Featured

Anambra FA Election; Why FIFA Must Intervene Now!

Published

5 years ago

August 4, 2020

The World football governing body FIFA is totally against any form of government interference in association football and may come down hard on the Nigeria football federation NFF, if Senator Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah submits an official complain before the FIFA ethics committee explaining the role the NFF played by scuttling a properly conducted state FA Election.

It is no longer news that FIFA seriously frowns at government interference in football matters and that what happened in Anambra state is purely political and another case of government interference.

Anambra state governor Willie Obiano is of the ‘All Progressive Grand Alliance’ APGA, while Senator Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah his political rival, is of the ‘Young Progressive party’ YPP.

Ubah remains the strongest opposition to APGA in the run-in to the fast approaching gubernatorial elections in the state and that has put the incumbent in a state of confusion right from the very beginning.

He is also aware that Ubah’s strongest weapon is football, a tool he has used to mobilize millions of Anambra youths to his side. He is therefore determined to break that cord by stopping him from making a triumphant return as Anambra state FA chairman, a position he has been occupying for the last 4 years.

Unfortunately for him, all those he pushed forward to compete against Senator Ubah in the state FA election, lacked the will or prerequisite credentials to do so as they were either disqualified or advised to step down when the ovation became loudest.

In his desperation, he finally found a willing ally in NFF chairman of chairmen Ibrahim Gusau, who went to Anambra state with the intention to supervise the election only to fall for the prank of the state government by fooling Nigerians that football association Elections cannot hold in the state because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The NFF on their part failed woefully to advice him that the state FA Elections was to be decided by just 26 delegates in a state where over 50,000 persons attend churches every Sunday and more than 10,000 persons are seen daily at the popular markets.

In complying with the directives of the state government and the NFF, the electoral committee for the election put a stop to the process and advised the state FA to respect the NFF release which quoted governor Obiano’s reasons as part of their reason to stop the elective congress.

The state FA congress later met and did the needful by first amending the statutes and approving virtual election as the only way forward. This decision was taken on July 27.

Based on the congress approval, the electoral committee wrote the NFF, to inform them of this latest development and their intention to conduct a virtual election. This they eventual did on Sunday August 2, only for the NFF to declare the process illegal and to go a step further by constituting a caretaker committee to run fooball affairs in the state for the next 3months.

That committee according to the NFF will be inaugurated on Wednesday August 5 in Awka, Anambra state

Coincidentally, the chairman of this new committee that was inaugurated by the NFF, Mr Emmanuel Okeke, contested and lost with just two votes in the virtual elections that was conducted on August 2.

Now Where does FIFA comes in?

It is clear from all that has been said here, that this is purely a political battle and that the state governor has influenced the NFF by whatever means, to stop Senator Ubah from continuing as Anambra FA chairman. What that means therefore is that there is a clear case of government interference which FIFA frowns at.

Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations[2], provides that:

“Each member shall manage its affairs independently and with no influence from third parties.”
Countries that have fallen foul of the non-interference rule of FIFA have either been banned, or suspended for various lengths – some for a few months, while others, years – usually dependent on how long it takes the erring country to rectify its wrong.

In 2008, FIFA threatened to suspend Spain from Euro 2008 unless the Spanish government allowed the Spanish Football Federation’s elections to proceed[3]. In 2015, the FIFA Executive Committee suspended the Indonesia Football Association (PSSI) with immediate effect due to what FIFA labelled the “take over” of Indonesia’s national football governing body by the Indonesian authorities.[4]
On the 9th of October 2007, elections had been held in Kuwait – a decision contrary to the decision of the FIFA Executive Committee in May 2007. This led to the recommendation to the FIFA Executive Committee that the Kuwait Football Association be suspended.[5] Kuwait’s Football Federation board resigned days after FIFA suspended the Gulf Arab State.

From the examples cited above, it is obvious that in situations where there is a clash between FIFA Rules and intervention by the government, FIFA would prevail, owing to the fact that it is the governing body of footballing activities in the world and all Member Associations are subject to its laws and regulations.

What senator Ifeanyi Ubah needs to do as a matter of urgency is to do a letter to CAF and FIFA, briefing them of these developments and asking them to come to his aid.

There is every likelihood that in the coming days, FIFA will respond as the NFF has no right whatsoever to interfere in a state football election. What they have done is totally out of place and in complete breach of the FIFA statutes and must be condemned by all.

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

1 week ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook