The Integrity Coup & Other Stories...

Google Images

1.    To save the king, sacrifice the far Rook.

No doubts I am not the only one who ever thought Farouk and his Integrity Group were rather insufferably self-righteous. My view was not helped by the measured, deliberate gait and knowing smirk that always plays around the diminutive Rep’s lips. So, ordinarily, I should laugh and scoff at another reminder that in the “fallible realm”, we are all casualties (apologies JP Clark).  But I’m not laughing. I am merely shaking my head at the absolute lack of subtlety employed in a bid to bury yet another revealing Report. The intended logic is crisp: no noble end can be achieved through a flawed process. And typical of Nigerians, we are already falling over ourselves in condemnation and counter-positioning; relegating the very grave implications of the ‘subsidy fraud’ to the trenches. A chess-man’s master-stroke, this: play the far Rook in for the king. However this ends, I will not be bothered anymore. But we should take home a lesson to guide future Probes. A temporary cloak of immunity should be vested on every quasi-judicial panel, to curtail distracting allegations, true or not, at least for the duration of their assignments.  If all the judges in the country routinely answer imputations to their character, we will not move a step forward in justice delivery. And the Probe Report should stand as it is, on the facts available. Let every indicted party escape on the strength of his evidence, not on the morals of the arbiter. I rest.

2.    Rochas & the 4-tier National Cake

Irrespective of what his adversaries say, I think the affable Imo state leader is interestingly progressive. He doesn’t just think outside the box, he thinks beyond the room as well.   How else can you describe his dynamic interpretation of “growth in governance” expressed by birthing a younger sibling for the much maligned 3^rd tier of government. He named this 4^th tier, “Community Government”. By the time this gentleman is through with a possible 2^nd term, Imo state will become a city of leaders, literally. There will be no ‘followers’’ left.  The next steps should include town-hall and kindred governments vested with the noble mandate of settling family disputes and drawing budgetary allocations accordingly. Pure genius!

3.    Death to Paedophiles!

Sickening story; but a perfect ending! A man in Texas caught a grown man fondling his 4 year old daughter and delivered lethal punches to the paedo’s head and neck. The man died. I double-dare the Law to as much as raise a single charge against this father, and it will expose itself as a blubbering ass after all. The dude should be awarded a hero’s medal and we do not even need to wade into fine legal lines of his duty under law to defend another from assault, or extreme provocation as the case may be.  Child sexual abuse is the lowest of the low, and death is even too easy a way out! The torture-experts in China fashioned a perfect legal regime to curb the evil tendency: Chemical castration. Yes, a bottle of bad fluids is injected into the abuser, and his cookie crumbles for life.  And this, from a country with a record of the most, well, modest lower-chambers.  Now you talk of Texas where everything is big! There’s no way that man was surviving the father’s ire. No frigging way!

4.    The Customer is always right (here to be played)

I ran into a friend the other day and he showed me an SMS alert stating that his Bank had deducted N3, 500 from his account in order to conduct a legal search on his company. He had just opened a corporate account for the said company. I stormed into the bank and let loose wildly. My position: At the time of opening the account, the customer tendered all requisite documents and references which the bank demanded, and the account was opened on the basis that the documents were presumed regular. Any extra act of due diligence should be borne by the bank! It is like telling the vendor of a piece of land to bankroll the buyer’s investigative search at the land registry.  I was making headway in my tirade, but oh dear! Trust Nigerians, the murmurs of an impatient queue met me headlong.  “Oga, na because of common 3, 5 you dey take our time?’’ This emboldened the hitherto cowering Bank Manager and he superciliously crooned “it is standard banking policy, sir. And if you don’t mind, please make way on the queue”.  Standard Banking policy? To sneakily pilfer a customer’s money without advance notice?  It is theft, theft! Theft!

Promising fire and brimstone, I turned to storm out of the building with my ‘client’...he was flirting with the Customer Care desk-lady, all smiles.

Good luck Nigeria!




Also published in THISDAY Newspapers, Tuesday June 19, 2012

What would you inherit from the Boss when he dies?

Google Images

At some point in the lawyer’s career, he would have to set up a Practice of his own. One would find then that the biggest headache is not sourcing requisite financial resources, but in accessing the right Legal staff.  We all know that CVs are the biggest fraud: mere shadowy adornments recycled from pre-existing templates. And the same old “tell us about yourself” crap at Interviews do not help matters either. It becomes dangerous then to use them as sole yardstick. That ‘seasoned’ taxation attorney may turn out to be a perennially inept bungler, incapable of unsupervised completion of any intellectual activity. Or worse, the focus may disproportionately lie on the academic laurels, and conceal certain personal habits which would eventually unfold in alarming installments. By then, it is a wee too late!

