Featured

ENUGU 2023: BETWEEN ZONING POLITICS AND ETHNIC REVISIONISM By Prof. Oguejiofo T.Ujam: A Rejoinder

Published

4 years ago

October 6, 2020

By Ifeanyi Ogenyi, Esq.

Some years back, I read a story of a man called Edward Mordrake, “The Man with two faces”, from an article. The article presented Mordrake as a young, intelligent, and good looking English nobleman. But apart from Murdrake’s normally handsome face, he possessed another terrifying face on the back of his head. The storylines had it that whenever Mordrake cried, the second face would “smile” and “sneer”.

It is quite alarming that a good number of Pen-Pushers are intellectually bankrupt. But I never knew that the intellectual and character bankruptcy have got to a catastrophic level until I read “Prof” Ujam ‘s article titled “Enugu 2023: Between Zoning Politics and Ethnic Revisionism” published on the 4/10/2020 in Sun news online and what came to my mind was the picture of a double-faced man- Mr. Murdrake. Mr.Ujam’s style gives no credit to the Intellectual community and even his sponsors.

Reading through the length and breadth of the article, the writer was just hobbling and nobbling without driving home any valid point nor making any sensible conclusion.

It was a jaundiced analysis, so disjointed such that I considered the writer as a double-tongued man who has a slanted sense of justice and equity. It became clear from the article that some persons are endowed with extra mouth and tongue to talk to those who could not hear them from the front. It is this anomaly against humanity for one person to have two mouths and tongues that have compelled me to respond to Mr. Ujam’s skewed analysis and his slanted sense of justice, particularly his illusive remarks about Isi-Uzo People.

Speaking from both sides of the mouth simply means making two contradictory statements at the same time or one after the other. A person who does such is dishonest and should not be taken seriously. Mr. Ujam’s article was clearly designed to confuse and manipulate the gullible public; and also to insult the sensibility of Isi-Uzo people and Enugu people in general. A mission that was dead on arrival.

According to Ujam, there is recent attempts by some overzealous politician within PDP to redefine the zoning or power rotation arrangement in the State. Whereas, the said Ujam was the one who clearly stated that “It is settled that by 2023, the incumbent, His Excellency Rt.Hon.Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi from Enugu North or Nuskka cultural zone would be rounding off his second tenure in office as governor. And going by the zoning and power rotation which has been observed religiously in the state since 1999, 2023 would be another opportunity for Enugu East or Nkanu cultural to produce the next governor”.

With the above-highlighted assertions by the acclaimed Professor, the question is: who is attempting to redefine the zoning or power rotation arrangement in the state? Is there anything like Nsukka cultural zone or Nkanu cultural zone in the zoning arrangement in Enugu since 1999 which he postulates? How could Mr.Ujam insinuate and still complain that some elements, particularly in PDP are talking about rotation based on clans and cultural groupings when he is the Chief protagonist of Nsukka and Nkanu cultural zone; and Isi-Uzo people of Nsukka cultural zone and Nkanu zone. Is Ujam not the one being clannish and suffering from ethnic/cultural chauvinism? A man who considered only Nkanu East within his so-called” core Nkanu area” and other bother towns as the only people who are entitled to occupy the governorship seat. It is indeed very unfortunate that a person who supposed to know knows not.

In another breath, Mr. Ujam stated that Governor Ugwuanyi’s allies and stakeholders in Enugu East have continued to appreciate the governor for insisting on fairness and equity by ensuring that former governor Chimaroke Nnamani got the second berth in the senate after being rigged out in 2015.

But he somersaulted and cynically insinuated that any attempt to micro-zone to Isi-Uzo within Enugu East Senatorial District the governorship seat which of course is a figment of his own imagination (though right if done that way) as an invitation to the climate of confusion and mutual suspicion that zoning in Enugu State is sought to obliterate. Which confusion is Mr. Ujam talking about? Mr. Ujam should be reminded that there is an extent to which he can exercise his right to freedom of expression. He should not take it as a license to insult and threaten the state.

For Mr.Ujam, the Governor and stakeholders of Enugu East senatorial District’s insistence that Sen.Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani should have a second bite at the cherry in the senate was in the best interest of justice, equity, and fairness but micro-zoning of the governorship seat to Isi-Uzo in Enugu East Senatorial District by 2023 to produce the next governor is an invitation to anarchy. What an infertile proposition? Speaking from both sides of the mouth is a character flaw and those that do that lack the virtue of rationality as it is morally and also legally untenable for a man to approbate and reprobate.

Mr.Ujam’s position clearly portrayed him as a man devoid of any sense of justice. If zoning was put in place to ensure justice, equity, and fairness as admitted by Mr. Ujam, how could micro-zoning the governorship seat coming to Enugu East Senatorial District to Isi-Uzo, the most unfairly treated local government council in the zone since 1999 till date in power-sharing be seen by any person with an iota of sense of justice as a bad idea?

It is not in dispute as it is true that all the five local government council in Enugu East Senatorial District namely: Nkanu East, Nkanu West, Enugu East, Enugu South, and Enugu North L.G.As have occupied one or more positions meant for the zone and represented the zone in various elective positions and capacities at one time or the other. Enugu South L.G.A represented the zone in the Senate between 1999-2007, and the past, someone from the L.G.A served as a governor.

Nkanu East on its part has served as deputy governor from 2007-2015 and at the same time, Prof. Barth Nnaji served as a federal minister under President Jonathan. Enugu North which comprises some parts of Ngwo has produced a federal Minister in the person of Chief Dubem Onyia and also produce a governor in the past. Enugu East L.G.A has equally represented the zone in the seat for 8 solid years and produced VC of ESUT, While, Nkanu West produced governor in 1999-2007, Senator in 2015 and currently the serving Senator. Isi-Uzo people have not occupied any of such positions mentioned above.

The question begging for an answer: Is Isi-Uzo not part of the Enugu East Senatorial District? How did Mr.Ujam arrive at his Isi-Uzo people of Nsukka cultural zone and Nkanu zone? Isi –Uzo is an integral part of the Enugu East Senatorial District and it should be given a fair share in the power-sharing in the zone. They should not be schemed out of the power equation as suggested by Mr.Ujam

Justice is not blind. Equity delights to do justice and not by halves. Is Isi-Uzo not part of the Enugu East Senatorial District?

I was deeply worried by the illusive remarks made about Isi-Uzo by Mr.Ujam, on the surface, it looks harmless but the underpinning aim was to schmooze the gullible public with moral cliché to deny Isi-Uzo what patience, goodwill, and longtime support for others are about to earn them. But falsehood cannot conquer the truth. No matter how lies are deodorized and garnished, the truth will eventually triumph.

There is no doubt that it will be in the overall best interest of justice, equity, and fairness to allow Isi-Uzo to produce the next governor of the state come 2023 when it will be the turn of Enugu East Senatorial zone. So even the governorship seat is micro-zoned to Isi-Uzo as insinuated by Mr.Ujam, it is in order.

So, Mr. Ujam and his sponsors should stop distracting Enugu people because they know where the road leads to by 2023 and that is Isi-Uzo by God’s grace

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

2 weeks 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