The Harmonization of Salaries in the Federal Civil Service

As I have always maintained. Democracy, as practiced in the world today, is too expensive. Lets join the rest of the progressive world who are seriously trying to apply technology to bring government closer to their people - Direct Governance.

You may recall that on December 20th 2010, on the heels of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Governor of the Central bank revelation that the National Assembly appropriates over 25% of the national budget. I published an article titled Who Let The Dogs Out and Say No to looting of Nigeria. Both articles addressed the gulf between the rich and the poor and reflected on my view on "A Promise is comfort to a fool.." which focused on Labors strike on minimum wage. In those articles, I suggested that labor should go a step further and ask a downward review of the "Maximum Wage".

A lot has happened since then, Nigerians have become increasingly aware of what is going on. In deed, this awareness has had a rob-on-effect on the business as usual in all three arms of Government. A cursory look at news today, tells you of all sorts of public hearing into very elaborate in-your-face corruption. From the NNPC, Central Bank of Nigeria, Security and Exchange Commission, to the Nigerian Police Force. These are all welcomed developments and attest to the fact that we can change if we really want to. As long as prosecution of those found guilty is not swept under the carpet, the slow and sure journey towards state building has begun.

I was therefore happy to read in the dailies that a committee has been setup to review "Downwards" the salaries of public servants. (http://africanspotlight.com/2012/03/nigeria-fed-govt-to-reduce-salaries-of-public-servants/)  The harmonization of salaries in the federal civil service is expected to reduce the strain of recurrent expenditure and produce an acceptable public salary structure. Hopefully the state governments will borrow a leaf and do the same.

Peter Odili & Abubakar Atiku Featured In US Hgher Education's Dirty Little Secret ..

As a Rivers Man, I just couldn't resist this one... An article written by Arvind Ganesan and curlled from Sahara Reporters. just thought I should share.

Libya's human rights crisis shined a much-needed spotlight on the relationship between universities and their more problematic funders. In this case, the London School of Economics (LSE) agreed to take about $2.4 million from the foundation controlled by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddafi.

LSE is not alone. American University in Washington agreed to help a former Nigerian vice-president, Atiku Abubakar, and his wife, Jennifer Douglas, set up a university in Nigeria, despite persistent allegations of corruption against him. In return, American University received about $14 million in "consulting fees" between 2003 and 2007 for its work on this project. American University officials told U.S. Senate investigators that their due diligence on Abubakar uncovered some rumors of corruption, but they ultimately decided to proceed.

Later, the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that Ms. Douglas received about $2 million in bribes from Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, on behalf of her husband. Siemens paid a record $1.6 billion fine since this was part of a global bribery scandal, but the Abubakars were both abroad and outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Another case in point is Lincoln University, the oldest historically black college in the United States, which has an interesting relationship with Peter Odili, governor of Nigeria's oil-rich Rivers State from 1999 to 2007.

Human Rights Watch documented how Odili's administration, with a budget of about $1.3 billion in 2006, provided little money for primary schools or other basic services that state and local governments are supposed to provide. Instead, Odili channeled enormous sums directly to the governor's office -- tens of millions of dollars earmarked for entertainment, gifts, and the purchase of jet aircraft. Travel must have been important since he also allocated $65,000 a day to his office for travel and transportation. We concluded that a huge portion of the state's funds were lost to extravagance, waste and corruption.

In contrast to primary schools in Rivers State, Lincoln benefited greatly from Odili's generosity. By the end of 2006, he had become one of the school's largest donors, with at least $1.64 million in donations. During that year, it gave him an honorary degree, held a luncheon in his honor, and named a building after him. Nigeria's federal anticorruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, says it has a strong enough case to prosecute Odili. But in 2007 Odili somehow managed to secure an outrageous court injunction -- widely condemned as a mockery of the judicial process -- that permanently barred the agency from investigating, let alone prosecuting him.

A year later, though, the commission said it had completed its investigation into Odili's "wanton looting of the treasury of Rivers State" and was ready to arraign him on corruption charges. The judge reaffirmed his injunction and nothing has happened since. In April 2008, Odili began a four-year term on Lincoln's Board of Trustees.

In the London School of Economics case, the donations from Gaddafi's son came in 2008, a year after the school awarded him a Phd. The university had also agreed to accept about $3 million in other donations from Libya. This scandal cost Sir Howard Davies his job as director of the university. The school disclosed that it had received about $500,000 from Saif's pledge that it would use for scholarships. It also said it will no longer accept Libyan funds, inevitable anyway since the British government had frozen any U.K.-based assets that belonged to Gaddafi and his family a few days earlier.

Universities are undoubtedly under pressure to find financial support and to maintain high standards, especially as government funding becomes scarcer. But that does not mean they should allow abusive and corrupt officials or their families to launder their images in exchange for money.

There should be better rules to keep this from happening. After all, the London School of Economics did not act until Saif's father literally began to kill his own people in a brutal attempt to cling to power. American and Lincoln universities have not fully explained their relationships with Abubakar or Odili. And schools in the U.S. have no legal obligation to investigate whether funds they might take are tainted by corruption.

One modest step would be to make universities investigate whether donors are implicated in abuses or corruption before accepting their money. If they do decide to go ahead, those donations should be disclosed and the information easily accessible to the public. There may be good reasons to keep some donations anonymous, but that rule should not apply to money from rulers or their family members who are implicated in abuses or pose a risk for corruption. Those relationships cannot be good for a school's reputation -- as the London School of Economics just learned.

Fortunately, governments can step in to ensure that schools are more transparent. Last November, the G-20 group of governments announced an anti-corruption initiative that includes a commitment to prevent corrupt officials from spending their funds abroad. They should include enhanced due diligence for universities as part of their efforts. That might give officials an incentive to spend money on their country's schools instead of using that money to get a building named after them abroad.

Arvind Ganesan is director of the business and human rights program for Human Rights Watch.