Sunday, 7 June 2015

Investigate Deaths; Allow Peaceful Protest; Permit Radio Stations Back on Air
MAY 29, 2015
The Burundian authorities should call a halt to the crackdown on peaceful opponents and critics. They should order the police to stop using excessive deadly force, investigate the deaths and beatings of protesters at the hands of police, and hold those responsible for excessive force to account.
Daniel Bekele, Africa director
(Nairobi) – Burundian police have used excessive force in a crackdown on protests against President Pierre Nkurunziza’s election bid for a third term, Human Rights Watch said today.

Witness accounts indicate that police have shot and beaten people, in some cases when they posed no apparent threat. The authorities have closed down a number of radio stations and threatened journalists, human rights activists, and medical personnel.

“The Burundian authorities should call a halt to the crackdown on peaceful opponents and critics,” saidDaniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “They should order the police to stop using excessive deadly force, investigate the deaths and beatings of protesters at the hands of police, and hold those responsible for excessive force to account.”

Restrictions on movements in the capital, and pervasive fear among the population, have made it difficult to confirm the exact number of victims. Based on interviews with medical personnel and other sources, Human Rights Watch believes that since demonstrations began on April 26, 2015, at least 27 people have been killed during the demonstrations or died from wounds inflicted during the demonstrations. Others have been killed in separate incidents. More than 300 people have been injured. It is likely that the overall number of dead is higher. 

Thousands of protesters took to the streets after the murder on May 23 of Zedi Feruzi, president of the opposition party Union for Peace and Democracy-Zigamibanga (Union pour la paix et la démocratie-Zigabimanga). Human Rights Watch has not yet confirmed the circumstances of his death. A statement on the Burundian presidency’s website described it as “a despicable assassination” and promised an investigation.

Police have responded aggressively to protests, with repeated clashes in several suburbs of the capital, Bujumbura. While many protesters have been peaceful, some have used violence. Witnesses say police have shot demonstrators indiscriminately – sometimes at point-blank range – in the head, neck, and chest. Medical personnel, witnesses, and a victim of a shooting told Human Rights Watch that some people were shot in the back as they fled. Medical staff in Bujumbura are treating more than 100 people with serious injuries.

Medical personnel, journalists, and human rights defenders have received death threats and menacing phone calls, and been intimidated and harassed by the authorities. Many of those who were threatened have gone into hiding or fled the country.

Public protests began in Bujumbura, on April 26. On May 13, a group of military officers attempted a coup and announced that Nkurunziza had been dismissed. Following heavy fighting between their supporters and members of the army loyal to Nkurunziza, the coup leaders announced on May 14 that their attempt had failed and they would surrender. Several officers allegedly involved in the coup attempt have been arrested. The whereabouts of their leader, Godefroid Niyombare, remain unknown.

Following the failed coup, demonstrators resumed their protests in Bujumbura on May 18, defying government orders to stop and warnings that demonstrators would be treated as supporters of the coup attempt.

In a May 18 statement, the External Relations and International Cooperation Ministry said that “the demonstrators will be treated as accomplices of the putschists as they are obstructing investigations into the putsch attempt and deliberately disturbing public order.” In contrast, a May 19 news release from the president’s office said that the government was not planning to take revenge, and that those involved in the coup attempt would be arrested and brought to justice according to the law.

Peaceful protesters and critics of the government should not be lumped together with those who attempted to overthrow the government, Human Rights Watch said.

Since demonstrations began, Burundian police have arrested hundreds of people, according to a Burundian police spokesperson and Burundian human rights organizations. They also beat detainees, witnesses and lawyers told Human Rights Watch. The Imbonerakure (“those who see far” in Kirundi) – members of the youth league of the ruling National Council for the Defense of Democracy-Forces for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) – have also been implicated in beatings and threats.

Some of those killed or injured were taking part in protests while others were targeted in or near their homes. Human Rights Watch interviewed nine people with gunshot wounds who had been shot in various neighborhoods of Bujumbura, and obtained bullet casings from the Musaga neighborhood after police had shot at demonstrators there. A policeman confirmed to Human Rights Watch that some police had shot live ammunition and blank cartridges at protesters in Mutakura and Musaga neighborhoods during the first week of the demonstrations.

One man told Human Rights Watch that he was sitting near a road, away from protests, in the Cibitoke neighborhood on April 28 when four policemen approached him and told him to stand up. He stood up with his hands in the air. A policeman shot him at point blank range in the leg. He fell down, and the policeman said: “I got you.” The policeman picked up a stone as if to throw it at him. When other people arrived, the policemen fled. In another case, a victim said police shot him, then stomped on his head and body. He survived.

Some demonstrators have thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at the police, and used slingshots with stones, marbles, and other projectiles. Demonstrators have attacked people perceived to be Imbonerakure and policemen they accused of targeting demonstrators. Demonstrators who carry out violent attacks should be brought to justice, Human Rights Watch said.

The president’s main communications adviser, Willy Nyamitwe, told Human Rights Watch: “There are perhaps policemen who used too much force and others who were misguided. You need to recognize also that demonstrators are committing human rights abuses and they aren’t being reported.” He said some policemen had been arrested because “they used live ammunition against demonstrators” and added: “The president was clear: no act [of violence] will go unpunished. And that also goes for the demonstrators.” 

The deputy police spokesman, Pierre Nkurikiye, said on May 25 that six police officers had been killed and at least 126 injured since the protests began. Nkurikiye said four policemen in Bujumbura were arrested for shooting at people. Three were provisionally released and one was still in custody. Investigations into all four cases are ongoing.

During demonstrations, the police should abide by the United Nations Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The principles call upon law enforcement officials to apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force, to use force only in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, and to use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect life.

Several hundred demonstrators and onlookers have been arrested since the protests began. Police figures indicate that 892 people were arrested in connection with the protests between April 26 and May 12. The deputy police spokesperson told Human Rights Watch in a meeting that police released 568 people, the majority of them minors or bystanders. The cases of 280 detainees had been transferred to the public prosecutor’s office. During the coup attempt, people ransacked the police detention center known as Bureau spécial de recherche (BSR) and released about 50 detainees.

The Burundian government should immediately restore respect for freedom of expression and assembly, including the freedom to demonstrate peacefully, allow radio stations to broadcast, and stop harassing journalists and human rights activists, Human Rights Watch said.

Governments and intergovernmental organizations, particularly the African Union, should pursue diplomatic efforts and impress upon the Burundian government the necessity to restore respect for fundamental human rights, as a precondition to peaceful and fair elections, Human Rights Watch said.

