Further worries for the US secretary general was the front page of “Vanguard” newspaper of June 19, 2019: “Nigeria loses about N3.133 trillion to cybercrime.”
“The National Information Technology Development Agency, NITDA, said yesterday, that Nigeria loses about N3.133 trillion to cybercrime and foreign software annually. Isa Ibrahim Pantami, director general of the agency, who disclosed this at a stakeholder’s engagement on Nigerian Software Testing Guidance (NSTG), and the Guidelines for Information Systems Audit (GITA), in Abuja, also said N127 billion is lost to cybercrime annually due to the nation’s inability to adequately secure information systems.”
He said to guarantee safe delivery of services, it has become imperative to secure Nigeria’s information system. He also said that there was urgent need to continually protect the country’s information systems from being compromised.
He said, “There is urgent need to continually protect the country’s information system from being compromised. Today, most business processes are carried out electronically, and large amounts of information are stored, processed and transmitted over IT networks, which means businesses, administrations and citizens depend on proper operations of the information technology used.
Nigeria loses about N127 billion to cybercrimes yearly. This is caused in part by our inability to adequately secure our Information Systems (IS). Therefore, securing our IS is a must, if we want to guarantee safe delivery of our services.”
Pantami, who deplored the huge loss by the country, noted that, “the indigenous software market in Nigeria loses about $10 billion (N3.06trn) annually to stiff competition from foreign off-the-shelf software used to meet local needs, where indigenous software could have provided the appropriate solutions.”
On CNN, Tabia Princewell was the toast of the hour with her vehement protest:
“The former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), says Nigerian governors must disclose their spending on security.” He is right.
“Ecological funds, like security votes, are some of the murkiest, least transparent aspects of public spending. If ecological funds in the north and middle belt states had not been mismanaged for the past 30 years, the clashes between herdsmen and farmers would not exist, given what we know about climate change, soil erosion and what should have happened if those funds had impacted the environment, enabling sustainable development for the diverse populations that occupy and share its resources.
For a long time, security, both in concrete and abstract terms, has been used to conceal expenditures that are largely fraudulent or dubious. If we learn lessons at all from the famous arms probe of the last three years, it is that not everything written in the name of security actually gets spent for the intended purpose. We must insist that for accountability and transparency, Nigerians are told what monies are budgeted for our security apparatuses and for what purpose the monies are spent” Ribadu said.
The national assembly ought to be on the side of the people by championing such causes. Insecurity in Nigeria is a business, like kidnapping. Individuals profit from it through endless fraudulent military contracts to buy non-existent or obsolete weapons and equipment.
The national assembly ought to be on the side of the people by championing such causes. Insecurity in Nigeria is a business, like kidnapping. Individuals profit from it through endless fraudulent military contracts to buy non-existent or obsolete weapons and equipment. Despite what people think, kidnapping is not the exclusive preserve of any ethnic group: criminal organizations employ the services of a diverse set of Nigerians.
The “fulanisation” narrative is a political tool we must be weary of. It masks high-level corruption involving all ethnic groups.”
ThisDay newspaper also waded in with its front-page report on June 19, 2019: “Again, foreign observers knock 2019 general election.”
“Like the European Union Election Observations Mission (EU-EOM) that recently slammed the conduct of the 2019 general election, two United States’ institutes that monitored the elections said yesterday that the election did not meet previous standards and the expectations of Nigerians.
In their Joint report, presented in Abuja, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) said that 2019 elections were marred by irregularities, such as intimidation of voters/electoral officials, vote buying and election-related violence.
They also condemned the suspension of Walter Onnoghen, the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, saying the judiciary plays a crucial role in post-election matters.
“Although many new political parties nominated candidates for the 2019 elections, the polls were largely a contest between the incumbent All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP); the APC hoped to renew the mandate of President Muhammadu Buhari and consolidate its majority in the national assembly and of governorship. However, the party faced internal wrangling and defections of some key figures in the months to the polls.
