Finding a Better Carrot for Public Employee Optimal Performance

Finding a Better Carrot for Public Employee Optimal Performance: Understanding Public Service Motivation, Perception and Emotional Intelligence

Paul Tribly, the main character of James Hynes' novel, Kings of Infinite Space, works in a fictional bureaucracy called, Texas Department of General Service. He soon came to the realization that there are zombies lurking around his office. He also found the corpse of a homeless man next to his cubicle who keeps saying “Are we not men?” (Crabtree, 2004). For many public employees, this feeling might be familiar. Employees are motivated to work in public service for many reasons. Motivation is defined as “the drive or energy that compels people to act with energy and persistence toward some goal” (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, p. 195, 2010). The story of Paul Tribly and its queer public service motivation comes to readily come to ming this week as I read the following informed journal which I tried to summarize below:

A. The Impact of Public Service Motivation on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions

Leonard Bright (2007) in his article titled “Does Public Service Motivation really make a difference on the Job satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Public Employees” seeks to answer the question of the degree of impact of public service motivation (PSM) on job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees. He defined PSM as “altruistic intentions that motivate individuals to serve the public interest” (p.151). The subjects of his study are two hundred and five (205) public employees selected from public health care agency located in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, and Oregon. The study finds that PSM is significantly and positively related to Person-Organization (P-O) fit; and P-O fit was found to be significantly related to job satisfaction. P-O fit was also found to be related to turnover intentions of the respondents. Most importantly however, when P-O fit was taken into account, public service motivation had no significant relationship to job satisfaction, and turnover intentions.

What I took out of this study, is that PSM, might be a good recruitment tool, but may not be the best retention tool for human resource managers, when P-O fit is an issue. It is imperative that managers need to constantly ensure that employees are in the right job, the fact that an employee expresses a desire for public service is not a reason to put him/her in a job he is ill-suited for. One needs to note however that the subjects of the study are mostly public health care employees, a group well known for high rate of burnouts and turnover due to the nature of their task (Branin & Griemel, 1997).

B. Between Motivation, Worker Attitudes and the Perception of Effective Public Service

The second article I read this week on the similar topic is by the dynamic duo of Boardman & Sundquist (2008). They derived their data from the National Administrative Studies Project II, which surveyed managers in information management at state-level health and human service agencies. The authors were motivated for this study by the notion that perceived public service efficacy (PPSE) and its conceptual precursors could motivate public servants, based on the assumptions that workers care about providing useful public services and as such that care ultimately affect the levels of their motivation-related variables.
The study finds that PPSE is related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and negatively related to role ambiguity. They found that its impact is substantial, even edging out those of well-established variables-organizational commitment, and role ambiguity in their basic model. They however, admitted a fundamental flaw common with all survey research: the risk of “Common source bias” (p. 531). They hoped that future research will use multiple source data sources rather than a single survey.

C. Who are the Public Employees with High Levels of PSM?

This is the question Leonard Bright (2005) again seeks to answer in his article titled “Public Employees with High Levels of Public Service Motivation: Who are they, where are they, and what do they want?” The article builds on theoretical framework of PSM proposed more than a decade earlier by Perry and Wise (1990). The article goal was to describe public employees with high levels of PSM in terms of their personal characteristics, management level and monetary preferences. The data for the research was obtained by job survey mailed to randomly selected public employees of a large county government in the State of Oregon.

The results of the research revealed that employees with high levels of PSM were significantly more likely to be female, managers, and likely to have greater levels of education than were public employees with lower levels of PSM; but the author admitted that the study may have undersampled men. The latter may explain the obvious disparity with the author’s finding in 2007 referenced above. I agreed with the author’s view that public service managers need to identify workers who are interested in tangible rewards and those who are motivated by altruistic PSM related motives.

D. Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Politics on Public Employees

Vigoda-Gadot & Meisler (2010), in their article titled “Emotions in Management and the Management of Emotions: The impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sector employees” used data obtained from two municipalities in Israel to argue that emotional intelligence (EI) has a moderating role in the relationship between organizational politics (OP), and emotional commitment (EC). One of the most salient findings of this study was the direct relationship established between EI, and job satisfaction and the opportunity it gives to personnel managers as a tool for performance indicator. The result however finds negative relationship between EI, and burnout, exit intentions, and negligent behaviors.

Again, it is imperative that generalizing this study without any regard to context may be an overreach; whilst EI may be a relevant consideration in job performance and efficiency of law enforcement and other security agencies workers (Turner, 2009) it may not make any difference for example, to an information analyst with the City of Spokane.

Conclusion

I found all the above reading informative and enlightening. They gave me an opportunity for introspection as a public servant. I have had to ask myself all week, if I am truly motivated by altruistic motives in my work as public defender. The joy and satisfaction I found in my work are often when a ninety year old lady accost me at a gas station, thanking me for saving her grandson from a life of drug after I talked to him in court.

But very often, I look at my job, like Paul Tribly, haunted by the ghost of those I could have helped and make a difference in their lives as public servant. At the same time, there have been occasions when I do wish that I am in private practice making money to secure my family’s future. The lesson I found here for human resource managers in public service is to be a little more cautious with monetary incentives and other tangible rewards, if we manage solely by stick and carrot, we will only get a part of the energy and talent that people have to offer. The fact that an employee has a high PSM is not a reason to assign him just any task or job he is ill suited to do.

God Help Nigeria? Running a Country on Prayers, Club Rules, Bow and Go without any Accountability

“You have our prayers; we also hope that when you get there as you represent us, you represent us well. There are traditions that we follow, and if you belong to this club, you must also obey the rules and regulations of this club. You can take a bow and go.”
–Senate President David Mark

I was stunned when I read the above quote made by Nigeria senate president David Mark during the ministerial screening of Senator Sanusi Daggash. Much of what we have in Nigeria as governance is often a smokescreen for “old boys club.” There is no transparency in the governance of the country. Decisions are made perfunctorily; administrators and politicians are often reactive instead of proactive. Little or no attempt is made to engage in forward-looking, rational decision making. Accountability counts for nothing, it is all about membership in an exclusive governing class called PDP!

Public policies in Nigeria are not grounded in sound decision making. Someone once said that public policy is a type of decision, a decision not about what is, but about what ought to be and what ought to be done to get us there. When analytical thought process are not involved in public policy decision making, the result is the current “mess” the whole country has found itself. Lewis Irwin defined public policy analysis as “the systematic consideration and selection of logical alternatives in light of carefully applied evaluative criteria.”

In Nigeria, the acting president nominated ministers to serve in the federal cabinet, one of whom had accused the National Assembly of financial mismanagement, specifically he alleged that some senators “inflated budgets for personal gains.” Before the hearing the senators had threatened to grill Senator Daggash. He in turn simply deflated their over bloated ego by throwing down an olive branch, saying he was misled in making such accusations. He then appealed to the senators’ sense of camaraderie. Following which they all kissed up and make up, all is forgiven, all is well. Nothing was said about the initial allegations other than the claim that he was misled. No attempt was made to get to the root of the allegation. And this is happening in a government avowed to root out corruption and mismanagement.

Larry Luton defined policy analysis as “an attempt to bring into policy making, good reasons, better information, thoughtful consideration, conscientious framing of the problem, informative/persuasive evidence, plausible consequences.” No one forced this regime and their political party, Peoples Democratic Party, to make anti-corruption and energy generation, the fundamental plank of their party platform and public policy. But having adopted that platform, the citizens of Nigeria at least do deserve that they put serious thought to tackling the hydra headed problem of corruption and energy generation in Nigeria.

The acting president also re-nominated Architect Nuhu Somo Way, former Minister of State for Power. The Yar’Adua regime abysmally failed to meet the 6,000 MW set by the government. You would expect the senate to take the re-nominated minister to task for this monumental failure, here is what the minister said at the screening, “I met a program of 6000 megawatts project and we were assigned to pursue this program to ensure that it is executed. By the grace of God, we were able to improve the power situation in the country to a level which is not commensurable to the mandate.” This is an admission of failure, but what did the senate do, they reward the minister with another mandate. The question is to go do what?

Here is the minister excuse for failure “We were faced with a challenge of what we could not control, that is the source of fuel and this source of fuel is gas. I am not trying to put a blame to anybody, I am just trying to say that we did rehabilitate our plants and got up to 5200 available generation capacity as at the end of December, last year. But we had stranded facility of 1500 megawatts due to inadequacy of gas. This inadequacy of gas cannot be blamed on a single source. We know the challenges we went through, they are challenges of security, vandalism, challenges of inadequate funding contributed to some of the issues that militated against our achievement of 6000 megawatts.”

My beef with the minister’s explanation is this, “how in the world can you claim with a bold face that you did not know that you will face the challenges of security, vandalism and funding when you rolled out the energy policy?” Where is the requisite policy analysis expected from such an exalted office of the minister of federal republic of Nigeria? We are not talking of “force majeur” or an act of God for crying out loud! Before the announcement of the policy, everyone in Nigeria knew about the problem of vandalism, inadequacy of gas and security except the minister!
This to me is the real problem with Nigeria, the problem of values-based directionality! Ideas are bandied around, public policy are announced with fanfare, with no one putting any thought to a serious analysis of the public policy just announced. Our journalists are often “participe criminis” in this enterprise. No one called out anyone? As long as palms are greased, things go on. Like the National Assembly, it is all bow and go!

The most disgusting part of the charade is watching this government officials put everything down to prayer. Sometimes I feel like screaming at my television, pray for what? God gave you brain and intelligence for a reason. God had already performed his part by blessing Nigeria with unlimited resources in minerals and some of the best brains out of Africa! Just put to use what you have! Analyse your policy and look at all alternatives, think before you roll out the next drum and for crying out loud, sack ministers who failed and stop rewarding them with new appointment!

Understanding Focus Group Emotional Roller Coaster

On July 20, 2009, John Berry, Director of the Federal Office of Personnel Management decried the way government workers have been "denigrated and disparaged" in recent decades, and was delighted that President Obama understands the value of service and will not be throwing around 'bureaucrat' as a slur towards our workers." (Washingtonpost.com, July, 2009 ¶1).

Few days after his laudatory statement, Mr. Obama was quoted as follows: “If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." In an instant retort, Mr. Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, deplore the use of the word bureaucrats for the federal workforce, because it is derogatory. He cited a 2004 study, which found that the term “federal government workers” receives a favorable response from 71 percent of those surveyed, but the term “federal government bureaucrats” receives only 20 percent -- a drop of 51 percent with one word (Washingtonpost.com, August, 2009).

This is the news story that came to mind as I finished the required reading for this week. In the first study, Garrett, Thuber, Fritschler & Rosenbloom (2006), explores how senior federal managers like John Berry above, perceive campaign bureaucracy bashing using focus group data conducted by them. They found that senior government managers “do internalize negative messages about themselves and their agencies” and that this environment hampers recruitment, retention, training and important working relationships with political appointees that may end up affecting effective program management and policy implementation (p.237).
They used qualitative research methodology to explore the impact of bureaucracy bashing on relationship between senior managers and political appointees. The flexibility of focus group methodology enables them to ask open-ended questions (Creswell, 2009); compare to quantitative methods such as surveys and questionnaires which would have restrict them to asking participants identical close-ended questions. However, qualitative methodology is only as useful and as strong as its link to the underlying research questions and the rigor with which it is applied (p.201). As we found in the news story cited earlier, focus group research is a poor choice for predicting future action in settings yet to emerge since focus group discussants will articulate their views in terms of their own present experiences, e.g John Berry view of Obama. Participants are also often emotional in answering open-ended qualitative focus group questions and thus bring their value judgment to bear on the questions.

In the second reading, Robin Jarrett (1994) used a focus group, qualitative research to corroborate existing ethnographic studies of the impact of structural and cultural dynamic among never married African-American women. She underscores the importance of qualitative and ethnographic data, over quantitative census and survey data, for understanding family processes and dynamics (p.45). She suggested 3 directions for future research on the same topic and concluded that focus group data not only expand the structural explanation of poverty, but also highlight the humanity of the people who are too starkly described by statistical profiles and policy regulations (p.46). This writer tends to agree with this conclusion given my on personal experience.

In early 2001, a national poll conducted by National Public Radio (NPR), the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University's Kennedy School asked nearly 2,000 Americans 18 or older, "Which is the bigger cause of poverty today: that people are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty, or that circumstances beyond their control cause them to be poor?" Respondents were roughly equally divided between "people not doing enough" (48 percent) and "circumstances" (45 percent). About 50 percent of the more affluent people polled believed that the poor were not doing enough to help themselves, but so did about 39 percent of the poor. The poor were more likely to blame "circumstances" than themselves for their financial hardship (NPR.org, 2001). The Study by NPR is a quantitative study with generic close-ended questions; one could only wish that they had asked the poor themselves open-ended questions like Jarret did in her study. They would have found answers like that of Lois: “I got three kids and not married, that don’t mean I’m running the streets all the time. I’m at home helping my children” (Jarrett, 1994, p.44)

The advantages of qualitative focus group research should not however close our eyes to its obvious limitations. Focus groups are generally a poor choice when quantitative information is desired. The small size of focus groups makes any estimates of quantitative proportions unreliable, even if the members of the focus group are representative of the target population (Neuman, 2007). By the same token, focus group research is a poor choice for multivariate research, where one again needs the stability of large random samples to disaggregate the effects of explanatory variables through statistical techniques (Lichter & Crowley, 2002).

