Sorry, I mistakenly sent a draft.
Greetings Mr. Tunde:
My rebuttal to General Williams is based on three premises 1) Principle; 2) Constitutional; 3) Factual. I take exception on the grounds on which his arguments are based and latent intent; not necessarily the manifested content in his mail or intervention - as you say.
1)The General promotes a type of Diaspora scheme that strives to create a blurry concept of a region outside Africa and linked to Africa. Fine. However, nobody can show how a) the legally and constituted population is possible and the required structures in a geo-polity b) the steady flow of resources to Nigeria/Africa or how the peace and security of Nigeria/Africa will be enhanced; and c) how all of these will prioritize and represent (by who) actual developments on the grounds in Nigeria/Africa. The AU and Member States have, apparently, cooled on the idea. Cooperation is the feasible option. Granted, the General is entitled to his ideas and pursuits. I am not challenging his rights.
My point is, if he can support something whose outcomes are, at best, unknown, yet millions of dollars have been expended on the expeditions, which will have legal/constitutional ramifications if implemented, his arguments against the considered Nigerian Diaspora Voting Rights should be weighed against his personal views that inform his own Diaspora activities. The contrast leads me to conclude that he is being expedient; not principled.
2) The Constitutional rights of Nigerians in the Diaspora to vote has been settled in the court of law. It is not being litigated. The fact that the General is questioning the constitutionality betrays his bad-faith. His arguments on costs are, therefore, mere convenient instruments to achieve his end-goal to deny Nigerians living outside Nigeria one of the liberties derived from citizenship.
How these rights are implemented or how individual stakeholders choose to exercise them are entirely other matters.
3) The court upheld the right to vote, it is the onus of the government to implement it. It has to come up with the plan of action, which will include the estimated resources and plausible methods. These will provide a rational basis to determine cost. The General cannot rationally intervene when there is no factual finding.
For him to use a prohibitive argument suggests his mindset is already foreclosed to the voting solutions. To start arguing about cost plays right into his scripts and distracts from the more consequential matter - that vote and how. The General is very intelligent.
And by the way, the kind of year-round public thievery (anyone can check EFCC logs) and bags of money traded around election time suggest money can be found for Nigerian Diaspora voting. Putting that aside, Diaspora voting is increasingly adopted by nations around the world - from G7 to G77.
Combining / consolidating the elections can save money. There are other methods to streamline costs; register voters, including online; etc. But that is not the subject here. It is to clarify my earlier response.
Note: I have no conflict of interest. My favorite is APGA, the smallest. We keep Anambra honest. Smile for laughs.
My rebuttal to General Williams is based on three premises 1) Principle; 2) Constitutional; 3) Factual. I take exception on the grounds on which his arguments are based and latent intent; not necessarily the manifested content in his mail or intervention - as you say.
1)The General promotes a type of Diaspora scheme that strives to create a blurry concept of a region outside Africa and linked to Africa. Fine. However, nobody can show how a) the legally and constituted population is possible and the required structures in a geo-polity b) the steady flow of resources to Nigeria/Africa or how the peace and security of Nigeria/Africa will be enhanced; and c) how all of these will prioritize and represent (by who) actual developments on the grounds in Nigeria/Africa. The AU and Member States have, apparently, cooled on the idea. Cooperation is the feasible option. Granted, the General is entitled to his ideas and pursuits. I am not challenging his rights.
My point is, if he can support something whose outcomes are, at best, unknown, yet millions of dollars have been expended on the expeditions, which will have legal/constitutional ramifications if implemented, his arguments against the considered Nigerian Diaspora Voting Rights should be weighed against his personal views that inform his own Diaspora activities. The contrast leads me to conclude that he is being expedient; not principled.
2) The Constitutional rights of Nigerians in the Diaspora to vote has been settled in the court of law. It is not being litigated. The fact that the General is questioning the constitutionality betrays his bad-faith. His arguments on costs are, therefore, mere convenient instruments to achieve his end-goal to deny Nigerians living outside Nigeria one of the liberties derived from citizenship.
How these rights are implemented or how individual stakeholders choose to exercise them are entirely other matters.
3) The court upheld the right to vote, it is the onus of the government to implement it. It has to come up with the plan of action, which will include the estimated resources and plausible methods. These will provide a rational basis to determine cost. The General cannot rationally intervene when there is no factual finding.
For him to use a prohibitive argument suggests his mindset is already foreclosed to the voting solutions. To start arguing about cost plays right into his scripts and distracts from the more consequential matter - that vote and how. The General is very intelligent.
*******
And by the way, the kind of year-round public thievery (anyone can check EFCC logs) and bags of money traded around election time suggest money can be found for Nigerian Diaspora voting. Putting that aside, Diaspora voting is increasingly adopted by nations around the world - from G7 to G77.
Combining / consolidating the elections can save money. There are other methods to streamline costs; register voters, including online; etc. But that is not the subject here. It is to clarify my earlier response.
Note: I have no conflict of interest. My favorite is APGA, the smallest. We keep Anambra honest. Smile for laughs.
Best,
Evelyn
=================================================================================================
Below is the intervention from General Williams:
<<Dear All,I hope when we talk about Elections,we must also think about the escalating costs of the Exercises.
For those Guber elections so far,each costs about 700million NAIRA EACH LESS THE COSTS OF ALLOWANCES FOR THE SECURITY AGENCIES.
IN 2019,the costs will run into Billions of Naira because as with everything we do we use every opportunity to share the loot by overmanning of positions etc.
When you then add voting by Diasporans,the costs is in Foreign Exchange and experience with Mexico has shown that over time,most of their citizens do not care anymore.
IN FACT,WHY SHOULD YOU VOTE WITHOUT PAYING TAXES IN NIGERIA?
IS IT BY REMITTANCES ONLY AND HOW MUCH?
CAN WE DISQUALIFY THOSE WHO NEITHER REMIT NOR PAY TAXES?
With our elections,we must cut down on the Costs of Elections by letting States do their own Guber as they do with LGs. There will be initial complaints,but they will be overcome over time.There are many other ways of we must cut down COSTS.
Secondly,part of the corruption in Polity is looting public treasury for campaign funding.We must find ways of enforcing the existing appropriate laws.
Finally,countries with similar problems like ours have Permanent Federal and State electoral Courts with Appeal Courts(last stop) to try all forms of Electoral Offences fast, within limited period in accordance with the law.
WE need to act before 2019 as elections have become Battles and wars in Nigeria with huge waste of fund.
Do we beg for overseas loans and grants for 2019 Elections?
Inquiring Minds(PastorJ) while shaking heads(a la VC Aluko) want to know before mid-2017.iw in obodo oyibo where elections are run by Home Office Civil Servants with no brouhaha in a nation of integrity.>>
In NOT responding, you wrote about FOUR PAGES which totally ignored the points made by General Williams. Your caveat that there is nothing personal about your contesting his opinion is a regular ruse by persons who have personal beefs to cover same up in bogus cloaks of objectivity and scientific transparency - forgetting that data is not just data without perspective.
I have not responded to your post, because I think you need to take a second look at the post by General Williams, and ask yourself whether the vituperation heaped on him is deserved.
Have a wonderful day.
Ire o.
Tunde.
To Lead You Must be a Servant
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment