A new report by the Cervical Cancer Free Coalition (CCFC) entitled “Crisis Card,” said that about 26 Nigerian women die of cervical cancer daily. According to the report, India has the highest number of women dying of the disease worldwide, while Australia, which has one of the highest Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates in the world, has the least cases. The report listed countries with the worst indices of the disease as India, Brazil, Bangladesh and Nigeria. These four countries, the report said, account for 50 percent of the total number of cervical cancer deaths in the world.

However, a full report of the Cervical Cancer Crisis Card was launched on May 12, as part of activities marking this year’s International Mothers’ Day. The Crisis Card ranks over 50 countries across the world based on the number of deaths from cervical cancer. Available statistics show that cervical cancer kills an estimated 275,000 women every year, while 500,000 new cases are reported worldwide. It was also reported that this preventable disease is the second largest killer of women in low and middle-income countries. Even though the Executive Director of CCFC, Dr. Jennifer Smith, admitted that cervical cancer is a vaccine-preventable disease, she pointed out that it still kills women in many countries in Africa and Asia.

Giving the statistical enormity of the condition in Nigeria, a foremost Nigerian gynaecologist and Vice-Chancellor, University of Ibadan, Prof. Isaac Adewole, said that 14,000 women are diagnosed with the disease every year in the country.

While we acknowledge the endemic and life-threatening nature of cervical cancer in the country, the good news is that it is vaccine preventable. The problem, however, is that the worrisome statistics suggest that nothing serious is being done right now to reduce the cervical cancer burden in the country. The health authorities should sit up and do something now concerning the rampaging disease. What is required is to improve access to the vaccines for all women.  Early detection, for most cancers including cervical cancer, is the surest way of saving women from the disease.

Good enough, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) will make available this year a new low price HPV vaccine for use in poor countries, including those in Africa. The GAVI Executive Officer, Seth Berkley, said that the organisation will open doors for millions of girls in the world to access vaccination against this leading killer of women, beginning with Ghana this year.

We call on Nigerian health authorities to access the HPV vaccine and make it available to Nigerian women. A disease that can cause this level of morbidity should not be neglected. It is high time government gave it serious attention. Government should embark on health education about the condition, how to access the HPV vaccine and other preventive measures.

The nation’s health authorities at all levels of government should do something now to halt the threat posed by cervical cancer. Part of the measures should be to ensure that our health care system is raised to a level that can reduce the rush for medical tourism outside the country.

Currently, it appears that our leaders are insensitive to the health care needs of Nigerians. There is utter neglect of the health sector. The time has, indeed, come for government to accord this critical sector the priority it deserves.

Though the intervention is somewhat belated, it is commendable that the president has, at last, taken this pragmatic action to ease tension and stop the upsurge of violence in parts of northern Nigeria. Jonathan, in his May 14 broadcast, outlined the killings and other rebellious activities of insurgent groups; the threat they pose to national unity and territorial integrity, and the failed efforts to address the problem through persuasion, dialogue and widespread consultations.

He, thereafter, exercised the powers conferred on him by Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and proclaimed a “State of Emergency”, with an order to the Chief of Defence Staff to immediately deploy more troops to the affected states for more effective internal security operations.

There is no debating the fact that Jonathan acted well within his powers on this decisive intervention in the insurgency crisis. Section 305, sub-sections I and 2 of the Nigerian Constitution empowers the president to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof by way of an official gazette which must be transmitted to the National Assembly for approval. This is exactly what the president has done.

Sub-section 3 of this Section lists the conditions under which the president shall have power to declare emergency rule to include (c) “ when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security, and (d), when there is a clear and present danger of actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.”

There is no doubt at all that the situation in the affected states amounts to “actual breakdown of public order and public safety.”

The unconscionable violence unleashed on these states by the militant religious sect, Boko Haram, since 2011 unarguably requires emergency measures to address. The orgy of violence in that part of the country reached its apogee last week when over 55 people, including policemen and soldiers, were slaughtered by Boko Haram in Bama, Borno State.

No government that is worth the name in any part of the world will tolerate such brazen murder of security agents and innocent civilians without drastic action to the halt the criminal affront.

