Friday, 22 September 2017
Business and Economy

Business and Economy (692)

A new round of demonstrations is expected across Togo as the country grapples with an unprecedented political crisis, brought about by calls for the introduction of presidential term limits.

Faure Gnassingbé has been head of state since 2005 when he took over from his father Gnassingbé Eyadema, who seized power in a coup in 1967, seven years after independence.

The anti-government protests began in August and have spread to the whole country.

Demonstrations have largely been peaceful and their scale has been huge, with organisers claiming that as many as 800,000 people - out of a total population of 6.6 million - took to the streets on 19 August.

On Sunday, the country's bishops threw their weight behind the opposition.

Opposition supporters praying during previous protestsImage copyrightAFP
These oppositions supporters prayed during a previous all-night vigil
People throwing stonesImage copyrightAFP
Protests have been largely peaceful but there have been some clashes with riot police

Why don't the government and opposition settle their differences in parliament?

The government has tried this.

On Tuesday, MPs voted in favour of a proposed change to the constitution to introduce a two-term limit ahead of the next presidential election in 2020.

The change will require a referendum before it comes into effect.

The matter is settled then...

Not at all.

The opposition boycotted the vote, claiming Tuesday's parliamentary session was a ruse by the government to make itself look reform-minded and allow Mr Gnassingbé to stay in power until 2030.

Faure Gnassingbé (file photo)Image copyrightAFP
Faure Gnassingbé inherited power from his father but has since been re-elected twice

Some opposition politicians want the president to step down immediately, and none of them want him to be able to stand in 2020.

They say Mr Gnassingbé is already in his third term, since he took over from his father in 2005 and was re-elected in 2010 and 2015.

The opposition wants to revive a paragraph in the 1992 constitution that says "under no circumstances may anyone serve more than two terms".

The Gnassingbé dynasty is 50 years old. Why has it taken until now for the Togolese people to protest?

This is not the first time.

In 2005, an estimated 500 people died in a government crackdown against opposition protests.

What's different this time?

For many years, the south of the country was seen as anti-government but the Gnassingbé family drew all the support it needed from the north, where they come from.

Tikpi Atchadam, leader of the National Panafrican Party (PNP)Image copyrightAFP
Tikpi Atchadam has breathed new life into the opposition

This time some of the biggest demonstrations have taken place in cities like Sokodé in the centre-north and Dapaong and Mango in the north.

A new opposition figurehead, Tikpi Atchadam, leader of the National Panafrican Party (PNP), hails from the north.

What has the government done?

It has cut off all mobile 3G data to try and prevent people from using social media to mobilise.

The government has also called for its own supporters to demonstrate.

It accuses Mr Atchadam of links to Islamist radicals, but has not produced any evidence to support its allegations.

Posted On Thursday, 21 September 2017 02:41 Written by

The Minister of State for Aviation, Hadi Sirika, said on Wednesday the Federal Government has approved the payment of N45billion severance package to former staff of the defunct Nigeria Airways.

The national carrier was liquidated by ex- President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration in 2005, and the workers had been embarking on protests nationwide over their unpaid entitlements.

Sirika told State House correspondents at the end of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting that money has been approved for the settlement of the entitlements.

“Governments, in the past, decided just to liquidate Nigeria Airways without tending to the issue of the entitlements of the workers and they have been struggling to get that paid. We came in and took it very seriously. 

“I’m happy to announce that Mr. President has approved N45 billion which has been confirmed to be the entitlements of these workers and Ministry of Finance has been instructed to pay the money. The ministry wrote to me last week that they have received the instruction to pay these workers, and therefore, they are setting up the modalities to pay.

“You should know it won’t be paid through my ministry before somebody will say I take some of it. It will be paid by finance through a process, and that process will commence very soon,’’ he said.

The minister disclosed that the Council approved the procurement of operational vehicles for Nigeria Port Authority (NPA) and the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).

NAN

Posted On Thursday, 21 September 2017 02:37 Written by

The Minister of State for Aviation, Hadi Sirika, said on Wednesday the Federal Government has approved the payment of N45billion severance package to former staff of the defunct Nigeria Airways.

The national carrier was liquidated by ex- President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration in 2005, and the workers had been embarking on protests nationwide over their unpaid entitlements.

Sirika told State House correspondents at the end of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting that money has been approved for the settlement of the entitlements.

