Espying the Challenge of Elite Dishonesty: Beyond the NIIA’s Own Quest for a Better Nigeria
The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) responded in an advertorial to my Vie Internationale of September 9, 2018, entitled ‘Ike Nwachukwu’s Quest for a Better Nigeria and the Challenge of Elite Dishonesty: Quo Vadis’. It is a most welcome advertorial but mainly predicated on half-truths. As virtually the main issues raised are already in courts of competent jurisdiction, attempt will only be given here on the focus of the advertorial.
The NIIAAdvertorial not only provided its own version of the truth on the ‘NIIAand the Ike-Nwachukwu-led NIIAGoverning Council,’ but also has it that ‘the only aim here is to respond to the points raised concerning the NIIAand the Council. There are four (4) points under reference’. We will limit our reactions to the four points as raised in the advertorial.
The first point is the position of this Column, which is that the Nwachukwu-led Governing Council covered up an alteration of promotion examination results but the advertorial claims that ‘it did not’. In justifying this claim, it submitted that the Council ‘only directed that query be issued with a view to taking action in the next meeting. Furthermore, nobody was promoted in that case.’ Let us first espy this version of the truth to determine the extent of truth by asking some questions.
If the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council directed that a query be issued to the Director of Administration and Finance, Miss Agatha Elochi Ude, who was accused of several falsifications, is the NIIAManagement now claiming ignorance of the fact that Miss Ude not only admitted to the falsification before the meeting of the Council but also gave apology at the meeting?
This action alone speaks volumes and raises more questions: who did the Council direct to issue the query? During the tenure of the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council, I was the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute. To my knowledge nobody was directed and I was never given any directive to issue any query, more so that I was the complainant. In the next meeting during which a decision was to be taken, what really was the action recommended? Which concrete action was taken? Let us seek the truth.
The NIIAadvertorial says that “nobody was promoted in that case. This submission is far from being the issue. The main issue is that an infraction was committed and Vie Internationale is claiming a conscious and reckless cover up of the infraction. If the explanation of the NIIAManagement is that nobody was promoted, this does not remove of the fact that there was an infraction which should have been sanctioned by a Governing Council preaching the sermon of sanity, rule of law and due process. What everyone should be interested in is more information on the issue of query. There was no query and all efforts were made to prevent the issuance of any query. In fact, Miss Agatha Elochi Ude was issued a first query before the matter was referred to Council for further directives.
What is noteworthy from the foregoing is that if a query was directed to be issued to Miss Agatha Ude, it means that she had truly committed an infraction and if there had not been any query, the Public should simply take further interest in knowing why? This Column stands by its assertion that the Ike-Nwachukwu-led Governing Council of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, not only consciously but also cautiously covered up the infraction with the ultimate objective of undermining good governance required for the achievement of the mandate of the NIIA.
Point 2 is on the candidates for professorial appointments. In reaction to Vie Internationale’s claim that the Ike-Nwachukwu-led Governing Council interfered in the assessment of professorial candidates, the NIIAadvertorial has an explanation to the claim: ‘what appeared as interference was a response to series of petitions by the candidates to the Council. The Council had to find a solution to the issues raised and that meant deeper involvement in the process than would otherwise be. And the process was still incomplete when the tenure of the Council ended.’
This submission is only good to the extent that the Council provided a rationale for the interference. The Council has simply admitted interference in the day-to-day management of the Institute contrary to governmental instruction. The instruction, to borrow the words of the incumbent Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs. Ekanem Oyo-Ita, at the Institute of Directors’ Conference held on November 8, 2018 in Abuja, when explaining the roles and responsibilities of Boards of Parastatals, is that ‘a Board shall not be involved directly in the day-to-day manage- ment of a parastatal or an agency.’ If for whatever reason, there has to be direct involvement, the purpose must not be partisan. It must be justice- and fairness-seeking. More disturbingly, let us hypothetically admit the rule of force majeure in the interference: must the interference take another form of infraction? In an attempt to deal with or respond to the alleged series of petitions, were there or no replies to the petitions? If there were official responses to the petitions, what were the official reactions of the Ike-Nwachukwu-led Governing Council to the official replies to the petitions? In fact, what is the final decision of the Council on the matter? The truth is that the Council kept quiet about the replies that I provided but continued to preach the gospel according to the petitioners.
Put differently, the point being made here is that if there were petitions against the Director General and the Director General provided his own explanations, one of the two parties, that is, the DG or the petitioners, must be right or wrong. Let the NIIA Management tell the Nigerian public, what was the ruling of the Council. The Council was only much delighted in issuing me with queries but unable to act when faced with the truth: were the petitions validly sustained?
The Council directed that the papers of the professorial candidates should not be sent abroad for assessment. Why? This is global best practice in the academic world worldwide. It is important to remind the NIIAmanagement that the then Director of Research and Studies, Professor Ogaba Danjuma Oche, informed the professorial candidates that the Director General was about to send their papers to international assessors abroad and that doing so was contrary to the practice.
