28042019 - No delaying minimum wage, go ahead and pay, FG tells MDAs, states, others

PAGE 26—SUNDAY VANGUARD, APRIL 28, 2019
Ministerial Appointments:
Not a party affair
The argument that
President Muham
madu Buhari
should bother more about
Atiku Abubakar’s petition
against his re-election
rather than concentrating
on forming a government,
loses sight of the ‘no vacuum
in government’ philosophy.
It would therefore
be irrational for Buhari
to await the verdict
of the election tribunal
before inaugurating his
government. Besides, being
the declared winner
of the contest by the election
referee, gives him
confidence to act with the
presumption that he is
more likely to also win at
the tribunal. However,
that does not rule out the
possibility of another candidate
upstaging the earlier
declared winner, more
so, as election controversies
in Nigeria often create
room for any contestant
to be the lucky one in
the end. Either way, by
May 29, 2019, a new government
must take-off to
run the affairs of Nigeria
whether the election tribunal
has or has not concluded
action on petitions.
Thus, the current
search for ministers who
are constitutionally em-
powered to implement the
policies and programmes
of the president is in order.
What is likely to be in
contention is the quality
of persons that would constitute
the Council of
Ministers. A look at the
powers of that council
would readily show that
Nigeria has never been inspired
to pick persons with
the requisite strength of
character for the job. Can
Nigerians in all honesty
identify ministers that
have, as required by the
constitution, been able to
question the health status
of a president even where
the failing health was visible
to the blind as was the
case with late President
Yar’Adua? Instead, there
has always been the temptation
to appoint malleable
persons who would
covertly be controlled not
by the president but by other
persons in the corridors
of power better known in
Nigeria as cabals. Such appointees
can hardly ensure
successful execution of
projects. Unfortunately, the
current search for ministers
may follow the old order
of appointees with ample
deficiencies in courage,
vision and integrity.
The quantum of noise so
far made about the ruling
party compiling a list of
loyal party members for
appointment confirms our
contention.
A report in the media last
week quotes the National
Working Committee of the
ruling party as impressing
on Buhari “to ensure that
only members who have
been faithful to the party
are appointed into executive
positions.” With due respect,
such criterion cannot
be the prime factor for appointment.
It can however
be an added advantage.
The main factor is capacity,
made up of competence
and track record. While
there is no problem with
appointing a member of
the APC as a minister, he
should ordinarily be qualified
even if he was not a
party member. We also
need to make the point that
because Buhari is not the
president of APC but of all
Nigerians, his leadership
needn’t be so derogated
from. As is seen in other
parts of the world, even opposition
politicians are invited
to serve in government
only because they
have unrivalled expertise in
specific fields. That is what
should propel our president
especially if he must
make a mark in his last opportunity
to be president
and leave innumerable
legacies. For that to happen,
Buhari must serve as
the captain of our governance
national team, made
up of the best eleven.
Only experts can make
remarkable points in governance,
not party loyalists
with questionable credentials.
This is more obvious
in a developing society like
Nigeria with a gamut of
physical and infrastructural
challenges that are begging
for redress. Today,
many Nigerians remember,
the excellent performance
of Ngozi Okonjo-
Any Nigerian
president can
constitute with ease,
a strong, viable and
above all, a balanced
ministerial team for
the good of the
nation. All that needs
to be done, is to
insist on the best
hands
Iweala as minister of finance.
She was not even a
party member let alone a
loyal one when she made
landmark decisions for
which the leadership at the
time took credit. The same
can be said for Obiageli
Ezekwesili, Nasir el Rufai,
Charles Soludo etc. who
served in the past as outstanding
cabinet members
and left a mark yet to be
met thereafter. How to reenact
the glories of the past
is what should be uppermost
in Buhari’s mind now
and not how to reward acclaimed
worthy loyalists
who may end up being in
office without value. This
point is neither original
nor new, following the recent
prayer of Pastor Tunde
Bakare of the Lattera Rain
Assembly that President
Buhari should “in his second
term appoint the best,
the brightest and the fittest,
to maximise the potentials
of the nation.”
Any Nigerian president
can constitute with ease, a
strong, viable and above
all, a balanced ministerial
team for the good of the nation.
All that needs to be
done, is to insist on the best
hands. In line with the constitutional
provision of federal
character, such outstanding
hands abound all
over the country as there is
no part of our nation whose
products cannot be among
the best. We therefore disagree
with those who argue
that certain sections of the
country which did not vote
for the president should be
punished. To start with, it
has become increasingly
difficult these days, to determine
which sections belong
to which party. For instance,
Sokoto voted APC
in the presidential election
and PDP in the governorship.
In Edo, the APC did
not win the presidential
election but won all the
seats in the state legislature.
So, which party can
we say Sokoto and Edo belong
to? Again, at the end
of an election, the winner
becomes the president or
governor of all. If the
South East that is more of
PDP is shunned today as
not worthy to benefit from
Buhari, we shall produce
a lopsided government
that runs counter to the
federal character principle
in Section 14(3) of our
constitution that prohibits
the “predominance of
persons from a few states
or from a few ethnic or
other sectional groups in
government or in any of
its agencies.”