“Governments, in the past, decided just to liquidate Nigeria Airways without tending to the issue of the entitlements of the workers and they have been struggling to get that paid. We came in and took it very seriously.

“I’m happy to announce that Mr. President has approved N45 billion which has been confirmed to be the entitlements of these workers and Ministry of Finance has been instructed to pay the money. The ministry wrote to me last week that they have received the instruction to pay these workers, and therefore, they are setting up the modalities to pay.

“You should know it won’t be paid through my ministry before somebody will say I take some of it. It will be paid by finance through a process, and that process will commence very soon,’’ he said.

The minister disclosed that the Council approved the procurement of operational vehicles for Nigeria Port Authority (NPA) and the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).

NAN

Posted On Thursday, 21 September 2017 02:28 Written by

Shareholders of Oando Plc from across the South-West states on Tuesday staged a protest in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, and demanded that the company’s Managing Director, Wale Tinubu, should step down because of the firm’s poor financial position.

Making reference to the report of the last Annual General Meeting of the company, which was held in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, where the External Auditor, Ernst & Young, stated that Oando reported a comprehensive loss in 2015 and 2016, the National President, Renaissance Shareholders Association, Olufemi Timothy; and the National Coordinator, Proactive Shareholders Association of Nigeria, Mr. Taiwo Oderinde, condemned the meeting, saying it was stage-managed to continue the mismanagement of the company’s finance by the current management.

Timothy stated, “Oando Plc is practically dead because it is no more a going concern. Its contemporaries are doing well and bringing glory to their shareholders. We are calling on President Muhammadu Buhari, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria, Nigerian Stock Exchange and the Senate Committee on Capital Market to intervene before it is too late. 

“We are dying because our investments in the company have grown wings. The share we bought for N90 has come down to N5 under Wale Tinubu’s watch. A proper probe should be carried out. Tinubu should step aside. The company has gone with its current reported N263bn negative working capital.

“We worked hard to invest in the company but what did we get in return? Absolutely nothing! The poor shareholders are suffering and many have died. We have a lot of retired people dying because their investments have gone. Under the current management, Oando suffers a lot and we cannot tolerate it again.”

Oderinde said that Transparency International rated Nigeria poorly in its global corruption index because of alleged corrupt practices within institutions like Oando.

“Enough is enough and Wale Tinubu must go. If you go to the Transparency International’s website, you will see their rating of Nigeria on the global corruption index and it was stated therein that not only individuals are corrupt in Nigeria, but institutions too. Little did we know that TI was referring to companies like Oando,” he said.

The protesters also visited the NSE office in Dugbe, where the Branch Manager, Mr. Kayode Ogun, urged them to write a formal letter to the bourse, stating their demands, while calling on them to exercise restraint while the NSE looked into their petition.

Posted On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:28 Written by

A professor of political science and former Minister of External Affairs, Bolaji Akinyemi, speaks with BAYO AKINLOYE on Nnamdi Kanu’s agitation, how Buhari can save Nigeria from collapse and why corruption persists

Do you think Nnamdi Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra are asking for too much that the Igbo should opt out of Nigeria?

There are different peculiarities under which there can be peaceful separation. An example is what happened in the old Czechoslovakia, when the Czech and the Slovak went their separate ways, because it was possible to draw clean lines of separation. But in most cases, separation had actually been through civil wars that carried heavy costs in terms of loss of lives and destruction of property, leaving a legacy of a lasting bitterness

A good example is India and Pakistan. Seventy years after, the lines of demarcation are still being hotly contested through militarily engagements.  In fact, India and Pakistan fought many wars in those 70 years. Achieving a peaceful, non-violent separation, by all means, is debatable along theoretical and practical lines.

For instance, what does Kanu mean by ‘Biafra’? There are states he included in Biafra and the people in those states have said they would have nothing to do with his proposed country. Already, there is a contention over where the lines of demarcation will be. I believe that we can still peacefully resolve the issue of the Nigerian question at this stage, provided we address the twin issue of fears of domination and marginalisation. We must address that. We must admit that there is something wrong with the Nigerian federal system as it is. We must look at the system that we operated, using the 1960 and 1963 constitutions with the necessary amendments. There has to be less arrogance and intolerance shown towards constituent elements of the Nigerian nation. You cannot use the temporary acquisition of power to impose a system on others, thinking everybody will be happy about it. Most of the problems in the world have come about through miscalculations – not deliberate (actions). Many wars fought in the world were as a result of miscalculations with various parties, underestimating how far-reaching their actions would be.