In conclusion, it is evident that the primary reason mixed methodological research approach is gaining wide acceptance in recent years (Creswell, 2009 p.203) is because of the strengths and limitations of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches.

Necessity and Excesses of Administrative Action, Evidentiary Adjudication and Executive Control of Bureaucracy in Constitutional Democracy

According to the New York Times, what may be the most controversial fraction of a second in television history, the momentary baring of the singer Janet Jackson’s breast during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, is heading back once again to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal (Stout, 2009, ¶ 1). The Supreme Court set aside an earlier ruling by the Third Circuit that had overturned a $550,000 fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on CBS for the “wardrobe malfunction,” as the fateful moment has been described.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal to answer one solitary question: “that while the FCC may not have violated administrative procedures in justifying its actions, are the FCC's indecency rules so vague and enforced in such a haphazard manner that they chill free speech or are otherwise unconstitutional?” (Oxenford, 2009, ¶ 1).

It is against this backdrop that I found the required reading not only informative but exploratory as well. The incessant difficulty in keeping the balance between “underregulation and overregulation” is often the bane of administrative decision making as well as its challenge and vibrancy. (Rosenbloom, 2003, p. 9)

The explosive growth of the United States federal government and its agencies after the Second World War led to what many scholars often described as the “Administrative State” (Rosenbloom, 2003, p. 11) or “Administrative Presidency” (Cann, 2006, p. 36). Administrative Law grew out of the attempt by the legislature, executive, and the judiciary branches to prevent the modern administrative state from trampling upon citizens right.
It is instructive to note however that bureaucracies are themselves a creation of necessity. It is impossible in modern society for the few elected officials to perform all the roles of government. Even if we elect as many of them as we can, elected officials may not have the technical “know-how” required to administer these agencies. As Cann (2006) pointed out all modern presidents often complain that their worst problem was not the Soviets, not the oppposition party, but rather, the very bureacracy meant to help them govern. (Cann, 2006, p. 23)

Even though presidents are most often powerless in establishing most agencies of government, they often found an indirect way to control the activities of these agencies. The executive branch of government exerts numerous controls over both nominally “independent” administrative agencies, and those squarely within the executive. These controls run the gamut from the power of appointment, reorganization, termination, to supervision of an agency’s rule making authority as well as use of Attorney General Opinion rendered in specific instances. (Fox, 1992, p. 45).

It has been argued that presidential power is untramelled with regards to foreign affairs. (Cann, 2006, p. 25). Presidencies also exercise controls over bureaucracy through the concept of “impoundment” (Cann, 2006, p.26); “executive privilege”, and when congress expressly delegated power to the presidency to reorganize agencies. (Cann, 2006, p.26)
Another tool of presidential control of agencies is staff removal. Cann (2006) found that the Constitution is silent on president’s power to remove those he or she has appointed. (Cann, 2006, p. 29) This lacuna may be the reason why recent congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the Bush White House wrongfully dismissed eight assistant US attorneys for political purposes hit a brick wall in Washington, DC (Johnson, 2008, ¶ 5).

As we found in the CBS’s case, most agency decisions often impinge on constitutional rights of citizens and corporations. This is one of the reasons why congress enacted the Administrative Procedures Act: To ensure that administrative decisions are not just fair but manifestly seen to be fair. For instance, FCC is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed and empowered by Congressional Statute (47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154). The Third Circuit in its ruling stated that the standard of review of agency decisions is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 706 and thus found FCC to have violated the APA. CBS Corp., et al. v. FCC (2008).

The primary criticism of agency adjudication policy making is that it is mostly done “ex-post facto” i.e after the deeds had been done. The court struck down the FCC's Jackson decision in large part because it concluded that, while the FCC had announced a new policy regarding fleeting “expletives” in another case, for more than 3 decades, it never extended that ruling to fleeting “images” CBS Corp., et al. v. FCC (2008).

In the CBS case, it is apparent that evidentiary adjudication is not a participatory problem-solving exercise. A CBS apology was rejected in place of a hefty fine. There was also not an opportunity for congress to exercise its oversight functions whilst the case was pending at the commission. There are however plethora of advantages to evidentiary adjudication; it is flexible, it provides agencies’ staff and directors with unique opportunities to resolve their policy differences and arrive at compromises often in an incremental fashion. For instance, in a notable confrontation over the FCC's local telephone competition rules, then Chairman Michael Powell was outflanked by Republican Kevin Martin, who formed a majority with the FCC's two Democratic commissioners (Werbach, 2003, ¶ 6).