The constitution did not
provide for favours to
states which voted for the
president. An over active
leadership of the ruling
party should thus not mislead
him. Indeed, Buhari
should appoint as ministers,
competent persons
from all over the country
made up of a) the APC as
the president’s channel to
power; b) youths - the undisputed
owners of potentials
and in line with the
‘not too young to run’ initiative
of the president; c)
women, in furtherance of
the global reality of affirmative
action and d)
experienced technocrats
as drivers of the engines
of development. Governors
who freely pick their
own commissioners
should not claim the power
to nominate ministers
from their states. Buhari
needs to remember that if
Nigerians are angry over
inequity in government,
all eyes will look towards
him and not the party
leadership or governors.
In any case, history has
shown that any list compiled
by a Nigerian political
party is not likely to
be credible as it usually
contains objectionable
names such as those who
absconded from the compulsory
national service
and even names of dead
persons as we saw in the
past. Buhari must change
the narrative and produce
a viable team.
PhD,Department of
Philosophy,
University of Lagos
08116759758
A philosophical critique
of Easter celebration (2)
ut even if we restrict our
Bselves to the stories in the
By eliminating rival
deities, the Pharaoh
appropriated their
powers. Now,
Christianity
appropriated the
powers of its
competitors by
emulating an
ascending Pharaoh’s
mythical performance
Gospels, there are still two formidable
problems to be confronted.
The first one is the
largely arbitrary manner the
books that constitute the Holy
Bible were selected in the first
place, coupled with the general
problem of inaccurate
translations, mistranslations
and deliberate distortion of
the original texts by scribes
who put together the scriptures
by translating manuscripts
originally written in
Koiné or “common” Greek
into Latin. The second relates
to obvious contradictions in
the Gospels’ accounts of the
purported arrest, crucifixion,
resurrection and eventual ascension
of Jesus. Beginning
with the first problem, it is
generally agreed by biblical
scholars that the decision as
to which books should be included
in the Holy Bible and
which ones to be occluded
was a very controversial and
difficult one, oftentimes
reached by the casting of lots
during the ecumenical council
meetings, beginning with
the Council of Nicaea in 325.
This explains differences in
the versions of the Christian
bible accepted as authoritative
by major denominations
of Christianity. Concerning
the issue of language, the
manuscripts from which the
Holy Bible evolved were originally
documented in Koiné
or “common” Greek. And
Koiné is written in what is
known as scriptio continua,
which means no spaces between
words and no punctuation
marks. Accordingly, weshouldgoandeatdad
can be interpreted
as “We should go
and eat, Dad” or “We should
go and eat Dad.” Sentences
can have different meanings
depending on where spaces
between words are placed. So,
Jesusisnowhere can be “Jesus
is nowhere” or “Jesus is now
here.” The implication of this
for assessing the veracity of
biblical narratives, including
stories about Jesus’ Passion, is
obvious and consequential as
well. For instance, it opens up
the possibility that most of
what Christians believe about
Easter and on which their religion
is founded might be the
product of mistranslations
arising from the nature of
Koiné script. Kurt Eichenwald
has brilliantly discussed all
this, including the extremely
tendentious manner biblical
passages were deliberately inserted
in the scriptures, in an
article published in the 09-01-
2015 edition of Newsweek.
Since his essay entitled “The
Bible: So Misunderstood it’s a
Sin” does not focus exclusively
on Easter, there is no need
analysing it in-depth here.
Nonetheless, the key point
made by Eichenwald is that
one should be careful in interpreting
biblical passages literally
because they contain
numerous translation mistakes
and deliberate interpolations
by compilers who had
a predetermined theological
agenda.
On the vexed issue of historical
inaccuracies and conflicting
accounts of the trial, crucifixion,
death and resurrection
of Jesus in the Gospels,
an attentive open-minded
study of what several scholars
have written about it tends to
raise doubts about veracity of
those very narratives or, at
worst, suggests that perhaps
the outlandish events they describe
never really happened.
