INTRODUCTION

The Police Service Commission (PSC) monitored the conduct of Police Officers during the Sokoto State Gubernatorial election held on 18^th February, 2012 in pursuance of its constitutional responsibility to hold the police accountable for its actions.

PREPARATION FOR THE ELECTION

The Police Service Commission had earlier issued guidelines on the conduct of police officers during elections in Nigeria. The guidelines include among other things the need for police officers on duty during elections to always be on alert, approachable, professional, impartial and wear name and number tags.

The Commission also liaised with the Police authorities on the need for proper policing of the elections. Similarly, we circulated four telephone numbers that complaints can be given to the Commission about the conduct of police officers during the elections. The commission met with the State Police Command and got contacts of police officers supervising the elections.

ELECTION DAY MONITORING

The Police Service Commission monitoring team was made up of four officers led by Dr. Otive Igbuzor, Commissioner and Chairman of Strategy Committee of the Commission. The team visited six local government areas:

1.   Sokoto South: Sheikh Abubakar Gummi memorial college 1 and 2, Barth road, P & T 1 and 2,  in Rijiyar Dorowa ward; Garkar Sarikin tasha 2, Rijiyar Dorowa ward, Kofar Atiku Kwamberu 1 in Sarkin Adar ward, G/B Dankwoli in Sakin Adar ward.

2.   Sokoto North: Sarkin Musulmi, Gidan Sarkin Muslimi ward, Shiyyar Abdullahi Mega in M/Rafi ward

3.   Kware LGA: Ruggar Giwa Primary School 1 and 2, Gidan Modibbo Akwara ward

4.   Wurno LGA: Makaranta 1 and 2; Kanwuri 1 and 2 in Achida ward

5.   Dange Shuni LGA: Dambuwa 1 and 2 in Tuntube Tishe ward

6.   Wamako LGA: Kware road A, Government day Secondary School all in Arkilla

OBSERVATIONS ON SECURITY AND POLICE CONDUCT

1.   We observed that there was security presence in most of the places visited by the team especially Police and Civil Defence. Out of all the places we visited, only one polling unit was without police which was rectified within fifteen minutes of our report.

2.   The elections went on peacefully in all the areas visited. Both election officials and security officers arrived in most of the polling units on time.

3.   About 10,000 Police Officers were deployed for the elections. There was huge improvement in deployment of police officers and punctuality of security officers to polling units.

4.   The police officers on election duty in the Sokoto gubernatorial elections conducted themselves very well. There was at least one police officer in most of the polling units visited.

5.   The police officers were generally courteous, approachable and co-operative with their name tags and numbers displayed on their uniforms.

6.   The police officers on election duty were not carrying arms except the Police Mobile Force units and other back up units who were roving throughout the state.

7.   We received four phone calls and two text messages during the election. One of the phone calls from Tudun Doki in Gwadabawa LGA was request for security which was provided within ten minutes.

CONCLUSION

The Police Service Commission commends the Police officers that participated in the Sokoto State gubernatorial election for their professional conduct.

We commend INEC and Police authorities for the improvement in logistics arrangement for the elections. In particular, we commend the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police for prompt response to calls for more security.

Dr. Otive Igbuzor

Hon. Commissioner/Chair, Strategy Committee

Issued on 18^th February, 2012.

Read each of the following statements and indicate whether you agree or disagree. Then check your score and study the analysis at the end.

1. I have difficult people reporting to me.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. I must work with difficult co-workers

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. I report to a difficult person as my boss.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. My subordinates take up too much of my time.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. My co-workers take too much of my time.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. My superiors take too much of my time.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. People who take up my time are “difficult”.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. Difficult people make me unproductive

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. Difficult people make their peers unproductive.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

1. Difficult people cost my organisation money.

O Agree                                 O Not sure               O Disagree

Scoring: Give yourself 2 points for every question you answered “agree,” 1 point for every question you answered “not sure,” and 0 points for every question you answered “Disagree.”

Analysis

15-20: You believe that difficult people are disruptive and that they waste time and other resources. Difficult people are a serious issue for you.

10-14: You aren’t sure whether or not difficult people are a problem for you, for other people, or for your organization as a whole. You have thick skin or in denial.

0-9: You aren’t convinced that difficult people are problematic. You are either right or oblivious to what is happening around you- in which case you may be a difficult person yourself.

ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA

The meeting started with an opening round of introductions and opening ceremony. by

Ms Priscillia Achakpa

• The public enterprises should be subject to some degree of control and monitoring
• PHCN is supposed to be a public enterprise, which was somewhat privatization-how much have we benefited from the change in ownership.
• Water- privatizations of water eg cross river state.
• These public facilities have been a huge challenge to public services, which has been detrimental to the public.

