Nigeria - die Wahrheit unter der Maske der Demokratie
Eine Broschüre zur Lage in Nigeria herausgegeben von Theophilus Emiowele Osezua.

Introduction

This small pamphlet, is actually a first step, that will eventually lead in the next few months to a larger documentation of the actual
facts about the present and true political situation in Nigeria. It is being diffused over the Internet as Olusegun Obasanjo the
successor to one of the worst dictators Nigeria has ever seen arrives in Germany. The purpose of this visit is to attract more
international investment. Which is a euphemism for increased riches for the already wealthy, ruination for the poor, terror for those
who resist and destruction for the environment.

We welcome the participation in our project of all democratic individuals and groups who oppose this naked pillage protected by
military force. What we are seeing is the re-enactment of a century old scenario. The transfer of riches from the oppressed Nigerian
masses to giant western multinationals and a handful of brigands in Africa. With the difference however that unprecedented
technological means and propaganda are being mobilised to carry out the plunder on a scale never before seen. This is why we
believe it is more than ever important for progressive forces in the west and in Africa to join hands.

Your contributions to and co-operation with this documentation will go a long way in debunking the misinformation and the
fabrications which have comforted the selfish and economically-centred opinion of the international community as to the true political
situation in Nigeria.

Concerning the pamphlet itself, most of the topics which follow will focus on the recent political developments in Nigeria. With some
hindsight references to pre-June 12  Nigeria, including the colonial experience, as a way of clarifying some of the contentious issues
as they confront us today beginning with the supposedly democratic election of General Obasanjo.

Since then, a massive misinformation campaign has been launched by certain sections of the Western press in an attempt to paint a
rosy picture, even as the jerry-built arrangements threaten to fall apart, as national questions long obscured but unsettled rise to the
surface. These unresolved issues have the potential of plunging the country into chaos and destruction on a scale unprecedented
even in the already turbulent history of Nigeria. The spate of protests from all over the country in Lagos, Ondo, Shagamu, Kano and of
course the Niger-Delta region, and the blatant refusal of the Obasanjo government to face up to issues as they are, has so far led to
the use of brute force, on the part of the government. With the head of state ordering the police to shoot defenceless and unarmed
civilian citizens at sight.

The stark reality in Nigeria is far worse than the worst nightmare that human imagination is capable of dreaming. The world has
watched wringing its hands as our land the most populous in Africa descends inexorably toward the abyss. Soon it will pass the point
of no-return. It is now time to act!

Theophilus Emiowele Osezua 15.12.99

Published by the International Human Rights Association - Bremen
Wachmannstr. 81, 28209 Bremen, Germany
Phone: + 49 421 55 77 093   Fax + 49 421 55 77 094
Mail@humanrights.de        http://www.humanrights.de/
ISBN Number:
 The Sovereign National Conference and the security situation in Nigeria

by Theophilus Emiowele Osezua

The vast majority of Nigerians are poor, they are frustrated and they are bitter. After the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential
elections, the Nigerian masses have been lashing out in anger and hate, in various forms and ways, against the system that has so
brutally exploited them since Independence. The advent of the phenomenon of mass protest in Nigerian politics marked by the rise of
MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) and NADECO (The National Democratic Coalition) came not only in the wake
of passionate demands for justice in the distribution of national resources, but also in the wake of demands for a fundamental
restructuring of the Nigerian State. These demands are not about mere conduct of new elections based on the existing corrupt
structures of government. Recently, opposition and resistance to the Nigerian State as it is now constituted has taken a new
dimension. The emergence of the Oodua Peopleís Congress O.P.C. in the South-west of the country, and the Egbesu Movement in
the Nigerian Delta Province marked the beginning of concrete and militant application in the struggle of the people to liberate
themselves. Against this background it has become clear to most Nigerians that the only solution to Nigeria's endemic problems is
the convocation of a sovereign national conference to review the very character of the federation, the constitution and the relationship
between the states and the central government.

The Sovereign National Conference will give ethnic nationalities an opportunity to examine the questions that have made Nigeria
such a disaster and come up with some answers such as the right of every nationality to have greater control over their resources. As
such it is hardly surprising that a vast majority of the people, political parties, all ethnic groups, human rights groups, the press,
workers unions, and not least the Houses of legislative Assemblies in the six states controlled by The Alliance for Democracy, have
strongly come out in favour of calling on the Federal Government to convene the conference. However the ruling elite seem to think
otherwise, recently, President Obasanjo dismissed the calls for a Sovereign Conference as "idle talk". The Senate also has set up a
committee supposedly to examine the need for constitutional reform, this is nothing but a blatant attempt to evade a full dialogue on
the issue. Such an attitude could hardly becomes a democratically elected government as the Obasanjo administration claims to be.

However the reasons for this apparent anomaly are not particularly obscure. The first reason is of course the overweening self
interest of the ruling elite. The Nigerian nightmare is no accident. There are people who have been and are profiting from Nigeria's
underdevelopment. Just like the persistent fuel scarcity which brought our country to a standstill also created millionaires, some
interest groups are deeply interested in the continuation of the status quo because they have benefited from it.

While the regime continues to play hide and seek on the constitutional issue, the conflict in the Niger Delta has brutally intensified
within the last months after the Obasanjo government came to power. True to type of not willing or able to understand the
fundamental nature of the crisis in the Delta, the Obasanjo government proposed a Niger Delta Development program which only
has the effect of throwing a little bit more money to the region. The ineffectual bill however was lobbied to death at the National
Assembly by certain interests who oppose any form of concession on the matter. The bill failed to touch any of the basic demands in
the Delta conflict. Political autonomy and regulation of environmental standards in the oil exploring areas were conspicuously
omitted. The inadequacy of the bill coupled with its delay in the legislative of course created further disappointment and frustration.
The result is the heightening of tensions and armed intervention in the Delta in the past few months.