Adjudication is also preferred as a means of making decisions that is often required by constitutional procedural due process. It affords opportunities for decision makers to “feel the pain” of those affected by their actions, so they could apply equity and compassion in reaching their decision. President Barrack Obama’s primary criterion for appointment of Supreme Court justices is empathy (Ruggeri, 2009 ¶ 2).

As Rosenbloom (2003) argued, the Supreme Court requires a maximum and minimal standards protection before individuals or corporations can be deprived of a benefit by administrative action when procedural due process applies. The case of Goldberg v Kelly (1970) and Goss v Lopez (1975) outlined a fundamental fairness doctrine that is often fact specific.

Adjudicatory orders are often enforced by civil sanctions such as cease and desist orders, forfeitures, product seizures, recalls, revocations suspensions of licenses and financial penalties. However, Congress must expressly delegate authority to impose punitive sanction to agencies in an enabling statute. Congress enacted the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (1990, Suppl. 1996), in part as response to increased lawsuit against administrators in their personal capacity. There is indeed a dire need for Congress and the Executive arm of government to take another look at APA with a view to advancing its overall objective and reinventing our government for the challenges of modern time.

References

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act 5 U.S.C. § 571 (1990 & Supp. 1996).
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1946).
Cann, Steven J. (2006). Administrative Law, (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
CBS Corp., et al. v. FCC, 535 F.3d 167 (Third Cir. 2008).
Fox, William F., Jr. (1992). Understanding Administrative Law, (2nd ed.). New York: Matthew Bender
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
Johnson, Carrie. (2008, September 29). No Grand Jury for Gonzales: Report to call for continued probe of U.S. attorneys’ firings [Electronic Version]. The Washington Post, Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092801057.html

Oxenford, David. (2009, May 16). Janet Jackson Case Sent Back to Court of Appeals - Could There Be An Even Greater Impact on Broadcast Regulation? Broadcast Law Blog. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/tags/fcc-indecency-fines/

Rosenbloom, David H. (2003). Administrative Law for Public Managers, Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Ruggeri, Amanda. (2009, May 26). Obama Choice of Sotomayor is a Political Balancing Act: Sotomayor could prove to be a tricky target for Republicans [Electronic Version].U.S News & World Report. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http://www.usnews.com/mobile/articles_mobile/obamas-choice-of-sotomayor-is-a-political-balancing-act/index.html

Stout, David. (2009, May 4). Lower Court Told to Revisit Ruling in Super Bowl Show [Electronic Version]. The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/business/media/05fcc.html?_r=1

Werbach, Kevin. (2003, February 19). The Real Michael Powell: The FCC chairman is Al Gore in Republican clothing. MSN Slate Online Magazine. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http://slate.msn.com/id/2078879/

Democracy made in Nigeria: Government vide Email and Facsimile by an incommunicado and Sick President

“The President can exercise his powers through the vice-president and
ministers while on his sick bed and that is what he has been doing. For example,
the Chief Justice of Nigeria wrote a letter to the President and copied me that
he would be retiring on December 31, that the President of the Court of Appeal
has just retired and that their replacements have not been screened by the
Senate. I sent the letter to the Principal Secretary to the President who
transmitted same to the President who approved it and sent it back to me.”

- Nigeria Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Michael
Aondoakaa (SAN)

If the above quote beggars believe, be comforted that you are not alone. I bet many observers of Nigeria stunted political growth could not have imagined the latest meme from Aso rock. For the first time we have a sick president, who is purportedly ruling Nigeria vide email and facsimile from a hospital bed in Saudi Arabia. For weeks, President Umaru Yar'Adua has been hospitalized at King Faisal Intensive Care and Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for what staffers say is a serious heart condition. With no clear successor, Nigeria is roiled by uncertainty and many of Nigeria prominent citizens have called for his resignation.

Curiously, Nigeria primarily law officer, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa, came out with the above shocker and then went further to enthused as follows: “The powers of the President are not exercised territorially. Yar’Adua can exercise his powers anywhere in the world, on the plane, at the meeting of the United Nations or even on his sick bed, as long as he is not incapacitated by the sickness.” While this statement may be an accurate restatement of the letters of the laws, at least as it relates to the exercise of the powers of president of Nigeria, this is not the applicable, given the current scenario.