It is in this regard that the definitive intervention from the president, and his order for deployment of more troops with instructions that they “take all necessary action within the ambit of their rules of engagement to put an end to the impunity of insurgents and terrorists in the country”, is very well in order. It is an inevitable option if Nigeria is to stop the onslaught of Boko Haram in the country. The violent campaign of the sect that began in earnest in 2011 has involved assassination of security agents, political office holders and ordinary Nigerians.

There has also been bombing of targets such as churches, the Nigeria Police and United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Army barracks, a bus station, and numerous police stations.

About 3000 lives have been estimated to be lost to the insurgency, with the sect not showing any sign of relenting in its campaign of bloodshed. The resort to emergency rule in troubled parts of the country is not new in Nigeria.

It was adopted by the Federal government in the Western Region in1964, and it involved the deployment of Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator. He replaced Chief S. L. Akintola, who was then the Premier of the Western Region. President Olusegun Obasanjo also declared emergency rule in Plateau and Ekiti states, with the removal of the then Governors Joshua Dariye and Ayo Fayose, respectively.

In the present instance of the emergency rule declared by Jonathan, all democratic structures, including the offices of the serving governors, legislators and local government chairmen, have been left in place by the president. This has fuelled reactions, in some quarters, that the emergency rule declared is not comprehensive enough and may not yield the desired objective of restoring peace.

This view is quite understandable, especially considering the political and religious nature of the Boko Haram insurgency, and the fact that a number of political leaders in the affected areas are apparently either sympathetic to, or complicit, in the Boko Haram operations. For instance, a wanted Boko Haram operative was reportedly arrested in the home of a serving Senator from Borno State. In addition, Kabiru Sokoto, another suspected Boko Haram operative now undergoing trial for the bombing of a Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State, was arrested in the Borno State Government Lodge in Abuja. Sokoto also queerly escaped from police custody, but was re-arrested. A top police officer was sacked for this.

Some legal practitioners have, in addition, pontificated that emergency rule is direct administration of a troubled part of the country by the president, which is incompatible with the existence of a competing administrative structure headed by state governors.

Nevertheless, it is wise that Jonathan elected to avoid likely wrangling on the constitutionality of the sack of duly elected governors and other political office holders in those states. We are unequivocal in our support for the president on this matter. This is largely because the Constitution does not specifically provide for a president to sack duly elected state governors or House of Assembly members, for any reason.

Two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Itsay Sagay and Femi Falana, have averred that Jonathan acted within constitutional provisions by not hiding under a state of emergency to sack governors of the affected states.

They described the removal of former Governors Fayose and Dariye from office by Obasanjo following his declaration of emergency in their states, as “blatant illegality” and a “constitutional anomaly.” Citing Section 11 (4 and 5) of the Constitution, they maintained that the National Assembly, even when it endorses the declaration of emergency in the affected areas, cannot remove state governors or Houses of Assembly members because the Constitution does not make any provision for such. Sagay surmised: “the president has kept to the constitution. If he had declared any other thing, it would have been illegal.”

For us, the dilemma of the Federal Government on the Boko Haram riddle that informed the latest move is understandable. The government cannot afford to look on askance, or rely on nebulous dialogue alone, while security agents and innocent Nigerians are slaughtered with impunity, and insurgents pull down national flags in government buildings only to hoist strange flags that are unknown to the country.

The option of emergency rule that does not tamper with the democratic structures in the state will help the government avoid the distractions of opposition to, and possible litigation, that may attend the sack of governors in the states.

Already, Governors Kashim Shettima and Ibrahim Gaidam of Borno and Yobe States respectively, have been reported to have met with and are cooperating with the president on the emergency rule in their domain. This cooperation, which is crucial to peace in the states, would not have been possible if the governors had been removed.

Resistance against their sack may have escalated violence in the areas, thereby drawing attention and resources away from the urgent task of ending this insurgency. We urge all stakeholders, including the National Assembly, to give this emergency rule a chance to restore normalcy to these states.

Let the Northern Elders Forum, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), traditional and political leaders in the areas give peace a chance. All Nigerians should rally round President Goodluck Jonathan at this difficult period to find a permanent solution to this insurgency.