We therefore recommend a whole new approach at Staff Interviews. No litanies of glowing references or list of personal honours and awards, nah! Our approach is built on a fundamental human truth: A man is only as good as his motivation, no further. To achieve this, the interview session should be limited to just one question: IF I DIE AS YOUR BOSS, WHAT WOULD YOU WISH TO INHERIT FROM ME?

From the possible answers, we achieved a 5-pronged classification of Legal staff. Here goes:

1.      The one that wishes to inherit your CAR

He is the drifter. He has no character, no career plan and no long term goals. Odds are, he was ‘forced’ to study Law and merely wishes to make a living anyhow. It is ironic, but if all he wants is your car, then he has no drive. He will make nil independent contribution to your practice, and will merely take instructions, and perform them- just to guarantee his monthly pay. Depending on his (physical) work-rate, you may keep him and throw in the occasional pay raise until you have completely squeezed any possible substance from his skeletal aptitude, then discard his worn carcass for the next victim.

2.      The one that wishes to inherit your LIBRARY

Meet the Hypocrite. Mr. ‘Eye-service’. He is the one that claims that- “I am in this profession to build myself; I don’t really care about money.” He is not to be trusted. No man voluntarily embraces starvation. Law Libraries are a useless inheritance.  They are not marketable. Why? If you are a general practitioner, it means every other lawyer has your kind of books already, and if you are a Consultant in a unique field, then no other lawyer wants your books at all.  The Hypocrite therefore elects to keep the Library in order to cuckold you to believe that he is a selfless knowledge seeker. Bulls!  But then, you can make the most of this as boss. Here is the ideal Office spy who will backbite the others to win your thumbs up.  More so, if you are of a miserly leaning, you have earned an easy prey. Instead of pay-raises, buy him books and follow up with lectures on how “you will get to become a better lawyer than me someday soon, if you stay focused on knowledge-seeking”. Endure his irritating obsequiousness and keep his salary stagnated. He will not have the balls to argue…that is, until threats of destitution reveal his true colours. By then, you would have discarded him of course.

3.      The one that wishes for A YEAR’S SALARY IN ADVANCE

 This is the realist. He is the one that will keep you from becoming too dictatorial. He makes it clear that he is in this game for something and will not be shortchanged on any account. He is the devil’s advocate. Odds are that he also knows his onions, and attaches value to them accordingly. You can’t pull the rug from his feet easily. Every employment condition must be written (no vague oral promises) and he will naggingly follow up with email reminders. He is unreliable too because he is ambitious in a strictly individualistic sense and does not give hoots about the corporate existence of the Firm. He may also be difficult to get rid of, because he is well versed with all the statutory terminal benefits and corresponding compensations. So, it’s either you take him on board and behave, or kick him out and run the Firm your own bloody way.

4.      The one that wishes to inherit NOTHING

This is the shameless liar and you employ him at your own risk. He is the sneaky one, who probably has nothing to offer and thus has not formal expectations. He is the one that hopes to make his money by swindling you: exaggerating filing fees and cooking up ‘expediency charges’.  He wants nothing because he does not hope to bring in anything either. He has no balls to say what he wants, but he wants them nonetheless. (So he takes them when no one is looking). However, you may use him to fill up the gaps, but watch him closely! Keep him away from money, and his name must always head the list when you are downsizing.

5.      The one that wishes to inherit YOUR CLIENTS

This is an extremely dangerous man! He is the one that will learn everything and perfect his skills with your Practice, and then go out to build a competing Firm.  (Think those old Chinese films where the aged kung-fu teacher trains the thick muscled antagonist who perfects the trade, turns rogue, then beats the teacher to a pulp and resigns him to bitter ruminations…before the hero stumbles by). This candidate is smart and competent. He is confident that the clients will need him as much as they needed you. If you play your cards well, you can groom his loyalty by making him Partner. He thinks growth from a corporate perspective and would serve to preserve your Firm. (Caveat: On no condition should you employ him if you ever expect a child of yours to fill your shoes someday)

I rest my thesis.

Love and the Lawyer

Google images

A contradictory title no doubt. The lawyer’s job is driven by strife, especially in our local context; where bitterness escalates to an irreversible level before you call in a lawyer. Even the modern suggestion of pre-emptive use of Law is worse.  It merely displays a lack of trust. And what is love without trust?

So, we should not ruin the beautiful word by placing it side to side with, well…the Law.

