RESIDENTS of Lokoja, the Kogi State capital, are now at a loss over the mystery surrounding the death on Monday of three female undergraduates who allegedly got drowned in a river.

Two of them were identified to be final year Law students of Kogi State University, Anyigba, while the third one was a student of Ambrose Ali University, Ekpoma, Edo State.

Observers said that the death might not be unconnected with rituals, as the river, popularly called Meme River, was said to be very shallow.

According to unconfirmed reports, two of the undergraduates had accompanied the third friend to Lokoja, allegedly to see her boyfriend, said to be residing near the river, along Lokoja - Ajaokuta expressway.

The body of one of the deceased was said to have been seen the following day on the river, while those of the two others were yet to be found.

RUSSIANS will forever celebrate the imprints of one of its modern leaders, Boris Nikolayevish Yeltsin, who passed into eternal glory last month. Yeltsin, son of peasant parents rose from a humble background in Butka village, Sverdlovsk region to the Presidential Palace, Moscow in June, 1991.

He defied cultural antecedent in his community by refusing to work either in the farm or in the coal mines being common places where his people seek for means of livelihood. Yeltsin displayed uncommon skills and interest in politics when he joined the Communist Party. The star in him was easily noticeable when in 1976, he was appointed Secretary of Sverdlovsk District Central Committee.

From the remote Sverdlovsk region, Mikhail Gorbachev heard of Yeltsin’s exploits and appointed him Secretary of Central Committee for Construction in 1985. Barely six months after, he was appointed first Secretary of Moscow City Party and was given a seat in the Politburo. By this appointment, he was able to play direct role in policy formulation and implementation in Russia as stated in Perestroika (restructuring) policy of the Gorbachev era.

Yeltsin’s criticism of Perestroika as “full of implementation without urgency” set him on collision course with Gorbachev. He was removed from his position and sent back to Sverdlovsk to build roads and bridges. In just two years of doing this, he contested and won a seat in the Soviet Parliament and his outspoken nature especially against corruption made him a popular figure in the country’s politics.

At the tick of the reforms in old Soviet Union, Yeltsin saved Gorbachev when some communists staged a coup putting him under house arrest in the process. It was Yeltsin who courageously climbed the armoured tank to address the hard line communists. Alongside leaders of Ukraine and Belarus, Gorbachev was made to resign four months after this incident.

In June 1991, Yeltsin became the first president of Russia to be elected by the people. By December 12, 1991, the Soviet Union became dead when the Belovezh Accords was ratified by the Parliament and four days after, Gorbachev resigned as president of old Soviet Union.

Yeltsin created a new Russia when he caused a new constitution with mass appeal to be made. The thrusts of the new constitution were the promotion of multiparty democracy, private ownership of property, human rights and guaranteeing of media freedom. These were hitherto a taboo in the dissolved Soviet Union.

When he should have consolidated on these achievements, Yeltsin relapsed into dictatorship in barely two years in office. He appointed and fired four Prime Ministers in barely two years in office. He attempted to dissolve Parliament by sending armoured tanks to ensure its closure when members defied him leading to violence and deaths.

The economic stagnation and suffering by workers and pensioners fell short of Russia people’s expectations when they elected Yeltsin. Inspite of these, he won re-election in 1999 before his eventual resignation on December 31, 1999. No doubt, Yeltsin will be remembered for his promotion of constitutional democracy in his country.

ALTHOUGH the incumbent government ought to be winding down its activities, the Ministry of Education recently encoded all the reforms in the education sector under the outgoing Minister, Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, in a bill preparatory for submission to the National Assembly. Ordinarily, we support any attempt to revamp the education sector. There is too much decadence in this strategic sector of the country. However, we have reservations whether the contents of the bill have been made public enough to encourage broad participation in form of debates and contributions.

What are the contents of the bill? What is the level of participation of the general public in developing the contents, although the Ministry of Education continues to insist that stakeholders were duly consulted? Even so, why the haste in trying to make a law of the reforms when they have not been exhaustively debated? Which National Assembly will handle the bill? Is it the present lame duck legislative house or the incoming one, during which time Ezekwesili would no longer be in office and a successor may feel differently about the proposed reforms?