We know for a fact, that when the president of Nigeria travels to the United Nations, or anywhere outside the shores of Nigeria it is for a short duration of time certain and we not only see him exercise the powers of presidency when he represents Nigeria, he manifestly do so vide public appearances when he meets with other head of state and sign binding treaties on behalf of Nigeria. Most of these events are well covered by the press, local and international and Nigerian of all hue could clearly see the president in action.

It is also interesting that Mr. Aondoakaa, clearly left open the answer to the questions most Nigerian wants the presidency to answer and that is: Is the president of Nigeria “incapacitated by the sickness” he is suffering from? How can Nigerian confirm the bare assertions of the president aide that the president is ail and hearty without any proof whatsoever in the form of doctor’s report and photographs of the president working from his hospital bed.

Nigeria’s current constitution mirrored in large part, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the two constitutions required that the president by a letter addressed to the National Assembly is required to inform the senate president of his intent to proceed on vacation, at which point the vice president shall act on behalf of the president.

What we have going on now in Aso rock is an amorphous arrangement where the president’s physical and health condition is only known to his private secretary and retinue of “hangers on.” The latter in turn tells the country that the president is healthy and that he is exercising his presidential powers on a sick bed in far away Saudi Arabia.

How can anyone prove to Nigerians that the letter transmitted to the president at Saudi Arabia was read by him? How are we sure that the subsequent response by the “president” was not the work of some private secretary at the hospital? How can anyone confirm that the president was of a sound mind when he responded to the said letter, given the very serious ailment the president suffers from?

In an open and transparent democracy the president health or indeed any other government official are never shrouded in secrecy. Everything is done in the open. We know for a fact that this is not the first time the president had had to visit the Emergency Room of Hospital. During the presidential election campaign, I recalled vividly, the efforts by the staff of the then presidential candidate, and now president Yar’Adua to reach the media with the information that he is alive. I know a colleague who was even allowed to place calls directly to Yar’adua at his hospital bed and who talked directly with the president to clear up the issue of his health. It was clear then that they needed the people’s vote to at least claim some legitimacy with the electoral perfidy they later performed on the Nigeria people. And now that they are in Aso rock the Nigerian people do not deserve to know who is ruling them? This to me is the message being sent by the ruling People’s Democratic party to Nigerians of all hue.

To demonstrate the stupidity of the current state of events, even militants in the oil-rich Niger Delta, whom Yar'Adua brought into peace talks only weeks ago, now worry they have no "good faith partner" to negotiate an end to attacks that have cut into Nigeria's oil-dependent economy. The president health is of a great concern to all Nigerians and should not be micro-managed by “leeches and sycophants” who are hell bent on using a “comatose” president to further their destructive agenda on Nigeria.

Already the rumor mill is bustling with tall tales of the shenanigans going on in the corridors of power. Some of which may or may not be grounded in reality, but as long as the president health remains an issue available only to an exclusive preserve of PDP top echelons, Nigerians should not keep quiet. We should continue to ask for answers and demand that the “junta” in government follows the rule of law and the constitution no matter how abase their conduct may be.

OF PDP, POLITICAL THUGS AND BRIGANDAGE GOVERNMENT

"Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information." -Col. Robin Stephens on Churchill government refusal to torture German war prisoners

Nigerians are under siege by their own government. Millions of Nigerians are political prisoners in their own country. The “political jackals” ruling Nigeria have turned the whole country into a mass “concentration camp.” Their word is law and the rule of law meant nothing. Elections count for nothing! Accountability means how much they can steal from the coffers of government while the generality of the masses groan and grope in darkness. And now, a new twist by the new fangled “PDP-o-crazy,” it is called political “thuggerism”.

In the dying days of the second republic, one of the vaunted policies of the ruling elites then, particularly with Shagari’s National Party of Nigeria, is the use of thugs by politicians as entourage and cavalcade of motorcades filled with motor parks tout carrying cudgels, machetes and guns. The politicians of the second republic knew then that they are not governing the people by consent of the majority. It is as if they have reached a point when they realized the charade they called democracy no longer stands any credibility, albeit with their stolen mandate. They knew they lacked every modicum of legitimacy so they have to force the people to respect their power.

This is exactly where we are now, with our hard won democracy. We lost, they won! And now, they will not stop at the subjugation and subversion of democracy, they want to show us they are lords. Lords over our lives with a maniacal thirst and hunger for violence the worst of the Khmer Rouge goons will envy. Pick up any newspapers in Nigeria and you are bound to found a news report about an attack on Nigerian civilian masses that happens to cross paths with PDP politician’s motorcade and thugs.