In the second week of November, President Obasanjo even though denying proclaiming a state of emergency in the area, ordered
troops to the region leading to the brutal sacking and extensive destruction of Odi town, a very important oil producing area, inhabited
mainly by the Ijaw people who have been in the forefront in the struggle for justice in the Niger-Delta.
In the same month some soldiers from other states drafted to the troubled region were reported to have raped five women while in
uniform. These reports ignited widespread outrage from communities who have long suffered brutalities at the hands of military
personnel. In response to these revelations, a spokesperson for the President denied the allegations as fabricated by enemies in
the Delta whose main purpose is to discredit the Obasanjo government; when in fact the armed intervention in the delta is a naked
attempt at 'pacification' of the region through repression which also gives the regime the possibility to cloak its aggression as being
an attempt to douse inter-ethnic violence.

The next day, the Military Chief of Staff announced he would not investigate because as he said the claims were a hoax and this
exoneration came only a few days after the reports, without any investigation. This defensive attitude has continued to foreclose any
investigations even though the women raped and the eyewitnesses of the crimes have given their accounts.

In the past few months violence and confrontation between agitators and government armed forces have been the order of the day.
On November 27, President Obasanjo in an interview announced that he had ordered the police and the military troops to shoot
protesters if they resist arrest and threatened that he would impose the state of emergency on any community involved in riots and
protests. These orders to the police have been condemned as unconstitutional and quite in tradition with the practice in the era of
military regimes and the incumbent oppressive order.

In the light of these recent developments, false hopes that were raised about the end of military rule are giving way to frustration as
the unfolding situation looks more and more like a continuation of the policies of the past 35 years. The old tactics of playing one
ethnic group against the other is again being practised by the regime. The ethnic banner is again being waved as a diversionary
tactic to hide the real underlying problems.

It is my position that only a genuine national  and popular democratic movement can fight consistently for such an harmonious social
program and intervene courageously in all cases of violations by whatever social forces, governmental or non-governmental. Such a
movement has not yet emerged in Nigeria. First, an all-embracing constitution a framework must be properly laid. The opportunity to
do this lies not in token constitutional amendments but in full and robust dialogue among all the ethnic and al the various interest
groups in the country.

The optimism which reigned at the dawn of independence, for a Nigeria of justice and prosperity for all has given away to dark
despair in a Nigeria turned to a wasteland plunged in seemingly eternal darkness because of the cupidity of a handful of local
brigands and the boundless rapaciousness of hordes of multinationals who do not see the land as the home to millions of people
but as a source of limitless riches to be plundered. The call for a sovereign national conference is the distant glimmer of hope for our
voiceless millions to renew the hopes of independence so cruelly betrayed. That is why we will succeed.
 The Niger Delta crises and Nigeria's future

Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti

The Nigerian government in November 1999 moved some army battalions from Warri in Delta State and Elele in Rivers State into the
oil-rich Bayelsa State.

Some days before, seven policemen had been killed in a clash with youths in the Odi area of Bayelsa State. It was part of the face-off
between the government and foreign oil companies on one hand, and restive Ijaw youths on the other. The youths, many of whom are
unemployed, have consistently demanded that royalty be paid for crude oil obtained from their ancestral lands.

The Government had claimed that it wanted to investigate the clash and bring the offending youths to trial. But rather than send in
detectives, security operatives or the police to investigate the incident, identify and arrest the perpetrators, the Government sent in
troops. This action of course exposed the real intention of the Government, which is an attempt to intimidate oil-producing areas and
pacify them by wiping out a whole town.

When the troops got to the outskirts of Odi town, rather than enter it to "investigate" and "arrest the bandits", they brought mortars and
shelled it for two days. By the end of this clearly criminal bombardment, only a few buildings remained standing in the town. Then the
army moved in killing all male youths they laid their hands on in Odi town and its environs. In the process they blew up or set more
buildings on fire.

This is what the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration did to Odi and its inhabitants; it can only be described as massacre
and wanton destruction.

The Campaign for Democracy said of the Odi massacres in a December 2, 1999 statement entitled "The beginning of genocide",
"Nothing of this calamity was seen in Northern Ireland where similar killings of law enforcement agents were routinely carried out.
Neither did we see it in the United States of America where widespread chaos developed after the assassination of Rev. Martin
Luther King in the 60s. Where we have seen this type of destruction has been during wars between enemies".

The massacres in Odi and the destruction of the town was indeed a message by the Government that it would brook no opposition
and would not tolerate any disruption of oil production in the country. Oil is the commodity from which subsequent governments in
Nigeria since 1965 have realised over 90 per cent of their income most of which ended up in the pockets of those in power.

For oil, the Nigerian government is prepared to drown the country in blood. This is not the first time blood has been deliberately shed
in this country by the government in order to safeguard its exploitation of oil. Indeed, bloodshed has been part of the government's oil
policy. In 1995 it hung environmentalist and famous writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other minority rights activists from Ogoni for
challenging oil giant Shell's exploitation of oil on Ogoni soil.

In December 1998, the government massacred youths in Yenagoa, capital of Bayelsa State, for demanding control of the oil
resources exploited on their ancestral lands. A few months later, it sent in troops to flatten Kaiama, a town in Bayelsa State where
youths had weeks before made a declaration demanding the peopleís control of their oil resources.

All these massacres and mass destruction have taken place in a small part of the country called the Niger Delta. The Niger Delta is
in the South-South portion of Nigeria covering some 70,000 kilometres. Despite its small size in relation to the country, and its
neglect, its bowels yield two million barrels of crude oil daily.

The area is perhaps the most under-developed portion of the country despite forty-three years of exploiting its non-renewable oil
wealth. It is a region that is at once rich and poor; rich in natural resources and impoverished by the oil companies and the Federal
Government which expropriates its entire resources.

With this state of affairs, lack of jobs, non-siting of industries and a near-lack of infrastructure, the Niger Delta has become
synonymous with squalor and mass poverty. In a scientific survey published in 1997, the Niger Delta Environmental Survey (NEDES)
reported that :
"Poverty is prevalent in the Niger Delta and has been linked to degradation of agricultural lands and fishing waters. Affected people
became impoverished. In many cases, they tend either to migrate to become part of the urban poor or to remain in their villages to
grapple with the low yielding lands and poor sources of water."

