The Illegality of PMB’s Honour at Kaduna State University By Dr. Mohammed Jibo Imran

By: Dr. Mohammed Jibo Imran

O

n Saturday, December 12, 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari shocked the Nigeria’s academic community when he went to Kaduna State University, KASU and received an honorary doctorate degree (Honoris Causa) barely seven months after his inauguration. On the surface of it, one would be tempted to ask: is the president being honoured for his records of yesteryears or is he being honoured for his performance in the last seven month? If it is for his past records, the natural question is why now and why by KASU? That university existed for over a decade, why didn’t they honour Muhammadu Buhari last year or five years ago? If the honour is as a result of his present assignment, what has he done this far to earn him a honoris causa? Isn’t it a case of moral corruption for a serving president, who has a lot of favours to dish out, accept to receive an undeserved honorary doctorate degree from a state university whose vice chancellor was, in the last six months, queried by the Visitor to the University about three times?

Is it the case that, after the KASU formula, that the president will not attend the convocation ceremony of any university unless that university include the president as one its recipients of honorary doctorate degree. How not, since over a dozen universities have held their convocation ceremonies since the coming of PMB to office and he attended none, it is therefore safe to assume that his failure to attend was because they have not honoured him with a degree. These include the University of Ibadan, University of Benin, Obafemi Awolowo University, Federal University Owerri, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, etc. And none of them received the respect of the presence of the president. Now that KASU has shown the way, any university that wants the president to attend its convocation should simply include the president in the list of the recipients of its honoris causa. They are sure to have the president coming in person to be decorated.

The question is where is the shock? The president action is shocking for three reasons. First, his receiving an honorary doctorate degree, from any Nigerian University, while holding and elected public office is immoral, illegal and a crass violation of the existing regulation guiding the award of honoris causa in Nigeria’s University System. Section 2.0 subsection (a) of the famous Keffi Declaration which was enacted on the 24th September, 2012 by the Association of Vice Chancellors of Nigerian Universities (AVCNU) stated that: “AVCNU member-universities hereby make it a policy not to honour with honorary degree anybody holding political office (elected or appointed) while such officers are still in service.” President Buhari violated this rule and the president is an honourable man, apology to Shakespeare in his histo-drama book, Julius Caeser. 

In 2012, worried by the spate of irregularities and the erosion of academic culture and university tradition especially in the indiscriminate award of honorary degrees in the university system, the vice chancellors of Nigeria’s federal, state and private universities met at the Nasarawa State University, Keffi and resolved, collectively, that the age-long best practices of university culture be restored and maintained. It was the case that politicians, public office holders and all manner of money-bags and favour-flaunters will be conniving with governing councils, vice chancellors or visitors to state universities all in the bid to cajole or hoodwink the university into awarding an undeserving honorary degree. It was so rampant that the credibility of any honoris causa by any Nigerian university was suspect. The Nigeria’s academic community was relieved when the Keffi Declaration on “Sustaining Academic Tradition in Nigerian Universities, Including Guidelines for the Award of Honorary Degrees” was made. It was even more refreshing seeing that all the federal universities, all the state universities and all the private universities at that time have signed the declaration. 

But the action of President Buhari of accepting honoris causa, in complete violation of the Keffi Declaration, has done one of the greatest damages to the university system since the enactment of the declaration in 2012. The president has just killed the Keffi Declaration and therefore open the floodgate of irregularities and moral corruption in the award of honorary degrees. Will the president refuse to accept another honoris causas from other universities? No. All the remaining 140 universities will now line up with their ceremonial academic robes ready to decorate the president with honorary degrees. It will be a moral dilemma for the president to refuse to accept after receiving one from a sister-university. And not only that, the president cannot stop his cabinet members, other public officer holders, and including civil servants from haggling-and-bargaining to ‘buy’ honorary degrees and even stand on the same podium with the president to be decorated. The era of immoral impunity in the award of honoris causa has effectively returned. And it was declared open by the action of Mr President.
Second, and even more disturbing is the fact that Kaduna State University is not competent to award honorary doctorate degree to anybody. Information available on the National Universities Commission website indicates that there are only 22 out of 40 state universities with approval to run masters and PhD programs. KASU is not one them. How can you have an honorary doctorate graduands when you don’t have the regular program with regular students pursuing doctorate studies? More so, the Keffi Declaration, section 2.0 subsection (e) stated explicitly that: “A university shall not award honorary degrees if it has not graduated any PhD or has no postgraduate school or program”. Because the president is an honourable man, I dare say that his idea of change is about changing the rule, it will be safe to say that he received a 419 degree that is not recognised by the NUC, a government institution under his watch. 