The UN Security Council should consider conducting a new mission to Burundi and make clear to all actors in Burundi that in the event of serious or widespread human rights violations, those responsible may face sanctions.

The UN and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights special rapporteurs covering freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of assembly and association; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and the situation of human rights defenders should urgently visit Burundi and investigate recent abuses.

Human Rights Watch also encouraged the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase its monitoring capacity in Burundi and keep the Human Rights Council informed of developments. The Office of the High Commissioner should document human rights violations through its country presence in Burundi and regularly and publicly report on its findings.

“Restraint is needed on all sides in Burundi,” Bekele said. “The police have the right to control crowds and may need to use force when confronted by violence, but they should do so only when strictly necessary and in a proportionate manner.”

For more detail and accounts by those interviewed, please see below.

Shootings by Police and Other Attacks
Based on interviews with a range of sources – including hospital staff, representatives of aid organizations, and human rights activists – Human Rights Watch believes that at least 27 people have been killed since the start of the demonstrations. Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify all deaths or confirm the exact total, which is likely to be higher.

Protesters Shot During Demonstrations
Human Rights Watch talked with nine people who had been shot during demonstrations. In many of the cases, it was unclear whether the police targeted specific demonstrators or shot indiscriminately, or whether the people were hit by stray bullets.

A 20-year-old student shot by police in the groin said he was demonstrating in Bujumbura’s Kinindo neighborhood on May 4 when policemen arrived and told demonstrators to move back:
We told them we would stay in the road and demonstrate peacefully and we wouldn’t damage anything. Some police said they should let us demonstrate peacefully; others said they hadn’t received orders yet. They demanded that we leave the area before anything was damaged. We stayed there, dancing and singing. The police started removing rocks that were blocking the road. The demonstrators wouldn’t let them remove them. The police said: “If you refuse to let us remove them, you’ll see what will happen afterward.” The police threw four teargas grenades. Then they shot at us. They shot me as I was carrying my friend who had also been shot.
Another 20-year-old protester shot in the left knee said that policemen got out of a vehicle with tinted windows in Musaga on April 30 and started shooting:
I couldn’t escape. I was already hit. Four policemen came and started beating me. They kicked me and someone whipped me with a military belt. They said: “You are going to suffer because you are against the president of the republic.” They beat me for around three minutes. Then other protesters threw stones at them and they fled.
An 18-year-old student from Ngagara neighborhood said that on April 28, he accompanied a friend to his house in Cibitoke neighborhood. He said neither of them were participating in the demonstrations:
We were sitting on a cement block. That’s when we saw people running.… Afterward, we saw the police arrive where we were sitting. My friend fled. The police told me to stand up. I stood up with my hands in the air. Then he shot me in the leg. He said, “I got you.” He wanted to throw a stone at my head. A lot of people came up to us. Maybe that’s what stopped him.
A 30-year-old man said that on May 10, demonstrators in the Musaga neighborhood taunted police, and the police responded violently. One of the man’s friends was shot.
[The demonstrators] said: “We aren’t going to leave the street. We are against the third term [for the president].” There were around 30 police.… They started to shoot teargas. The demonstrators and people coming from church ran toward their houses. That’s when the police shot bullets. I can’t explain how it happened, because the bullets hit those in front of us. We weren’t hit.

I was just about to arrive at my house when I found [my friend]. He was weak and didn’t talk. They had shot him in his bottom and the bullet came out through his groin.
The man carried his friend, who was bleeding heavily, toward a first aid station. He said they came across a group of policemen, who told him, “Don’t bring your foolish things here,” referring to his injured friend. His friend died at a clinic before he could be treated.

A number of other attacks took place from April 26 on. The motives and the identity of the attackers were not always clear. For example, in Mutakura, men in camouflage uniforms and an unidentified man in civilian clothes visited several homes on the evening of April 26. They attacked residents with a machete, club, and bayonet and shot three of them dead. Some of the attackers shouted ethnic slurs as they were leaving.

Medical Personnel Threatened and Hospital Staff and Patients Endangered
Human Rights Watch spoke to medical personnel, injured demonstrators, and caregivers who said the police intimidated medical staff in several hospitals in Bujumbura. Witnesses said intelligence agents visited at least three hospitals, and in two demanded that hospital staff provide lists of demonstrators in their care. Government officials, accompanied by journalists, filmed patients in at least one hospital, without explanation. At least one hospital worker received phone calls from unidentified people threatening him with death for caring for demonstrators.

Witnesses said that on May 14, a group of 40 to 50 police officers loyal to Nkurunziza went to the private Bumerec hospital searching for wounded soldiers allegedly involved in the coup attempt who were being treated there. When the police tried to force their way into the emergency room, there was an exchange of gunfire between the police and the soldiers. The police shot into the emergency room from outside the door. A policeman was shot during an exchange of gunfire; it is not known whether he survived.

Soldiers loyal to the president arrived at the hospital to support the police. The police then went from room to room, searching for an injured female soldier. When they couldn’t find her, they forced all patients, staff, and caregivers into the courtyard. Some of the police threatened to “burn the hospital down” if they couldn’t find the soldier. The female soldier had changed into civilian clothes. When the police discovered her, a witness heard a policeman say: “Sorry. Normally, this shouldn’t happen. But during wartime, it happens like this.” The policemen left, taking with them the female soldier, one other injured soldier, and a third soldier who had been assisting them. The soldiers’ whereabouts are not known.

In a speech on May 20, Nkurunziza said judicial authorities should urgently investigate the “sad events” at the Bumerec hospital and ensure that those responsible are punished according to the law.

Beatings by Police 
Police severely beat demonstrators and detainees in their custody, as well as in the custody of the intelligence services, victims and witnesses told Human Rights Watch.

Police arrested a 32-year-old man who was guarding his house on the night of April 29. He said that officers slapped him in the face and took him and at least one other man they had arrested to the commune (local government) office, where a policeman beat him and forced him to sign a statement:
He [the police officer] was furious. The first thing he did, he looked for some paper on which to write my statement. Then he started to hit us. He used an electrical cable. He said: “You have weapons, and you are protesting against the third term of the president.” I said: “We don’t have weapons.” He beat us so we would accept everything he wrote down and all his questions. When we tried to say that his accusation against us – having weapons – wasn’t true, he beat us again so we would admit it.