Perhaps no other part of the Niger Delta presents what the future holds for the area more than Oloibiri, the first place where oil was
struck in commercial quantities in 1956; it remains at the state of nature. With 75 per cent of the Niger Delta people living in rural
areas without pipe borne water, electricity and roads, and their lands devastated by oil exploitation, their waters polluted by almost
daily oil spillage and the air poisoned by eternal gas flares, the temper of the people was bound to be short. These are part of the root
causes of what has become known as the Niger Delta crisis.

Such a characterisation can be said to fit if you take into consideration the inter-ethnic clashes that have taken place amongst the
people, which pitched notable nationalities like the Ijaw and Urhobo against their Itsekiri brothers and sisters. These are bloody
clashes amongst the repressed and exploited with the benefactors of oil exploration in the country stoking the fires of ethnic hatred
with the hope that these type of diversions would preoccupy the people while the naked exploitation continues.

But within the context of the country and international monopoly capital, the said characterisation will not fit because it is actually a
crisis of the Nigerian State. The country depends almost entirely on oil resources; indeed the argument has been made that today,
the basis of Nigeria's unity is oil. Since any disruption of the oil business will spell economic disaster for the country, the crisis has
become a Nigerian one. It is like a vicious circle; the people protest their condition and the seizure of their natural resources by the
central government. These protests sometimes end up disrupting oil production, and the central government sends in armed
soldiers and policemen who maul the protesters and oil production continues again until it is disrupted.

To the Niger Delta people, the Federal Government is like a one-armed bandit which makes laws seizing their lands and waters, oil
and other natural resources and sends in armed men to kill them. They believe that the cause of their exploitation is primarily
because they are a minority within the country. They point out that before oil was discovered in commercial quantities, derivation
(Vorschlag: das Prinzip der Wiedererlangung) was the basis of resource sharing and allocation (Vorschlag: Mittelbewilligung oder
-zuweisung). Under the Bins Commission in the 1950s, 100 per cent of resource allocation went to the region where the resource is
derived. This later became 50%. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution and the 1963 Republican Constitution, 50% of resource
allocation went to the region where the resource is derived, 30% to all the regions including the one which has had the 50%
derivation, and 20% to he Central government.

This was at a time when the three largest ethnic nationalities in the country provided the country's major resources. The north
dominated by the Hausa-Fulani produced groundnut, hides and skin, the West peopled by the Yorubas were famous for cocoa
production and the East controlled by the Igbos had cola and palm oil. However, with oil becoming dominant, derivation was reduced
from 50% to zero per cent. This partly led to an uprising by the Ijaws led by a former student leader, Issac Adaka Boro. That revolt was
put down in twelve days.

The Nigeria Civil War that raged from 1967 to 1970 had the fight for control of the Niger Delta oil wealth as part of its causes. Agitation
after the war led to a one percent, then three per cent derivation formula. Then a 13% derivation system was introduced by the military
but the money was put in an Oil Minerals Producing Development Commission (OMPADEC) controlled entirely by the military from the
centre.

A very small community called Ogoni fired off the on-going movement of protest by the Niger Delta people. The Ogonis, who were led
by the famous playwright, and writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa felt that with oil exploitation, pollution and neglect, they were facing extinction.
They linked up with other indigenous peopleís organisations in the world and used mass peaceful protests and civil disobedience to
tackle Shell the oil giant, its subsidiaries like the American Wilbros and the Federal Government. The government's response was to
occupy Ogoniland using the Northern-dominated army.

Following a controversial clash in the Gokana part of Ogoniland where four prominent Ogoni sons suspected of collaborating with the
government were killed, hundreds of Ogonis including Saro-Wiwa were detained. A kangaroo Military Tribunal was set up before
which the Ogoni detainees were hauled. Nine of them including Saro-Wiwa and a top government official were sentenced to death,
and despite international warnings and pleas including those from the Commonwealth, the Ogoni activists were hanged.

This led to the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth and some international isolation. Rather than the hanging serving as
a deterrent to the Niger Delta people, they saw it as a challenge. First, the Ijaws who are perhaps the largest ethnic nationality in the
Niger Delta not only continued the struggle, but resorted to guerrilla armed struggle. In December 1998, Ijaw Youths met and issued
what has become known as the KAIAMA DECLARATION in which they declared "We agreed to remain within Nigeria but demand and
work for self-government and resource control for the Ijaw people". They also demanded an end to the unitary form of government in
favour of a federal system.

As part of their protests, the Ijaws began shutting down some of the oil installations on their ancestral land. This led to massive troop
movements and the occupation of the area in January 1999. This occupation continues with lots of bloodshed and summary
executions of Ijaw youths by the security forces. Since then other nationalities in the Niger Delta have adopted one form of Declaration
or Bill of Rights or another. The Urhobo declaration states that the Urhobo land has yielded over $25.7 billion of oil "with nothing to
show for it" On resource allocation, the Urhobos demanded the replacement of "the principle of derivation, with complete ownership
and control of oil and gas wealth in our domain as the only way out of 40 years of marginalisation and deprivation."

The latest ethnic nationality to produce a Bill of Rights is the Oron people who met on June 25, 1999. Part of the Declaration read:
"Most agonising is the continued pollution of our coastal waters, rivers, creeks and streams through the dumping of poisonous
substances in our deep ocean trenches. Without mincing words, such acts have placed our ocean's abundant wealth in jeopardy,
causing gross impoverishment of many fishers and disrupting lives of coastal habitats and fish nursery grounds Ö We live on the
sea, die on the sea and as we have come to see it today, the prospects are dangerously grim and worsening by the day".

On May 29, 1999, the country transited from Military autocracy to civil governance. The new government headed by General Olusegun
Obasanjo promised changes in the lives of the people including the inhabitants of the Niger Delta. But five months later these remain
mere declarations. President Obasanjo had sent a Niger Delta Development Commission Bill to the National Assembly. This bill has
been rejected by the Niger Delta people on the basis that it is a mere repackaging of the Military's OMPADEC government
commission completely controlled by government.

Conclusion

The Niger Delta crisis cannot be resolved outside the Nigerian crises. The Nigerian crises include the peopleís feeling of alienation,
lack of an acceptable constitution, absence of mass participation in governance and refusal of the politicians and the military
hierarchy to carry out the needed geographical and political restructuring of the country.