The question is how many people graduated with PhDs at the 12th December convocation when President Buhari was decorated by KASU? Have KASU ever graduate a PhD since its establishment? When did they get the approval from the NUC to commence the PhD program? How could KASU award what it does not have? Why should NUC keep mute at this illegality and gross abuse of regulation?

If the information they published in their website is correct, why should they allow KASU to award illegal honorary degree even to the resident of the Federation? It is amazing how politicians are always at the forefront of rubbishing our academic traditions and values.

It is very clear that the Visitor to KASU who is the Governor of Kaduna State is at the forefront of this manipulative scheme to rubbish the university system and smear the good name of the president of the country. Or why did he dissolve the governing council of the university simply because they allegedly drew his attention to the illegality and immorality of awarding honoris causa to a serving elected public officer? And the VC who was appointed by Governor Yakowa was rattled to his nerves with an array of queries to get him to accept political interference in the running of the university. How else, given the fact that section 2.0 subsection (c) of the Keffi Declaration states, in parts, that: “…the award of honorary degree shall not be tied to wealth consideration or political alignment…” Who will doubt that after sacking the governing council and sufficiently intimidating the vice chancellor of the university, the APC governor as the visitor to the university, is not bullying his way into forcing the university to award illegal degrees to an APC President and a business mogul exclusively for political and material reasons?
My third reason is even more scary. Is the Minister of Education so incompetent as not to draw the attention of the President to all these violations? Why wouldn’t the minister of education draw the attention of the president to the Keffi Declaration? And to the NUC guidelines on approved universities with graduate courses? Or better still shouldn’t the honourable minister make the moral common sense argument of not accepting a gift from an institution under ones superintendence? Or is it the case that the president, who ruled the country for over three months without ministers, is still living with that hang-over and is taking decisions without consulting the relevant ministers? If the minister of education is kept in the dark on the KASU honoris causa brouhaha, then our country is in trouble. It means the president will be relying on informal and unofficial (most of the time, misleading) suggestions to run the country. If the minister is in the picture and his opinion sought by the president and he misled the president into going to accept and illegal honorary degree, then some punitive action must be meted on the minister. If on the other hand, the minister was consulted and he advised the president against accepting the illegal degree and his advice was jettisoned by the president, then something is fundamental wrong – it means there is a crisis of confidence between the president and his ministers. And the earlier that crisis is resolved the better for our country.

It is important to note that PDP, in spite of its numerous ills had adhered to the Keffi Declaration. Former president Goodluck Jonathan, to his credit – (oh God, remembering PDP and Jonathan again) withstood all the pressures and declined many of such offers.

For me, President Muhammadu Buhari can still save the Keffi Declaration, save himself from further embarrassment and save the university system in this regard by doing two things: one, cause his handlers to issue a public statement returning the illegal and undeserved honorary degree back to the awarding university and stating his commitment to respect and protect the Keffi declaration; two, investigate and punish any persons that have hands in misleading him into this embarrassing misstep. Fighting corruption is not just about stolen wealth. It is about respect for regulations. It is about staying on the moral high-grounds. Over to you “Sai Mai Gaskiya.”

Culled from: Daily Trust

Shia-Military Clashes and the Road to Anarchy By Ahmed Musa Hussaini

13^th December, 2015

By: Ahmed Musa Hussaini

F

or the past 24 hours, I have been keenly following the tragic turn of events in Zaria and the numerous commentaries that follow. It is difficult to exonerate both sides from blame. But what is happening is both avoidable and inevitable: avoidable if we were proactive in preempting emerging conflict scenarios, and inevitable because it was very obvious that Shia activities along the busy Sokoto road are a recipe for clashes.

I have lived in Zaria and had warned about the potential for conflict between the Shia sect and other rival Muslim sects and non-Muslim groups. Two things are very clear in the ongoing conflict: initial Shia provocation and contempt for constituted authority and the Nigerian military's overreaction and high-handedness.

We have to understand the history between the two to arrive at the causes and likely consequences of the ongoing conflict.

But, What Actually Happened?

Shia activities blocked traffic along the ever busy Sokoto road, the COAS convoy was caught in the unfortunate mix and the COAS was personally negotiating his passage when a projectile was hurled at his direction and all hell broke loose. The soldiers guarding the COAS responded with live fire. The Nigerian military called it an assassination attempt on its head because the projectile was metallic and fired from a device. The Shia movement called it an unprovoked atttack on their defenseless members.

But it was not yet over. Military reinforcement later came in as a show of force and in order 'to teach the Shia a lesson.' The rest is now tragedy recorded in a rapidly rising casualty toll.

It is obvious that the ongoing conflict is built on a foundation of decades of distrust between the sect and the Nigerian state and its instruments of power, a distrust that is at the heart of Shia ideology. Events of last year are still fresh in the memories of both the sect and the military, and both sides reacted to the ongoing situation with the cumulative fury of past grievances.

