the few branches of these big banks which treat them like trash. People now travel hundreds of kilometres to their banks, abandoning the same rural areas, even as the few big banks continue to invest in technology and robots that ensure that the small clients they have acquired get to feel more uncomfortable.
Something needs to be done and I see how it can be done. It will require deliberateness and patience. But if done properly, it will revive many of our rural areas and unleash tremendous growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Werner believes that – as it happens especially in Germany – rural banks should lend to productive sectors only. If – as Tinubu says he wants to – we could regionalise development through value-addition to our primary products, then local banks could establish to finance that next phase of development. We probably need less lending to farmers but more to industries which add value to products bought from farmers – who should be protected to get their fair prices and quick payment for their products. Commodity Boards and Exchanges to the rescue.
One critical reason for this proposal around a rejigged banking infrastructure is that banks are saddled with the role of creating money. And money creation is economic expansion. Some call this the fractional banking system. It is a theory that falls under immense criticism, but if large economies have used this to power up their economy, let us not be hoodwinked into not trying it. We must be able to get this country back and secure Nigeria for the next phase of development. Banks create money by expanding their balance sheet and this is how economies expand rapidly. Our current banking set-up looks tired, bloated in the wrong places and is increasingly visionless. It is not helped by the lack of resolve in the provision of security. The big banks that we have could continue to maintain focus on large industries and urban areas, but we now need small community banks or whatever they call them, which can maintain their focus on developing their environments – the US had thousands of those (family-owned banks, Savings and Loans institutions, etc.).
Let me end by explaining how banks create money. If a bank obtains a license, and has just N1 million in its vault, it could issue a business loan of N2 million. All of a sudden, that bank has doubled its balance sheet. How? The lending is based on the assumption (which is usually correct) that those to whom it has given a business loan will not withdraw the entire new loan at once, or on the day it was given. That bank could even issue loans up to N5 million on the basis of that principle. But this has three fallbacks. Because the bank belongs in a community of licensed banks, if indeed it anticipates a liquidity challenge, it could borrow overnight or short-term funds from its peers, run back to the central bank to draw on any reserve it owns, or to even get bailed-out for some time, or it could continue to raise funds from depositors in its own market. If thousands of banks are doing this in a country, hundreds of industries will emerge based on the funding that goes on, and therefore the GDP of that country will expand.
Nigeria has so many untapped areas. Mistakes may be made, and they are essential to learning and getting things right. Whatever the case, we are like a clean canvass. This Werner theory is however very valid from where I stand. For now, Lagos State alone – by recent statistics – has over 1,600 bank branches. This is the combination of all bank branches in the North-West, North-Central, North-East and South-East put together. Nigeria’s other regions now have an average of about 450 bank branches – with branches concentrated only in the state capitals in the main. It’s such a shameful prospect. But it’s also an indication that perhaps only Lagos State is growing economically in Nigeria – with enough safety assured to allow these banks operate peacefully. But it is now high time to reverse this acute urbanisation of finance, and the attendant underdevelopment, chaos, and deindustrialisation.

‘Tope Fasua, an economist, author, blogger, entrepreneur, and recent presidential candidate of the Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party (ANRP), can be reached through topsyfash@yahoo.com.