Thursday, 8 June 2017

My reply to Prof Ben Nwabueze on Biafra possibility through court

Image result for pictures of Ben Nwabueze and Biafra flag 


 You are very wrong, Professor Nwabueze, with due respect:

 Emeka Emekesri, Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra, replies to Professor Ben Nwabueze on the Biafra self-determination struggle by legal method.





 My attention has been drawn to a statement credited to Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN in the Sun Newspaper of 7th August 2016 with a caption “Biafra impossible through Court”. Let me reproduce the relevant questions and answers:



Question: Going back to the Biafra agitation, there is on one hand a section of the agitators who prefer to toe the line of constitutional means, which you have just suggested to achieve their demands. According to the report, they have gone to court to seek intervention in their struggle for self-determination. There is yet another group which believes in violent protest to achieve the same goal. Which of these two options is more viable? Answer: I don’t believe in violent method. I don’t think it will pay off. It has not paid off in the past. The secession of Biafra for three years didn’t bring any dividend to us. Agitation by means of court action I do not think also will achieve the purpose. If you go to court, what do you expect the court to decide in a case like this? Will the court tell you that you have the right to self-determination? What is self-determination? That is a very ambiguous term. If you go to court to say you want self-determination, let’s assume they grant you the right to self-determination, how do you enforce it? Due process or constitutional process is not really about going to court. There are internal and constitutional processes that can force a change. Question: In what way? Could you define that constitutional process? There are many of them. There are many processes that can be used to force the hands of government. Impeachment is one of them”.



I make this reply in my capacity as the Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra with the conduct of the Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 between Biafra and Nigeria in the Federal High Court Owerri. I would have ignored this statement published by the Sun Newspaper but considering that it was alleged to have come from Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN, the Eminent Professor who taught us law in the University, who was reported to be the brain behind the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria imposed on us by the military junta, I have decided to reply with utmost respect to show my learned friend where he has erred. Of the two methods, violent method and legal method, he said that he did not believe in the violent method but again did not also believe that Biafra could be achieved through the court. This is the thinking of many Nigerian lawyers and politicians. Professor Nwabueze reasoned as follows:



 “Agitation by means of court action I do not think also will achieve the purpose. If you go to court, what do you expect the court to decide in a case like this? Will the court tell you that you have the right to self-determination? What is selfdetermination? That is a very ambiguous term. If you go to court to say you want self-determination, let’s assume they grant you the right to selfdetermination, how do you enforce it?”

Let me now respond to Professor Nwabueze’s statement:



1.    First of all, I must bring it to the attention of the whole world and to the Judges of the International Court of Justice that Professor Nwabueze of Nigeria has biased the mind of the Judge who must have read the Newspaper by now. His statement is prejudicial to my clients’ case.



His question, “If you go to the Court, what do you expect the Court to decide in a case like this?”shows the confusion that has enveloped the Nigerian Authorities over this case. The issues for determination are quite simple. Let me reproduce the issues for determination in court:



 (1) Whether the Indigenous People of Biafra who are the remnants that were not consumed in the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 have the right to selfdetermination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.



(2) Whether the Claimants who identify themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity are committing any offence by doing so contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or contrary to any provisions of the Criminal Code and whether it is a crime under any national or international law to mention the name of BIAFRA or for the remnants of the Indigenous People of Biafra who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as Biafrans with their native emblems and symbols as they do now even though they are Nigerians by citizenship and nationality laws; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are justified to arrest, shoot and kill the children of the Claimants for identifying themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.



(3) Whether by the interpretation of Section 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 it is a crime for the Claimants and or the people of other ethnic nationalities held together in Nigeria against their will to exercise their right to self-determination by seeking for independence under the law as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and the United Nations Resolution 61/295 of 2007 known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.