In Ekiti, we read recently about how the governor of Ekiti state, his wife, “hangers on” and thugs personally arrested some journalist and bloggers monitoring the state during election and subjected them to slaps, violence and humiliation for daring to challenge their hold on power. And now, we read about the savage attack on the chairman of DHL, Otunba Ade Raheem Kolawole by the thug installed by PDP as chairman of Ilesa-West Local Government Council Area of Osun State. This by the way, is not the first time Mr. Fadipe had wantonly attacked the citizens, he sworn to defend and protect. And incase anyone thinks Fadipe is acting alone, just take a look at this excerpts from a news paper in Osun State, the “Osun Defender” on where Mr. Fadipe got his marching orders from:

“According to investigation conducted by OSUN DEFENDER on the alleged atrocities
by Fadipe during the week, the embattled politician was gallivanting around in
violence because he thought that Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola was enjoying his
hostility against his people. Premising his action on the defence of the
embattled governor who suffered a political defeat in Ijesaland during the last
year’s controversial governorship election in the state, Fadipe believed that
the state helmsman, and his deputy who hails from Ijesaland would always shield
him even in the face of raw violence against his people. Meanwhile, records of
bloody political violence in Ilesa have been traced to Fadipe; but managed to
sail through from the long arm of the law, because of the suspected authority
backing. Thinking that he had secured a license for the monopoly of violence,
the rattled politician then constituted himself into a jungle-law, visiting
unguarded anger on the career officers and council workers at any slight
disagreement.”

The message from PDP here is simple, “if you vote for us, we don’t care, we will win anyway. If you don’t vote for us, we will still win and then come after you with our thugs; we will installed that thug as your local government chairman or governor and then use them to unleash terror on your community.” Is this the democracy my friends and colleagues died for at Great Ife? Is this what we bargained for when we fought against military misrule?
The tale of bloodsheds and brigandage by PDP abounds all over Nigeria, from Anambra intra-party bloody duels to the war of cousins in Niger state, the fratricidal conflicts in Sokoto and of course, the upcoming presidential elections “tsunami”. It is evident that our dear country is in serious dire straits.
What with the economy at it’s lowest ebb since the days of SAP and austerity measures, an absentee presidency, a government runs by corrupt ex-governors and their retained counsel, who by the way, happens to be the attorney general of the federation, the ship of state of Nigeria is indeed heading for dangerous waters!
This is why I called on all well meaning, Nigerians at home and abroad to take one final stand for democracy during this upcoming presidential election. Yes, there will be violence, and yes the election will not count as the enemies of Nigeria enjoy the status quo! We can still make the difference by joining the pro-democracy forces within and outside Nigeria. If you are a Nigerian abroad, write a letter to your congressman and let him or her know that one out of every 4 black people is a Nigerian and if the next election is again allowed to be stolen by marauder in PDP, we may have a crisis of monumental proportion that will eclipse west and central Africa. The refugee crisis that may follow another Nigerian civil war will surely bankrupt the entire world economies. The whole world needs to act now, to forestall another Nigerian internecine civil war!
They need to insist on a transparent electoral commission whose chairman is nominated by the Chief Justice of the Federation. An Electoral commission with representatives from pro-democracy groups and other interest groups in Nigeria is imperative. The United States and other democratic country need to make it known to Aso rock that violence as a form of governing is antithetical to democracy. They need to insist that free and fair elections are prerequisite to democracy. The war on the Nigerian people by PDP must stop now!

Ibori’s “Smoking Gun” Against Ribadu: Pathetic, Sickening and Laughable

“Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings” –Samuel Johnson

Sometimes you wonder if the so called Nigerian leaders ever think before they open their mouth. We learnt recently from the indicted former governor of Delta State, James Ibori that the erstwhile EFCC boss, Nuhu Ribadu approached him on a plot to unseat a certain “sick Yar’Adua” through the use of INEC! I mean INEC! The same INEC hand picked by PDP stalwart to do their bidding? Yes, indeed if it sounds incredulous, you are not dreaming, this is Ibori’s damning evidence against Ribadu.

The allegation, which is a red herring in itself, is not worth responding to, but like everything in Nigeria if you don’t you are damned. If I were Ribadu, I will simply put out a short sentence asking Ibori to simply appear in London and stop taking cover under an entrenched corrupt attorney general in Nigeria. If you have nothing to fear, face a real prosecution in London and not the contrived “make believe” currently orchestrated by your retained counsel in Federal Ministry of Justice and the “comatose” EFCC.

