Connect with us

News and Report

Editorial: Ambassadorial appointments for ex-Service Chiefs – Wrong!

Published

4 years ago

on

Just when it seems the Muhammadu Buhari administration has hit the lowest ebb in a governance capacity and signaling for real national rebirth, it manages to find a further depth in ignominy. President Buhari’s nomination of the immediate past service chiefs as ambassadors, barely nine days after sacking them from the country’s security agencies is patently ill-conceived, morally reprehensible, and should be reversed immediately in the public interest. As a matter of personal honor, the ex-service chiefs should decline the offer; failure to which, the Senate should reject the nominations outright as it amounts to an egregious abuse of presidential patronage and power! “President Muhammadu Buhari has forwarded the names of the immediate past Service Chiefs to the Senate as non-career Ambassadors-Designate,” presidential aide Bashir Ahmad disclosed in a tweet. Whatever motivation informed the president’s decision, the action was misguided and irredeemably wrong; the President either judged poorly; was wrongly advised or was so confounded by an urgent need to reward the ex-service chiefs. Either way, Buhari should rethink his action. To dispense ambassadorial appointments as a reward to men who failed woefully, to protect Nigerian lives and property is to do a great disservice to the country.

The ambassador-designates are retired Defense chief Abayomi Olonisakin, former Army chief Tukur Buratai, former Navy chief Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas and former Air chief Sadique Abubakar. Their nomination is subject to confirmation by the National Assembly. While many critics rated the ex-service chiefs low in the state of national security, Buhari said they had “overwhelming achievements in our efforts at bringing enduring peace to our dear country.” The ex-service chief’s nomination came nine days after Buhari replaced them – having headed the country’s security agencies for over five years; during which time, Boko Haram terrorists, Fulani herdsmen, kidnappers and armed bandits continue to rampage the country with impunity.

Borne out of insufficient thought and lacking the rigor required for such nominations, the president’s action devalues Nigeria and Nigerian diplomacy. It is not surprising that the disastrous decision has provoked intense public reaction and anger from Nigerians who see in the president’s action; an insult on their collective sensibilities as victims who paid the price for the incompetence of the ex-service chiefs. The appointment of ambassadors in any country is expected to be based on demonstrable high achievement in particular fields of human endeavor, notably diplomacy and international relations. By definition, it ought to be a scarce commodity and of such a nature that it is worth the while of diplomats to spend their lifetime in pursuit of the singular honor of representing their country abroad. Giving diplomatic appointments to soldiers with no experience in diplomacy devalues the honor and lumps apples and oranges in a hodgepodge that insults the sensibilities of truly worthy diplomats. What has happened with the appointment of the ex-service chiefs has truncated any pretense at the search for and reward of merit and excellence within the Foreign Service.

It begs the question whether Buhari is dispensing ambassadorial appointments to people who understand what it takes to defend Nigeria’s interest in the global arena, or throwing garlands of favor to the faithful. In this latest exercise, we appear to have hit rock bottom in our value system. Nigerians have wondered aloud how the highest levels of their government can be so impudent. Ambassadors being persons in the limelight in foreign countries are expected to be role models for others to emulate. None of the ex-service chiefs can be role models to anybody. Their nomination in itself was a typical Nigerian comedy of errors. From the public debate the action has generated, Nigerians are not challenging Buhari’s constitutional right to appoint ambassadors. Far from it! Their concern, instead, seems to be that there should be room for a measure of decorum and decency in the exercise of constitutional powers. The main grouse, and validly so, therefore, remains that in the case at hand, all virtues were totally discarded. And the action has no redeeming value to the president or the country.

In a continuing orgy of ineptitude, the presidency did not reference any antecedents of the credentials of the ex-service chiefs that make them suitable for their new assignments. It is a tragic irony that under their watch, Nigeria underwent a grisly metamorphosis to become one huge killing field of unimaginable depravity. The president should not be rewarding people who failed to serve their country at the highest levels with integrity. All these beg the question whether those in charge of these appointments know what they are doing. Nigerians are entitled to ask whether there were any consultations between the presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before these appointments were announced.

The ex-service chiefs might have done their best to combat insecurity; but their best wasn’t enough. Little surprise the clarion calls for their sacking came from every quarter in the polity; and when they were eventually sacked, the nation heaved a sigh of relief for it was good riddance. Therefore, at the risk of stating the obvious, it is legitimate to ask why Buhari is recycling these tired old men who are overdue retirement. In light of the seeming helplessness and somewhat confused mien over the present national decadence, Nigerians are curious to know why the president thinks ex-service chiefs who cannot be exonerated from the national security failures of the nation would be good ambassadors given the corruption that has almost without exception dogged their performance in the military.