All I’m saying is that, I hope those who are in control of the Federal Government will not become complacent by ignoring the fact that other people are feeling hurt and are dissatisfied with the system that we have now. We shouldn’t because doing so will be a calamitous mistake. Who will win the confrontation, I don’t know. But what I know is that all parties will pay a heavy price – it will not be like the 1966/1967 (coup) all over again. It will not be like the 1967 to 1970 civil war all over again. Right now, there is a proliferation of weapons all over the country and the diffusion of grievances will create war fronts. The Nigerian military is stretched thin with all the challenges it’s currently coping with internally. I don’t think you want to put more pressure on it. We must seek a non-violent way. We must engage in dialogue. There must be, on the part of the Federal Government, the readiness to adopt a more sophisticated approach in promoting the dialogue and a preparedness to change the country.

In his address to the nation after his return from the United Kingdom, President Muhammadu Buhari said the restructuring of the country will be handled by the National Assembly. How will you react to that?

Which president are we talking about?  Is it the president who gave that speech or is it the president who embarked on consultative engagements with different stakeholders in the country the following week? Obviously, I would have preferred that we’re confronted with a president who engaged in consultations and also probably brought in more stakeholders. In a way, the presidency of any country is a critical agent for change. The Americans call it the bully pulpit syndrome. The buck stops with the president. The body language of the president can determine the outcome of an engagement. I hold the belief that President Buhari has a critical role to play in moving the nation forward in averting the oncoming tragedy and in heading the country away from collision to a cooperative destination in arriving at the kind of federalism that will be acceptable to all of us. He has a responsibility to do that.

Apart from being the president, he (Buhari) probably right now, is the only Nigerian that can ensure that we don’t end up in a ditch; in spite of what he says at times, he is the only Nigerian. Not that he stands the chance; he is the only person. Whether he will do it or not, is a different kettle of fish. Now, why do I say that? The present system that we have is skewed in favour of the North and the way forward will have to be the surrender of issues from the 1999 Constitution controlled by the Federal Government to the states.  Some issues on the exclusive list should be moved to the concurrent list and possibly, there should be a creation of the reserved list. So, it is the North that needs to make the concession. But if you’re going to be rational in your approach, the North has to be persuaded that it is not being asked to commit political or economic suicide and the only person right now that the North truly trusts and believes will not play politics with their interests is Muhammadu Buhari. He stands now in the kind of position that the (late) Sardauna stood in the sixties. An average person on the northern streets believes in Buhari in the way that they don’t believe in (former Vice President) Atiku (Abubakar) or my former boss, IBB, because those are the people who have spoken out forcefully calling for restructuring. The northern streets will conclude that these persons are playing with their interests.

But Buhari stands in that position of trust in the estimation of the northern streets that ‘if he should say that we need to give up these issues, he’s not selling us.’ What we need to do is to find people in the North that Buhari trusts – people who can discuss with him, that he believes are not setting a trap for him. The Yoruba leaders’ meeting in Ibadan and this interview will not get through to Buhari. But there are people in the North who can speak with him. There must be mutual trust between Buhari and those speaking with him.

Should Buhari reshuffle his cabinet?

For what reason or for what purpose should he reshuffle the cabinet? It appears to be the pastime of the public to want to see people disgraced and humbled. But again when you look at the people who were appointed in the first place, what was the basis for their appointment? I don’t embrace cabinet reshuffle just for reshuffling’s sake.

Buhari and the All Progressives Congress were voted into power with their promise to deal decisively with corruption in the country. Is that promise being fulfilled?

Do you believe everything a political party says? When you look at the people who fund parties – not just the present ruling party, I am talking about any of the political parties in Nigeria – where does the money come from? Look at the financiers, are they clean? Are their hands clean? Do you expect any political party to commit suicide? Until the foundation of your politics is clean, you cannot expect a clean government and you cannot expect it to get into power and go after the financiers. You can’t do that.

We want the country to be united first. We want the country to solve its problem of stability before tackling corruption. Part of the problem of dealing with corruption is that a government has to be in power first and be stable. But when you now depend on corrupt people to win your election and to remain in power, how can you deal with corruption? Is the government stable? Is Nigeria stable?

