“El-Rufai, Demolitions and Other Matters”: A Reply to Fred OhwahwaByAjayi Olatunji OlowoAjayi.olowo@buckingham.ac.uk
It would have been needless writing a rejoinder to the above stated article published in the Nigerian Guardian newspaper of Monday, 19 September 2005 but for the sake of correcting the erroneous views of the writer – Fred Ohwahwa, which is capable of misleading a vast majority of the public who know little about Nasir el-Rufai and his obviously challenging assignments at both the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and Federal Capital Territory (FCT); apart from what they read in the print media which in most instances contain bias opinions of certain individuals.
Fred Ohwahwa started his article by launching an attack against the person of Nasir el-Rufai and his record as helmsman of the BPE. Fred’s description of Nasir el-Rufai’s ‘approach to life, especially assignments given to him in the public domain’ as being in the realm of ‘zealotry’ is a gross misapplication of the English Language. The Collins English Dictionary (1998 at page 1774) defines the noun ‘zealotry’ as “ extreme or excessive zeal or devotion”. Any reasonable objective assessment of Nasir el-Rufai as a person and at his two public duty posts since 1999 (the BPE and FCT) would agree that nothing in the discharge of his duties match the extreme connotations of the word zealotry adopted by Fred in his paradigm. Someone could be adjudged to have acted in extreme or excessive zeal or devotion where on his own volition without due regard for guidelines stretch the substantive and procedural rules of any assignment beyond its specified limits. I doubt if this has happened in any strata el-Rufai has held sway even though some ‘big feet’ might have been trampled upon.
For Fred to try to justify his wrong impression of el-Rufai’s personality by referring to the Management Contract with Pentascope, which in his view “left NITEL worse than it was prior to the contract”, depicts the height of his ignorance about the facts of the Management contract. It might not be possible to dwell in any details on the management contract in this forum for two reasons: one, there are currently litigations in courts of competent jurisdiction involving relevant parties to the contract in which case it is subjudice. Two, BPE, the agency in charge of the privatisation programme maintains a responsible open door policy through which Fred or any other interested parties wishing to have specific details about the on-going privatisation (including the management contract) could get duly informed. While it is incontrovertible that el-Rufai takes responsibility for putting Pentascope in place, it remains yet unproven how his activities did impact in whichever way on the active life of the contract.
Reference to ‘needless bickering with some Ministers over the sale of some parastatals’ equally shows the subjectivity of Fred’s view of el-Rufai’s personality. The privatisation programme in the past and now has remained an intricate economic policy with a wide ranging political economic undertone; which has warranted interface, consultations and dialogue with all sectors of the society – particularly political office holders, labour unions, management and employees of public enterprises, professionals, senior citizens (who assist in fashioning out strategies), objective and subjective bystanders like Fred. To make inference of “needless bickering”, as Fred did, in arriving at a just decision from economic reform programme of the government from such an agglutination of stakeholders is to trivialise serious socio-economic policies affecting the society.
With the remarkable pace of the privatisation of the public enterprises set in motion by el-Rufai in 1999 and being consolidated by his current successor in office – Mrs Irene Chigbue, thus bringing the programme to take effect on the utilities sector as evident from the on-going concession of the Ports, the unbundling of NEPA and its take over by Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), the setting up of National Electric Regulatory Commission (NERC), the unwavering effort at consolidating the gains in the telecommunications sector justify whatever was done by el-Rufai then and by the BPE at the moment.
It is a
truism that Nasir el-Rufai’s assignment at refocusing the FCT by revamping
the Abuja master plan is as intricate if not much more complex than the
privatisation programme. The same elitist class of the society who
benefit from the decadence of the moribund public enterprises (which have
gulped over
The demolition of illegal structures might be hurting but the quest for equity must be balanced with the legal maxim of “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”. Available evidence have shown that majority of those whose property were demolished had no good title or at best got fraudulently processed and forged title documents procured from erstwhile FCDA staff some of whom are currently cooling their feet at the EFCC detention. It is an elementary principle of law that whoever enters into an illegal deal knowingly or unknowingly would have no good defence and or claim. That el-Rufai has once reportedly stated that some landowners who were deceived in the past by fraudulent former FCDA staff and were given fake title documents would be compensated should be seen as an act of magnanimity on the part of the Minister.