Elizabeth-Benue State University

• Public enterprises-privatized and those in the process- have been challenging, looking at the social impact of privatization. Widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
• The issue of corruption- the monies realized from the privatization of the enterprises have not been accounted for
• Continued protection of the public interest
• Foreign dominance in the sector, and a few benefiting from the whole process

Ojobo

• Challenges that privatization is not solving
• Political will
• Social impact
• Inefficiency within the public enterprises
• Protection of public interest

Mr Abraham-BPE

• National council on privatization approves the processes and activities of BPE as regards privatization
• The failures and challenges that have been faced by BPE has not been a privatization issue but the policies of the government.
• Ethical issues of policies that restrict the success of privatization
• Social safety net-which is taken as important but have not been implemented. Which is a key area that BPE is to be working on and till now, nothing is been done.

Dr Otive Igbuzor

• The argument in his paper was what can be done, apart from privatization.
• There are global success stories of PEs with high level of performance
• The challenge is to build the political commitment to drive home
• The success story of some African countries should be learnt from
• Reconstruction of the Nigerian state to become a developmental state
• Policy and ideological change.

Discussant-Ken

• Unemployment and the challenges of  PEs
• Financing; how government can fund the enterprises
• Appropriate regulatory framework
• Corporate governance

Discussions:

• Absence of strong institutions
• Commercialization and privatization are twin issues. The missing link of looking at the effect of commercialization on the public
• Social safety net- we need to do more in the area of public management, the capacity of the government should be looked at
• Building institutions is key
• The diversity of our country in comprise with Kerala should be noted.
• We should look at enforcement in addressing problems
• We should look at where we have missed it in Nigeria-where we are coming from and the successes we use to have.
• The BPE is pursuing Public Private Partnership-PPP
• Monitoring and evaluation of PEs-the BPE has a department called the Post privatization monitoring department for follow up, and the enterprises is sanctioned at their failure to keep up with standard leads to government taking over

Corporate Governance- Soji Apampa

• Separation of ownership and control
• Control mechanisms- market mechanism, bureaucratic mechanism, clan mechanism

Venue: Abuja

Date: 22^nd- 25^th November, 2010

1. A.    WHAT IT TAKES TO LEAD AND MANAGE

Day One: Monday 22^nd November, 2010

9.00am: Opening Formalities

10.30am: What is Leadership? Dr. Otive Igbuzor

11.30am: Tea Break

11.40am: Developing Leaders- Ms. Maryam Uwais

1.00pm: Lunch

2.00pm: Leadership and Habits- Dr. Otive Igbuzor

4.00pm: Closure

2-4 pm:

Day Two: Tuesday 23^rd November, 2010

9.00am: Recap

9.10am: Leadership and Vision- Dr. Otive Igbuzor

11. 00am: Tea Break

11.30am: Who is a Leader?/ Dr.(Mrs) Ejiro Otive Igbuzor

1.00pm: Lunch

2.00pm: Gender Perspective to Leadership- Dr. (Mrs) Otive Igbuzor

4.00pm: Closure

B. HOW ONE CAN LEAD AND MANAGE

Day Three: Wednesday 24^th November, 2010

9.00am: Leadership and Organisation/Management -Dr. Otive Igbuzor

11.00am: Tea Break

11.30am: How to manage difficult workers and managers- Dr. Otive Igbuzor

1.00pm: Lunch Break

2.00pm: Leadership and ICT- Dr.(Mrs). Jummai Umar-Ajijola

4.00pm: Closure

C. STRATEGY, EXECUTION AND WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A CEO

Day Four: Thursday 25^th November, 2010

9.00am: Leadership and Execution- Hajia Amina az-Zubair

11.00am: Tea Break

11.30am: Leadership and Strategy- Mr. Johnson Ikube

1.00pm: Lunch Break

2.00pm: What it takes to be a CEO- Ms. Eugenia Abu

4.00pm: Closing Ceremony/ Presentation of Certificates

4.00pm: Post-Test

4.20pm: Evaluation

4.40pm:  Testimony by Two Students

5.00pm:  Presentation of Certificates

5.10pm:  Vote of thanks  by Mr. Monday Osasah

Protocols

On behalf of the African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development (Centre LSD), I welcome you to this policy dialogue. The goal of Centre LSD/FES Policy dialogue series is to contribute to the development of Nigeria through engagement with the policy process. The objectives include among other things to promote interaction between researchers, women organizations, civil society activists, policy makers and implementers of government policies and programmes with a view to enhancing citizen participation and advocating for pro-poor policies.