Appointing ex-service chiefs barely nine days after they were sacked for incompetence sacrifices meritocracy on the altar of expediency as these officers cannot point to any tangible benefit Nigerians received from their activities in the military. Worse even, they are not part of the diplomatic corps as constituted and lacked the gravitas, political sagacity and gumption to effectively deliver in their new functions. It is here that the exemplary lives of the Anyaokus, Adefuyes, Ikimis, Gambaris, and others become instructive. In the diplomatic service, the private sector or public service, these men have over the years taken their callings and done just one thing: service to the fatherland. Just as tenacious as they were in their resolve to be truly Nigerian in all they did in their twilight years, it is a mark of how well they have served that the nation still calls them up for more of what they have given all these years. The president can take a cue from their dedication and selflessness to promote collective national interests as opposed to the parochial, sectional and even jaundiced line that seem the only path now.

It is shocking that this monumental blunder and error of judgment could have occurred apparently without due process or consultation with stakeholders in the foreign ministry. The Senate in its infinite wisdom should halt this descent into anarchy that diminishes both the presidency and the country. The President should be encouraged that rather than being a show of weakness, it is an act of courage for a leader to, upon recognizing the error of his action, reverse his decision. Such a reversal is in the public interest, and constitutes due respect for the democratic yearnings of the people. The government must begin to do things appropriately.

It is true that an ambassador is an appointee of the President and holds the job at the pleasure of the appointer. An ambassadorial appointment should be for only the serious-minded who are qualified to be so appointed if he or she is found fit and proper in all ramifications – intellect, managerial and other competencies – maturity, loyalty, patriotism – to serve the nation at such high level. These are qualities the ex-service chiefs don’t have; therefore their appointment is an institutional tragedy of great magnitude. Not only has the diplomatic tradition been brought low, both the presidency and Nigerian diplomacy are now objects of ridicule. Public office is a call to national duty and only the ready, willing, and able deserves it. The choice in this, of course, is that of the President. Needless to say how well his appointees perform will determine the President’s own report card as well as his place in history.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement

News and Report

Alleged 76bn, $31.5m Fraud: EFCC Arraigns Ex AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru, Four Others in Lagos

Published

5 hours ago

on

January 20, 2025

By

 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday, 20 January, 2025 arraigned a former Managing Director of Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria AMCON, Ahmed Kuru and four others for allegedly defrauding Arik Airline N76 billion and $31.5 million, respectively.

 

Other defendants are former Receiver Manager of Arik Airline Ltd, Kamilu Omokide, Chief Executive Officer of the airline, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, and Super Bravo Ltd and Union Bank PLC.

 

The defendants were arraigned before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos on a six-count charge bordering on theft, abuse of office and stealing by dishonestly taking the property of another.

 

The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to all the six-count charges when they were read to them.

 

Count one reads: “That you, Union Bank Nigeria Plc, sometime in 2011 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with the intention of causing and/or inducing unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of N71,000,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Billion Naira) to AMCON.”

 

Count two reads: “That you, Ahmed Lawal Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide as Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer of Arik Air Limited in Receivership, sometime in 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the total sum of N4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion Nine Hundred Million Naira only), property of Arik Air Limited”.

 

Count five reads: “That you, Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Ahmed Lawal Kuru and Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, on the 12th day of February, 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being public officers, directed to be done in abuse of the authority of your office and with intention of obtaining undue advantage for yourself and cronies an arbitrary act, to wit: intentionally authorizing the tear down and destruction of 5N-JEA with Serial No. 15058 valued at $31.5million (Thirty One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars), an arbitrary act, which act is prejudicial to the economic stability of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Arik Air Limited”.

 

The counsel to the first and third defendants, Prof Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, informed the court of a motion for bail application dated November 28, 2024 and November 29, 2024 for the two defendants.

 

Osipitan prayed the court that the defendants be granted bail on liberal terms.  According to him, the first defendant had no criminal records and that the EFCC granted him administration bail  which he didn’t jump.  “We pray the court grants bail to the two defendants on the same liberal terms given to them by EFCC,” he said.

 

EFCC Counsel, Wahab Shittu SAN, filed counter-affidavits dated December 2, 2024 against the first defendant and also another counter affidavits dated December 22, 2024 against the third defendant.  Shittu prayed the court to dismiss their bail applications.

 

According to him, the two defendants are facing serious offences of economic sabotage. However, he agreed with the second and third defence counsel that they are presumed innocent pending the determination of the court. Shittu , however, added that the temptation of the defendants leaving the country was very high. He thereafter prayed that accelerated hearing be granted and the defendants’ international passports be seized by the court.

 

“But if my lord decides to be magnanimous to grant them bail, we shall be praying for stringent conditions because we are particular about their attendance in court. “We urge that they should submit their international passports with the court in order to ensure that they come for trial,” he said.

 

The counsel to the second defendant, Olasupo Shasore, SAN in his motion for bail dated December 6, 2024 and filed on the same day, urged the court to also grant bail to his client on self recognition.

 

The prosecuting counsel in his counter affidavits dated January 17, 2025, opposed the bail application of the second defendant.