What do you think about the recent gathering of some Yoruba leaders in Ibadan to take a formal position on the restructuring of Nigeria?

What’s called the Yoruba Agenda is something that is about 20 years old. Various groups and ethnic nationalities in Nigeria have come to the conclusion, especially after the debacle of the June 12 (presidential election in 1993) that we have a system that is not working. The Yoruba agenda has been constant. The constituents of the agenda were re-confirmed at the conference held in Ibadan recently; which is regionalism and states within it and other constituent elements in terms of economic devolution. So, I am not surprised by the outcome of the meeting in Ibadan. There was the need for such a meeting because it reconfirms what the position of the Yoruba has always been. Two, it gives a ready-made answer to anyone who may want to ask: ‘What do you people want? What’s your own contribution to the debate on restructuring?’

Are you bothered that the South-West governors were not at the gathering?

What I often find funny but at the same time disruptive, is the proverb that says,  ‘we cannot all sleep and maintain the same position.’ As Wole Soyinka once said, you can come up with other proverbs that you can all sleep and maintain the same position. If you’re fighting a war, there is the need to have a unity of purpose; there must be a unified focus. Therefore, to that extent, it is worrisome that the (South-West) governors were not there. But this is an issue which has confronted the Yoruba nation from time immemorial. Several attempts have been made to address that issue unsuccessfully.

The most disastrous occurrence in the Yoruba nation was the Kiriji war which lasted for years between Ekiti Parapo and the Ibadan Alliance, (and) practically turned the Yoruba nation upside-down. If you look at the Yoruba history, either to say from then on or maybe even before then, it has always been a case of a divided nation. Even when the Action Group, headed by Baba (Chief Obafemi) Awolowo, was in power, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons gave the Action Group a run for its money electorally. We never had a situation where the Action Group won 80 or 90 per cent of the votes – it was always winning just a little over 50 per cent with the NCNC very close behind it. At times, while the AG won the regional election, in the West, the NCNC actually won the federal election. The consolation then was that such reality did not stop the Action Group under the late Chief Awolowo from recording tremendous successes in the running of the Western Region such that, to date, those achievements are still regarded as the benchmark in the development of Nigeria – because in a way, that was what led to what I would call cooperative but competitive federalism. If one region was doing something, the other region would want to do it as well. But you needed somebody with a vision to start it. So, that is the consolation whether the governors were there or not, – it will slow it down – there is nothing that will stop the march of the Yoruba nation towards having the kind of political system which its people desire.

But – I hope I will not be misunderstood because I don’t wish to be misunderstood – the Yoruba nation will not get what it wants because in a federation, whether that federation is in terms of a village community, a state community, a national community or even a global community, one constituent element never gets everything that it wants. You’ve got to negotiate with the others and hopefully, you arrive at a consensus that all of you can live with. In the 1960 Constitution, the Northern People’s Congress led by the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, didn’t get everything it wanted for the North. (Dr. Nnamdi) Azikiwe, leading the NCNC, didn’t get everything he wanted for the East. And, Chief Awolowo, leading the AG, didn’t get everything he wanted for the West. But there was sufficient consensus on critical issues that allowed them to say, ‘This is a constitution we can sell to our people and this is a constitution we can live with.’

Do you agree with the Yoruba leaders that the country should return to the 1960 and 1963 constitutions?

I do. But you need to spell out what you mean by that. We need to address our language of engagement, which is, we talk in generality. Demands are made (by all sides) in generality. So, the answers are given in generality because each side is reading its fears into the debate. When you say ‘we want to restructure’, those against restructuring are wondering, ‘what do they mean exactly?’. They want to take power away from us. They want to deny us what we’re benefitting from the system. It’s all a plot to enable them to dominate us – that’s what they mean by restructuring.’ But, if you say, by restructuring, ‘we mean political devolution and consequently, economic devolution.’ After all, you cannot transfer executive responsibilities to the states over some issues and not give them the means to carry that out.