It is horrific seeing people who has not even met el-Rufai in person trying to paint him black for merely having the courage (which other office holders in charge of FCT before him lacked) to call a spade a spade and carry out his duties as assigned to him by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in accordance with the provisions of section 148 of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution.
For Fred to advocate government sponsored estates to be built for displaced people from the demolished illegal structures shows the limit of his understanding of the government’s monetisation policy. It is not plausible for government that is divesting its stake holdings in housing projects in Abuja, Lagos and elsewhere to embark on such white elephant projects if the on-going economic reform programme must be meaningful.
I have been
privileged to read newspaper reports quoting the explanations of the FCDA
on the corner shops currently being demolished. The reports indicated
that temporary five-year title had been granted to the shop owners by FCDA
long before the el-Rufai’s assumption of office. And because the corner
shops are part of the institutionalised distortions of the Abuja master
plan, which the government was set to ameliorate, the shop owners,
‘big men of course’ were duly notified that the life span of the
temporary title deeds would not be renewed. It is expected that few
people who were making brisk business through land deals in the FCT by
selling a plot of land in Abuja metropolis for between
That the Presidential Villa and some notable public buildings purportedly violate the Abuja master plan, as observed by Fred in his article, is not enough justification to allow the distortion of the entire master plan to continue unabated. When the demolition started in August 2003, the FCT Minister was quoted as saying that the Presidential Villa is one distortion of the master plan we might have to live with as a country. To insist that the edifice harbouring the seat of Government and the top echelon of the three arms of the Government, the Presidency, National Assembly and the Supreme Court, should be demolished for whatever reason would amount to whensbury unreasonableness, from whatever angle it is viewed. So the position of the FCT in that regard is justifiable. The violation of the master plan by such important public structures only shows the extent of recklessness of public office holders in charge of the FCT before the present regime.
There is no doubt that concerned people affected by the demolition exercise and their sympathisers realise that there is a thin line of divide between morality and legality. The demolition exercise has been executed with due regard for the right of the affected people under the law. Even though the FCT has been criticised for not putting in place the required tribunal for hearing complaints on the demolition exercise until July 2005, it is suffice to state that hitherto no one affected by the exercise has ventured to go to court to obtain injunction to stop the demolition. All they did was to rush to the National Assembly and the House of representative could not do anything apart from the show of camaraderie through which they undertook an open protest synonymous with a solidarity rally with the Kubwa residents. The border line is subsumed in the constitutional provisions which set the limit of whatever resolutions the National Assembly could pass in this regard in furtherance of its oversight functions as stated in section 88 (2)(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, thus the inability of the National Assembly to halt the demolition as would have been loved by the distorters of the Abuja master plan.
The other wider social amenities issues such as mass transit, cinema, portable pipe borne water etc notable for a happier life in the FCT can only be put in place after the place must have been cleaned up. The problem with us is that people who have no business in the Federal capital are daily thronging the place thus constituting an avalanche of nuisance. It would be worthy of note that the good side of the demolition exercise is that it would stem ‘Rural-Abuja’ drift. It is obvious that if not for el-Rufai’s uncompromising stand (with the distorters) and unwavering resolve to carry out his duties as spelt out by the President, the outlook of Abuja would have by now been worse than Lagos.
While Fred and other interested stakeholders in the demolition nay other micro and macro economic programmes of the present government are entitled to their views in accordance with section 39 of the 1999 Constitution I think people should engage in constructive criticism and appreciate the good work of the man el-Rufai in repositioning the FCT. Regrettably no one seems to appreciate the taking off of destitutes from the streets and their continual rehabilitation and ensuring that the FCT is free from the embarrassment of street trading.
It is only a reality that the good things of life like library, portable water, good street lights would never be attained if Abuja is left to become a dignified slum which it was fast degenerating to before Mr. President gave the FCT Minister a marching order to act accordingly.
Corrections of physical distortions should not be limited to Abuja; it should be extended to all Nigerian cities if we must live in a country that is environmental friendly.
Ajayi Olatunji Olowo writes from the Faculty of Law, University of Buckingham in England.
|