The response of the military at the Husainiyyah area was at best, understandable, and can be somewhat justified on the argument of defending the COAS with all options, but the military's subsequent mobilization to Gyallesu, the destruction of Zakzaky's residence and murder of his family members and followers leave much to be desired. It was disproportionate, indefensible and extrajudicial.

There is no doubt that our laws, both Islamic and secular, do not confer or transfer burden of culpability on/to an individual by virtue of kinship to an alleged perpetrator of a crime, much less the power to destroy his house or kill his family or relatives.

The argument that no Nigerian religious group has the right to block traffic (whether civilian or military) is non-debatable, so also is the argument that our Armed Forces should deploy proportionate force in quelling internal conventional uprising. I believe, after securing the COAS passage, arresting Zakzaky becomes an internal security affair that is better conducted by the police and can be effected via simple invitation as both groups were expected to work towards de-escalating the situation.

That did not happen.

It is also true that Zakzaky is to blame for the conduct of his members, for indoctrinating them on a steady ideological diet that secular governments are evil and must be disrespected and held in utmost contempt. He leads a parallel quasi-political movement side by side a spiritual one that is akin to a state within a state with the ultimate aim (in theory) of dethroning the existing order and replacing it with an Iran-style theocracy. This type of teaching is a recipe for conflict and no serious state would tolerate that in the long run.

Superficially, there is no problem in pursuing any ideology one feels strongly about, the right of religion is fundamental and non-derogable. But while Zakzaky understands the difference between his ideological rhetoric and strategic pragmatism of the Nigerian state and its agents, most of his followers don't, and will seek ways to translate their revolutionary rhetoric into actions. That is what was probably in the mind of that lone Shiite that hurled a projectile at the COAS direction. He never realized the true gravity of his action and its symbolic and real implications on the capability and image of the Nigerian army.

There is also a sense of a siege mentality, a persecution complex among Nigerian Shiites that is reinforced by anti-Shia sentiments and discrimination within the largely sunni Nigerian Muslim community. It is true that the Shiites are targeted for some infractions that would be tolerably condoned if perpetrated by mainstream Muslim groups and even genuine Shia grievances are dismissed as the intra-Muslim affair that they are by non-Muslim groups, or as illegitimate ranting of a heretical group by the mainstream Sunni majority. But it is also true that Zakzaky deliberately sought to build his group on that narrative of sectarian victimhood that characterized Shia's evolution through centuries of Islamic history.

It is high time the Shia discard that old fashioned narrative and embrace pragmatism. Religious groups should not operate with impunity. They must respect the existing laws of the country. Religious groups are expected to embrace and legitimize a national master narrative and inculcate the virtues of law and order into their adherents and not promote impunity and contempt for the rule of law and right of others.

Behind this veneer of perennial conflicts between the Shia sect and the Nigerian security agencies is a latent Iran-Saudi and Iran-Israel rivalry at play, and this must be thoroughly investigated if we are looking for lasting solutions. There are many internal and external dimensions or what I call externally instigated internal dimensions to the ongoing conflict which are beyond the scope of public discourse, and which if not handled carefully may snowball into another national security challenge. We must do everything to prevent Nigeria from becoming another battleground for Middle-East geopolitics.

But fundamentally, we have to reexamine the role of religious groups, the military and other security agencies in a truly democratic Nigerian setting. Because if we allow religious groups to operate with impunity, and our security agencies confront impunity with more impunity, then we ask for more Boko Haram, and more Boko Haram we shall get, and we will never cease to wonder why our problems continue to defy solutions.

May God heal our wounds!

Social Media Bill: Between Free Speech and Abusive Speech

11^th December, 2015

 By: Amir Abdulazeez

T

hree apparently co-incidental events happened in quick succession in the past few weeks. The first was the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed’s meeting with Nigerian bloggers and social media influencers in Lagos where he stressed the Federal Government’s resolve to protect free speech, but tasked social media users on self-regulation. The second was the emergence of a mocked photo of an ‘improperly’ dressed Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah which went viral on social media. The authenticity and source of that picture cannot be verified but several netizens kept mocking the Deputy Senate Leader on the basis that he could not properly utilize his wardrobe allowance. The third is the presentation of a draft bill titled “Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and other matters connected therewith,” proposed by no other person but by the same Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah (APC, Kebbi South), and it has passed second reading in the senate.

Outrage and condemnation broke out particularly on social media shortly after the bill-popularly but ignorantly referred to as ‘The Anti-Social Media Bill’-passed second reading. The bill according to competent media sources makes it illegal to start any type of petition without swearing to an affidavit that the content is true in a court of law. It also proposes up to two years in prison, or a fine of N2 million, or both, for anyone posting an “abusive statement” via text message, Twitter, WhatsApp, or any other form of social media.