Afterward, he put me on a chair, put my arms behind my back and beat me all over. When he tried to make me sign [the statement] by force, [a policeman] found a machete. He hit me with it on the back with the flat side. It was [another] policeman who hit me with it. [The policeman] took an ink pad. He forcibly took my hand and he put it in the ink pad and then put it on the paper. 
The man was taken to the BSR – the police detention center – then, along with other detainees, to the intelligence services. He said an intelligence official registered him, then he heard the official give an order to take the detainees to “school” (presumably meaning take them to be beaten). The man said that police assigned to the intelligence services beat the detainees with an iron bar used in building construction:
We were beaten with an iron bar on the bottom. The SNR [intelligence services] gave orders to the police to beat us. We were at least seven in the corridor [being beaten]. They said: “You are at school and you will return intelligent.” Each person had a policeman who beat him. When one got tired, another would come. After they finished, they slapped us on the ears. Even now, I have a problem hearing out of my left ear. I saw others who were beaten after us. The others came in [to our cell] in a bad state and had to be taken to the hospital.
A 26-year-old female demonstrator said that four policemen beat her after she was arrested with eight other demonstrators on May 4 near the university. Police drove them to a wooded area near a police camp where they beat them again:
They hit us hard with police truncheons. More than 10 policemen were there and participated. We were also beaten by the one who brought us. One took his truncheon and the others took theirs and they beat everyone. Each of them took one of us. When we were lying on the ground, they hit us on the back and often on the soles of our feet. They beat us for five minutes. I screamed: “Forgive us!” I said: “Jesus! Jesus!” when they were hitting me. They said: “Don’t call Jesus. He’s not the one who asked you to go to the demonstration.”
A 38-year-old human rights activist was arrested on May 4 in Bujumbura’s Cibitoke neighborhood. He said that during the demonstration, he had picked up a child as police started shooting. As he was carrying the child to safety, about 10 policemen attacked him. They beat him with truncheons and belts and kicked him. They let him put the child down and told him to get into a truck with tinted windows and said they were taking him to Camp Socarti, a police camp in Bujumbura:
I said: “No, I’m not a policeman.” They said: “You don’t have any rights.” I said: “I’m not a policeman or a soldier. I’ll open the door and jump out while the car is moving.” [The policeman] told me to get down and lie down in the middle of the road. They started beating me. While they were beating me, Radio Bonesha [a private radio station] was playing and they heard the radio mention my name. [One of the policemen] said: “You, who are you, you imbecile?” I said: “I’m a simple citizen. Everything you are doing is being brought up on the radio.”
The police drove him to the Kamenge neighborhood, where he gave a statement to the judicial police:
On Monday night, a person claiming he was the head of the criminal research section of the judicial police … told me to come with him. He brought a [handwritten] sign that was against the president’s third term. He wanted to take a picture of me with the sign. I said: “I can’t be photographed in front of this sign. I’m not the person who wrote it and you didn’t catch me with it.” I said this in front of the [judicial police officer]. He supported me.
The activist was taken to the BSR, then released.

Lawyers who visited detainees in the BSR told Human Rights Watch that detainees held there before the coup attempt were kept in very poor conditions. Some arrived at the BSR lying face down in police vehicles, with police holding the detainees down with their feet, the lawyers said, while others were beaten when they were arrested.

Abuses and Threats by Imbonerakure
Since Burundi’s last elections in 2010, the ruling CNDD-FDD has used the Imbonerakure to threatenopposition party members and force them to switch their allegiance, often through violent means. FewImbonerakure have been brought to justice for these crimes.

Since the protests began on April 26, 2015, Imbonerakure have ill-treated and threatened suspected opponents of the CNDD-FDD. A 32-year-old Imbonerakure living in Bujumbura told Human Rights Watch on May 2: “We put down what we don’t agree with. We intimidate people. We tell them: If you aren’t part of our party, you won’t work anywhere in Burundi. Those who try to fight us, we can kill them.”

On April 30, a human rights activist saw about 30 Imbonerakure walking single file near the parish in Kanyosha, toward one of the areas of the demonstrations. Some were holding bicycle chains or machetes, the activist said.

An Imbonerakure living in Bujumbura said that Imbonerakure from Ngozi and Bubanza provinces had come to the capital to intimidate protesters and reinforce Imbonerakure and police there. He said that Imbonerakurewho succeeded in thwarting the demonstrators were promised up to 10,000 Burundian francs (US$5.71) for a day’s work:
The machetes, we don’t hide them. They are there to intimidate people. We don’t go up to the police. They see us and they let us do what we want. They are informed about what we should do.

Where I live, we have three guns in our group, Kalashnikovs. Our boss gave them to us. We’ve had [the guns] for a long time, since before the 2010 elections. Each group of Imbonerakure has some guns, even grenades and bullets.
We cannot go out without machetes, grenades, or clubs. We wear things we can hide this stuff in. We have sticks studded with nails. We yell at the demonstrators: “Those who want to die, come close!” [When we are at the demonstrations] nobody tells us what to do. We go there to stop the demonstrators so they don’t come to our zone and influence others.
Human Rights Watch interviewed a 26-year-old teacher and member of the opposition party FRODEBU-Nyakuri, who had fled to Rwanda in late March 2015. He said Imbonerakure had come to his school twice, on March 14 and March 21, and told him to renounce his party or lose his job:
On the evening of March 24, a friend warned me the Imbonerakure were looking for me at my house. They were armed with clubs, sticks, machetes, and iron bars. I called my neighbor to come help me. I left dressed in my pajamas and a T-shirt with the photo of Pierre Nkurunziza. Immediately [two of the Imbonerakure] made me lie on the ground and started to hit me. 
He said his neighbors called the police. The three Imbonerakure were arrested in connection with the beating but released the next day.

Curbs on Media Freedom, Threats Against Journalists and Human Rights Defenders
The government has targeted the media in its crackdown since protests began.

One of the government’s first measures was to close down one of the country’s most popular radio stations, Radio publique africaine (RPA), on April 27. Senior government officials and police entered the station’s offices, and ordered the journalists to leave and the radio station to close. On the same day, the government stopped Radio Isanganiro and Radio Bonesha FM from broadcasting outside the capital, cut off their telephone land lines, and prohibited all three stations from broadcasting live from the demonstrations.

In the following days, the Communications Minister Tharcisse Nkezabahizi called the director of Radio Isanganiro to his office several times to complain about the station’s broadcasts, choice of music, and treatment and choice of stories.

Soon after the coup attempt, during the early hours of May 14, people presumed loyal to the president attackedthe offices of RPA, Radio Bonesha, Radio Isanganiro, and Radio-Télévision Renaissance. None of these stations have broadcast since. There were also reports that unidentified people attacked the offices of Radio Rema FM, a station close to the ruling party, on May 13; it too has remained off the air.