I say this because when they (Yoruba leaders) said we need to go back to the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, what they meant was, if you look at the reserved list and the concurrent list; you look at the subjects that are on the lists that had been transferred to the federal authority, you’ve turned Nigeria from being a federal system to a unitary system. So, we want to go back; let us look at those subjects again and return what should be the ‘returnable’ to the states. Why do I say the ‘returnable’? The capacity to execute what a region had in the sixties is not the same thing as the capacity to execute by a state – the state is smaller. It’s not a question of the economic capability. So, it would have to be in an amended version. We’re talking about what the West – the Yoruba nation – wants. But keep it in mind that what you want may not be perceived as being beneficial to others who are even your allies.

Let me give you an illustration: one of the things people have found baffling is the decision reached at the 2014 National Conference. It is the resolution, calling for the creation of 54 states. Many couldn’t understand it as they argued that the current 36 states are struggling due to inadequate funds. People seem to have forgotten that in a constitutional conference – which the national conference really was – you bring to the table your own demands, a regional system and you go to others to ask them for their support. I know definitely that the Middle Belt and the South-South don’t believe in the regional system. But since those who want regional system are their allies, they can say, ‘all right, but what we want, to protect our interests as states, is the creation of more states. So, if you agree to our state creation, we’ll agree to your regional system.’ Since you cannot force your demand on them and they cannot force their demand on you, you negotiate – you bargain – and that was how that proposal (of 54 states) came about.

The Yoruba nation must understand the need to negotiate with others who have their own agenda as it pushes forward its regional government agenda. We’ve got to show cleverness, wisdom, and acumen in the negotiation that will follow to make sure that we don’t lose the core of our own demands and interests. The important thing is for us to deal with the question of domination; to ensure a system where there is no automatic domination of any group by another group. The other issue is what the European Union called the issue of subsidiarity, which is that what is best handled at the local level. They should be reserved for the local government level. That means that there are things which the local governments should be allowed to handle; same thing at the state and federal levels.

Part of the pronouncement made by the Yoruba leaders is that Nigeria will not know peace unless it is run as a federal state. Do you agree with that?

I do. We are too large and our interests are diverse, not necessarily antagonistic that it makes a lot of sense for us to give this breathing space to each constituent units of the nation and that can only be done under the system of federalism. Fortunately, federalism is such an elastic concept that we don’t need to lose sleep over the kind of federalism that is achievable for Nigeria. But one of the things that we will need to jettison in our mind is the concept of true federalism. There’s nothing called ‘true federalism’. Each federal state adopts a system that addresses the core issues which that nation needs to address. The Canadian concept of federalism is different from either the German or the American federal system. It doesn’t really matter what name it is called. What’s in a name? A rose by any other name is still a rose. Like the Americans will say, ‘It looks like a federal state. It smells like a federal state. It works like a federal state. Damn it, it is a federal state!’ What we should be seeking is a Nigerian federalism that’s unique to Nigeria (and) that allows us to live together without the fear of dominance and marginalisation. It’s those who are dominated who talk about marginalisation; it’s those that are doing the domineering that have the fear that unless they have powers in their hands, they’re going to lose out. They fear being marginalised.

The spate of crime and insecurity has continued to increase. What do you think is responsible for this?

These are hard times but the manifestations are global not just local. I doubt if there is any country in the world that says it feels safer now than it did 10 or 15 years ago because you’re dealing with phenomena that are global in nature. Trans-continental, non-governmental alliance and movements that are not under the control of a government and therefore, the kinds of constraints and restraints that normally govern inter-governmental behaviours are totally absent and Nigeria is not immune to that. Another reason is the lack of an elite consensus in our politics – it’s detrimental to national development.

Perhaps the only time we had elite consensus was between 1953 and 1963. The moment a state of emergency was declared in the South-West in 1962, it destroyed the post-independence elite consensus. It also destroyed the political values by which we maintained stability in the country. I am not saying that era was perfect; we had a system that was predictable. Predictable in the way it was run, predictable in its outcome, and predictable in the objectives by which the country was run – that was what I meant by a competitive federalism. It was destroyed in 1962 because it meant a seizure of power in the West by the Federal Government, by the North and the East. In an attempt to destroy the West, they triggered off forces that ended up destroying Nigeria itself and we have never known peace since then.

Do you think Nigeria is a failing state?

Yes, I do. I think we’re driving down the road to becoming a failed state. But I don’t think we are a failed state. There will always be contestations and some of them could be violent but they’re not sufficient to term a country a failed state, otherwise, nations like the United States of America and Spain may fall in that category. We’re in such an unstable position than we were in the 1960s.