For instance, Matthew, Mark
and Luke claim that Jesus was
taken directly to Caiaphas the
high priest after his arrest (Mat
26:57, Mark 14:53, Luke
22:54). John says that he was
taken first to Annas, father-inlaw
of the high priest who, after
a while sent Jesus to the
high priest. The same Matthew
26:57 affirms that on the
night Jesus was arrested the
priests and scribes met before
Jesus was brought to the high
priest. Mark 14:53 says that
they met on the night of Jesus’
arrest after he was brought to
the high priest, whereas Luke
22:66 reports that the priests
and scribes assembled the day
after Jesus was arrested. The
gospel of John mentions the
high priest only: no other
priests or scribes played a role
in interrogating Jesus. According
to Luke, Pilate sent
Jesus to Herod who questioned
him for a while and returned
Jesus to Pilate once
more (Luke 23:7-11). In Matthew,
Mark and John, Herod
was not involved at all. The
biblical account of Pilate’s
custom of releasing a prisoner
at Passover and his offer to
free Jesus while the Jews preferred
Barabbas is historically
inaccurate because the only
authority granted by Rome to
a Roman governor in such situation
was postponement of
the execution after the religious
festival. Those who
wrote the gospels included it
in order to exonerate Pilate
from Jesus’ execution and put
the blame on the Jews. Moreover,
the story that Pilate consented
to the demand by the
mob is at odds with what is
known about Pilate’s habitual
savage and highhanded
methods of crowd control. According
to historians, Pilate
was recalled to Rome because
of his brutality. How could a
man with such notoriety be
interested in what a Jewish
mob wanted, let alone consenting
to it? Matthew 27:38
and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus
was crucified between two
robbers. But the Romans did
not crucify robbers. Crucifixion
was reserved specifically
for rebellious slaves and insurrectionists.
Did Jesus speak to
his mother and to Peter from
the cross during his crucifixion?
The gospels affirm that
he did. That is extremely unlikely
given that during crucifixions
Roman soldiers guarded
the execution ground, and
nobody was allowed to come
close, least of all relatives and
friends who would actually
want to help the person to be
executed. Matthew 27: 51-53
confirms that at the moment
Jesus died there was an earthquake
that opened the tombs
and an unspecified number of
righteous people were raised
from the dead who later went
to Jerusalem and appeared to
many people. However, none
of the historians of the period
documented that fascinating
event, and it was not even recorded
in the other gospels.
Some New Testament scholars
think that the author of this
narrative must be an ardent
believer in the resurrection
power of Jesus and included
the story to vindicate that belief.
After the resurrection,
who were the first to discover
the empty tomb? Matthew
claims that it was Mary
Magdalene and the “other
Mary.” Mark 16:1 gives it to
Mary Magdalene, Mary, the
mother of James and Salome.
Luke adds Joanna to the list
of women, while according to
John 20:1-4 Mary
Magdalene went to the tomb
alone, saw the stone blocking
its entrance removed, ran to
Peter and returned to the tomb
with another disciple.
Now, who did these followers
of Jesus find at the tomb?
Matthew 28:2-4 intimates
that an angel of the Lord who
appeared like lightening sat
on the stone that had been
rolled away. Also present in
the vicinity were guards dispatched
to guard the burial
chamber. Returning from the
tomb the women met Jesus
(Matthew 28:9). Mark tells us
that a young man in a white
robe was sitting inside the
tomb. Luke talks about two
men in dazzling apparel, but
it is unclear whether they were
inside or outside the tomb. In
John, we read that that Mary,
Peter and the other disciple initially
found an empty tomb.
Pater and the other disciple
entered the tomb and saw the
wrappings used to cover Jesus’
corpse. Mary looked into
the tomb and saw two angels
dressed in white. After a brief
conversation with them,
Mary turns around and saw
Jesus. Other example can be
brought forward, but the ones
presented already are sufficient
to make the case that that
the events around which the
Gospels’ narratives were woven
either did not take place
or were so garbled that it is
impossible to separate fiction
from fact. The first alternative
will rankle Christians apologists,
but it is not as far-fetched
as it seems. Consider one of
the best-known stories in the
New Testament, precisely in
the gospel of John chapter 7,
about a group of Pharisees
and others who brought to Jesus
a woman allegedly committing
adultery, and how Jesus
escaped the trap set by her
accusers by cleverly turning
the table against them. Yet the
incident reported never happened.
It was not even written
by John to whom it is attributed.
Rather, according to Prof.
Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar
at the University of North
Carolina, it was fabricated by
scribes sometime in the Middle
Ages. The story does not
appear in any of the three other
gospels nor in any of the
earlier Greek versions of John.
Some researchers believe
that the story of Jesus in the
New Testament is an accretion
of legends popular in
Mediterranean communities
in the dying years of the Roman
Empire. For example,
the noted historian, Prof. Arnold
Toynbee, explained in his
illuminating book, Mankind
and Mother Earth, that in the
Levant after Alexander the
Great overthrew the Persian
Empire, and throughout the
whole perimeter of the Mediterranean
after its political
unification by the Roman
Empire, there was fierce competition
among rival religions
for the chance of becoming the
universal religion of the region
as a whole. Christianity
eventually triumphed by a
process adumbrated already
in Pharaonic Egyptian theology.
According to the Egyptians,
when a Pharaoh dies his
detachable soul ascends into
heaven and there devours other
gods whom the newcomer
encounters. By eliminating rival
deities, the Pharaoh appropriated
their powers. Now,
Christianity appropriated the
powers of its competitors by
emulating an ascending Pharaoh’s
mythical performance.
According to Toynbee, in the
story of Jesus the religion absorbed
Egyptian, Syrian, Anatolian
and Hellenic gods and
goddesses and thereby ascribed
their powers to the risen
messiah.
To be continued.