Love is for people who live freely. The lawyer’s starched collars permit no such easement. Love is for honest folks who are not ashamed of making mistakes. It is a game of emotions. The Law is infallible and impassive. Love attracts gifts. The Law attracts penalties. Love is a gesture that goes beyond mere words. In the words of Ingrid Bergman: A kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become superfluous.

But ‘beyond mere words’ best describes a lawyer’s death.

The anti-lawyer sentiment when Love is in the air is not helped by the practice of Divorce Lawyers. You can sense their sardonic pleasure when they establish the unsavoury fact that sometimes, Love is in the err…!

The Lawyer scoffs at the phrase ‘unconditional love’ as tautology. He believes that Love should either exist in an absolute state; or humbly admit its openness to conditions. He does not believe in falling in love or any such spontaneous magic. He recommends a firm foot-hold in matters of the heart, governed by mutually agreed pre-conditions. 

The lawyer’s concept of Love is a bit like this:

 “The parties hereby agree that for the subsistence of this relationship (which phrase shall wherever the context admits, include such casual liaisons as flings, affairs, and friendship with benefits as well as the more formal processes of dating, courtship and marriage).

The parties also agree that no party shall perform acts or omissions which are likely to negatively impact on the other party’s state of health, mind, emotions, or finances.

“Omission” as used here is any unjustified forgetfulness on the part of the male constituent in this relationship of any occasion, event or circumstance which in the opinion of the female constituent is important or highly cherished. These events include but are not limited to: anniversaries (which shall in itself include, birthdays, first dates, first kiss, first hug, first argument, first fight, first picnic, parents’ birthdates [“parents’ herein used shall be mandatory for those of the female constituent, and discretionary for those of the male], sister’s boyfriend’s thanksgiving, etc); shoe size (UK and American); best chocolate flavours; best fragrance, best shopping mall, best jewelry, best TV channel; best visitors; best topics of discussion, etc.

The Agreement will go further to provide that:

“Unreasonable demands’ shall include any such urges, desires, or wants expressed orally or in writing by the female constituent to the male constituent requiring the performance of such activities as are either impossible or where possible would inflict huge personal discomforts and pain, or have such negative effect on the financial solvency of the male constituent as to endanger his life. These shall include but not limited to: questing for a week-long trip to Dubai and/or other exotic Islands, A pronounced preference for any variety of human hair beyond the natural braids and weave; An insistent notice of the emergence of the Blackberry Porsche; cultivating an exclusive taste for Chinese and other Oriental cuisines; A habitual preference for the VIP sections of bars, lounges, clubs and during live-shows; an expressed dislike for the genteel gifts or flowers, poetry and chocolates during Valentine, etc.’

The bad thing about this scenario is that there would be no Termination Clause. Love is permanent. But every contract permits an exit route. Oh, Love is not a contract…it is a covenant; a restrictive covenant. So, these conditions may or may not be met, and the parties live in stoic tolerance of the good, the bad and the downright unacceptable. Where then lies the “Happily Ever After” elixir?

Only fools fall in love then; never the learned and knowledgeable…at least, not in that mushy sense.

The lawyer views love from a social perspective; the balance of society, the love of the Law.

So, when the date rape occurs on Valentine’s, the loveless Lawyer is entreated from his lonely chambers. He is Mr. Damage Control who is never invited when the going is good.

The big irony then is that the Lawyer shows the best type of love. That, which brooks no excuses: you pay for your sins. In popular legal parlance; the saying “thou shall love your neighbor” is interpreted as ‘thou shall not injure your neighbor…”

So, when next you see a Lawyer wandering distractedly across the red splashed streets on St Valentine’s, do not point and deride him. He is expressing the same emotion, albeit a bit unimaginatively. Of course, we agree that he is also a money grabber, but then that ‘robber’ might just be your best protection.  Grab his card and buy him a drink. Just be sure to rise when he starts a glazed-eye discourse on the ‘subtle sexism discernible from Shakespeare’s sonnets’

END.

PS: In the light of our collective national scourge of religious/tribal violence and militant destruction, the Nation desperately needs LOVE. Show some today…even to a lawyer!

Happy Val’s People!

also published on THISDAY Newspapers, Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

Only this time, they returned to their barracks…

Google Images

Same way the story goes? That sinking feeling at the guts; the bewildered, vacant stare- helpless surrender in the face of that granite wall that demarcates mere possibility from the stings of reality.

Yet another charade? Played out far above the heads of the ignorant masses?

And at the end of it all? A return to the familiar rat-race, and working vigorously to atone for the losses from a diversionary timeout so early in the new year.

Same winners? Another humbling reminder: The boss runs this station!

The story ends here. But there are a few post-scripts.