What now is the way out of it?

It has to do with the creation of an elite consensus. Imagine if the elite can get their acts together and we run an honest political system – a political system of governance that delivers dividends. I’m not talking about dividends of democracy. I’m talking about dividends of governance where roads are properly constructed, the challenges in the educational system being effectively addressed, among others. The political gerrymandering that goes on instead of governance where bridges are built where there are no rivers or build river under the bridge.

Posted On Sunday, 17 September 2017 13:24 Written by

Jose Mourinho says he has ample options in his Manchester United squad to cope without injured midfielder Paul Pogba as Wayne Rooney prepares to return to Old Trafford.

Pogba is widely expected to be out of action for between a month and six weeks after damaging his hamstring just 18 minutes into Tuesday’s 3-0 Champions League victory over Basel.

That would force him to miss France’s World Cup qualifiers against Bulgaria and Belarus in early October, which they need to win to guarantee a place at the finals in Russia.

But Mourinho’s refusal to put a timescale on the midfielder’s absence may yet give national team coach Didier Deschamps reason for hope.

Marouane Fellaini, who replaced Pogba as a substitute against Basel, is likely to step into the starting line-up for Sunday’s Premier League home match against Everton, with Ander Herrera and Michael Carrick also in contention.

Mourinho would not elaborate on suggestions that Pogba had aggravated a long-term hamstring problem, or claims that the midfielder has been working with a personal trainer against club advice.

The United manager would only say he expects Pogba, the club’s £89 million ($121 million, 101 million euros) record signing, to be out for “a few matches”.

“I just know that it’s a muscular injury and he’s out for the weekend match,” said Mourinho. “That’s the only one I’m thinking about. I don’t think further than that. So for me, it’s simple and objective that he’s not playing this weekend.

“I don’t know if it’s the same one. I just know it’s a hamstring.”

Rooney return
Pogba was out for three weeks in March with a hamstring issue and it is understood he was given instructions by United’s medical staff on how to strengthen the muscle to ward off further problems.

But the midfielder is believed to have been getting treatment from a personal trainer, leading to fears that it might have made him more vulnerable to injury.

Pogba is set to miss United’s league games against Everton, Southampton and Crystal Palace, plus next Wednesday’s third-round League Cup tie against Burton and the Champions League trip to CSKA Moscow on September 27.

He also faces a fight to be back in time for his side’s Premier League trip to Liverpool on October 14 — but Mourinho is certain that United will manage.

The manager said: “We have players waiting for an opportunity because we started the season really well and we had one match per week so there was no need to rest players and no need for changes.

“Honestly, we miss Pogba and we need him but we have good players. Herrera, Fellaini, Carrick, they are waiting for a real chance to start matches. And they are ready. This is also our way of things.

“We lost important players last season at crucial moments and we were not crying or getting excuse. That’s just football.”

Sunday’s match will see Wayne Rooney return to Old Trafford for the first time since leaving Manchester United for Everton in July.

Mourinho described the former England captain as a “legend” but urged United fans not to make him feel too comfortable.

“I think he will get the welcome that he deserves,” he said. “Sometimes in this country the word legend comes too easily, but that’s not the case here. He is a legend of this club.

“He is one of the most important players in the history of Manchester United. The stadium will show him the respect he deserves before and after the match, not during the match.”

Posted On Saturday, 16 September 2017 00:56 Written by

The South African Football Association (Safa) says that it is studying a decision, upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Wednesday, that a World Cup qualifier between South Africa and Senegal should be replayed.

This was taken after the match referee, Joseph Lamptey, was banned for life by Fifa. The Ghanaian referee was accused of "match manipulation".

In a statement on its website Safa says that it is studying the contents of the report before issuing a statement on its intentions as to whether to challenge the decision.

Safa also denies that it was involved in any wrongdoing related to the referee's actions as was "stated in the Fifa report".

Lamptey awarded a penalty to South Africa in their 2-1 win in November last year for handball but replays showed the ball hit Senegal's Napoli defender Kalidou Koulibaly on the knee.

The match is due to be replayed in the November 2017 international window.

Posted On Thursday, 07 September 2017 23:20 Written by
 

The Super Eagles on Monday played a 1-1 draw with the Indomitable Lions of Cameroon at the Stade Omnispirts Ahmadu Ahidjo in Yaounde.