Armed with this information, the professorial candidates sent petitions to the Council and the Council granted their prayers. I gave the Council documentary evidences showing that assessors were always appointed on the basis of their expertise and not on the basis of their location. That the Director of Research and Studies, Professor Ogaba Oche, illegally informed the professorial candidates, which is an act of serious misconduct in itself, and that the professorial candidates had the audacity to request the Council
The problem created by the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council for today and which tomorrow may not be able to cope with successfully, is the establishment of a new category of Professors in the NIIA.The existing category of NIIA Professors is that of those who either had three on three points or two on three points, and therefore, are qualified.The other new category of Professors is the Governing Council-Assisted Professors (GCAP).They are, at best, GCAP and not Professors of the NIIA. Appointments on the basis of political lobbying, and for that matter, on the basis of obtaining one and a half points on three, are not compatible with the tradition of the Institute. If the Management is to be worth its position, let it publish all the contents of the petitions and the replies to them and let the court of public opinion decide since the Federal Government has opted to condone the situation until now
to prevent the sending of their papers abroad, and the Council so accepted, are some of the ordeals I was fighting tooth and nail. This is part of the reasons I have always considered that the Nigerian system discourages honesty of purpose, dint of hard work, and patriotism, and protection of values of integrity and nationalism. Why seek to bastardise academic professorship?
Professorship, like Military General-ship, is not a commodity normally put on shelf in the market for sale. You either earn the status of professorship or not. You do not lobby or bring nepotism into its acquisition. It is not a chieftaincy title that can be given to highest bidders on the whims and caprices of a monarch but the Ike Nwachukwu-led Council already turned it so. This is my own opinion.
Secondly, even if we have to forcefully admit sending the papers to local assessors, there is still the need to query the disagreement between the Council and the Director General on the matter. The Council wanted an Associate Professor of only two years to be assessed for promotion to the full professorial cadre. The Council did not believe that the NIIAhad its own tradition borrowed largely from the University of Lagos. Even when the Council was prevailed upon to accept the minimum of three years required before consideration of eligibility for professorial assessment, it dictated to me the contents of the letter to be sent to the assessors. The dictated letter asked that the DG’s initial letter should be disregarded. The Council compelled the Director General to sign the dictated letter and the Council dispatched the letters to the assessors by itself.
One thing is noteworthy about the eligibility for NIIA professorship. The tradition is that, 2 points on 3 points must be obtained to qualify for eligibility. When letters are sent to assessors, it is clearly stated that they are all required to indicate whether the candidate has passed fully or marginally. Full pass attracts one full point while marginal pass only attracts half point. The maximum point obtainable from three assessors is therefore three, while the minimum point obtainable is either zero or half point. To qualify for professorial appointment, two points on three must not only be scored but must also have other favourable reports.
The truth is that only one of the two candidates assessed scored two points and was in the circumstance, eligible, while the other candidate scored one and a half points and was therefore not eligible. The relevant observational question is this: will the candidate have ever scored one and a half points if there had not been any interventional influence on the assessors? When the Council wanted to know from the Director General about the results, the Director General told them that a member of Council was already linking up with the assessors, but the member said he was not getting in touch in respect of assessments. Who wants to believe this type of story? The Director General respectfully suggested to the Council to continue to link up with the assessors as it so desired.
The management of the NIIAis also submitting that the process was still incomplete when the tenure of the Council ended. This observation is most unfortunate because it consciously seeks to cover up again the foundations already laid by the Council before the end of its tenure. It consciously closes its eyes to the fact that before the end of the tenure of the Council, one of the Council members, an ambassador, was mandated to discuss with the petitioners, particularly Dr. Efem Ubi, who was advised to apologise to the Director General, when he could not substantiate his allegations against the Director General and who, during a Council meeting, accepted to apologise, but also later reneged because of the need to avoid jeopardising the interests of other petitioners at stake.
Let me also recall that I clearly stated in my handover note and report to the Government how the Ike-Nwachukwu-led Governing Council had destroyed the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs beyond repairs. I have been drawing attention to this matter since 2015, but to no avail. This is why I strongly believe that the NIIAManagement did well by responding to it for the first time. What is more interesting about the advertorial is that the NIIAManagement suddenly woke up to discover that Ike-Nwachukwu’s quest for a better Nigeria is worth dealing with. It is also interesting too that the NIIAManagement is attracted by the challenge of elite dishonesty.
I am therefore more than convinced beyond any jot of doubt that the elite, and particularly the public servants put in position to advise Mr. President, are largely responsible for all the various challenges with which the Mohammadu Buhari’s administration is facing today, the elite is so unnecessarily dishonest by way of misguidance and untruth.
The third point raised by the NIIAadvertorial is accommodation rent. Vie Internationale, as claimed by the advertorial, said ‘the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council imposed an unfair rental system which made some to pay N90,000, while others pay as little as N14,000 for the same apartments.’ And true, who says that it is not unfair? The NIIAManagement says ‘the said block of flats is NIIAcontrolled Federal Government’s property. What the Ike Nwachukwu-led Council did was to resolve the issues pertaining to accommodation brought before it by adopting a formula provided for in the NIIAconditions of service which stipulated that rent for staff should be 8.5% of individual gross salary income for every occupant. Hence the difference in payments for the rent is a reflection of the variations in the rank and salary levels of the staff living there.”
(See concluding part on www.thisdaylive.com)