 (4) Whether it is lawful under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for the Defendants to hold the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria together by force against their will who now constitute the six geopolitical regions namely: South East, South South, South West, North Central, North East and North West, in a forced marriage akin to slavery contrary to their human and peoples’ rights of self-determination as there is no provision in the Nigerian law or international law that makes it a crime for a people to seek for freedom by the rule of law.

 (5) Whether the amalgamation of the peoples of the south and north by the British Government to form one country called Nigeria was with the consent and agreement of the indigenous peoples of the lands; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Order-in-Council 1910 – 1913 made by the British Government to create Nigeria in 1914 was null and void ab initio for lacking legitimacy as it could not form the basis of the Nigerian Constitution thereby rendering the amalgamation invalid.



 (6) Whether by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 which took effect on 1st October 1963 and remained in force until the midnight of 30th September 1979 the Defendants were right to seize and confiscate the assets, properties, money, and all treasures belonging to the Claimants by promulgating the Abandoned Properties Act of 28th September 1979 while the 1963 Constitution was in force, being more than nine years after the war and after the declaration of “One Nigeria” while regarding the Claimants as Nigerian citizens but depriving them of their properties, money and assets; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are still justified to withhold the said money, properties and assets belonging to the Claimants.



 (7) Whether the Defendants were justified to violate the International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War known as the Geneva Convention 1949 (to which the Defendants acceded and ratified on 20th June 1961) by bombing the Biafran civilians, killing the Biafran civilians and using starvation to kill the children, women and the elderly of the civilian population of the indigenous people of Biafra in the war of 1967 – 1970 in order to win the war.



 (8) Whether the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1986 and licensing an Islamic Sharia Bank in Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria have violated the Constitution and turned Nigeria into an Islamic country; and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Claimants have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to be called the citizens of an Islamic country in the exercise of their right to freedom of worship, freedom of association and self-determination as a people.



The prayers following the issues for determination are as follows:



(a) An Order declaring that the Claimants have the right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, and are therefore free to exercise their unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.



(b) An Order declaring that the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria are not held as slaves under Section 2(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore have the right of self-determination to decide their political status by the rule of law.



(c) An Order declaring that the Defendants are liable to pay to the Claimants by way of compensation or reparation the present value of all the money, properties and assets of the Claimants seized by the Defendants pursuant to the Abandoned Properties Act of 1979 in violation of the Claimants’ right to own properties in any part of the country since the properties were not seized in wartime but nine years after the war based on the post-war discriminatory policies and laws made by the Defendants to suppress the Claimants from generation to generation.



 (d) An Order directing the Defendants to comply with the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and consequently give all assistance to the Claimants in the exercise of their right to self-determination.



(e) An Order granting judicial protection to the Claimants, their homes, their offices and their correspondences individually and collectively as they exercise their right to self-determination and an Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and privies, from interfering, arresting, molesting, intimidating, disturbing, hindering or harassing the Claimants or doing any act or omitting to do any act aimed at frustrating the Claimants’ exercise of their right to self-determination which they have commenced by due process of the law.



(f) An Order compelling the Defendants to release from its prisons and detention centres all indigenous people of Biafra who are agitating as proBiafra Movements for Independence of Biafra by peaceful means and to drop all charges of treason or treasonable felonies made against them and to release all their properties seized by the Defendants.



 (g) An Order affirming the Memorandum of Ohanaeze Ndigbo dated 28th June 2012 submitted to the National Assembly for the restructuring of Nigeria into six autonomous self-governing regions, namely: South East, South West, South South, North East, North West and North Central, as a manifestation of the Will of the People in the exercise of their right to selfdetermination and directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law granting autonomy and self-governing status to the six geopolitical regions in Nigeria; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in the role of the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man, an Order directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law dissolving Nigeria in peace along the compatible ethnic groups instead of allowing the country to break up in bloodshed.



 (h) An Order declaring that the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and licensing an Islamic bank under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 have turned Nigeria into an Islamic country contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore the Claimants being Christians have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to be called the citizens of an Islamic country.