Part of the solution to the crises is the restructuring of the armed forces and security services and allowing resource control by all
ethnic nationalities. For these, and to ensure peaceful resolution of the crises, there is the need for the convocation of a Sovereign
National Conference where all Nigerians or their representatives can sit down and discuss the country's future.

References
? Niger Delta Environmental Survey. Phase 1 Report. Vol. I-IV,
Environmental Resources Management Lagos. Sept. 1999.
? The Human Ecosystems of the Niger Delta: An ERA Handbook Kraft Books. Ibadan.
? Nigeria: Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the fears  of Minorities and the means of allaying them. (Willink
Commission Report) Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London.
? 1960 Independence Constitution.
? 1963 Republican Constitution.
? The Ogoni Bill of Rights
? The Kaiama (Ijaw) Declaration
? Resolutions of the First Urhobo Economic Summit.
? Bill of Rights of the Oron People.

The various attempts at transition to democracy in Nigeria

Dr. Anthony Edeh

Nigeria was liberated from British colonial rule in 1960. The early Nigerian leaders negotiated a federal constitution which
guaranteed self rule for the three ethnically based regions in the new republic. The Independence constitution also offered equal and
proportional representation in the central government as a way of ensuring stability in the new multi-ethnic nation. In the prevailing
circumstances after Independence, a sound and farsighted constitutional basis seemed to have been laid, and our founding fathers
were able to inspire in Nigerians a sense of national awareness by speaking collectively of the possibility of a great nation where
ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity would constitute a source of strength rather than weakness. It was also expected that the
federal plan would liberate the potentials of the constituent units of Nigeria's multi-ethnic character. As long as this constitutional
arrangement was followed everything seemed to work relatively well. The prevailing euphoria, therefore, seemed to be justified that
Nigeria had everything it would take to be a progressive nation as it was also abundantly endowed with human and natural resources
of high quality.

Nigeria also remained the largest and the most populous market in Africa. In the early years of the 1950s, natural oil and gas were
discovered in huge commercial amounts in the Delta region of the country, and thus the nation which was hitherto an agricultural
economy found another window of opportunity for economic growth. Other indices were pointing to success for the young democracy-
the middle class was growing, the balance of payments was favourable and the country was classified as a middle income nation in
the 1960s. Both the regional administrations and the federal government were functioning properly and Nigerians were proud of their
country.

Unfortunately, the country's positive process was abruptly aborted by interests which saw the countryís rather independent course not
suitable to a new colonial order, as envisaged. The events that would start the tragic course of Nigeria occurred in 1966 when military
officers obviously driven by inordinate ambition supported by external forces seized power in a bloody coup against a democratically
elected government. Both the central government and the regional administration were ousted and the constitution of federal and
regional autonomies abrogated. The military government then appointed officers to administer the states and proceeded to rule the
country by military decrees. With military intervention came various forms of rapid instability as other opportunistic army officers
staged coups and counter-coups. By 1993, Nigeria had experienced eleven different coups and counter-coups as every successive
military junta used the pretext of the shortcomings of its predecessor as yet another reason to intervene. Meanwhile, the neo-colonial
multinational forces were able to entrench themselves and their aims over and above the interests of ordinary Nigerians. In the new
order of things, the emergent elite and their successors started to subvert the original vision of the nation and the constitution and
replaced them with that of radical exploitation. In order to gain total control, the military government proceeded to concentrate all
powers whether it was executive, legislative or judicial power in their centre.

With the constitution abrogated, participation or access to the governing process of the country was foreclosed to Nigerians. The
effects of these draconian policies first drove the various ethnic groups to polarise themselves while ethnic identity became sharper
and sharper. Unemployment rose sharply, crime became overwhelming and corruption became the order of the day. By 1975 Nigeria
became totally dependent on oil exports. By 1980 it was no longer classified as a middle income country but one of the poorest and
most corrupt, and the once burgeoning  middle class had almost disappeared.

In the prevailing circumstances, various social groups started to question the real basis of the Nigerian Union. The organised
opposition movement especially led by the Workers Union called for the restoration of the Independence constitution and the
convening of a sovereign national conference to discuss the future of the country afresh. Other sections called for strict regional
autonomies or confederation. In the Niger Delta- the source of the wealth-  where deprivation was more acute, the people would not
wait for mere words as they organised themselves into concrete resistance. Led by MOSOP, the struggle for the soul of Nigeria
began in earnest.

The military rulers responded to this challenge with great force: mass arrests of opposition leaders, total destruction of towns and
villages in the Delta region and extra-judicial killings of prominent activists. In attempts to defuse the crisis, the military government
announced various programs of transition to democracy which would consequently fail. The reason for these failures is not too far
from the fact that the authorities had no intention to relinquish power to a democratically elected government.

In 1986, General Babangida announced a transition program that would hand over power in 1989. He proceeded to create two
political parties as the only basis to participate in the transition elections. Despite these affronts, Nigerians tolerated all the
unreasonable dictates of the Junta in the hope of making the hand-over a success. The transition failed after all, because the military
had no plans to leave as proclaimed. As always, they erected difficulties and outright cancellation of already completed parts of the
elections, thereby frustrating the process.

At the end of a long 7 year transition program which was prolonged at every stage with one reason after another, crisis broke out in
June 1993. In the presidential elections held in June Chief M.K.O. Abiola, himself a product of the progressive wing of Nigeria's
politics, won a landslide victory drawing support from practically all sections of the country.