The African Centre for Leadership, Strategy and Development (Centre LSD) is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation established under Nigerian laws to build strategic leadership for sustainable development in Africa.  The vision of Centre LSD is an African society where there is dynamic, strategic and visionary leadership committed to sustainable development. The Centre’s mission is to work with forces of positive change to transform society through appropriate leadership, strategy and development approaches. The centre is guided by the values of transparency and accountability; integrity; transformative change; feminism; diversity; dignity of the human person and Pan-Africanism.

This policy dialogue is focused on the management of public enterprises in Nigeria. The participation of the state in enterprises in Nigeria dates back to the colonial era. The task of providing infrastructural facilities such as railway, road, bridges, water, electricity and port facilities fell on the colonial government due to the absence of indigenous companies with the required capital as well as the inability or unwillingness of foreign trading companies to embark on these capital-intensive projects.[i] This involvement was expanded and consolidated by the colonial welfare development plan (1946 – 56) that was formulated when the labour party came to power in the United Kingdom. This trend continued after independence such that by 1999, it was estimated that successive Nigeria Governments have invested up to 800 billion Naira in public owned enterprises.[ii]

However, at the end of the twentieth century with the end of cold war, privatization of state owned enterprises became popular. In Nigeria, this was legalized through the Privatisation and Commercialisation Act of 1988 and the Bureau of Public Enterprises Act of 1993. The Bureau of Public Enterprises Act defined privatization as the relinquishment of part or all of the equity and other interests held by the Federal Government or any of its agencies in enterprises whether wholly or partly owned by the Federal Government. The policy of privatisation and its particular implementation in Nigeria has created some concerns for civil society. In particular, they are concerned about the philosophical basis which can only favour rich countries and individuals; the scant regard for the constitution and laws of the country; the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the possibility of reinforcing male dominance and gender inequity.

But with the global economic crisis in 2008/9, the challenges of privatization and neo-liberal approach to economic management became magnified. Experiences from many parts of the world have pointed to the fact that strengthening, reorganization and restructuring of state owned enterprises is an alternative to privatization and this is influenced by the ideology, commitment and political will of the state. Empirical evidence also indicates that privatization is neither a good alternative to poorly performing public enterprises nor is it as successful as apostles of privatization will want us to believe.

In the recent past, scholars and practitioners are concerned on what strategies can be put in place to improve public enterprise management. Some suggestions have included minor divestment with retention of government control; employee involvement; re-engineering the relationship between public enterprises and government; instituting accounting and auditing standards; ensuring corporate governance and operating the enterprises with political insulation, clear objectives and transparency. In South Africa for instance, there is a programme of restructuring of public enterprises with redesign of business management principles; turnaround strategies; improving efficiency and effectiveness; accessing globally competitive technologies; ensuring growth in employment and attracting FDI.

There is therefore the need to discuss in Nigeria whether there is the need for policy change from outright sale of public enterprises to a policy of reform and reconstruction of public owned enterprises.

The Centre LSD policy dialogue is meant to examine the content of public policies and institutions that formulate and implement them with a view to examining the implementation and impact of the policies. More importantly, the policy dialogue will not only be diagnostic of the policy problems but will suggest alternative approaches to dealing with the problems. Specifically, the objectives of the policy dialogue  include to:

• Improve the interaction between researchers, civil society activists, policy makers and practitioners.
• Promote evidence based pro-poor policy process and practice
• Analyse and evaluate public policies and programmes and institutions of governance and
• Make suggestions and alternatives to solving policy problems.

It is well established that the ability of government to be able to tackle developmental challenges and deliver services to citizens depends on the processes by which decisions are made and the way in which what has been decided is carried out, or not carried out. Meanwhile, the quality of decisions made and impact achieved depends on the information and data available, the alternatives considered and the capacity to implement and evaluate the policy decisions. There is therefore the need to engage the policy process with a view to increasing efficiency and effectiveness.

Let me end this address by specially thanking all the organizations that have worked with us to make this policy dialogue a success. They include among others NANTS, ActionAid, Citad, and Integrity . I also want to thank government agencies that have attended this dialogue.

Finally, I will like to express my gratitude to the management and staff of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung for their support. In particular, we want to thank Mr. Thomas Mattig and Ms. Juliana Anosike for their consistent support and partnership.

We call on all participants to be frank in their discussions. We know that discussions on issues of management of public enterprises are very emotive. We appeal to you to focus on the issues and suggestions that will move the country forward.

Thanks.

ENDNOTES