Let the people of those states cooperate with the security agencies in their efforts to restore normalcy. Certainly, this emergency rule will circumscribe some civil liberties of all residents of the three states, including the governors and other top political actors.

We urge everyone to abide by these limitations as a sacrifice in the quest for peace. It is also necessary to caution security agents deployed for this onerous assignment to be mindful of the terms of their engagement, as directed by the president. They must be professional in their conduct and avoid the temptation to behave like an army of occupation. They have been deployed to secure peace in those areas and must treat the law-abiding citizens of the areas with respect and empathy for their difficult situation.

The objective of the emergency rule, which is the end of the Boko Haram militancy and the restoration of peace, must be firmly kept in view by everyone. The declaration of this emergency without the removal of state governors should stem the strident opposition to the deployment of troops, so the troops must not do anything to antagonize ordinary citizens of the states, as this may jeopardize their operations.

Peace has eluded the Northern part of the country for too long on account of the Boko Haram insurgency. There can be no development without peace, so all hands should be on deck to give progress and development a chance in the Northern part of the country.

Medical and security reasons that make it necessary for some people to use tinted car glasses should be considered by the Nigerian authorities. The blanket ban, and the requirement that exemptions to the rule can only be granted by the Inspector-General of Police after the payment of a fee, is discriminatory against those who may not be able to pay the sum, thereby putting the health and lives of such persons at risk.

We are, however, not unmindful of the legality of the laws that the Police authorities are relying on to arrest and prosecute persons using tinted vehicle glasses in the country. Such powers are derived from Regulation 66(2) of the National Road Traffic Regulations Act (1997) and the Motor Vehicles (Prohibitions of Tinted Glass) Act, CAP M21 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

The explanation by the Police that it will revive enforcement of these extant provisions to fight terrorism, kidnapping, assassinations and armed robbery in the country is not compelling enough. This is unless the Police hierarchy wants the public to believe that the enforcement of these laws is its last resort and that its officials have no other clue on how to stop the proliferation of these criminal activities. That would amount to an admission of incompetence and an easy resort to the path of least resistance by the police.

There is no doubt that the security situation in the country has never been as terrible as it is today. With criminals and insurgents of all hues sprouting up in many parts of the country, it is possible that they will use all sorts of devices to make life unsafe for citizens. But then, the flourishing of these criminal groups in the country has much more to do with incompetence and lack of a strong will to address the problem of insecurity in the country, than the simple matter of ordinary Nigerians driving vehicles with tinted glasses that were legally imported into the country. Therefore, the use of tinted vehicle glasses is not the reason for growing criminality in the country.

The planned renewed enforcement of this obsolete law should, therefore, not be pegged on the need to reduce terrorism in the country. In today’s technology-driven world, car manufacturers use varying degrees of tint, sometimes as a competitive edge, to protect users against sunrays and to shield occupants from undesirable elements in the society. We have carefully considered the explanations advanced by Police spokesman, CSP Frank Mba, but we are not persuaded by his arguments.

When all things are considered, the health and safety of ordinary citizens as they commute in their vehicles fitted with tinted glass supercede any security benefits the ban may envisage. Preferences of law-abiding citizens of the country should not be circumscribed because of criminal elements that are only a minority of our population. However, the use of heavily tinted glasses on vehicles could be restricted, except under special extenuating circumstances such as the vehicles carrying certain items duly approved to be so carried by relevant government agencies. We believe the police can reduce criminality if they begin strict enforcement of the nation’s laws against persons arrested for criminal offences to serve as deterrent to others.

The Force must also strive to be a step ahead of criminals. The problem with the present insecurity in the country is that the perpetrators of crimes such as terrorism, assassinations and kidnapping, among others, are either one step ahead of the police or working in concert with the few bad eggs in the force. This is the harsh reality of the present insecurity in the country that the Police High Command must admit and address. Overall, we urge the police to focus more on crime prevention, detection and prosecution. Harassment of Nigerians for using vehicles with tinted glasses will not stop the growing insecurity in the country.

The preface to this embarrassing feud allegedly started with the increasing controversy surrounding the chairmanship of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) by Amaechi. In a reaction to his assertive leadership of the NGF on issues such as the Sovereign Wealth Fund, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) hurriedly established the PDP Governors’ Forum as a counterpoise to the perceived deleterious activities of the NGF, particularly as it concerns the ruling party.