2.    The Issue No. 1 is very clear. It is a question of law for the Court to answer.

The law we quoted is the Nigerian Law, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. It is not ambiguous unless Professor Nwabueze does not understand it. Let the Court answer YES or NO.



Is Professor Nwabueze saying that the question is too difficult for the Nigerian Judiciary to answer? There are 8 questions for the Court to answer. Are the Nigerian Judges and Lawyers no longer learned men? All we want is YES or NO. We know what to do with the answer whether it is YES or NO.



3. On the second part, Professor Nwabueze wondered how we would enforce the Order assuming the Court says YES. He thinks like many other Nigerian lawyers that I have encountered. Professor Nwabueze and all our Law Lecturers taught us in the Law School that declaratory remedies were not enforceable because there is nothing to enforce. I don’t want to argue with them, but let the Court say YES and watch how we can enforce a declaratory order. Many Nigerian lawyers have been asking me to tell them how we intend to enforce a declaratory order if the Court says YES but I have refused to tell them. Please, let the Court say either YES or NO and leave the rest to us. If they think that declaratory order is not enforceable, why are they afraid to make the order?



 4. There are other issues for determination and prayers as contained in the originating summons. The Restructuring of Nigeria into six self-governing regions which Professor Nwabueze and other men are canvassing for is contained in the Prayer (g) as follows: “An Order affirming the Memorandum of Ohanaeze Ndigbo dated 28th June 2012 submitted to the National Assembly for the restructuring of Nigeria into six autonomous self-governing regions, namely: South East, South West, South South, North East, North West and North Central, as a manifestation of the Will of the People in the exercise of their right to self-determination and directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law granting autonomy and self-governing status to the six geopolitical regions in Nigeria; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in the role of the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man, an Order directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law dissolving Nigeria in peace along the compatible ethnic groups instead of allowing the country to break up in bloodshed”.



 5. The fact is that the Defendants have no other choice. They have been given many options and they must choose one. The Biafrans want to exercise their right to self-determination. They want freedom either within Nigeria as a self-governing nation within a nation just like Scotland or total freedom outside Nigeria. The Claimants shall decide how they will exercise their right to self-determination. The law we have quoted says it explicitly as follows: Article 20: 1. All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen. 2. Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community. 6. Article 20 actually defines the meaning of self-determination by saying that: “They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen”. The clear meaning is that the indigenous peoples of the land have the right to decide how to exercise their right to self-determination. The law says that the right to self-determination is unquestionable and inalienable. This means that it is classified among the fundamental human rights which are inalienable. There is no voting in a referendum to decide whether the people have the right to self-determination or not. The law says they have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. The only referendum is for the people to decide how they will exercise that right. My clients are divided into two parts: One group wants Freedom within Nigeria while another group wants Freedom outside Nigeria. The greatest joy is that all of them want FREEDOM. Let the Court answer that simple question of law whether my clients have the right to self-determination or not, then my clients shall decide among themselves by a referendum how they would exercise that right. 7. If the Nigerian Judiciary agrees with Professor Nwabueze that the question of law is too difficult for the Nigerian Judges to answer YES or NO, then let the Court say that the question is too difficult to answer. The ICJ in The Hague shall be happy and willing to interpret the law and provide the answer.



Signed: Emeka Emekesri, Esq. Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra Mekadolf Chambers



Pls read the full interview :

Biafra impossible through court –Prof. Ben Nwabueze
— 7th August 2016
By Omoniyi Salaudeen

IN Nigeria’s elusive search for unity among its separate ethnic nationalities, Professor Ben Nwabueze, a foremost constitutional lawyer, lends his voice to the agitation for restructuring, saying it is the only way to go.