The education reforms have come rather late in the day for the Obasanjo administration. It would seem that the outgoing minister was uncertain of what would become of the reforms after her exit from office. This may account for the haste. However, if a policy document has gone through exhaustive debates with participation from a broad spectrum of society then there should be no fear of its being jettisoned by another administration.

The education sector is important to the development process. All policies in this sector ought to be subjected to the rigours of debate and consensus building. The primary schools are in a state of disrepair and poor morale. The secondary schools have not fared better. The teachers are dissatisfied with their working conditions. A teacher who is compelled to work in a hostile environment cannot achieve much. Indeed, he would at best operate at minimum capacity.

At the moment, the state-owned universities are locked down. The umbrella body of Nigerian academics, Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) is on strike over the failure of government to find solutions to the desperate conditions in the universities and the frustrations of the staff. The perception is that government would rather have students at home than on the campuses. As a result, if ASUU remains on strike for six months, it would serve the interest of the government. Is this the government that can be said to be serious about education reforms?

The focus of the reforms is also problematic and controversial. Essentially, the Ministry of Education has concentrated on scrapping the Higher National Diploma in Polytechnics, changing the Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme, and privatising the Federal Government Colleges otherwise known as Unity Schools. Some polytechnics have also been converted into universities without the requisite manpower. In general there has been a show of aggression which is not matched by profundity of thought.

The nation can be revolutionised through education. Recent events, including the last elections, show that the average Nigerian voter is in need of education. The level of illiteracy is still unacceptable. A holistic approach to education, from primary through university level is capable of producing the technological leap which the nation urgently desires.

But funding has been abysmal. A genuinely concerned government would raise the budgetary allocation to somewhere near the UNESCO prescribed minimum. Rather than concentrate on this, the government has been more interested in chasing shadows and playing games with such a strategic sector as education.

We call on the government to make public, particularly to all stakeholders, the contents of the education reforms bill for much broader input and consultation.

The Supreme Court has ordered two men, Mustapha Mohammed and Lukeman Aiyegbami, who beheaded a young man for ritual for the purpose of making money, be killed by hanging.

In a judgment delivered by the court, a copy of which was obtained by our correspondent on Wednesday, the apex court upheld the conviction of the accused persons by an Ogun State High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The incident took place on August 11, 1995 . On that day, one of the convicts had sent his brother to lure the unsuspecting Oladipupo Fasola, the deceased.

That same day he was beheaded and his head taken to a herbalist for ritual.

Justice Niki Tobi, who delivered the lead judgment with which four other justices of the court concurred, held that from the circumstantial evidence surrounding the death of Fasola, it was obvious that the two convicted persons conspired to kill him to make money.

Justice Tobi summarised the case thus, ”The prosecution‘s case is that on August 11, 1995 , one Asmiyu Salawu told Oladipupo Fasola (the deceased) that the Ist appellant, Mustapha Mohammed, wanted to see him.

”The deceased left to see Mohammed. After a long time, the deceased did not return. The Prosecution Witness 1 went in search of him. He got to Mohammed‘s house and asked for the whereabouts of the deceased. Mohammed denied seeing him.

”A report of a missing person was made to the police.

”Mohammed was arrested. After the arrest, he took the police to a bush, where the headless corpse of the deceased was unearthed from a shallow grave.

”The appellants, Mohammed and Aiyegbani were charged with conspiring to commit murder and murder of Oladipupo Fasola.

”The trial judge convicted the appellants accordingly.”

Their appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed and they consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

In their appeal, they said that they were not sufficiently linked to the murder of the deceased person.

After reviewing the arguments and the facts of the case, Justice Tobi came to the following conclusions:

That the 1st appellant (Mohammed) sent his younger brother, Ashimiyu, to call the deceased.

That the deceased answered the call of the 1st appellant and went to the house of the 1st appellant and was received by both the 1st and 2nd appellants.

That the 2nd appellant used a charm, ‘subusere‘ to hit the deceased on the chest and he became weak and fell down.

The indecent burial of the deceased at the plot of the 1st appellant.