 

He said the application for bail was incompetent and should be struck out. Shittu cited relevance laws to buttress his argument. “My lord, the record of this court is to the effect that the second defendant, at one point, absconded in which your lordship had to issue a bench warrant. “The learned silk for the second defendant is not the defendant on trial and it is very unhealthy for a counsel to stand as a surety for a defendant.

 

“I urge my lord, in exercising his discretion, to take all this into consideration because our concern is the appearance of the second defendant in court so that he does not abscond.”

 

After listening to the arguments from all the parties, Justice Dada granted bail to the defendants in the sum of N20 million Naira each with two sureties in like sum.   The sureties must be gainfully employed and deposed to means of identification.

 

She also directed that the defendants must submit their international passports with the registrar of the court.

 

Justice Dada adjourned the matter till March 17, 18, and 19, 2025 for commencement of trial.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Absence Of Oba Otudeko, Bisi Onasanya, Others Stalls Arraignment Over N12.3Billion Fraud As Otudeko’s Lawyer Protests In Court

Published

9 hours ago

on

January 20, 2025

By

The counsel for Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, who is facing charges of a N12.3 billion fraud, appeared before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday to protest the charge.

Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko or the two other individuals charged alongside him, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

Olanipekun informed the court that, despite not being served with the charge, the defendants were shocked to learn about the planned arraignment through the media when the story broke last Thursday.

The 13-count charge was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Oba Otudeko, former Managing Director of FirstBank Plc. Olabisi Onasanya, and former Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo.

Olanipekun is the counsel for the three defendants.

They were charged alongside the company, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

 

The EFCC alleges that the defendants obtained the sum under false pretenses.

 

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

 

The 13-count charge, filed by EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, on January 16, 2025, further claimed that the defendants used forged documents to deceive the bank.

Specifically, count 1 accused the defendants of conspiring “to obtain the sum of N12.3Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V-TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED which representation you know to be false.”

 

The 3rd count alleged that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In the 4th count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15billion, out of the monies.

According to the Commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and was punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Counts 5 reads: “That you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretense and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

Meanwhile, Otudeko had reportedly fled Nigeria ahead of his scheduled arraignment on fraud charges.

 

According to TheCable Newspaper, Otudeko’s exit from the country is linked to the mounting legal pressures and financial disputes he is facing.

The newspaper reported that the businessman left the country via one of the land borders.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Loan controversy: Bisi Onasanya’s lawyer condemns media trial….Judge adjourns case to February 13

Published

9 hours ago

on

January 20, 2025

By

In line with his resolve to defend himself and clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, at a session at the Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, January 20, 2025, demanded the service of proof of evidence and summons.

Onasanya, a chartered accountant and a former Group Managing Director of First Bank is defending himself against a controversial loan that allegedly occurred at First Bank 12 years ago. The retired banker is refuting the allegations alongside three others namely former Chairman of the bank, Chief Oba Otudeko, a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At a hearing at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, Fusika condemned the media trial his client had been subjected to, saying he was not formally invited by the EFCC or served a notice of the charge.

He expressed surprise at seeing news stories in major newspapers linking Dr Onasanya to a trial on loan controversy during his time as First Bank Group Managing Director without prior notification.

“My Lord, it is concerning that my client has been unduly exposed to media trial without being formally served. This is a procedural anomaly that undermines his right to a fair hearing and personal dignity,” Olumide-Fusika said.

The prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, denied any involvement by the EFCC in the media coverage of the case.

He stated that the commission had not issued a press statement and suggested that journalists may have obtained information through other means.

“My Lord, we disassociate ourselves from any media reports,” Oyedepo said.

The EFCC also applied for an ex parte motion to issue a bench warrant for the defenders’ arrest and sought permission to serve them through substituted means, alleging they had evaded service.

Olumide-Fusika opposed the motion, arguing that his client had always been available and had not evaded service. Demonstrating his determination to clear his name, the senior lawyer prayed to the court to have the EFCC serve the charge and the proof of evidence in the open court.

“This application is unwarranted and speculative. My client has neither avoided service nor absented himself from this matter. The claims of the prosecution are baseless. Since I am here and my client is ready to go ahead with this case, I ask to be served the charge and the proof of evidence here in the court,” Olumide-Fusika argued.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who presided over the case, dismissed the EFCC’s motion for substituted service on Onasanya since he has accepted to be served in the open court.

The judge consequently ordered that the EFCC serve Olumide-Fusika the charge and proof of evidence in open court.

The EFCC complied with the directive, and Olumide-Fusika who confirmed the receipt of the document extracted a confirmation from the prosecution counsel that the proof of evidence submitted is exhaustive and there wouldn’t be an addendum. The defence counsel said EFCC’s confirmation should be on record, insisting that his client was ready to defend himself and clear his name.

Justice Aneke adjourned the case to February 13, 2025.

It will be recalled that Onasanya, through his Communication Advisor, Mr Michael Osunnuyi, had earlier dismissed allegations, describing the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish Onasanya’s stellar reputation for professionalism, integrity and humaneness.

Continue Reading

Trending