Looking way back to the days of Nigeria’s struggle for independence, would you say this is the kind of country our forebears had in mind while they were negotiating for self governance?
My answer will be no; not exactly. They had a vision of Nigeria as a great country. They had in mind a country that will become one nation. At that time, everything was focused on one united nation. But that particular vision of having Nigeria as one united nation has not been realized and the prospect of that realization seems to dim. They also had in mind a vision of a prosperous nation and a leader in the African continent. We may say, yes, the vision of prosperity has been realized to some extent in that things that were not available or possible during the time of independence are now possible. Up till 1948, there was no university in the country. The University College was established in 1948 by transforming Yaba College into the University College of the University of London.
Today, the number of universities in the country both federal and state is on a steady increase. That shows you the transformation that has taken place. At that time, very few people had an idea of what television and radio was all about. When Nigeria Broadcasting Service was introduced, there were only a few people who could avoid radio box in their houses. I recall the story of some thieves who broke into a house in Onitsha, packing this and packing that.
While that was going on, the Nigeria Broadcasting Service, which had gone on recess suddenly came on air saying, ‘Here is Nigeria Broadcasting Service’ and the thieves jumped out of the window thinking that somebody was inside the house. This shows you that there has been tremendous development. But then, couldn’t we have done more than this over this period of time? Is that enough with the amount of resources available to the country? The short answer to your question is that the vision of the founding fathers has not been realized. Development has taken place, but certainly very much short of what is expected.

Will it be right to trace the mutual suspicion that exists among different ethnic nationalities to the way and manner the founding fathers played their politics in the immediate post independence era?
In the immediate post independence period, the founding fathers you were referring to, which I suppose means Zik, Awolowo, Sardauna, Akintola, Okotie-Eboh and others were flushed out by the military. Sardauna was killed in the January 15, 1966 coup. Zik was out of the country at the time and came back later but no function for him. Tafawa Balewa was killed, Akintola was killed. So, the founding fathers were no longer in control. They were out of the picture. The military takeover in January 1966 helped to plunge the country into the kind of chaos and darkness that we are in today. What the military takeover in January 1966 did to us as a country was the destruction and undermining of our value system. The story has not been fully told. It nearly practically destroyed our values, the values these founding fathers inherited from the British colonialists. Today, as far as our values are concerned, no leaders either military or civilian could be compared with Zik, Awolowo, Sarrdauna and Tafawa Balewa. The values we have today are all money-related. That was not so before the coup. Today, money dominates our values. This is the tragedy. If we have a leadership that is concerned with bringing back the old values in place of money-rated values, then things could be better. I don’t believe it is impossible. It is difficult, but it is not impossible.
Last week some stakeholders marked the 50th remembrance of Aguiyi Ironsi and Adekunle Fajuyi amidst outpouring of emotions. Issues were raised over the motive of the Northerners in the army who staged the counter coup to avenge the killing of their kinsmen in the January 15, 1966. Couldn’t we have lived beyond the past as a people at 56? What is really happening?
These were two important personalities, especially Fajuyi who sacrificed himself in order to maintain a principle. Can that happen today? Now, to your question as to what is happening. There was a vision in the past, but I don’t remember that tribalism and nepotism really shaped governance in the country as we have today. I cannot think of a Federal Government in those days making 41 appointments and 80 percent of it going to one section of the country. It is unthinkable. In those days, they would balance it, taking cognizance of the division among the tribes. If you are making appointment into the federal level, you have to take that into account. That was how things were done, which helped to sustain the unity of the country. The idea of 41 appointments with 80 percent of it going to the North alone is unthinkable. It never happened in the past.
So, you can see the difference between the outlook of founding fathers and the outlook of the leaders today. We are no longer pursuing the idea of one united country. We are now talking about Northernisation and Islamisation of the country. So, there are agitations everywhere. Those who feel marginalized by the pattern of sharing of what you might call the national cake agitate. They become disaffected and take to the streets. The idea of Biafra was revived. It does not mean that Igbo really want to secede from the country. They have tried it and they know the futility of it. What they are doing is to protest against the unfairness in the sharing of the so-called national cake. And whoever introduced this experience in the sharing of the cake must take responsibility for what is going on today. We should not blame people who agitate; we should blame the people who caused the feeling of disaffection. They should take responsibility for the agitations and what might follow. We don’t know yet, but I believe somehow the country is on the path of disintegration.