The people stormed the streets, alarmed at basic calculations which heralded certain starvation. They figured out government’s strident permutations and promises for what they really were: The Orwellian Sugar Candy Mountain, a place where one might eventually berth…after death.

Labour eventually joined the fray, and made it official, and the throngs grew from strength, to numerical strength.

In that massive crowd that built across the states, one saw different things depending on one’s perspective. A nationalist would see the formidable force which Nigerians posed, assembled as a single, united entity. A revolutionary would feel the initial droplets converging to stir up a turbulent sub-Saharan spring.   

From the eyes of the Government of the day, one could see the glorious sight of ambushing one’s enemies in a single ascertainable unit, thus making it easier to decimate them.  A strategy well appreciated by Emperor Nero, “Would it that the people had one neck, that I may cut it off!”  

The rest is recent history, and the gains and losses lie where they fell.

To all who gave voice to their protests, I say- straighten up your shoulders. Do not slouch in disgrace. You gave life to your inner strength by stepping beyond silent murmurs. Sadly, you are only empowered to vote the government in. The ballots do not vote out, and any dissatisfaction in the interim is at best expressed informally. Protests are therefore destined to wither out in the long run, faced with a borderline legal perception as sedition or treasonable uprising.

To the starry-eyed optimists who may have been blessed with the necessary clairvoyance to predict that government would keep its word, despite these years of betrayals and falsehood. I say, congratulations, and I heartily hope you read the cards correctly this time.

The real losers are the cynics who merely dismissed the dissenting voices: “We have seen it happen before, nothing will come of it”. Yes, they may have been proven right once again, but they cannot even afford the luxury of a victory smile. Their faces remain a crisscross of bitter lines which curl their lips further downwards in a permanent grimace of rationalized despair. And every stirring for change is dead in their subdued loins.

One thing we will not forgive though, is viewing the Nigerian people as a mere bandwagon of ‘sheepish followers’. The impression was sold that a few people hijacked a sentiment and planted it in the minds of the masses. This view insults the Nigerian citizenry as a pack of clueless imbeciles and only time will tell how this will play out in our future dealings as a nation. 

For once, it was not convenient for government to label a protest ‘the idle work of political enemies’. The protests took a more enlightened shade beyond the normal whimpering of a disgruntled minority.  This crop of political enemies seemed to have struck a rare harmony with both logic and public support.

Logic and public support. These are Democratic concepts. But insincere leaders cannot contend with them. Thus, the opposition had to be quelled by a show of incumbent superiority.

And out poured the Soldiers!

Soldiers, an impressive band. They do not talk much, their uniforms do. They herald grim promises like the black raven, and exert sudden quietness to the uneasy skies.

The people’s voices died in their throats.

Once again, the soldiers saved the polity. Only this time, they returned to their barracks.

God Bless Nigeria!

Time we considered Outsourcing the Business of Leadership…

Google Images

The social contract between ruler and ruled fizzles into a shadowy jurisprudential abstract, in the absence of credible clauses that enforce performance - both ways. Fact. And mind, the contract is not saved if it merely provides one-sided enforcement (In the ‘half bread is better than none’ sense). One sided contracts are judicially ill-perceived for creating unequal bargains.

The fuel subsidy issue crystallizes the absolute convenience of the party wielding the upper hand in an unequal bargain.

Now, supposing Subsidy removal is a vital- if jarring- strategy (Hypothesis!); how have all the parties been carried along? The business approach would involve tonnes of painstakingly prepared (and credibly audited) documents stating exact facts and figures, charts and measurable deliverables. This would be necessarily followed by inquisitorial scrutiny from the other party, and it is only when the latter is won over that the contract is executed- under ‘mutually agreed terms’.  

But what is the scenario here? They simply sent professors to sound out vague intellectual phrases, and you either grasp it adequately to throw your weight behind the idea, or get a migraine trying to figure it out and simply say, to hell! Thus, it becomes yet another avenue for displaying superior intelligence, a mere intellectual debate, while its ravaging effects spread- mercilessly.

If this were a mere oversight on the part of government, it would be pardonable. But it is clearly not. It is yet another rough-shod ride over the governed, buoyed by an ill-woven enforcement environment.

The enforcement environment makes the citizen unable to claim damages when the dividends of civil rule are denied him. They are non-justiciable.  Even his Human rights are qualified to suit public (read, State) interests. RIGHT TO LIFE blinks conspicuously in the books, but does nothing to stave systemic murder.