Unfortunately, the military junta suddenly announced that the elections' outcome had been cancelled and offered no reasons for their
action. The problem was that the true wishes of the Nigerian masses were totally different from those of the military and their
collaborators. The people wanted peace and democracy but the military and the foreign interests wanted the continuation of the
status quo, and so any so-called transition to democracy would either fail or be aborted. Years of military rule, massive corruption and
looting of national resources had imbibed in military officers the crave for political offices. Corruption was so deep and prevalent that
practically all segments of the military establishment were totally dedicated to maintaining the status quo, which was working so well
to enrich them. Apart from using force and brutality against their opponents, the military dictatorship also did a pretty good job in
propaganda. Using weird propaganda they played one ethnic group against the other and ensured that the country was always
constantly in crisis, a situation which their propaganda claimed could only be resolved by a strong military government. The basic
claim was that the military was on a patriotic and messianic mission to save the country from ethnic disintegration; so, military rule,
despite its aberrations, for now should be accepted as a necessary evil. Further, a major plunge of their propaganda claimed that
Nigerian society was not ripe for Western-style democracy, a concept and style of government too sophisticated for a relatively native
society. In any case, this alien democracy was not suitable for Nigeria, and that a period of gestation was necessary for Nigerian civil
society to transform in a political metamorphosis; they coined such slogans as "a true and durable democracyî,  or ìself-made
democracyî which would produce a totally indigenous Nigerian home grown democratic system. What a lofty and patriotic idea you
can say. But is it really necessary to subjugate the people and rule them by force, in order to produce this so-called home-grown
democracy? What has the taking away of political and economic rights of the people and massive corruption got to do with a
so-called period of gestation that would usher in a durable indigenous democracy? Such slogans and propaganda were used to
hoodwink the gullible population by whipping a false sense of national pride and fake anti-colonial sentiments. All these efforts failed
in the end. Unable to control the situation, the Babangida dictatorship collapsed after he had appointed an interim government to
succeed him. But from the onset, opposition leaders saw through the game plan as a strategy to cool and check the rising tide of
opposition  to military rule.

In December of 1993, General Sani Abacha, the most reclusive of all the dictators who had all the time been in the inner circle of the
ruling clique, pushed out the interim government with every ease as earlier speculated. He immediately imposed martial law while
scrapping the already completed democratic institutions like the legislatives and the state governments. Chief  M.K.O.  Abiola, the
winner of the June presidential elections, was arrested and detained without charges. Opposition parties responded with massive
demonstrations and strike actions throughout the country. In the turbulent months ahead, Abacha's security agents would hunt down
all opposition leaders in the country.

In July 1994, a nation-wide strike by oil workers later joined by practically all workers movements in the country, nearly paralysed the
country. The strike lasted for several months and nearly brought down the military regime, but unfortunately, faced by threats and
mass arrests of leaders, the strike action collapsed in September. But back in the military quarters, there was a new reckoning. In
October 1994, the Abacha regime announced yet another fraudulent program of transition to democracy which was merely greeted
with widespread scepticism. In order to douse the demands for a national sovereign conference, the new military regime announced
plans for a constitutional drafting committee to recommend a new constitution for Nigeria. To constitute this committee, General
Abacha would appoint 35% of its members and the majority of the remaining 65% would be candidates hand-picked by him. In this
way the military junta teleguided the constitutional committeeís work. Beside these interferences, General Abacha's government
enumerated certain issues, like the present unitary structure which denied federal rights to the states, as matters that could not be
discussed by the committee. Other matters which affected the military's hold on power were absolutely outside the jurisdiction of the
committee. In the end, a document largely dictated by the ruling regime was produced subject to the ratification of the Armed Forces
ruling Council, of which General Abacha was the chairman.

The second phase of his transition consisted of the establishment of political parties and the holding of elections. After several
months of manipulations, five political parties were registered and all were headed by Abacha's cronies. The secret agenda was for
Abacha to transit from military dictator to a civilian one , but with legitimate authority as having been elected. In the following national
conventions of the various parties to pick their presidential candidates for elections, all five parties adopted General Abacha as a
so-called consensus candidate. Abacha's plot claimed that because the country was in such a precarious situation, only General
Abacha was capable and indispensable to bring peace and unity to the country. The campaign for democracy intensified, and called
for a nation-wide boycott of the coming election in which Abacha was the only candidate. Nigeria was faced with this stalemate when
the hands of providence struck in August 1998. General Abacha suddenly died under mysterious circumstances at his mansion in
Abuja. The widespread spontaneous jubilation throughout the country at the news of his death brought relief upon a country that had
been suppressed for so long.

The sudden death of Abacha offered Nigeria the chance to make another review. The rank and file of the military has been imbued
with political ambition over the years and so the whole establishment was in shambles. Opposition to further military rule was at its
highest tempo and the level of anti-military consciousness was very high in the country. The traditional bases of support for the
military both inside and outside Nigeria were showing signs of weakening. Interest groups which had profited from military rule and
steadfastly supported it, became weary of a war in which they now saw no opportunity for survival. The whole nation was faced with
contentious issues which in reality could only be resolved through democratic dialogue. On the ground, the military was faced with
sure and imminent defeat.

These conditions helped the military establishment to see reality, and put together a hurriedly packaged relatively short transition of 9
months that to save its face brought General Obasanjo to power. The curious thing about the last days of military rule in Nigeria was
that even in the last day- May 29th, the day of hand-over, not many believed the military would really relinquish power to civilian
authority. But on the other hand, the relative success of the military to foist a civilian façade as its successor which is by and large
reservedly accepted as a change is yet another development whose impact and consequences are yet to be understood.

The symptoms of the old corrupt dictatorship are again so early, rearing their heads. In the new National Assembly composed largely
of former active supporters and apologists of military dictatorship, legislative bills to alleviate corruption and economic deprivation are
being ignored. The various vote-catching populist steps taken by the incoming successors are dying just as soon as they have been
proclaimed with fanfare. General Obasanjo's  strategic power still resides in the hands of former actors in the old dictatorship. The
general mood among the people and in the land is that of sagacity. The claim of liberation will depend on real and substantial
economic and social alleviation of the people who have suffered so much and who have been oppressed so much throughout
decades of successive brutal dictatorships in the country.

In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nigerians have intensified the struggle for democracy within the past decades in
their country, still, the various attempts failed. The spertinent question therefore is- why did these attempts fail to produce any
progress? A close analysis of the various factors that have dominated Nigeria's politics in the past 35 years will throw light on these
questions. First one has to go back to the period in our history before Independence. After the end of slave trade in the middle of the
18th century, the British successfully conquered the Kingdom of Benin, Oyo and the Sokoto caliphate and other mini-empires that
were existing in the area we call Nigeria today. Over these territories was imposed British Colonial administration, whose sole aim
was the political and economic exploitation of its resources for the British Industries. For  administrative convenience, the British
colonial authorities divided Nigeria into two administrative units, the Northern and Southern protectorates, which were administered
separately. In 1914, both protectorates of the North and South were amalgamated into one called Nigeria. After the anti-imperialist
campaign, which gained success in Nigeria during this period, the British were finally forced to concede political independence to
Nigeria in 1960.