Another theory making the rounds is the public perception that Amaechi is committed to the pursuit of a vice presidential slot in the 2015 elections, which is believed in some quarters to be an antithesis to the collective resolve of the PDP to allow Jonathan contest for a second term. If this were true, the issue of party discipline and cohesion arises. A contrary argument to this position is that that in a democracy, everyone is entitled to aspire to any office, and even the country’s Constitution endorses such freedom.

Whatever the contentions are, both Jonathan and Amaechi have mismanaged the issues involved by their unbecoming approach to the tiff. There are internal mechanisms for resolving intra-party challenges, rather than making them a public spectacle. This option has obviously not been explored. The scenario has been worsened by supporters of both men who have resorted to mudslinging. Even if some party faithful consider Amaechi’s alleged vice presidential ambition somewhat repulsive, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the aspiration.

But then, the quest to enforce the supremacy of a party’s constitution and position seems to hold sway not just in the PDP, but all other parties and even non-political associations. The awareness of this cardinal principle should have made Amaechi to be more tactical in pursuing whatever inalienable ambition he may have. Similarly, the Presidency also ought to have taken cognizance of the hallowed office that Jonathan occupies, and be less anarchical in its handling of this disagreement.

As it appears now, both the president and Amaechi seem to have breached the rules of crisis management by the avoidable brickbats that have hallmarked their disagreement. The display of naked power by the President, as can be deduced from the handling of the controversy over the Rivers State aircraft, and the drums of impeachment now sounding in the State, tends towards despotism, especially in a democratic dispensation.

It is regrettable that the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) had to be enmeshed in this matter. If NCAA had been professional in its handling of the controversy on the ownership, certification and documentation of the Rivers State aircraft, and the grounding of the jet over alleged technical and administrative shortcomings, nobody would have raised eyebrows. The action of the agency gave sufficient room for reasonable doubt and suspicion of complicity with the Presidency.

This was quite avoidable. Whatever the issues are, the disputants should eschew lawlessness and autocracy. There are statutory methods and standard mechanisms for the resolution of this kind of squabble. We call on Jonathan, Amaechi and the PDP to sheathe their swords and resolve all the issues that have been thrown up. Our country already has a surfeit of problems staring it in the face.

We cannot afford fresh and needless political distractions on the Jonathan-Amaechi affair.

This massacre, coming on the heels of those of Baga and Bama in Borno State, shows that all is not well with the Federal Government’s approach to reining in the mounting insecurity in the Northern part of the country. Time has come for a drastic change of tactics to arrest the ugly situation.

According to reports, the security agents who were on a mission to raid the cultists’ shrines in Alakyo ran into an ambush by the Ombatse Militia, and were killed. Notable Nigerians, including the Niger State Governor, Dr. Babangida Aliyu, and some high ranking policemen have blamed the high casualty figure in the unfortunate incident on failure of intelligence and inexperience of the security operatives involved.

With the high fire power of the police and the number of agents involved in the operation, the high casualty recorded by Nigeria’s security operatives is, indeed, hard to explain.

Expectedly, President Goodluck Jonathan, who met with security chiefs in Abuja over the incident, has ordered a full investigation into the mindless killings.

He needs to do something drastic to contain insurgency in the country. As we have said before, the primary duty of any government is to secure the lives and property of the citizenry. It appears that this essential role of government is being vitiated by the sustained insecurity in some parts of Northern Nigeria.

Jonathan should do all in his power as the Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces to stop the slide into anarchy in the country. In the bid to help the investigation team, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mohammed Abubakar, has appealed to members of the public for information on the incident.

The police boss, while rightly reminding the public that an attack on the security forces of any nation is an attack on the entire nation, enjoined Nigerians to support the police as they strive to tackle the security challenges facing the nation.

We condemn the dastardly killings of policemen and other security operatives in Nasarawa and also decry the emergence of a new terror group in the North.