The attack at Radio Bonesha was particularly violent, said journalists at the radio station and another witness. Men in police uniforms threw a grenade in the office and shot at the radio’s broadcasting equipment, destroying it. A man who happened to be in the vicinity witnessed the attack:
I saw a truck with police in it.… They started shooting at Bonesha. There were soldiers inside Bonesha, left by the putschists, I imagine. When the police heard the soldiers fire back, they said: “There are military inside.” They got back in the truck and drove off.

Then I saw a lot of police coming back, with heavy weapons. They took up positions in different places.… They forced open Bonesha’s gate and shot a lot. Many, many of them entered. I hid behind a building under construction.… I have never seen police with heavy weapons like this before. I saw them carrying rocket launchers over their shoulders. They were wearing new uniforms. After they entered the building and went upstairs, there was an explosion.
In a message to the nation on May 20, Nkurunziza warned “Burundian or foreign media who might try to broadcast information that could disseminate hate and division among Burundians and discredit Burundi, or encourage insurrection movements during this electoral period.”

In a five-page written statement on May 22, the government Secretary-General and Spokesperson Philippe Nzobonariba stated that radio stations had become “agents that convey the insurrection by propagating the most alarmist rumors in the country.”

Police have assaulted and threatened individual journalists. On April 29, two policemen accosted a Burundian press photographer who was taking pictures at the scene of a demonstration. The policeman grabbed the journalist’s camera and erased all of the photos. The policeman told the journalist that he couldn’t take pictures wherever he wanted and told the second policeman to force the photojournalist to leave: “He hit me four times on the left elbow. I asked him: ‘Why are you beating me like a criminal?’ He said: ‘I can even kill you.’”

On May 2, the same photojournalist received a telephone call from an unknown number. The caller did not identify himself. He said: “You see? It’s difficult to take pictures where you want to. You aren’t going to take photos. If you continue taking photos, you can even die.”

On May 4, a Burundian journalist and two colleagues were covering the demonstrations when several policemen approached his car, arrested the journalist, and accused his colleagues of having weapons. The journalist said the policeman claimed to have an SMS message ordering his arrest. Police released him later that night.

The following day, two men in civilian clothes, who did not identify themselves, arrived at the journalist’s house and told him to come with them to the police station. They questioned him and told him there was a list of journalists who work for the opposition and are financed by white people. When the journalist asked for further information, they said: “When you ask a lot of things, you will have a lot of things happen to you.”

The next day, two men in civilian clothes who said they worked for the government questioned a fellow journalist and told him: “You are on a blacklist like other journalists who work with white people.” It is unclear whether they were the same men.

Burundian human rights activists and other members of nongovernmental organizations have also been repeatedly threatened since April 26, especially those who have campaigned against Nkurunziza’s third term. A leading human rights defender, Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, president of the human rights group APRODH, was arrested on April 27 and released the following day. Many activists and journalists have gone into hiding for fear of arrest or reprisals by government agents.

Violence by Demonstrators
Some demonstrators have resorted to violence and intimidation, despite public appeals by leaders of nongovernmental organizations to keep the protests peaceful. In some areas, protesters have prevented residents from leaving their neighborhoods, turning them back at roadblocks and telling them to join or support the protests. Demonstrators have burned vehicles, attacked and ransacked buildings, and injured police by throwing stones. Demonstrators should refrain from acts of violence, Human Rights Watch said.

Demonstrators killed a suspected Imbonerakure in the Nyakabiga III neighborhood on May 7. A witness told Human Rights Watch that market women informed demonstrators that a vehicle had dropped off three unknown men in the area that morning. Demonstrators caught two of the men. One of the two said he was from the neighborhood but nobody recognized him. Demonstrators believed he was an Imbonerakure, surrounded him, and wanted to stone him to death. Some demonstrators didn’t agree and an argument broke out.

A witness at the scene said some demonstrators shouted: “We are being killed all the time. Since we are killed without scruples, we should kill him also.” Others said: “Kill him. [The Imbonerakure] throw grenades and they aren’t punished. We should punish them.”

Demonstrators surrounded the Imbonerakure, threw stones at his head, and hit him with clubs. After he died, they put a tire around his body and burned him. The killing should be investigated and those responsible brought to justice, Human Rights Watch said.

On May 7, demonstrators prevented students in Nyakabiga from attending school exams and refused to let them through roadblocks. They told parents there would be no national exams and that they should not take their children to school.

A teacher at a school where exams were due to take place said demonstrators yelled: “Don’t let the exams take place! They [the students] have to leave! If not, we’ll make them leave.” About 70 demonstrators threw stones at the school building. After talking with demonstrators, school staff agreed not to hold the exams. 

Saturday, 6 June 2015

In London, join the
Protest and Speak Out
THIS IS A PRISON NOT A HOLIDAY CAMP
Monday 15 June 12noon to 2pm
Parliament Square, nearest tube Westminster
Various Banners 1 (cropped).jpg
CLOSE YARL'S WOOD
AND ALL DETENTION CENTRES!
Detention without limit – Rape by guards – No healthcare – Mothers separated from their kids – Fast Track decisions – No legal representation – Profiteering from detainees' work – Violent deportations