The Nigerians were rewarded with a goal in the 30th minute after an Odion Ighalo’s shot was cleared to Belgium-based Moses Simon who put the ball behind goalkeeper Fabrice Ondoa.

The Cameroonians equalised from the spot following a reckless challenge by goalkeeper Ikechukwu Ezenwa on Djoum Arnaud.

Vincent Aboubakar slots the ball calmly into the net as Ezenwa runs the wrong way.

The Super Eagles were the better team when both sides clashed last Friday in Uyo; winning 4-0 at the Nest of Champions.

Nigeria tops Group B with 10 points ahead of second-placed Zambia which has 4 points but with a game in hand, Cameroon are third with three points while Algeria stay at the bottom with just a point and a game still unplayed.

Posted On Monday, 04 September 2017 20:09 Written by

NAIROBI, Kenya — In a historic ruling and a first in Africa, Kenya’s Supreme Court nullified on Friday the re-election of a sitting president, ordering a new vote to be held within 60 days after finding that the outcome last month had been tainted by irregularities.

It was a stunning moment for Kenya, one of Africa’s most populous nations, and for democracy in general. Kenya’s disputed presidential election in 2007 set off bloodshed that left at least 1,300 people dead and 600,000 displaced around the country.

But this time, figures across the Kenyan political landscape, including the president whose victory was wiped away, appeared to accept the decision and called on supporters to do the same.

The ruling also offered a potent display of judicial independence on a continent where courts often come under intense pressure from political leaders, analysts said.

“It’s a historic moment showing the fortitude and courage of the Kenyan judiciary,” said Dickson Omondi, a country director for the National Democratic Institute, a nonpartisan organization that supports democratic institutions and practices worldwide.

He said it was the first example in Africa in which a court nullified the re-election of an incumbent.

The election on Aug. 8 was conducted peacefully and was largely praised by international observers. But David Maraga, the court’s chief justice, declared the result “invalid, null and void” after siding with the opposition, which had argued that the vote had been electronically manipulated to assure a victory for President Uhuru Kenyatta.

Mr. Kenyatta, 55, had been re-elected with 54 percent of the vote, easily surpassing the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff. His main challenger, Raila Odinga, 72, who petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the election, had received about 44 percent, a difference of about 1.4 million votes. A parallel tally by domestic observers endorsed the official result.

Photo
 
Supporters of Mr. Odinga celebrating the court decision in Nairobi. CreditBen Curtis/Associated Press

The Supreme Court decision came as a surprise, even to Mr. Odinga and his supporters, who had complained about election irregularities. A top election official in charge of voting technology was killed about a week before the election, and although the casting of ballots went smoothly, the electronic transmission of vote tallies was flawed, leading the opposition to assert that as many as seven million votes had been stolen.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, which was in charge of the vote, “failed, neglected, or refused to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Constitution,” the court said.

The six-judge Supreme Court found no misconduct on the part of the president, Mr. Kenyatta, but it found that the commission “committed irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results” and unspecified other issues.

“Irregularities affected the integrity of the poll,” Justice Maraga told a stunned courtroom.

A new vote means that candidates will have to start campaigning again and possibly raise millions of dollars: Elections in Kenya generally cost about $1 billion, including spending by the candidates during the campaign and by the government to hold the election.

Thousands of people in the opposition strongholds of Kisumu, Mombasa and parts of Nairobi streamed into the streets and whooped with joy after the news was announced on Friday. Supporters of Mr. Kenyatta in Gatundu, his hometown, were subdued.

“I am happy to be Kenyan today,” said Mr. Odinga, a former prime minister now in his fourth run for the presidency. “It is a historic day for the people of Kenya, and by extension the people of Africa.”

“This is a precedent-setting ruling,” he said, adding that it was the first time in the history of African democratization that “a ruling has been made by a court nullifying irregular presidential elections.”

Mr. Odinga said that his team planned to take members of the electoral commission to court, saying that they had “committed a criminal act” and belonged in jail.

Photo
 
Police officers outside the Supreme Court building in Nairobi on Friday. CreditBen Curtis/Associated Press

Mr. Kenyatta, the president, said he respected the ruling and called on all Kenyans to respond peacefully, but he also made clear his anger toward the court.

“Millions of Kenyans queued, made their choice, and six people have decided that they will go against the will of the people,” he said.