There is no doubt that the new group will exacerbate the worsening security situation in that part of the country in the weeks ahead, if not checked immediately. Our security agencies should be decisive in tackling this new menace and, indeed, all forms of insecurity afflicting the entire country, especially the Boko Haram insurgency, armed robbery and kidnapping. The government should not fold its hands or resort to lamentations each time there is gruesome killing of Nigerians and destruction of property.

Repeated assurances from the government that it is on top of the situation are beginning to sound like a broken record. Let the security agents dig deep and find those behind the new group and arrest the situation before it deteriorates. Government should overhaul the entire security system in the country and invest more in intelligence gathering and counter insurgency techniques. It is high time the Nigerian authorities addressed the factors that aid the emergence of terror groups in the country.

Government should truly be on top of the nation’s worsening security problem, as it has always assured Nigerians. No terror group should be handled with kid gloves, as doing so will automatically embolden others to toe a similar path. The lingering insecurity in the country is a threat to peace and development.

It must be stopped now. All those apprehended for the Nasarawa incident should be brought to book.

We must have our interrupted eight years of two tenures.” Dokubo-Asari’s unguarded utterance came on the heels of an earlier one credited to the Special Adviser to the President on Niger Delta and Chairman, Presidential Amnesty Programme, Hon. Kingsley Kuku. The president’s aide was reported as saying in Washington DC, United States of America, that the peace being enjoyed in the Niger Delta region will not be guaranteed if Jonathan is not returned in 2015.

Kuku has, however, since explained that he only told the world that “peace in the Niger Delta, the basis on which the Americans and other Western nations want to bring massive investment into Nigeria, rests on a programme and situation driven by a personality, Dr Goodluck Jonathan.” He also added that he averred that: “It is in the interest therefore of the world (and, of course, Nigerians) to support his administration and his policies since the peace in the region we are talking about was sealed by his redemptive involvement and his being at the helm.” Dokubo-Asari’s utterances have, expectedly, attracted condemnation across the country.

The House of Representatives has called on the Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar, to quiz him. But, the former militant leader has maintained his stance and dared the House of Representatives and Northern leaders to arrest him if they could. He also said that those calling for his arrest turned deaf ears when some Northern leaders, including former Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), threatened to make “Nigeria ungovernable if a Northerner fails to emerge as president in 2011.” We condemn the resort to threats and other unguarded utterances by political actors.

They are capable of truncating the nation’s fragile unity. Use of provocative and inflammatory statements in the build up to the 2015 elections is unacceptable. It does not really matter which part of the country such statements are coming from, one thing that is clear is that they have nothing to offer to the quest for peace, progress and peaceful elections in 2015. These types of statements should be discountenanced by all lovers of peace and unity in the country. We say this because there is no way we can build a great country if politicians continue to beat drums of war from their ethnic cleavages.

Nigeria belongs to all its citizens and not any ethnic group or leader. The president of Nigeria is the leader of all Nigerians and not the president of his clan. The office of the president should, therefore, not be ethnicised or polarized along creed or other mundane lines. Good enough, many Nigerians, including the South-South leader, Chief Edwin Clark, have condemned Asari-Dokubo’s utterances and restated that there will be no crisis if Jonathan is defeated at the presidential election in 2015.

Let those spoiling for war over 2015 be reminded that in a democracy, every person has a right to vie for the highest position in the land. Election to the office of president is only tenable for four years term. The extant 1999 Constitution of Nigeria has no provision for an eight-year term of office. The issue of a second term for any president will be decided at the polls, based on the performance of the incumbent. The case of President Goodluck Jonathan will not be an exception.

Therefore, the effusions of Dokubo-Asari and similar sentiments that have been expressed in the North are reprehensible and treasonable. They could lead to a breach of peace. Dokubo-Asari’s mistake is the same many Northerners earlier made on the late President Musa Yar’Adua’s tenure, which they erroneously thought had to run for eight years. Section 135 (2) (a) of the Nigerian Constitution states, among others, that “the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when-in the case of a person first elected as President under this Constitution, he took Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office.”

We must respect the provisions of the Constitution at all times. We urge Nigerians to start thinking and behaving like one people, instead of emphasizing our diversities. This divisive attitude clearly querries our nationhood. When shall we regard ourselves as a nation? When shall Nigerians see the president as a national leader and not the president of a particular ethnic group? All those fanning the embers of discord in the country should desist from it. Divisiveness does not augur well for the nation and should be jettisoned forthwith.