Nigeria’s Shakespeare ‘too old’ for Oxforde

Nigerian writer and Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka is facing criticism over his decision to campaign for the position of poetry professor at Oxford University.
Soyinka
The prominent writer, who has written several books, collections of poetry and essays one of which won him the Nobel Prize in 1986was dubbed ‘too old and grand’ by broadcaster Melvyn Bragg who had initially offered his support to Soyinka. He now claims that Soyinka would probably not even bother to come to Oxford if he won the coveted position.
Soyinka, who has been backed by several Oxford alumnus as well as several professors at the esteemed university, hit out against Bragg’s unfair accusations.
“How curious that anyone would even speculate that I would allow busy and committed people – friends, colleagues and total strangers – to waste their time nominating and campaigning on my behalf for such a prestigious position if I were not serious about contesting,” he told the Guardian.
Competing against other well-known poets, including Simon Armitage, Soyinka received the  149 nominations from various Oxford alumnus ahead of the official voting set to take place later this month.
Soyinka’s personal representative for the campaign, Lucy Newlyn, a poet and professor of English at the university, also stood up for Soyinka, who was also criticised for not submitting a statement of intent.
“Geoffrey Hill, the current professor of poetry, did not submit a statement,” Newlyn said. “He, like Soyinka, is over 80, and his tenure has been a great success.
“Soyinka is a candidate of absolutely outstanding distinction, energy and enthusiasm. If elected, he will be totally committed to the post. Candidates are permitted to submit statements if they wish, but this is entirely optional.”
The Professor of Poetry position at Oxford is, in the world of poetry, second only to the position of Poet Laureate. Previous proffessors include Robert Graves, Seamus Heaney and W.H Auden. The person allocated the position, will be required to give a lecture on poetry at least 3 times a year.
In his own statement of intent, competing poet, Simon Armitage wrote that if he was given the position, he will use it to address the issues affecting poetry in the 21st century, suggesting the future of the beautiful and once revered art form, is slowly fading into obscurity.
If he wins, he intends “to discuss the situation of poetry and poets in the 21st century, to address the obstacles and opportunities brought about by changes in education, changes in reading habits, the internet, poetry’s decreasing ‘market share’, poetry’s relationship with the civilian world and the (alleged) long, lingering death of the book”.
Previous campaigns for Oxford’s professor of poetry have also been littered with controversy. In 2009, the first woman to be elected for position, Ruth Padel, resigned before taking the position, following a heated rivalry between her and her rival Derek Walcott and in which allegations of sexual harassment were made. Walcott also stood down during his campaign.
The winner of the position will be announced on June 19th.

Friday, 5 June 2015

African govts lose $11bn in taxes to multinationals, says OxfamAn international body similar to the World Trade Organisation could represent all countries’ interests and mediate disputes among taxation regimes, Oxfam said.

Multinational companies deprive African governments of $11 billion in taxes each year, and G7 world leaders should set up a new global body to regulate corporate taxation, Oxfam International said.
Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima
Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima
By shifting profits overseas to lower tax regimes, companies legally avoid paying taxes to the African countries where they generate revenues, depriving governments of money they desperately need for development, the anti-poverty group said in a report on Africa.
When leaders of the G7 major industrialised countries meet in Germany on June 7-8 to discuss how to support economic growth in Africa, a vital component of their talks should be comprehensive reform of the global tax system, Oxfam said.
“It’s absurd that there are international organisations for trade, health and football but not for tax,” Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima said.
Oxfam based its calculation of the tax revenue Africa loses on a United Nations-backed study released in April that estimated $50 billion in illicit funds flow out of the continent each year, much of it through corporate trade mispricing to avoid taxes or in transfers of money obtained corruptly.
This is almost double the official development aid Africa receives each year.
G7 leaders already are discussing how to make the global taxation system fairer, but developing countries complain they have no seat at the table in those talks, even though they are the victims of the present system.
Collecting more taxes would make them less dependent on aid, an issue that is gaining importance as world leaders prepare to adopt an ambitious new set of development goals for ending extreme poverty in September and climate goals by year end – all of which will be costly to fund.
“We have discussions this year that shape the development agenda for the next 15 years, and how we finance it is crucial to making progress,” Claire Godfrey, Oxfam senior adviser and author of the report, said in an interview.
Tax reform would go a long way towards funding new commitments to improve schooling and healthcare, she said.
For example, G7-based companies alone avoid about $6 billion a year in taxes due to African governments, more than three times the amount the Ebola-affected countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau need to plug their funding gaps to deliver free primary healthcare, she said.
One quarter of South Africans go to bed hungry each night and a further 25 percent are at risk of missing a meal, said Malcolm Damon, director of Economic Justice Network for southern Africa. Governments need resources to reduce poverty, he said.
“Though it is legal what transnational corporations are doing in transferring profits, the fact is that it is an immoral situation,” he said in a telephone interview.
The G7 summit takes place on June 7 and 8 in Bavaria, Germany, and in July world leaders and ministers meet in Addis Ababa to consider how to finance the new development agenda.

African leaders attend Buhari inaugurationUK’s Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond explained that the broader cooperation would be because of a confidence in the ability of President Buhari to push for the rank and file of the Nigerian military not to abuse, but respect human rights in the fight against terrorism.

South African President, Jacob Zuma, Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe and Ghanaian President, John Dramani Mahama led several African heads of state to the Eagle Square to witness the swearing of Muhammadu Buhari as the President and Commander in Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Muhammadu-Buhari-inauguration-20-
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola, and Mahamadou Issoufou of Niger Republic were also in attendance.
The United States Secretary of States, John Kerry represented President Barack Obama of the United States, while British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond represented Prime Minister David Cameron.
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has said it plans to pursue a broader security cooperation with Nigeria in the fight against terrorist sect, Boko Haram under the new administration of President Muhammadu Buhari. Such broader cooperation would include intelligence sharing with the military and provision of surveillance to track the terrorists.
Briefing newsmen after a meeting with President Buhari on Friday, Hammond explained that the UK was now committed to helping Nigeria tackle challenges, in a manner that was difficult before now.
He listed such challenges to include security, diversifying the economy from a reliance on oil, tackling corruption, ensuring that the security agencies respect human rights, and others.
Although the security situation in the North East is much better than it was before due to the cooperation with Nigeria’s neighbours, Hammond noted that it was necessary to crush the terrorist sect.
“Clearly there is a great atmosphere of expectations and there are great expectations for the future…we have always said Nigeria should be the powerhouse of Africa,” he said adding that the UK looks forward to working with Buhari as it did with his predecessors.
The Foreign Secretary noted that there are high expectations that the new President would particularly tackle corruption headlong as it remains a scourge that sucks wealth out of the country. Commenting on the capital intensive High Commission being constructed, Hammond described it as a sign of Britain’s long term commitment to Nigeria.

Former Lib-Dem leader dies at home‘A day before the election I got a text saying: ‘There is always hope – health remains fine,” Campbell wrote on his blog.

