| NEWS
|
National
Metro
Africa
World
Business
|
|
|
| OPINION
|
Editorial
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
Cartoons
Discussions
Outlook
|
|
|
| SPORTS
|
Home
Abroad
Golf Weekly
Results
|
|
|
| FEATURES
|
Focus
Policy & Politics
Arts
Media
Science
Natural Health
Law
Education
Weekend
Friday Review
Executive Briefs
Fashion
Food & Drink
Auto Wheels
Friday Worship
Saturday Magazine
Sunday Magazine
Ibru Ecumenical Centre
Agro Care
|
|
|
|
|
Civil society groups are as vibrant as ever, says Oroh
Abdul Oroh, Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Human Rights tells PASCAL NWIGWE in Abuja that though the circumstances have changed, the civil society groups are still as vibrant in their responsibilities. He also talked about the role of security agencies in sustaining democratic values. Excerpts
PUBLIC perception is that those of you in civil society and rights advocacy groups have not adjusted in line with the new dispensation either.
Civil society groups in this country are still very vibrant. Their attitude, though, is no longer adversarial as it used to be. They are collaborating with various government institutions, on police reforms, on criminal justice reforms, on environmental sector reforms. I have also met others working with women to combat child labour and women trafficking. We have had NGOs setting agenda for issues on constitutional reform. The Electoral Reform Network has produced a model electoral law for Nigeria. The United Action for Democracy has also produced a model constitution for Nigeria. All these ideas were generated through series of debates to help push the process of constitutional reforms with the aim of producing a new constitution that all Nigerians can defend. That they showed solidarity with Labour to check the hike in the prices of petroleum products does not mean that their perspective has not changed.
For the second time in 10 weeks, the House recently took on a motion to condemn arbitrary arrests by the SSS. What do you make of the situation?
There is reason to believe that the State Security Service (SSS) is yet to adapt to the present climate and culture of democracy in the country. My belief is that the time has come for government to take a good look at the role of SSS in Security management in the country. And in doing this, some pertinent questions will be raised and answered. One question is whether the SSS has been able to manage the internal security of the country effectively. I will say "no." There have been ethno-religious conflicts all over the country. There have been security breaches to the extent that the military had to question some of its own for breaching security. We have seen a situation where public officers have been murdered in cold blood and the SSS could not work with the police to apprehend the criminals. We have been witness to armed insurrection all over the country and the SSS was unable to provide adequate intelligence to put down the insurrection, to the extent that the military had to be drafted in. Prior to the Yelwa-Shendam problem, a motion of Urgent National Importance was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives in June last year calling for a State of Emergency in Plateau State because of ethnic killings. Between then and a year after, the SSS could not provide enough intelligence to enable the appropriate authorities nip the problem in the bud, until it exploded into the mayhem for which a State of Emergency was declared. Communities were wiped out and the democratic institutions of the state were suspended as an aftermath. Indeed there is need for us to take a second look at the SSS. The agency needs to be restructured in order to enable it meet with the challenges of democratic consolidation and rid it of its siege mentality, rather than use it as an instrument of terror to harass journalists, to break down walls, and confiscate newspapers. It cannot be allowed to continue in pursuit of this dubious internal security philosophy which equates the security of the President with the security of the State. I believe this is wrong. The President is better secured if we have greater freedoms and greater democracy with an open society, devoid of totalitarian processes
But the House failed to condemn the SSS when motions were brought against them
We have a House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, which ought to scrutinise the activities of the SSS. One of its mandates is to exercise oversight functions on the activities of SSS and the office of the National Security Adviser. If the SSS is trampling on the fundamental rights of citizens, then the House must condemn its actions. Not condemning these actions at all is clearly sending the wrong signal to the SSS that its men can carry on business as usual
There seems to be reforms everywhere except the SSS?
It is the responsibility of government to do so and not civil society groups. And by 'government', I mean also the National Assembly. It is the duty of government to reform the Intelligence sector, the law enforcement sector, the administration of criminal justice and the internal security sector. Appropriately, reforming national security and intelligence will enable government effectively intervene and manage internal security crisis situations based on accurate information instead of the arbitrariness that characterise the operations of the SSS.
Why was there this stunning silence from journalists - who are also Representatives - during the debate on the motion brought by Halims Agoda to condemn the actions of the SSS against the Insider weekly newsmagazine?
There was no deafening silence. The Speaker as presiding officer during the debate simply exercised the privileges given to him by the Rules of the House of Reps, which we made and adopted. The Speaker is at liberty to give the floor to whom ever he wanted. In his wisdom, he sensed that those of us who are journalists and wanted to speak - Abike Dabiri, Osita Izunaso - would all condemn the actions of the SSS with the same reasons. He did not want to muzzle us but wanted to hear from non-journalists whose views, he believes, would be more dispassionate and devoid of sentiments based on professional affinity. At the end of the day, the motion was amended, ordering that the committee on National Security and Intelligence and the committee on Justice to investigate the attack on the magazine.
Nigerians seem to have resigned their fate to choosing between Generals Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari, Buba Marwa and Turaki Atiku Abubakar. Which of these do you believe is best suited to govern the Nigerian state, given its perculiarities in 2007?
Among these persons, the Vice President has been relatively quiet. He has not actually announced whether he wants to run. But my surprise is largely with the ambitions of these generals. They gave tasted power. They have been part and parcel of the problems of this country. I do not know what new formula they have for solving our problems. I think the North should sit and select a candidate using, of course, the appropriate means. These Generals have no solution to the problems of this country. I do not want to attempt deciding for the North but as a concerned Nigerian and as somebody who fought the totalitarian rule of the military, especially the Babangida dictatorship, I wouldn't want those who almost plunged Nigeria into civil war coming back to rule the country again. The North should search their list of academics in the universities, their list of governors, federal lawmakers at National Assembly and pick out a suitable President for the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not characters like Babangida, Buhari or Marwa.
|
|
|
|
|
| BUSINESS SERVICES
|
Property
Appointments
Money Watch
Market Report
Capital Market
Business Travels
Maritime Watch
Industry Watch
Energy Report
Insurance
Compulife
|
|
|
|
|