Although the Federal Government has been said to have cited alleged use of private jets to carry business associates of owners as a reason for this restriction, it is anomalous to dictate to bonafide owners of a transportation mode the category of persons that they can carry in them. It is no wonder, then, that this curious policy has been generating ripples across the polity. Expectedly, there has been strident condemnation of this regulation with the leading opposition party, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), alleging that it has “lent credence to the despotic and dictatorial tendencies of the Jonathan administration.”

The bid to restrict usage of private jets to the immediate families and personnel of their owners is not only unnecessary, it is an affront to the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement and association. Jet owners should be free to associate with and carry whosoever they want in their aircraft, as long as they do not break any of the laws of the land. A jet is a means of transportation, just like we have motorcycles, tricycles, cars, railways, and boats carrying commuters from one place to another in the country. There is no restriction on the category of persons that the owners of these transportation modes carry in them, as long as they are registered for that purpose with the relevant authorities.

This restriction is, therefore, an oddity. Many aviation experts have expressed the view that it is not the general practice in the developed world. One major worry about this new aviation policy is that it appears autocratic. The impression it creates is that of the aviation authorities as an overlord, which should not be the case in a democracy. This is more so as it does not appear to serve any useful purpose, but appears targetted at restricting the use of a personal possession. Although so much has been said about the new craze for private jets with the number of persons owning such jets put at about 150, it is necessary to recognise that the resort of high networth individuals to private jet ownership is a result of the poor quality of service in the aviation sector in Nigeria.

If there are reliable flights and well-maintained aircraft, there may not be any reason for anyone to buy private jets. One other problem with the new restriction clamped on private jets is that it is difficult to enforce. How, for instance, would the authorities determine the relationship between jet owners and those who fly in them? Will passengers in private jets be required to carry their birth certificates to verify their relationship with the jet owners?

If only family members can be carried in jets owned by individuals, would it be illegal for an owner to fly with his personal doctor or lawyer in his jet? These are some of the questions that make this regulation appear punitive, ill-thought out and unreasonable. Let the aviation authorities consider these weighty issues in relation to this new rule.

The initiative, which has been approved by the National Economic Council (NEC), will involve the conversion of one university in each of the country’s six geo-political zones to a mega university, as recommended by the Technical Committee which reviewed the recommendations of the Needs Assessment of Nigerian Universities.

Briefing newsmen on this development after a recent National Executive Council meeting in Abuja recently, Anambra State Governor and Head of the Technical Committee, Mr. Peter Obi, explained that government will expand the intake of the mega universities to 200,000, as against the less than 30,000 currently admitted by some of the biggest universities in the country.

The government has, however, not taken any decision on the institutions that will be involved in the conversion exercise and the nature of the expansion. Expansion of admission spaces in the nation’s universities and other tertiary institutions is long overdue, considering the increasing number of candidates that take the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) and the limited number offered admission each year. Available statistics show that out of 1.7 million candidates that sat for the UTME this year, only about 520,000 will be offered admission in universities and other institutions of higher learning in the country. The paucity of admission spaces in Nigerian universities is a cause for concern.

It has even made some parents to send their children and wards to European and American universities. This has led to huge capital flight estimated at $500 million annually. Parents who could not afford the high cost of education in Europe and America send their children to neighbouring West African countries like Togo and Ghana. While converting some of our universities to mega institutions will enhance their intake of students, government should be ready for challenges that may vitiate this laudable objective.

Expansion of admission spaces will need to be preceded by expansion of physical facilities such as classrooms, libraries, laboratories, lecture theatres and workshops, amongst other things. It will also require increase in academic and non-academic staff. Government must be ready for the challenge of funding the expansion of facilities in the planned mega institutions. A recent survey of Nigerian universities indicated a dearth of qualified lecturers to their programmes. It revealed that only 43 percent of academic staff in the institutions had doctorate degrees. Only seven universities in the country have up to 60 percent of their teaching staff with Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) qualification. Teacher/student ratio in Nigerian universities varies.