My view of the Subsidy removal and attendant Beelzebub-ian hike in (all) prices remains absolute: IT IS WANTON AND WICKED. Sadly, my civilian nature has also exposed me to cheap shots from well, fellow civilians. They label my views ‘rants from an arm-chair’. They also condemn my lack of imagination for – failing to proffer alternative solutions to government. I leave the reader to figure out the fine irony in that phrase: proffer alternative solutions to the (Nigerian) government. Like, seriously?

I assure you, if I had licensed guns, I will shoot them wildly to register my protest. But then, the issue is far more grave than interring or exhuming private hatchets. It is a collective battle for survival by an irate, nay, volatile citizenry. And we must all take our sides, firmly.

But then…when the battle is won or lost, how do we move on? Even though the chants of revolution stir in my breast, I have grown to understand that it is not an end in itself. The late Heavy D crooned- “Now that we found love, what are we gonna do…with it?”  

So if the battle is won, or lost, what are the feasible options towards avoiding this recurrent stalemate between ruler and ruled?

And I say, maybe it is time we seriously considered outsourcing the business of leadership. To foreign technocrats.

No, it is not a return to colonialism. The world has outgrown that. Nations now act as joint-watchdogs for one another against racism.  

Call it a Diplomatic Doctrine of Necessity (DDN). Our leaders have failed us, roundly and repeatedly. But we need not make a sorrow-tale out of that. So we would invite these foreigners to operate every policy corner (Federal and state) in their stead.

We do not have less learned nationals of course, but the lure of cash and the fear of the system have proven acutely overwhelming.  In the light of this, once the technocrats are invited, they will be shielded with a modified version of the immunity clause, tagged- Freedom from Government Interference (FGI).

Their contract tenures will be contained in collectively agreed agreement, and they will be mandated to function according to laid down Standard Levels. Thus, their remuneration will only be accessed upon performance to certain measurable indices of the contract.

If they under-perform, their contracts will not be renewed, and they will leave our shores. If they engage in any criminality, the Immunity clause does not avail them and they will face the Law’s full brunt. Otherwise, their contracts are renewed for another term.

This will not preclude our normal rulers from being elected to office. Nah, are we not an Independent state?  By all means they can claim the glory of the technocrats’ successes. But then, their salaries will be payable out of the ‘profits’ from the technocrats’ operations, after the national/social needs are adequately met.  Nevertheless, let the politicians look on the bright side. It will free them to iron more pressing issues…their agbada for instance.

Going forward, when the needed transformation is achieved in the nation’s critical sectors (in line with specific timelines); the outsourcing contracts will be reviewed to cover management and maintenance. And so on.

This may be a dim-witted view, but I had scratched my head vigorously to come up with a more nationalistic approach and my brain could only swim in circles. At least, I will not be accused of being a blockhead.

Nonsense!

PS: I am playing Eminem’s MOSH as I write. Readying for tomorrow’s great march. Bite me!

When the 'other party' must not be heard!

Google Images

A vital ingredient of Justice is also its biggest weakness: The insistence that the other party be heard. Afterwards; Justice then tilts to the favour of the party with a stronger voice.

Another weakness here is that it focuses only on one aspect of an otherwise dual nature of humans- the intellect and the untamed instinct. Thus, a refined lie will always emerge victorious over raw truth- shoddily presented.  

Every human craving cannot be rationalized abstractedly in finely woven arguments. Sometimes, we are faced with actual expiry of our very physical selves; and in such scenarios, the untamed animal must sprout its natural defences...urgently!

This latest brazen attempt to force-feed a nation with the toxic policy of Fuel Subsidy removal is not to be rationalized. The Government has lost its right of audience in the intellectual court. The policy is a terse declaration that the ultimate master-plan of the ruling class is to rid the country the embarrassing sights of the ill-fed common man.

As extinction looms large; what does the common man do? Proceed to the courts with a valiant hope of emerging the stronger voice?  Albeit a disembodied voice?

I recently saw the movie, THE CONSPIRATOR, where the trial of the alleged band that conspired to murder Abraham Lincoln was relived.  A line from the movie sticks out in my mind now: Inter arma, silent leges (In times of war; the law grows silent).

The Ruling Class has declared war on the Common man, and is smugly awaiting its turn at the courtroom bolstered by the knowledge that the jury will be inevitably swayed by its seasoned oratory. Unfortunately, this is one case where the other party must not be heard.

Let them shoot down protesters, and prove that it’s a base war after all; devoid of intellectual content.

But then, the problem with the animal instinct is that it has no sense of time, or proportion. Once a little spark is ignited, it might as well burn forever. Let our Rulers pay heed to this before they unfasten the Feud-Chain.

We need not fall prey to violent histories that pre-date us.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!



Google images

Keep your collars unstarched till the New Year!