Is it possible to trace the genesis of distrust among the ethnic nationalities to the first military intervention in politics which led to the killing of Northern politicians?

The distrust within the ethnic groups had been there before the coup. It is inbuilt because of the differences among the ethnic groups in their character, in their feelings, in their mode of life, in their customs. Because of these, the distrust was there. The job of nation building is how to harmonize and reduce these tendencies. That is essential challenge for nation building. You must not ignore the fact that these ethnic groups differ in so many aspects. But then, instead of trying to close the gap created and bring them together, what military rule did was to increase the differences. There was so much money made available by discovery of oil, which was not there before. Oil was discovered during the time of military rule and that altered everything. There was so much money but the problem was how to spend it.
People tried to help themselves to grab it. And that is why we have today separatist movements in the Niger Delta. We are spending money without taking cognizance of the damage oil exploration has done to us. There are legitimate grounds for complaining. You may not agree with their methods, but they have genuine reasons to agitate. Destruction of oil installation has affected the economy. Production of oil has gone down and this is complicated by the falling price in the global market. We are producing far less because of destruction by the militants. We need a leader who can rise above all these, not a leader who will stay in Abuja, saying he is going to deal with the Niger Delta militants ruthlessly. In my view, that is not the way to go about it at all. The question of dealing with them ruthlessly is a question of addressing the cause of their grievances.

If this trend is not checked and nipped in the bud, what might likely be the end result of these agitations on this nation?
We have seen the effect already. Every day, you cannot get power because the gas supply to the power plants has been cut off. Sometimes we don’t have light for a whole week. So, it is affecting everything.

If the agitation in the Niger Delta is sustained, the Biafra struggle is sustained, and the Boko Haram insurgency in the North east is not contained, what is the possibility of survival of Nigeria as one indivisible country?

That is the big question mark. Nigeria may disintegrate. But we must continue hoping, we must not lose faith in ourselves. We must continue to hope that somehow this phase will pass.

So, effectively Nigeria is already on the path of disintegration?
Yes, it is. It is a process and is already going on. If we are not able to terminate the process and we allow it to continue to go on, we may disintegrate. But I hope and pray that it will not go on like this.

This then brings to question the vision of President Muhammadu Buhari who fought for the presidency for four consecutive times to get there. Is it for his lack of vision that the economy of the country is on the reverse trend?

You are right; he fought for the presidency in three successive elections and he persisted. He failed the first one, failed the second, failed the third and finally won the fourth attempt. One would have thought that the man who went through three elections and emerged at the fourth attempt would have a vision of what he wants to do for the country not advancement of some personal agenda or sectional interests.
It is a complete betrayal of our expectation as to what motivated him to go on fighting. What we have seen is a complete betrayal of our expectations. Nobody would have thought that the man who fought four successive elections to become president would be there only to advance some sectional interests. It is difficult to reconcile. But that is what we have. We must continue to hope that the trend will be reversed and that he will give up this tendency to advance the Northernisation and Islamisation agenda. But what is happening today is clear that his agenda is Northernisation and Islamisation of the country. If he realizes the danger that is implicit in the pursuit of that agenda and that it contradicts the expectation of the people, he will look into the report of the 2014 national conference and implement it.

There is a loud agitation for restructuring almost everywhere in the South, whereas a sizeable number of people in the North still believe that the country should remain the way it is configured at present. What do you think is the fear of the Northern people about the idea of structuring?

