I wrote when we were 40.  When I next wrote on our marking of October 1, we were 42.  The title of the piece was A Fool at 42 (see pages 135-137 and 453-456 of Democracy Watch, A Monitor’s Diary, Vol.1).

I would like to reproduce the first three paragraphs of the latter piece and précis the last paragraph so that you can decide for yourself whether we are on so-called course or we are still swimming in the dirty pool of the foolish. I said on Sunday, September 29, 2002,  “We are 42 on October 1.

We thank God that in spite of everything we have done to destroy the Nigerian edifice, we are still together in one piece. Someone told me that we are in one piece because God is the author of Nigeria and that no one can destroy what God has built.

I almost laughed because his faith in what God has willed had, built into it, the seeds of blasphemy.

What if Nigeria had broken up between 1967 and 1970 when we fought the civil war? What if Nigeria had broken up when Orkar and his angry coup makers expelled five states in the North in 1990 for being the cause of Nigeria’s problems? What if Nigeria had broken up when the June 12 presidential election which Abiola won was annulled?

The one claiming that God is the author of Nigeria and so Nigeria would not break up would have sustained a fanatical dream that would sooner than later blow up in his face. I believe that God gave us Nigeria to do what we like with it and bear the consequences of doing so. It is our collective decision, more than anything else, that has sustained us, and will continue to do so.

But that volition is weakening by the day, not because we have said we are packing the country up, but because we have been acting as those who want the country packed up. It is therefore our collective volition that will destroy this country because the seeds of disharmony we have lately been sowing will bear fruit. That is how God works..”

At the end of the piece, I told you Happy Birthday and asked, “What are you giving to a country that you have always taken from?” My own gift, I said, “is a pamphlet entitled To Save Nigeria Let’s Talk”.

I told you where to collect copies of the pamphlet from and said, “The debate must begin on October 1 so that we can move from our fanatical posture of believing that Nigeria can never die, in spite of our schemings”. 

Because the pamphlet had been out of print and the demand for it w as still heavy, I had to include it as Appendix 2 of Vol 2 of Democracy Watch (pages 491-501).

That debate is still on, from the 2005 National Political Reform Conference whose recommendations were thrown away by the National Assembly because of the bid to destroy Obasanjo’s dream of a third term tenure, through the work done by Anthony Enahoro and Wole Soyinka in PRONACO, to the current preparation by the National Assembly to spend an initial N1billion on a committee of 88 of their members to anchor and moderate the changes that would lead to the amendments to the Constitution. 

But what will undermine any meaningful changes to the way the people are governed is already focused by two seemingly unrelated actions - the oath of secrecy administered by a High Court judge to all cadres of workers in the presidency; and the changes the Senate of the National Assembly is said to be wanting to push into the Freedom of Information Bill before they pass it into law.

Both acts are retrogressive, unpatriotic, insulting and are a present to us at age 48, a Greek gift that we, 140 million of us minus the few schemers that want to give the National Assembly and the presidency a bad name, must be totally mobilized to reject in the national interest or remain more enslaved than we ever were even during colonial times.  

Let us take the National Assembly insult and assault first. Access to information legislations are a  trend this 21st century has brought into sane governance; and sane governance is governance in which the people increasingly have a say in how those they chose to rule them are performing. In 1990, only 13 countries had access to information laws.

At the last count, the number had increased to 70; and 20-30 other countries, including Nigeria were processing legislation for the owners of information that people in government hold in trust to have access to it. 

There is not even one government in the world today that is not in trouble and crumbling for failing to read the handwriting on the wall - that those who govern must do so in broad daylight and in front of the television cameras.

So for anyone to suggest that for Nigerians to access information of public interest, they must first apply to a high court for permission so to do is the greatest disservice that can be inflicted on the fatherland.

Restrictions of the volume and dimension the National Assembly is contemplating may result  in the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance barring current access to what we have in the federation account and how the money is being disbursed; or the information on remuneration packages for public officers being classified so that that any unauthorized disclosure would lead to the affected officer being sent to jail for up to 14 years! 