However, the economic colonial relationship was left literally intact to be managed by the new emerging Nigerian comprador elite
who were willing to protect the interests of their former colonial masters in the management of the post-Independence economy. The
recognition of the existence today and the perpetuity of this surrogate policy in Nigeriaís affairs is very important in trying to
understand the primary cause of todayís political and economic upheavals in the country. Successive governments, whether they
were military or civilian, have by and large served this policy and therefore helped to maintain British and European economic
influence in Nigeria.

In the Niger Delta region where the application of this policy has been more acute, the effects have led to not only political and
economic denial, but to outright brutality in the hands of a formidable alliance of multinational oil companies, the parasitic ruling elite
and government security forces who have been benefiting from the corrupt economic system. Attempts by ethnic Ogonis to confront
the multinational corporations and their government collaborators were brutally suppressed in 1995 with the hanging of Ken
Saro-Wiwa and top-ranking leaders of the opposition.

These exploitative economic conditions have also led to massive corruption in Nigeria, so overwhelming and immoral that money
stolen from Nigeria by ruling military officers and their civilian collaborators was estimated at  60 billion US dollars. It is ironical that
this stolen money is now lodged in various banks in Europe and  the U.S.A. So far demands for the returning of this wealth to Nigeria
have only been met with hypocritical apologies and claims of alibi by the same foreign interests who have organised, supported and
maintained the successive dictatorships that have plundered Nigeriaís economic resources. Nigerianís cry for justice and their
demand for the recovering of their countryís stolen wealth is not going to go away. In the years ahead it is expected that the demand
for recovery of stolen money now lying in banks across Europe and the U.S.A. will likely intensify.

In these circumstances, the countryís economy is captive in the hands of a grand alliance of international and domestic interests
whose main aim is to exploit the national resources of our country. The question of transition to democracy is also often erroneously
interpreted. Mere elections to constitute a new government will not necessarily change these conditions. What is needed is a
fundamental revolutionary process that is capable of changing the old corrupt agenda and capable of erecting new structures that
can pave the way to real change. Even though the present government is an elected one, one hardly believes that with the old
structures still in place and the heavy infusion of past corrupt leaders in the government, the new government has any capacity to lead
a liberating process. At the close of the 20th century, the peoples' struggle for liberation has gained high momentum. There is more
awareness in the land, as to the reasons and sources of Nigeriaís corrupt system. Almost all the constituencies except the
exploitative elite class, are demanding a new basis for national existence and a new basis for international relations. A concerted
effort should be made to win these fundamental demands.
 The impact of multi-nationals on the environment

by Donny Ohia

The oil companies operating in Nigeria maintain that their activities are conducted to the highest environmental standards, and that
the impact of oil on the environment of the Niger Delta is minimal. Shell, for example, has stated that most of the environmental
problems which have been pointed out are not the result of oil operations. But Ken Saro-Wiwa, spokesperson to the Movement for the
Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) until he was hanged on Nov. 10th, 1995, maintained that the environment in Ogoniland and
other oil-producing communities has been completely devastated by three decades of reckless oil exploration or ecological warfare,
by Shell and other multinationals. An ecological war is killing at every level. Human life, flora, fauna, the air fall at its feet, and finally,
the land itself dies.

Environmental groups know that the oil companies operate double standards, using practices in Nigeria that would never be
permitted in North America or Europe. The oil industries´ own evaluations of environmental damage, when required by the
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), are inadequate. A Dutch biologist confirmed major problems with most of the
environmental studies carried out in the Niger Delta, as they are done by Nigerian universities or private consultancies, which have
generally a low scientific level and little technical/industrial expertise. In 1994, The Body Shop International commissioned a review of
two studies for pipeline projects, one made by the Special Pipeline Development Company (SPDC) and the other by the
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). It stated that, while SPDC´s consultants had tried to be thorough, the assessments were
lengthy and generally poorly constructed. The review concluded that despite some sections of high quality the report showed serious
defects. Above all, the studies would not consider alternatives. Significant issues had been overlooked or deferred to date.

As a result of deficiencies in studies and the paucity of independent academic research, there is little publicly available hard
information on the state of the environment in the Delta or the impact that oil production in Nigeria has had. Problems identified
include: flooding and coastal erosion, sedimentation and siltation, degradation and depletion of water and coastal resources, land
degradation, oil pollution, health problems and low agricultural production, as well as social economic problems, lack of community
participation, and weak or non-existent laws and regulations.  Astonishingly, despite decades of oil exploration and production,
neither the oil companies nor the Nigerian government have funded scientific research that would allow an objective assessment of
the damage caused by oil exploration and production.

Spills  In many  cases it is clear that land affected by oil spills is not properly or promptly rehabilitated. For example, in July 1997, an
oil spill happened at the Shell flow station at Kolo Creek. The company meant to resolve it by collecting the contaminated soil in pits.
One year later, during flood season, rising waters washed the pit area and the absorbed oil spread again;  local people first thought a
new spill had happened. There have been many similar  cases in zones of oil exploration. Every time, the lives of local people are
destabilised and their means of survival put into jeopardy.

Clearing spills by bulldozing the affected earth away and dumping it into pits is not regarded as satisfactory by international
standards. In Kolo Creek, moreover, it was obviously done in a negligent manner; Shell was ordered to pay a serious fine. Another
procedure often used by  Shell and other oil multinationals is to heap up material contaminated  by oil spills and set it on fire. This
technique does not meet international standards either. Again, it is the local people who have to bear the damage.