Former Lib-Dem leader Charles Kennedy had died at his home in Fort Williams, aged 55.
Kennedy
The politician, who struggled with alcoholism was found dead in his home by his partner Carol Macdonald, the widow of his best friend and fellow politician Murdo Macdonald.
During last month’s elections, Kennedy lost his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat to the SNP and his friends and family have said that he was ‘heart broken and devastated’ by the loss and have also stated that he was ill both before and after the elections.
Concerns about Kennedy’s health, particularly his drinking, grew following his defeat. His friends including journalist, Alistair Campbell, kept in constant contact with him, to ensure that he was well and not drinking. On the night before his death however, it is believed that he went out drinking and his close friend Lord Oakeshott lamented that ‘it was the drink that got him.’ While police have ruled out foul play in the case if Kennedy, and find suicide highly unlikely, it is strongly believed that illness as a result of his alcohol addiction is likely to have been the cause of his death.
‘A week later, health still fine, we chatted about the elections, and he did sound pretty accepting of what had happened. He said in some ways he was glad to be out of it. I am not totally sure I believed him, but he had plenty of ideas of how he would spend his time, how we would make a living, and most important how he would continue to contribute to political ideas and political life.
‘He was a very good friend. I just wish that we, his friends, had been able to help him more, and that he was still with us today’.
Kennedy first made his way into politics in 1983, at the tender age of 23, making him the youngest person to become an MP in Britain. In 1999 he became the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, which he headed for nearly 2 decades, leading them in one of their most successful elections. In 2006, however, his growing drinking problems forced him to step down from his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats, and led to the subsequent break down of his marriage.
Several politicians and other public figures have expressed sadness over Kennedy’s death.
“I’m deeply saddened by the death of Charles Kennedy,” Cameron tweeted. “He was a talented politician who died too young. My thoughts are with his family.”
Former Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg also expressed his condolences on Twitter.
“Charles Kennedy was one of the most gifted politicians of a generation…” Clegg wrote. “He always spoke with great humour, humility and courage.”
Kennedy leaves behind one 10 year-old son, as well as his partne

There Is No Missing Oil Money- Allison-Madueke


Deziani Allison-Madueke
Deziani Allison-Madueke

Last week we brought you the first of interview of former Petroleum Minister, Deziani Allison-Madueke. In the second phase of the interview, she explained on allegation of missing oil money, the importance of Petroleum Industrial Bill (PIB) and local contents which are her initiative in Nigerian oil industry
Excerpts
Has the release of the full PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report by Mr. President, put the matter of the alleged missing $20bn to bed?
It is not just about the PwC report. Every panel that has investigated this matter reached the same conclusion that there is no missing funds. I mean the figure kept changing. The former CBN governor alleged $49b; then the figure went to $20b; then $10b; then $11.8b; then he decided to go back to $20b in the international press. My brother please help me here we are talking about the federation account! It is no joke. This is the purse of an entire nation the means by which my brothers and sisters of this country survive and I don’t take it with levity at all. How can $49b or even $20b be missing from the purse of a nation? It is impossible. Think about it. The mere fact that the figure kept changing was sufficient proof that all that was required was reconciliation between the CBN and key ministries.
An inter-ministerial committee that first tried to unravel the mystery noted a few accounting discrepancies but said no fraud was involved. The Senate committee chaired by Senator Ahmed Makarfi discovered no wrong doings and concluded after exhaustive sessions that money was not stolen. The upper legislative chamber also wholly adopted that report. So yes, I would certainly say that the report by PwC has put the matter to bed and vindicated the NNPC.
But conspiracy theorists wouldn’t let the matter lie, even though one of the world’s leading auditors, PwC, was brought in to investigate.
So what did the report say?
Well PwC found that NNPC actually paid more, NOT LESS, than what was due from it into the federation account!
According to the report, there was indeed a shortfall between the amount ($69.34billion) the NNPC received from crude oil lifting and total cash ($50.81 billion) that the NNPC remitted to the Federation Account for the period January 2012 to July 2013. The report goes on to state clearly that the “NNPC has provided information on the difference leading to potential excess remittance of $0.74billion”.
In other words, according to the NNPC act, the corporation is allowed to run its expenses from the money it receives from crude oil and remit the balance to the Federation Account. This is absolutely permissible in accordance with the law as the corporation does not have any other source of income to run its operations. PwC found that the expenses NNPC actually incurred were more than it had deducted from crude oil receipts. So on that ground, it was the Federal Government that owed NNPC money and not vice versa.
Secondly, the PwC audit report found that there is some money that the NNPC has not duly paid to the Federation Account but they clearly state that this is not from the crude oil lifting that sparked the CBN governor’s missive. Rather it is from two quite unrelated transactions, the signature bonus for divested assets ($1.75 billion) and the unpaid self-assessed taxes and royalties of NPDC ($0.47 billion). After offsetting the $0.74 billion that NNPC had overpaid on crude oil lifting into the Federation Account, the net balance owed by NNPC to the Federation Account was $1.48 billion.
So did the report say that any money had been misappropriated or anyone corrupt? No. Did the report highlight any fraud or monies that could not be accounted for? No. Even where the report said NNPC was challenged to explain the selling of DPK to bulk DPK marketers at N40.90 rather than the regulated ex-depot price of N34.51, it immediately provided the explanation of the miscellaneous charges (including bridging, transport and administration) that accounted for the difference.
Thirdly, the report also said that given the amount deducted from crude oil lifting to defray NNPC expenses in the audited period and the fall of crude oil prices by over 60% since June 2014, NNPC’s ability to fund its operations was in peril since NNPC has no independent sources of revenue, other than from crude oil lifting receipts, meet its expenses.
Finally, in line with third point above, the report recommends, [which in many ways vindicates all of my reform activities and proposals at the start of my tenure], that the ‘NNPC model of operation must be urgently reviewed and restructured, as the current model which had been in existence since the creation of the Corporation cannot be sustained’. This is precisely what I have been saying since 2010, and backed up with action in the form of the extensive review and the submission of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) to be passed into law – this is bearing in mind that the PIB had been sitting in abeyance for over 12 years!
So what is the approval process like between the NNPC and the Ministry as for everything that happens in the sector, people are always quick to call your name. In other ministries the relevant parastatals take the heat or should I say the responsibility for their decisions?
My brother this is a very good point and good question. Why am I always the “fall-guy” when the parastatal heads are quite capable of taking responsibility! My name is perhaps one of the most searched on the internet why? Yes it’s an important role but there are lines of responsibility.
In the light of this question and the references in the press about “vague headings” in the PwC report, it will be instructive for me to mention the approval process between NNPC and the Ministry. As you know, NNPC is the technical/ operations arm while the Ministry gives policy direction. One of the first few things I did at the ministry was to ensure that there was a clear line of separation between the contract award process and myself. This was to remove any opportunity for bias, create clear walls and ensure contractors adhered to due process. This was not fully entrenched when I got into office and given the pressure that sometimes exists, I had to put layers into the process to ensure a cycle of critical checks across relevant parastatals and in-house technical experts before anything gets to my table for review or approval. This is a very sensitive and most important sector as every single decision has implications for Nigerians and cannot be taken lightly.
As a snapshot, for every operational decision NNPC’s technical team develops a proposal, which is reviewed by in-house technical staff of the appropriate parastatal. Together they check the soundness of the proposal and ensure that it meets the NNPC legal framework. That document then goes to an ad-hoc Executive Board committee who would review and refine. Then it goes the appropriate technical staff within the Ministry to review and comment working with the NNPC before it gets to the office of the Minister. At this point the team of experts presents the proposal to me and an ad-hoc ministerial technical review team (constituted based on subject matter expertise). Depending on the decision reached at this stage the proposal either goes back to the NNPC for further investigation or I place it before the Federal Executive Council for approval. So there is a rigorous process in place.
There are so many senior and technical staff involved in every decision and the ones that come to me are those that fit strict criteria while others are approved by the appropriate heads as specified by the law. So why is there are always so many attempts to spin the story to portray me in a bad light with such vitriol – such hate and anger? Is it because I am a woman? Is it because I am from a minority region in the country? I don’t understand. It always seems that people are so quick to persecute women in office much harsher. It really is quite sad. The thing is these women are someone’s mother, sister, aunty, even grandmother. They are trying to build for posterity. Time will judge and time will wipe out all of the social media nonsense and the truth will prevail. Anyway, despite it all I have soldiered-on channeling my energy into constantly improving and advancing the sector – doing my job for the great people of Nigeria. I always try to keep myself above the noise and not be dragged down by the persecution.
You touched on the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) earlier. Why did you feel the need for reform?
As I mentioned earlier I did 2 things with regards the reform of the petroleum sector during my first 100 days in office. First I created 4 Special Task Forces on the petroleum industry – The Petroleum Revenues Task Force; Governance and Controls Task Force; the National Refineries Task Force and the PIB Technical Committee. They were set up to investigate the current practices in the industry and look at ways to bring about full transparency to the oil and gas sector. A key part of the terms of reference was to as well as draw a road map for ending corruption and waste in this critical extractive industry to the full benefit of the peoples and governments of the Federal Republic of Nigeria at all levels.
I took the backbench and allowed the groups to work without let or hindrance.
Members of the task forces were allowed full access to the parastatals under the Petroleum Ministry to deal with all elements of their Terms of Reference to the extent members enjoyed full independence of thought and action. Today many of the recommendations of those committees are making a difference to how the sector is run.
Second, was the drafting of the new PIB. Following the submission of the draft Bill from the PIB Technical Committee I set up an inter-paratstatal team to review the recommendations to ensure that it would bring about significant gains for all Nigerians. Most importantly, the number ONE objective of the PIB was to remove the ‘Chinese-walls’ and make the Ministry including its parastatal more open, transparent and accountable to the people of Nigeria. Let us not forget that the industry had been operating under a 50 year old law that did not benefit Nigerians extensively – I wanted to change that. It is Nigeria’s resource and so Nigerians should be able to tap-it and benefit from it economically. This was my goal.
More specifically the PIB, represents the most aggressive review of Nigeria’s oil and gas legislation since the enactment of the Petroleum Act in 1969, and is an amalgamation of 16 previously existent laws. It is an omnibus regulatory instrument intended to reposition Nigeria’s oil and gas industry to allow Nigerians benefit even more from the output of the sector primarily by unbundling the NNPC and privatisation. The original law was extremely punitive to Nigerians and favoured the IOCs. The PIB would put the running of the corporation into the hands of Nigerians, making it accountable and more importantly, transparent.
So help us to clearly understand the PIB. How would it change status quo at the NNPC?
The changes, once the PIB is passed into law, would be far-reaching and extensive but it would bring the Nigerian oil & gas sector into the 21st century.
Let me quickly explain how:
(1) It would break up or unbundle the NNPC and make it more accountable and transparent to Nigerians. It would also, for the first time in history, give ordinary Nigerians a chance to participate in the running of the sector through a number of proposed privatisations that would have the effect of diluting the power of the minister in many ways. The Unbundling of NNPC as presented in the new PIB would lead to the creation of a National Oil Company that would focus on promoting indigenous operational capacity development and indigenous production.
(2) It would separate the Nigerian Gas Company (NGC) from NNPC as a partially privatised entity that will cater specifically for domestic gas marketing and domestic gas infrastructure development. The intention here is to accelerate our national gas infrastructure development for effective gas supply to homes, to electricity generation and to power industrial businesses. Nigerians would also get a chance to participate in the running of this company as private equity participation of up to 49% is being proposed.
(3) It would create a new National Oil Company (NOC) through the merger of 3 subsidiaries – the PSC assets, would be used to capitalize the National Oil Company, the National Petroleum Development Company (NPDC), the current three domestic refineries (WRPC, KRPC and PHRC) and the Pipelines and Products Marketing Company (PPMC). The new National Oil Company will also be partially privatized by up to 30% giving Nigerians and communities a seat in the operations of the company as is done in other NOCs such as Petrobras, Petronas etc. The partial privatisation would lead to a culture change and create a fully accountable and commercial company.
(4) A Petroleum Host Community Fund is proposed in the PIB to formally recognise host communities as important stakeholders in the oil & gas sector by assigning oil and gas infrastructure security to the Host Communities minimising environmental degradation due to vandalism and crude oil theft.
(5) The PIB will give distinct preference for Nigerian goods and services through a cap on foreign-based capital expenditure, thus creating incentives to increase the amount spent by oil companies for major operations within the country.
(6) The PIB represents the largest overhaul of the government petroleum revenue system in the last four decades. It would simplify the way revenue is collected for the government making it very easy to deliver accounts to Nigerians in a manner that is easily understood with no ambiguities.

So what was the big fuss about passing it to law, as all I can hear is benefits to the Nigerian public?
I think the generality of Nigerians understood the benefits but again the vested interests were at play, confusing the minds of the polity and the legislators about the inherent changes the passing of the PIB would bring. I was pleased that the independent auditor (PwC) echoed the need for a vigorous change to the system. I mean think about it, the sector has been operating under a punitive law for 50 years! More importantly, the sector has been a mystery to Nigerians in the way it operates and gives account so of course there would always be suspicions of foul play – something had to be done or the place would grind to halt from the excesses in the system as there is no other means for the organisation to generate its own income apart from production.
The two allegations that came out were first – “the minister is going to have too much power in the running of the sector”. My brother, I have just explained how there would be an unbundling and privatisations which automatically dilutes the minister’s powers and gives more control to the people of Nigeria! There would be significant changes to status quo. Generational businesses would be created. There would be a credible National Oil Company that would be able to go and raise it own funding to participate competitively in bids rounds within and even outside the country as it would be run as a commercial enterprise. It could even be listed on stock exchanges in the future bringing significant gains to its shareholders and the country.
The second allegation was that of the proposed fiscal terms in the case of onshore/offshore Joint Venture (JV) projects. This was the argument of the International Oil Companies (IOCs). They felt that the terms were too strict. My brother, by strict they meant that it would force them to give more to Nigeria and Nigerians! How can this be a bad thing given that they had been benefiting from a lax system for 50 years! Even they should have anticipated change. But the most important thing is that Nigeria is not alone in the “tightening” of fiscal terms during successive bid rounds or ad-hoc awards. In fact Nigeria remains one of the most attractive countries in terms of fiscal regimes (Government Take).
As an indicator of competitiveness, the latest Angola rounds shows Government Take (GT) at the level, which is less favorable to contractors than the current terms proposed in PIB 2012. Interestingly, these terms will also apply to the National Oil Company as it is not intended to be discriminatory.
The goal has always been to achieve a fair balance between government and contractor share. This is to ensure that Nigeria remains competitive when compared to other countries with similar petroleum resource base.
As we are on the subject of policy promulgation let me bring up the Nigerian Local Content Act. I have heard you speak severally during our conversation about opening the sector up to more Nigerians do you think this has been achieved?
I have indeed been very pleased with the success of the Nigerian Content Act, which I drove extensively until it was instituted and signed into law by Mr. President in April 2010. This is because I strongly believe that Nigerians are fully capable of making the sector work harder for benefit of all Nigerians in a manner that would deliver immediate value. Today we are now beginning to actually feel and realise the full potential of the benefits from the downstream service sector of the oil and gas industry and Nigerians are getting involved in leasing and servicing, various downstream elements of the sector.
Nigerians are moving into the areas of building fabrication plants and pipeline mills, and manufacturing a number of the parts used in this sector – something that had never been seen before. This is giving a completely new slant to the oil and gas sector – it is opening up the sector for job creation and employment generation, which was not the case before, as it is a highly capitalised and technology driven sector.
What makes this Act so special?
The Local Content Act was one of the very first acts of policy reform that was introduced in the infancy of the Jonathan administration. It is the first of its kind in Nigeria and the first in West Africa. Nigeria remains the best case study of enactment and implementation in Africa.
To ensure the continuous development of opportunities for Nigerians and most importantly, monitoring to ensure compliance to the specifications of the Act, a specific agency was created (National Content Development and Monitoring Board – NCDMB) and charged with this responsibility.
Today, the results of the implementation of this Act are plain to see. It has resulted in the creation of more than 300,000 direct and indirect jobs. Peoples individual lives and the lives of communities round about this country has changed completely as a result of their involvement in a sector which hitherto was a great mystery to all.
More than 300 Nigerian oil and gas companies has been established, operating across a wide range of activities from steel pipe manufacturing, to oil reservoir management, to deepwater installation maintenance, to production of wellhead platforms – fields previously the preserve of foreign companies.
The level of participation of Nigerians in upstream contracts for exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources has increased from less than 10% to over 70%. The number of Nigerian companies that own shares in oil blocks onshore, offshore and deep offshore is at levels that have not been seen before.
Over $200b worth of procurements and nearly $10b worth of research and development (R&D) that used to be sourced to international companies as well as technical services valued at nearly $80b and $39b worth of engineering works are now retained in-country.
The list continues…
The Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) integration capability has been aggressively developed in-country. The Ministry has directed that all future FPSO integration be carried out on home soil.
Indigenous investments have been made for the first time in critical infrastructure such as marine vessels, petroleum depots and jetties. Circa 50% of marine vessels operating in the Nigerian oil and gas industry are now Nigerian-owned and deepwater rigs have also been acquired.
Multinationals and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), have put in place investments valued at over $5b in Nigeria to establish facilities and infrastructure, to domicile construction, manufacturing and services in the country.
New pipe mill projects are underway and spread across Polaku in Bayelsa State, Calabar in Cross River, Ologbo in Edo State and Onne in Rivers State. These will generate over 25,000 jobs.
The Nigeria Oil and Gas Park Scheme (NOGaPS) is attracting multinationals and (OEMs) to establish manufacturing shop floors close to oilfields. SMEs, youths and community vendors are the beneficiaries of the scheme and wealth is now being created at the grassroots of the oil producing communities.
And this, my brother is just a summarised list, a tip of the iceberg. The NCDMB have published the successes of the law and the benefit to Nigerians.

What is your view on the impact of this Act?
The one key benefit of the law is that it has allowed more women to enter the sector! This is what warms my heart and something I extremely happy about. To see young women working actively in the sector as business people and also on the field as engineers and decision-makers are a joy to me. Every time I would go on inspections and encounter any of these brave women I would always give them absolute recognition to salute them and encourage them to lift up more women. This is something I pushed for – that the sector opens up to women. The glass ceiling for women entering as entrepreneurs used to be very high. For me, as the first woman to be given the opportunity to run this male-dominated sector, I broke that ceiling and opened the door for women.
Look today Nigerians (men and women) are respected around the world and compared to the people of the Middle East as new wealth has flown into the hands of Nigerians. Young businesses are thriving, Nigerians can afford new and better lives, communities are evolving. Bear in mind that we are seeing these benefits at the infancy of this law. We are still cutting-our-teeth as they say. But just imagine what the country would look like in another 3 to 4 years time when the law becomes more embedded and the gains of the law is pushed down further into the fabric of Nigeria – the country will be transformed. All of our social services will improve, as Nigerians will be able to afford more – hospitals, schools, SME businesses…
My brother, changes are occurring in the Oil & Gas sector and changes do not come over night. You are sitting in a sector, which has many times, over the last 25 odd years or so been lambasted for corruption and non- transparency. We have been here for just over 4 years and the change is already in place and it is progressing. I do believe that already a lot of the outputs of these reforms are taking shape and over the next 3 years it would be engrained and enshrined and will be very palpable and very clear but already I can confidently say that we have made good progress and a lot more progress will be made over the next few years.
I want to seize this opportunity to say thank you to all the staff of the Ministry and its parastatals as well as the many people that worked with me during the formulation and institutions of the reforms that have taken place. There were trying times and celebratory times but all in all I can say we delivered for the people of Nigeria in many ways and in this I say also thank you to the people of Nigeria.
Yes this is one legacy – local content – that I hope would trail this administration for many many years to come.