That is the degenerate level we have sunk in a country that has chosen democracy and social justice as its governance plank. Only last year, the British Parliament accepted to consider a private member’s bill to exempt themselves from the operation of aspects of their freedom of information act! Our lawmakers may well copy from our former masters!

The second birthday gift officialdom is handing over to the people who gave them the mandate is the oath sworn to recently by staff in the presidency.

No, I am not quarreling with the legality of the oath, as some highly-placed colleagues of mine in the legal profession have done, but with the legitimacy. An oath of secrecy is like the promise you make not to reveal your company’s trade secrets. In our system, it is already built into the oath of office certain grades of public officers take.

So any oath outside the ones listed in Schedule Seven to the constitution would be naturally suspect. But Schedule Seven commits certain grades of office holders to the oath of allegiance and the oath of office. Distasteful as it may be, there is provision for those in political office to appoint people who can help them as assistants and consultants.

Because of this position, the appointees have access to information which they have to swear not to disclose to any unauthorized persons.

The oath of secrecy is, therefore, to the person occupying a position rather than protecting the position itself. It is here there is a lot of concern. Should the person imposing the oath right to do so? Should there be an oath of secrecy to Yar’Adua or one to protect the goings-on in the office of president or governor or chairman of council?

Yes, the oaths of allegiance and office are enough for those listed to take them. But there are other classes of officers, like the lower cadre of civil servants who take the oath of secrecy to protect service records.

The question is whether there is need for such an oath when a breach of the Official Secrets Act has clear provisions on what will befall the officer that is guilty of the breach. And another question is why do it so publicly that meanings can be read into why it was done.

Does that act speak for openness and transparency in government or for arm-twisting tactics to prevent the goings on being disclosed?    

The motto of every government is to keep its secrets secret. The battle is unending, therefore, that while the people want information of public interest disclosed, those in government seek to punish such disclosures.

After amalgamation, Lugard promulgated the Official Oaths Ordinance which came into effect on September 21, 1916. It has been amended from time to time to reflect changes in government.

The difference between the oaths of allegiance before independence and after is that those who took the oath of allegiance and office did so then to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law”, while now it is the to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Forms of oaths in Schedule 1 to the Oaths Law of Lagos State, for example, include oath of allegiance, oath of office of governor, oath of members of the executive council, oath of office of commissioner, judicial oath and oath of secrecy. 

The oath of secrecy is like the one administered to 70 workers in the presidency.  That in Lagos State says, “I……swear that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal any matter to any person which shall be brought under my consideration or shall come to my knowledge in the discharge of my official duties or as may be specially permitted by the governor.  So help me God”. 

The second schedule to the Oaths Law shows that persons to take the oath of secrecy are “all members of the public service of the state and such other persons holding positions or as the case may be executing official functions designated by the governor in the gazette.”  
The person to administer the oath is the head of the ministry or a person authorized by him.

There is no punishment for not taking the oath, but unless you accept to take the oath when you are asked so to do, you will lose your job because refusal to take the oath is refusal to assume the office.

It may well be that those who asked political appointees in the presidency to take the oath of secrecy panicked because of the way information being published is purported to have emanated from the presidency!  But they did not have to have asked that the oaths be taken before cameras. 

These oaths have been taken over time and are still supposed to be taken before the officers assume office. Section 29 of the Electoral Act of 2006 provides for INEC staff and all those conducting elections to take an oath of neutrality and loyalty indicating that they would not accept bribe or gratification from anyone and would perform their duties impartially.

We are all witnesses to what happens at elections!  So you see, these oaths don’t kill because those who take them have no respect for the Bible or the Holy Qur’an.  Why not use, say a cutlass so that if they ever set eyes on any metal on breach of the oath, they will die!  Well, because we are still in one piece, Happy Birthday.

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Title:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Be the first to comment on this article