Their own thinking is different. Their main thinking is supremacy. If we restructure, they will lose supremacy. If we restructure, the power of the Federal Government will go down. They can maintain this dominance only, if the powers of the Federal Government are retained as they are now. Restructuring means not only altering territorial structure, but also altering power structure. At the moment, the Federal Government at the centre is too powerful and the whole idea of restructuring is to reduce it to at least what it was in the First Republic, which they don’t want because that would affect their ambition to control the country. But they must realise that they can’t go on resisting this. We cannot continue with the arrangement that gives to the Federal Government excessive powers. We must reduce it and redistribute it to the six geo-political zones. It must be done. They don’t want any diminishing in the powers of the Federal Government at the centre which they want to control. They don’t want to control nothing but they want to control something.

So, what should the concerned stakeholders do to get out of this quagmire?

They should continue the agitation. That is all. They should continue the agitation employing all constitutional means. The hand must be forced to accept restructuring.

Going back to the Biafra agitation, there is on one hand a section of the agitators who prefer to toe the line of constitutional means, which you have just suggested to achieve their demands. According to the report, they have gone to court to seek intervention in their struggle for self determination. There is yet another group which believes in violent protest to achieve the same goal. Which of these two options is more viable?

I don’t believe in violent method. I don’t think it will pay off. It has not paid off in the past. The secession of Biafra for three years didn’t bring any dividend to us. Agitation by means of court action I do not think also will achieve the purpose. If you go to court, what do you expect the court to decide in a case like this? Will the court tell you that you have the right to self determination? What is self determination? That is a very ambiguous term. If you go to court to say you want self determination, let’s assume they grant you the right to self determination, how do you enforce it? Due process or constitutional process is not really about going to court. There are internal and constitutional processes that can force a change.

In what way? Could you define that constitutional process?

There are many of them. There are many processes that can be used to force the hands of government. Impeachment is one of them.

You mean impeachment of the president?

Yes. I don’t advocate that, but if you can muster the necessary majority and you impeach him that will teach everybody a lesson. There are other constitutional means of forcing the hands of a government that is recalcitrant. I don’t believe in violence, but it is unfortunate that they are following this trend. This country cannot progress without restructuring. It has to be restructured. Restructuring means reducing the powers of the Federal Government at the centre.

But some members of the Arewa Consultative Forum are saying that restructuring could be achieved through the National Assembly. Is that the proper way to go?
You mean constitution amendment?

Sort of…
Constitution amendment is not what we need. What we need is a brand new constitution drafted by the people at a referendum. The 1999 Constitution is no constitution in a proper sense of the term. It is a document imposed on us by the military. The people of Nigeria had nothing to do with it; it was done by the military. It is just a mere piece of paper, nobody regards it. It doesn’t enjoy sacrosanctity like the American Constitution.

What do you feel about the goings on in the National Assembly regarding the issue of budget padding vis-a-viz the anti-corruption of this government?
Initially, it was the Presidency that was accused of padding. Now, it is the National Assembly, specifically the House of Representatives that is being accused of padding. This whole idea about constituency project is really condemnable and I condemn it in very strong terms in some of my writings. When you investigate the whole concept and practice of constituency project, you see that it is really very terrible. The former Chairman of the Revenue Allocation and Fiscal Commission who was an engineer wrote a report on this, that it is chilling, the amount of corruption that had been perpetrated through the so-called constituency project.

But I am surprised that in spite of what has been said, they are still engaging in constituency projects. Not defined though, but still in the same concept trying to siphon money. You want constituency project to improve agriculture but end up using it to improve your own farm. We don’t know all the fact yet but it gives you sheer agony and anguish. What is done in the name of constituency project is unknown anywhere in the world. Yet we are still trying to keep it alive by padding the budget. Let’s see what we come out of the ongoing controversy about padding.

SHARE THIS

Author:

Etiam at libero iaculis, mollis justo non, blandit augue. Vestibulum sit amet sodales est, a lacinia ex. Suspendisse vel enim sagittis, volutpat sem eget, condimentum sem.

0 comments: