i.
The
major adverse effect of the Act is its penchant for being inconsistent with
pre-existing laws. For instance, while S.
36 of the 1999 Constitution generally makes everybody subject to the law, S. 23 (1) of the Act precludes officers
and employees from legal proceedings. This is pure conflict with the aged
doctrine of the Rule of Law.
Again Sections 6 & 7 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act gives both parties to an arbitration an equal hand in
appointing arbitrators, while S. 27 (4) of the Act provides that only the
Council shall appoint all the five arbitrators to seat in an Arbitral Panel on
a matter involving the Council itself. These and some other provisions in the
Act only guarantee the unsettling of our legal system.
ii.
Privatization
and Commercialization will lead to further Capitalism of the bourgeoisie at the
expense of the already hungry proletariat. Experience has shown us that shares
of privatizes companies are sold at prices that only the rich can afford if
this trend is not watched, we shall find that the program and its whole essence
will be incapable of bettering the lot of the poor.
POLITICS OF
PRIVATIZATION IN NIGERIA
Past Nigerian Presidents with the likes
of Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida (IBB) and Obasanjo passed the ownership and
control of Nigeria’s state owned enterprises to their friends, family,
relations and themselves in the name of Privatization. For example, some of the
most celebrated Nigeria’s privatized public assets during Obasanjo’s tenure
(1999-2007) includes; Ajaokuta Steel Mill, Delta Steel Complex, Jos Steel
Rolling Mill, Oshogbo Machine Tools and Itakpe Iron Ore Company. Others include
Nigeria Airways; Nigerian Telecommunication Company (NITEL) and its Mobile
Phone subsidiary company – MTEL; NICON Hilton Hotel (Transcorp Hilton Hotel);
African petroleum Limited (AP); National Oil and Petrol Chemical Company;
National Fertilizer Company (NAFCON); Cement companies; Oil blocks and Banks,
just to mention a few. The way and manner in which these assets changed hands
and the selection of who owns what and at what price are still generating many
unanswered questions and concerns in Nigeria. These concerns and questions were
some of the challenges former President Yar’adua confronted.
Some of the reasons why the Nigerian
public is not happy with Obasanjo’s Privatization policy and programs are
largely that they were done in bad faith and were out of tune with the
principles of transparency, accountability and due process. Moreover, they
widened the existing gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”. In addition, the much
taunted expected improvements of service and product delivery did not happen.
The scheme created lasting sense of injustice, parochialism and nepotism in the
polity. Furthermore, it discredited the anti-corruption stance of the
administration.
The political economy implications of
the affair are many. For example, the scheme created a new crop of oligarchies
in the mould of Transcorp and other similar outfits with concentrated economic
and political powers which are dangerous to the sustainability of democracy,
institutions, rule of law and good governance in Nigeria. Privatization also
serve as a money laundering instrument to a great extent, in order to legalize
illegally accumulated wealth, such as income from international drug
trafficking.
Despite the fact that Privatization and
Commercialization have their bad effects, these are out weighted by their good
effects. I believe we are still at the experimental stage of this program. In
time we shall find a way of eliminating these adverse effects or at least make
sure the good effect predominate them.