The delivery of the head of the deceased to the 3rd accused person by the 1st appellant on 11th August, 1995 (the day of the murder) ‘to make awure‘, that is a concotion for money making.

The appellants were the last persons with the deceased alive.

Justice Tobi held that the trial court made similar findings. He held that there was no perversity in the findings.

He said that even though no one found the appellants killing the deceased, they were sufficiently linked to the death.

He said, ”It is clear from the totality of the evidence that the death of the deceased was not just a probable consequence, but a direct consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose to murder the deceased.

”The appeal is accordingly dismissed. I affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal. I also affirm the conviction of the appellants for conspiracy to murder and murder of Oladipupo Fasola and the sentence of death passed on them.

It is worth celebrating that close to 47 years after independence, we have successfully transited from one civilian administration to the other despite the many hiccups that attended the elections. And contrary to happenings in the past, especially after the 1983 elections massively rigged by the then National Party of Nigeria, the cry in the land is not about war and the need for the military to intervene. Rather, even from the major losers – Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, who is the presidential candidate of the Action Congress, and Alhaji Muhammadu Buhari, the presidential candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party – the talk has been about going to the election petitions tribunal to seek redress for the alleged injustice done to them.

And unlike in the past also, not even from the military is there any feeling of uneasiness in the barracks. Though not everything can be said to be okay in the country concerning the election, the apprehension is not about whether democracy would survive. It is about whether the country can ever have elections that would be free and fair and without as many lapses as were noticed during the 2007 general election.

The current mood of the nation is understandable. Nigeria, the most populous black nation, should be setting the pace for others when it comes to world acceptable standards, especially in the area of democracy. This is more so that we are highly rated worldwide when it comes to the number of Nigerians serving in world bodies that have been promoting democratic ideals and with the country’s involvement in the installation and restoration of democratic governments in other countries.

For me, however, as an individual, what attracted my attention mainly during the general election are the negative roles played by the police and the military in the election. Despite the deployment and use of thousands of policemen, military men, paramilitary forces and other security agencies for the elections, there were several cases of ballot boxes snatching, stuffing of ballot boxes and intimidation of officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission right in the presence of the security agencies.

There was the report of the polling station where some armed thugs seized the ballot box at a polling station and started stuffing it right in the presence of the two policemen manning the station. Agreed, the two policemen on duty at the polling station were not armed, the excuse given by the leader of the team, an Inspector, was a shame to noble police profession. He said their duty at the polling station did not include ensuring that armed thugs did not invade the polling station to stuff ballot boxes. Rather, they were there to siddon look. What a shame! But thank God that courageous Nigerians at that particular polling station were able to mobilise to stop the rampaging thugs.

Also, despite the involvement of the numerous security agencies in the conduct of the elections, several cases of missing ballot boxes were reported; a lot of ballot boxes arrived at the collation centres with altered figures; officials of INEC were intimidated by thugs who had a field day; arsonists burnt down the houses of those that were believed to have rigged the elections; and some were even reportedly involved in helping politicians to stuff ballot boxes.

It is very shameful that despite the fact that it is glaring that there is very little INEC officials could do in the face of intimidation, our security men were unable to rise to the demands of the occasion. What was expected of the officers and men of the numerous services involved in the elections was to ensure orderly conduct of the election; protect those at the polling centres, officials of INEC inclusive; ensure that the votes are counted without intimidation; see through the process of signing the results forms by all those involved; and escort both the ballot boxes and result sheets to the designated locations. But the security agencies failed woefully in all of these.

Indeed, from my experiences in other countries, the security agencies help in checking the excesses of the electoral commission in some cases, thereby assisting in making the elections credible. The reverse was the case in Nigeria during the last elections. They rather helped weaken the position of the electoral commission even in cases where there was a serious attempt to make the elections credible.

With this, it has become obvious that the security agencies were programmed to fail during the elections. It is quite glaring that they were not meant to be neutral but to be tools of the government in power. This is quite a sad commentary on our security agencies that have received commendation for doing this same sort of assignment in other countries with touches of perfection. But in the case of their own country, the security agencies were used by the powers that be to manipulate the process to the detriment of democracy and the shame of their own profession.