Since in most areas of the Delta drinking water is drawn straight from streams and creeks, with no other option available to local
people, any spill is dangerous, even if it disperses rapidly and the water soon returns to its previous condition. Crude oil contains
thousands of different chemicals, many of them toxic, and some known to be promoting cancer even at very low concentrations.
Following a Mobil Oil spill in January 1998, people  of several neighbouring communities had to be hospitalised after drinking water;
residents complained that fish is tasting of kerosene, which is a clue to hydrocarbon contamination. In many villages near oil
installations, even when there has been no recent spill, an oily sheen can be seen on water surfaces; in fresh water areas, it is
usually this same water people use for drinking and washing. In April 1997, samples of water used for drinking and washing by local
people of the Niger Delta area were analysed in the U.S.A. In this part of Ogoniland, there had been no oil production for the past four
years. The measurements revealed  a level of hydrocarbons of 18  ppm (parts per million), 360 times more than drinking water is
allowed to contain in Europe. Many such cases have been reported from the oil-producing regions of Nigeria.The oil companies
themselves have never tried hard to find out what the effects of oil spills are; the assessments they did were of little use and regularly
came too late.

In the long term, spills can be devastating for those directly affected, especially in dry land or fresh water swamp areas, where the
effects are concentrated in particular locations. Oil leaks are usually from high pressure pipelines, and therefore spurt out over a
wider area, destroying crops, artificial fish ponds used for fish farming, ëeconomic treesí (i.e. economically valuable trees, including
those growing wild but owned by particular families)  and other income generating assets. Even a small leak can thus wipe out the
income equivalent to a yearís food supply for a whole family. The consequences of such loss of livelihood range from children
missing school because their parents can no longer afford their school fees, to virtual destitution.

Multinationals blame most of the oil spills on sabotage.  They are pressing for criminal prosecution of local people who cry out loud
against environmental degradation, calling for charges that entail life imprisonment or the death penalty.

In the wake of the Jesse pipeline explosion, the Nigerian government itself, siding with the oil companies,  claimed sabotage of the
pipeline was the cause, and called for prosecution. The then head of state Gen. Abdul Salami Abubakar visited the scene where over
one thousand people lost their lives. He declared that vandalism was responsible for this, and no compensation would be paid to the
victims.
 

Roads and canals built by the oil companies promote the mixed blessing of human access but can be destructive in more ways. A
number of roads has been built on causeways across seasonally flooded plains, whose ecology depends on the changing
hydrological conditions. This makes it a duty to build proper culverts under the causeways. If not, as often was the case, the drainage
of the area is blocked, causing permanent flooding on one side of the road and the drying out on the other. As a result, trees die, fish
ponds are destroyed and seasonal fishing disrupted, cutting a significant percentage of locals' income or even the entire livelihood of
families.

A typical case is that of Gbaran oil field in River State. In 1991, a causeway to carry a road to the well heads was built on behalf of the
SPDC by Willbros West Africa Inc., a US-based contractor to the oil industry. According to local people, the causeway initially had no
passages for water to cross underneath, blocking the drainage channel. Passages were added later, but either insufficiently
designed or poorly constructed, so that the drainage of the area is still disturbed. Here too, trees and other vegetation over a wide
area have died from water logging, and seasonal fishing grounds have been destroyed, to substantial economic damage for local
people. As culverts were cut, the lake that had built up gushed through them; several young people drowned in the arising turbulence.
Farmers in Obite, Omoku River State in the Obagi/Omoku oil field operated by ELF and AGIP, also complained of flooding.

Canals are another factor that can disrupt delicate hydrological systems, especially when they are constructed in the border zone
between fresh water and brackish water in the riverine areas. Such disruption can destroy long established fishing grounds. A canal
dug by Chevron near the remote village of Awoye, Ilaje/Ese-Odo Local Government Area, Ondo State, has reportedly caused or
accelerated erosion by sea water, and has also destroyed the local hydrological system by allowing salt water into a fresh water area,
creating a salt water marsh in place of a fresh water swamp of much higher biodiversity. As a consequence, traditional fishing
grounds and sources of drinking water have been wiped out. The damage is described by one expert on the Niger Delta environment
as "one of the most extreme cases of habitat destruction in the Delta".

Dredging  destroys the ecology of the dredged area as well as of the area where the spoils are dumped. Although dredged materials
is in principle dumped on land, some of it will inevitably slip back into the water, increasing turbidity, reducing sunlight penetration
and thus plant life, and possibly driving away fish.

Gas flaring   Nigeria flares more gas than any other country in the world: approximately 75% of the "associated gas" which is
produced as a by-product of crude oil extraction from reservoirs in which oil and gas are mixed. Flaring in Nigeria contributes a
measurable percentage of the world's total emissions of greenhouse gases; due to the low efficiency of many of the flares much of
the gas is released as methane, which has an even higher ëglobal warmingí potential than carbon dioxide. At the same time, the
low-lying Niger Delta is particularly vulnerable to the potential effects of sea level rising, which is a feared consequence of global
warming. Another problem of gas flaring is that air, leaf and soil temperatures are rising in a range of up to eighty or even one
hundred metres from the stack, leading to a shift in the species profile of the local vegetation.

The most noticeable yet generally unremarked effect of the flares is light pollution: across the oil producing regions, the night sky is lit
up by flares that, in the rainy season, reflect luridly from clouds. Villagers close to flares complain that nocturnal animals are
disturbed by this light and leave the area, making hunting more difficult.

The existing Nigerian legislation on gas flaring is generally not respected by oil companies. Their policy is to ensure themselves
impunity by bribing officials up to the highest ranks in government, and carry on with the procedures just described, without regard to
the areaís environment and people.
 Corruption

By Roberts Tunde Emmanuel

Corruption is Nigeria's major sickness and also a greater threat to African development than AIDS, most especially in Nigeria.
Corruption came into the country  with multinational oil companiesí greed to exploit its oil reserves. The companies sponsored a
military coup in 1966 that erased Nigeriaís federal constitution and installed central control of the oil-rich Delta region. Since then,
subsequent Nigerian military governments were solely interested in securing their small share of the big profits that went abroad.
Corruption eroded  all institutions and government bodies.  Money meant for schools, roads and hospitals ended up in personal
pockets. This is why factories are forced to close because of daily power cuts. The introduction of petrodollars enriched those at the
helm of government affairs beyond their wildest dreams. Petrodollars also made the military regimes, especially under  Gen.
Obasanjo, Gen. Babangida, Gen. Abacha and Gen. Abubakar, unaccountable to the masses.  Through foreign oil firms, the military
rulers enriched themselves, their family and friends, and used the acquired wealth to silence any opposition, thereby keeping
themselves in power.