Here is the good thing about the allegation; it gives us a window of opportunity to the workings of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s illegitimate government in Aso rock. I have often wondered why Yar’Adua buys into everything Ibori sells. I know the latter funded his campaign for presidency, but that should not make him a lap dog of Ibori. Well it’s clearer now. We know nothing scares Nigerian rulers, be it Abacha, IBB or Obasanjo like a plot to unseat them. Even if the allegations are contrived by a self seeking corrupt security chief or ex-governor as it is in this case. Nigerian insecure rulers will buy into it and hound the accused to the gates of hell.

We saw that playbook with Abacha and Al-Mustapha contrived plot against Diya and others. We saw that with Obasanjo’s allegations against Atiku. All you need to finish your enemies in Nigeria is to accuse them of trying to overthrow an illegitimate and totally insecure marauder in power at Aso rock. All hell will then break loose, the insecurities of the rulers in Aso rock is so real that they will stoop at anything to fight whoever challenges them. In fact they don’t care if the nation burns, as we witnessed through Abacha or if they upended the democracy that brought them to power as Obasanjo did with Nigeria hard won democracy. They see treason in everyone and everything. They are so insecure because they know they have no legitimacy.

There is however a more substantive part of Ibori’s ranting that needed to be addressed by Ribadu: the allegations that the latter requested funds for a certain EFCC football club and communicated with Ibori and a certain “businessman” who are being investigated by his organization. Ibori asserted that he had documentary evidence and should be made to produce them. One can only hope they are not the same “forged documentary” evidence he used to absolve himself of theft conviction at Abuja High Court. Ribadu should also be allowed to defend himself. It is clearly a conflict of interest if these allegations were true. But how do we know what the truths were. Ibori destroyed his own cause when he engaged in jejune allegations. We know he (Ibori) can get away with anything in Nigeria, since he currently controls the rein of justice through his hired gun in the Federal Ministry of Justice. We know he can’t lose with Michael Aondoakaa in charge, after all the latter hold his position due largely to Ibori.

It is interesting to read Ibori include our justice system in his nefarious plot. No one sane person will accuse Nigeria judiciary of the same corruption evident with our political class particularly in PDP. We know that our judiciary can be better managed by prompt and dedicated trial track, but the system works. It has a way of “weeding out” bad eggs, something we can’t say of PDP. In fact you get rewarded with higher post if you stole your way into an elective post in Nigeria, just ask Bode George, et al. The judiciary on the other hand swiftly dealt with purveyors of bad justice. Where are the Bassey Ikpemes and Ibrahim Auta of yesterday? Long gone with their name in infamy!

What Ibori confuses is that the judiciary does not commence criminal proceedings in Nigeria. The Federal Ministry of Justice does and who is in charge of the Federal Ministry of Justice? And as we learnt recently, Michael Aondoakaa’s law firm still have retainership from corrupt ex-governors, he is currently tasked with prosecuting.

Now, if Michael Aondoakaa’s Ministry of Justice, neglected to bring all the evidence against corrupt ex-governors before the court, you can’t blame the judiciary. In fact, we learnt recently that it took pressure from online bloggers before he reluctantly agreed to give fiat to EFCC to start prosecuting corrupt ex-governors. Here is where Ibori find comfort, he knows he can win in Nigeria and may spend the rest of his life in jail if he appears in London. The allegation that his wife and concubines whom he funneled stolen money through in London are behind bars is just an “argumentum ad misericodiam”- a mere appeal to pity. If you don’t want your third wife arrest and indicted, then don’t try and use her to launder stolen money for you. Period!

He also makes a ludicrous reference to Ribadu using Britain’s “colonial” justice system to prosecute him. First of all, I don’t think Ribadu has such powers. Secondly the Metropolitan Police department is not the same as Nigeria Police Force where personality and “who you know” determines who get prosecuted. With respect to the “colonial” connection: Is it now you realize Britain is our former colonial master? Why didn’t you check that fact when you are busy transfer Delta State statutory allocation to your British bank account? The last time I checked it was not Ribadu who kept millions of dollars in these “colonial banks” in Britain.
We know that Ibori may get away with the crimes he committed against the people of Delta state for a while, but the long arm of justice will eventually catch up with him one day, and that day will be for the people. As we say in Nigeria, “one day for the thief and another for the owner!”