Atiku Abubakar, PDP fielded former vice president as its standard bearer and, entering the process for the first time as an opposition party, challenged the APC’s record, claiming the ruling party had not kept its campaign promises to fight corruption, improve security and boost the economy,’’ the report said.
The IRI/NDI observation mission said that the 2019 elections did not meet the expectations of many Nigerians.
On security and elections related-violence, the report said, “Ahead of the 2019 polls, the poor security situation in Nigeria, mainly attributed to Boko Haram’s resurgence in the north-east, inter-communal violence in the middle belt and widespread crime and banditry, raised concerns about the safety of voters and candidates.
“Increased politically-motivated violence and conflict in the pre-election period was also a concern, especially around political party primaries in some areas.’’
The report further stated that for many Nigerians, the 2019 elections – the sixth since the country’s 1999 transition back to civilian democratic rule – were an opportunity to consolidate democratic gains and build on sound electoral practices.
Significant improvements in the administration of the 2011 and 2015 elections boosted expectations in the 2019 electoral process. Moreover, Nigeria’s first peaceful transfer of power between political parties following the 2015 elections underscored for Nigerians that credible elections matter,” the report said.
The joint report further said that the last-minute postponement of the presidential and national assembly elections on February 16 showed that INEC had underestimated challenges associated with the administration of the elections.
According to the report, “the commission did not communicate sufficiently with political parties and the public about election preparations. Such a late postponement likely depressed voter turnout and created confusion about the duration of candidate and party.
Most significantly, the delay also undermined public confidence in INEC. After the one-week postponement, it increased its public outreach and communications through regular press briefings. Since the polls, however INEC has been slow to release information, including detailed results.’’
The report said that the last-minute postponement of the presidential and national assembly elections on the morning of February 16, and delays in opening some polling units and other administrative challenges on February 23 undermined public confidence in INEC.
The report further said that political parties remain the weakest link among Nigeria’s nascent democratic institutions, saying “opaque candidate nomination processes led to violence in some states and many pre-election lawsuits.”
The report also referred to the paucity of women nominated to run on the tickets of the two major parties, the APC and PDP, saying it demonstrated Nigerian political elites’ lack of commitment to opening space for new faces and new voices.
It added that the political parties and their leaders did not uphold their commitment to peaceful and credible elections, and failed to restrain and hold accountable members and supporters who committed electoral offenses.
The NDI /NRI report said that the electoral Act of 2010 was an important update to the electoral legal framework, but added that after the 2011 and 2015 polls, however, stakeholders identified areas where additional reforms were needed.
Lamenting President Buhari’s not signing the amended act, the report said, “In 2018, the national assembly approved four versions of a bill to amend the electoral Act. The measure would have codified important improvements, including imposing higher fines on media houses not providing equal air-time to competing political parties, making the voter register and election results electronic and publicly accessible, capping the nomination fees that political parties’ charge candidates, and extending the application of the electoral Act to local government elections.
“Buhari withheld his assent to each version of the bill, ultimately citing the proximity to the election and the short time INEC would have to implement reforms. The president’s last rejection of the bill in December 2018, just a couple of months before election day, surprised most stakeholders and delayed the release of lNEC’s election guidelines.
Other legal reforms to the electoral process recommended by Nigerian civil society were unrealised before the 2019 elections, including creating appropriate institutions to oversee political parties and prosecute electoral offenses, responsibilities that currently impede INEC’s focus on administering elections.”
In its recommendations, the joint report called for a national dialogue, stating that there should be a national conversation about the progress made since that transition and the vulnerabilities that must be overcome to make electoral processes more credible and the country’s democracy more resilient.
“The lRl/NDI mission urges Nigerian stakeholders to seriously consider these and other recommendations to improve the electoral process, unlike in previous years when suggestions by reputable citizens and international observation missions went unheeded.’’
Other recommendations include, legal framework and election dispute resolution; pursue a comprehensive, inclusive and expeditious electoral reform process; establishment of time limits for the adjudication of pre-election petitions and others.”
BASHORUN J. K. RANDLE