In Nigeria, through the consistent practice of corruption, anyone could be bought; soldiers, traditional leaders, police or civil servants.
Civil servants will not lift their pens without a bribe. Nigeria could be largely likened to Mobutu's Zaire, where corruption was the only
functional system. In fact, corruption is the order of the day in Nigeria and it has eaten deep into the bedrock of the country. Through
corruption, billions of dollars have been stashed abroad illegally by African dictators in collaboration with foreign partners. Years of
massive treasury pillage by a succession of military dictators and their cronies, including President Obasanjo's past (1976-79) and
present regime, have left 120 million Nigerians short of power, communications, health care and even fuel.

Despite billions of dollars in oil wealth, basic infrastructures barely function in Nigeria of today. At Independence in 1960, only 30% of
Nigerians were counted as living below the poverty line. By 1999, this has reversed to 70% of poor people in the population.

Corruption at the helm of Nigerian government affairs made that the Nigerian people inherited empty treasuries, mountains of debts
and months of salaries unpaid to civil workers in the country. The evidence of corruption and outright theft dot the states in the form of
uncompleted and abandoned buildings and roads, collapsing bridges and broken waterworks. Nigeria's economy is at the brink of
total collapse. Oil, Nigeria's main foreign income earner, has been a curse instead of a blessing to the country, due to the large scale
of corruption and the misuse of public funds among those in power.

Corruption in Nigeria of today robs schools, hospitals and welfare services. It scares away those foreign investors who view dealing
with any Nigerian officials as little short of a mugging. Corruption has also fed inflation, ruined whole industries and contributed to
widespread unemployment. Western governments have expressed the wish that Nigeria's pervasive corruption must be curbed to
restore the confidence of the investing community in the country labelled as one of the most corrupt in the present world.

There has been no serious attempt to fight corruption in Nigeria due to the naked fact that the people at the helm of government
affairs advocating for transparency and curbing out corruption in Nigeria are the agents of corruption themselves, which makes it an
impossible task to counter-attack as a national issue. Once sincerity, probity, accountability and transparency are in place, there will
be penalties for wrong conducts. Then there will be hope that corruption that had badly eaten deep and afflicted the economy and the
industrial sector in particular will be tackled.

Although corruption has permeated all sectors of the society, some voices raised the hope  that if Ppresident Obasanjo's new
government is able to curb it in the high echelon, this will have a positive effect on the whole civil society in Nigeria; but due to the fact
that Gen. Obasanjo came to the seat of power through a corrupt, fraudulent and manipulated way and also through a huge financial
support from his ex-military colleagues, to curb out corruption will be very difficult, as he, Obasanjo, 'cannot bite the fingers that feed
him'.

But corruption remains one of the greatest challenges against Obasanjo's new regime, that is to cut out the legacy of institutionalised
corruption which has held the countryís economy back for three decades. During the 20 years of military misrule in Nigeria, military
leaders and their cronies worked out clever ways of milking and fattening their own pockets and the money made from crude oil
made them rich beyond their wildest dreams. It was corruption with collaboration of some Western countries that resulted in millions
of barrels of oil not being reflected in official figures. Corruption in the oil industry is giving room for the Westerners to make profit
immensely at the expense of the common Nigerian citizens.

The establishing of an anti-corruption commission to investigate corruption, theft and mismanagement in Nigeria by President
Obasanjo's new government is a farce due to the fact that Obasanjo himself paved theways for his fellow treasury- looters in Nigeria
during his last military regime. To fight corruption in the present Nigeria state, Obasanjo must begin from the top by first cleaning
himself and his new cabinet on a more transparent form, including all his cronies which means those who bankrolled his election
campaign would be affected. One can hardly conceive how this is going to happen.

 Much of the funds stolen by generals and their cronies are lying in Switzerland, the U.S.A., Great Britain, Germany, Lebanon etc.
Some of these countries have indicated their willingness to freeze the bank accounts of all the accused. The recovered money could
be used to build and maintain roads, schools, hospitals which have been neglected for years.
Obasanjo's new government in Nigeria says it is gathering information on looted public funds estimated at US $ 55 billion ( DM 106
billion). Nigeria has been earning about DM 21 billion a year from oil but successive military governments and their civilian
counterparts have chosen to loot the treasury instead of paying the countryís debt.

A report recently issued in London by Transparency International, a US-based organisation campaigning against corruption listed
billions of dollars  of public funds stolen by Nigeria's past corrupt leadership, deposited in several accounts all over Europe and the
U.S.A. In 1999, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) ranked six former Nigerian rulers and their counterparts amongst the
world's riches men. Western analysts are estimating that late Gen. Abacha had more than US $ 3 billion stashed away in overseas
bank accounts. Also analysts are pointing out that some members of the present regime took part in the looting of the state treasury
during Abacha's rule; but because they still wielded influence in the Army, it was most unlikely that Obasanjo would challenge or
probe them. Abacha and members of his family stole close to US $ 6 billion of Nigeria's oil wealth, according to a reliable source.
Recently, the government of Switzerland came out with a statement freezing Abacha's account containing US $ 2 billion of Nigeria's
wealth.

As far as Nigerian leaders are concerned about the crackdown on corruption, this has up to now always been mere fallacy. Former
Nigerian military leader Rtd. Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar promised it and failed; President Obasanjo made a promise to fight
corruption at all levels and to run a tight economy in Nigeria. But promises are cheap, especially from Nigeriaís past and present
dictators. Gen. Abubakar, the last military ruler Nigeria had to date, recovered a huge sum from Abacha's family, friends and
co-looters, but he did not account for part of this money, amounting to several billions of dollars. He then left office and handed over to
Obasanjo's new government that cannot be trusted either.

Without an end to corruption pervading Nigeriaís political system and society, the possible eradication of poverty, economic
development, food security, provision of basic health care services, education and the rebuilding of the countryís infrastructure cannot
be achieved. But how did corruption come into Nigeria? We were forced to import corruption because we were forced to export oil. Any
solution to this equation will have to tackle both its sides.

End