Security had been increased on Friday in opposition strongholds amid concern that a ruling in favor of either side could provoke protests or worse. Kenya experienced postelection violence after presidential votes in 2007, 2013 and last month, when at least 24 people were killed, most of them by security forces.

“My concern is that no matter what the court says, the losers will react violently,” John Campbell, a senior fellow for Africa policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former ambassador to Nigeria, said before the ruling.

Mr. Campbell expressed concern that “neither Kenyatta nor Odinga prepared their followers for the possibility of losing.”

Immediately after the court’s announcement, however, the atmosphere was more of joy than fear, and there were no immediate reports of violence in strongholds on the losing side, including Gatundu. There, supporters were seen carrying mock coffins with the words “R.I.P. Jubilee” painted on the sides, referring to Mr. Kenyatta’s Jubilee Party.

The Supreme Court, which has bolstered its independence in recent years but had still been viewed by many Kenyans as under government influence, was facing pressure to set out arguments that would persuade people on either side, said Mr. Omondi, the country director for the National Democratic Institute.

The case was an opportunity for the judiciary to truly show its independence, he added, especially after it came under intense criticism for mishandling a similar petition by Mr. Odinga in 2013, which the presiding judge alluded to on Friday at the start of his remarks.

Photo
 
President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya addressed his supporters at the Burma market in Nairobi after his election victory was declared invalid. CreditThomas Mukoya/Reuters

The election controversy hinged on two paper forms that legally validate the ballots — one from each of the country’s 40,883 polling stations and the other from 290 constituencies. Representatives from rival parties were required to approve the forms before they were scanned and electronically transmitted to a national tallying center in Nairobi, where they were to be put online immediately so they could be crosschecked.

But the electronic system, which had been overseen by Christopher Chege Msando, the election official who was killed, broke down. Therefore, only the results, not the forms, were sent to the national tallying center, often by text message.

International election observers were quick to praise the electoral body after the vote, saying there was no evidence that the votes had been tampered with at polling stations and that the paper forms would show clearly who had won. The observers assumed the forms would be easily verifiable and would be matched with figures texted to the tallying center by party officials.

But when Mr. Kenyatta was initially declared the winner, just hours after voting ended, almost none of the forms from the polling stations were online, even though the electoral commission had had a week to receive scanned images of the results.

A couple of days later, the commission announced that about 10,000 forms were unaccounted for, sowing even more doubt and suspicion over its credibility.

“The scenario was similar to that of the Bermuda Triangle, where no one knows how ships disappear,” said Pheroze Nowrojee, a lawyer representing Mr. Odinga and the National Super Alliance, the opposition umbrella group.

The electoral commission said it had presented the forms, a claim that was verified in a report by the registrar of the Supreme Court. However, that report found that a third of the forms had lacked security features like watermarks or serial numbers, which election observers saw as evidence that the forms were probably false.

Defending the integrity of the election, Wafula Chebukati, the chairman of the election commission, noted that the focus of the decision was on the transmission of the results, not on the voting or the counting of the ballots. He urged investigators to prosecute “any of our staff that may have been in violation of the Elections Offenses Act.”

Walter Mebane, a professor of statistics and political science at the University of Michigan who studies elections worldwide, volunteered to run the voting results through a computer model he developed to detect electoral fraud. Based on statistics only, and without knowledge of the intricacies of Kenyan politics, he and his team found patterns that showed widespread manipulation.

“It was unlike any data set I had ever seen,” he said. “Every single indicator came up signaling anomalies. It’s a huge red flag that something weird is going on.”

Posted On Saturday, 02 September 2017 01:24 Written by

Police in Rwanda have denied reports that they have arrested a prominent opposition leader, Diane Shima Rwigara, and her mother.

Police spokesperson Theos Badege told the BBC that security officers had conducted a raid at the politician's home in relation to investigations over her alleged use of forged signatures to endorse her failed presidential bid.

This led to her disqualification in this month's election which Paul Kagame won.

He added that her family was also being investigated for alleged tax evasion.

Reports say that unknown armed men dressed in civilian clothes spent a night outside her home before storming in on Wednesday morning.

They then held Ms Rwigara and her family at gunpoint, searching the house for hours.

Her family say that they don't know where she and her mother are now.

Posted On Thursday, 31 August 2017 02:48 Written by
Page 1 of 50

Newsletter