The ratio at the National Open University of Nigeria is 1–363; University of Abuja, 1–122 and Lagos State University, 1–144. Compared with universities abroad, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been reported to have 1–9; Cambridge, 1–3 and Harvard 1– 4. Physical facilities in most Nigerian universities are inadequate. Virtually all the libraries and science laboratories are obsolete. All these are pointers to the poor performance of our universities in global university rankings in recent years.

If the government is serious about converting some existing universities into mega universities, it must be ready to do all that is necessary to improve staffing and develop physical infrastructure. Government should encourage more qualified candidates to pursue doctorate degrees, locally and abroad. This can be done through granting of scholarship to those interested in pursuing the programme. Another area that government should address frontally is education funding. The nation’s education sector is seriously under-funded.

The allocation of N426 billion to education, though an improvement over past budgets, still cannot adequately address the problems of the sector. Inasmuch as increasing spaces for university admission in the country is desirable, it should be done in such a way that the quality of university education in Nigeria is not compromised.

The three Special Funds Accounts alleged to have been flagrantly abused are the Stabilisation Account, Ecology Account and Natural Resources Account. These accounts have been controversial since they were set up by the Olusegun Obasanjo administration in 2002.

Protests that the funds contravene Sections 80 (2) and 162 of the Nigerian Constitution have been largely ignored by the Executive. Section 162, specifically, provides that all revenue accruing to the government of the Federation (with a few exemptions) shall be paid into the Federation Account and shared among the Federal, State and Local Governments on such terms as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

There is no provision for the unilateral expenditure of public funds by the Executive arm of government. Now, the Senate has been informed that N1.53 trillion from the Special Accounts was misapplied to sundry purposes that are unrelated to the reasons for setting them up. According to figures released to the Senate Public Accounts Committee by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and confirmed by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the money was doled out as loans and grants to sundry friendly foreign governments, public institutions, individuals and even private companies, without any fiscal guidelines or compliance with statutory regulations.

Out of the N1.53 trillion, N577 billion was classified as “bad debts” and, therefore, deemed “unrecoverable.” Among the questionable projects into which the funds were allegedly sunk is the proposed “Abuja Downtown Mall”, for which the Federal Government reportedly gave out a loan of N750 million on January 1, 2007. Surprisingly, there was no beneficiary named for the loan, and the project has reportedly not gone beyond the foundation level.

The Senate Public Accounts Committee report also said that N701 billion was diverted from the Natural Resources Fund to some state governments; Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of government, and other organisations, for sundry unauthorized expenditures. We condemn the reckless use of funds in the Special Accounts. It is simply a case of the government surreptitiously expending public funds on questionable causes without the approval of the National Assembly, contrary to the dictates of the Nigerian Constitution.

It is wrong that the Executive arms of government, from the regime of Obasanjo till today, have been using funds in the Special Accounts as “slush funds”, for which they are not accountable to the National Assembly or any other authority. While we commend the Senate Public Accounts Committee for uncovering these abuses, it is clear that if the relevant committees of both chambers of the National Assembly had not been complacent in the discharge of their oversight responsibilities over the years, these anomalies would not have occurred.

The abuses would not have attained this frightening proportion. We commend the Senate President, David Mark, for publicly admitting that the legislature must share in the blame for not monitoring these accounts. The sensible thing to do now is to study these accounts to determine those who actually took what amount and how much they have paid back, with a view to recovering all monies that were illegally paid out from them.

It is good that the Senate Public Accounts Committee has been given four weeks to carry out the exercise. We expect the Committee to do a thorough job so that the problem of misuse of Special Funds can be dealt with once and for all. It serves no public good when funds set aside for certain critical purposes are either misused or misappropriated.

This is exactly what has been happening to special intervention funds set up in the past to address challenges in critical sectors of the economy and some other national problems. Yet, the Federal Government continues to propose fresh financial interventions when those already in place are not properly accounted for.

From the evidence provided by the Senate, there is no doubt that Special Funds Accounts, beyond their illegality, have become another avenue for fraudulent use public funds. If Special Funds Accounts must continue to exist, it is necessary that a law be passed to regulate their operation to guide against abuse. On no account should we allow Special Funds Accounts to be used as slush funds by the Executive arm of government.