The bill reads in part “Where any person through text message, tweets, WhatsApp or through any social media post any abusive statement knowing same to be false with intent to set the public against any person and or group of persons, an institution of government or such other bodies established by law shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction shall be liable to an imprisonment for two years or a fine of N2 million or both”.

Actually, apart from the massive public misconception and suspicion, there is no problem with the content of this bill, but there are four vital issues we should understand and reflect from this emergence of this bill. Firstly, there is massive mistrust between the governors and the governed in Nigeria. This mistrust is getting worse by the day and this is caused by several obvious factors. For instance, the generality of Nigerians tend to by default disagree with the National Assembly on almost everything because they see them as people not serving their interest. As such, we always have a preconceived negative disposition towards many things emanating from our leaders. Despite assurances by the lawmakers that the law is meant to protect Nigerians, the public insists that the draft bill would muzzle free speech and are bent on giving it not the slightest of chances. Secondly, the emergence of this bill once again stresses the fact that we are only interested in making laws and having law officers but not actually committed to enforcing these laws and ensure their strict adherence. For instance, with or without the so called bill, spread of falsehood, abuse and hate campaigns against individuals, groups and institutions on social media or anywhere else are unlawful and anybody caught should be arrested and charged to court by the police; we don’t need any new bill to take care of this. It is that simple. Thirdly, Nigerians are once again demonstrating their gullibility to go with the bandwagon effect. Assumably, more than 75% of Nigerians opposing this bill are virtually ignorant of its content or are basing their arguments on misinformed notions and they apparently don’t care to find out. Most of them are not looking forward to any public hearing on the bill to have the opportunity of constructively ventilating their grievances either on the whole bill or some parts of it. Presently, many Nigerians are calling for the removal of fuel subsidy after they vehemently opposed it four years ago. If we had objectively studied the fuel subsidy issues irrespective of our mistrust for the Jonathan Government at the time, we would have gave it at least, the benefit of the doubt and the subsidy would have been removed long ago, the rest would now have become history.

The impact of the social media on global political development cannot be overemphasized. Through the social media, a revolution happened in Tunisia and Egypt and subsequently led to the popular Arab Spring. Countries like Turkey and Bangladesh had partly tampered with access to social media platforms like Twitter and Whatsapp in fear of the replication of what happened in other countries.

The Social Media is probably the best thing that has happened to Nigeria’s Democracy in the last 16 years. It has helped raised political awareness, increased participation, encouraged debates, promoted accountability and established synergy between the leaders and the led.  President Obasanjo was just lucky that the social media wasn’t as it is today during his time, he would probably have been given a good run for his money. Contrary to views that the social media was deployed against President Jonathan, the truth is that political participation in it reached its peak during his time and no other president would’ve survived its heat. President Buhari is currently in the social media oven and his handlers can best describe how the heat is hard to contend with. However, the level of social media abuse by users in the name of politics is fast undermining the aforementioned gains recorded. The integrity and credibility of the Social Media is becoming a subject of debate. It is fast losing credibility and integrity not for want of good people but for the actions of some people who use it as a medium for all sorts of vices. For this reason, many people have either refused to join Social Media or have chosen to join but remain inactive.

Many average Nigerians cannot simply discuss political issues on social media without insulting each other. This makes the sociability of the social media questionable in the Nigerian context. If we use the so-called ‘social’ media to rain abuses upon each other and others mostly in reaction to falsehood and half-truths, then how social is that social media? In essence, we collectively contribute a lot in making the social media unsocial for Nigerians. The main victims of the vices coming from social media are the youths-most of whose faculties of learning and intuition are still under construction-who find it easy to believe and assimilate what they are being fed with. This portends the intellectual future of our youths in bad light and in serious danger along with potential unpatriotism.

The major problem we are facing is the attempt of many of us to completely divorce online life from physical life. Hence, the assumption that a vice online is not a vice offline. It is most unfortunate that the Social Media Bill issue is coming up at this time, but it is an anticlimax of long term usage of Social media for the spread of abuses and hate campaigns.

While we may oppose this bill for the fear of its disguised use or future abuse in the long-run by authorities to clampdown on free speech, we must self-regulate. We must be concerned about the overall integrity of the platform which offers us the cheapest but most efficient opportunity to express ourselves. The cyber unit of the police must also stand up to its responsibilities. It should be able to professionally police activities online just as they normally police our streets and anyone found wanting should be prosecuted. Any crime online is a crime offline.

Personally, I am vehemently against any legislative provision to ‘checkmate’ activities on Social Media for many reasons, but I think Lai Mohammed’s call for self-regulation should be taken very seriously.