The dangers of our over fixation on President Buhari

I am always amused to observe the look on people’s faces whenever I tell them that drinking too much water can kill them. Yes. This same water for which we get several viral posts telling us how we should drink eight glasses daily can be potentially fatal if overindulged. Mind you this is not drowning. The term “water poisoning” or “water intoxication” never come to mind for many people. According to Wikipedia, “Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by overhydration.” But this write up is not about bio-chemical analysis. The water poisoning part is to underscore the truism that “too much of anything is bad” and I dare say this includes too much of even a good thing. This is precisely my concern about our over fixation and obsession with our President Muhammadu Buhari in our expectations of taming national challenges. Like partakers in a water drinking competition, oblivious to the potential of dying from water poisoning, we have collectively decided on having too much of President Buhari to the detriment of our collective wellbeing. From the way things are presently configured, Nigerians will gladly refer their marital strain and waning appetite to Mr President if they have the opportunity. Making ourselves addicted to President Buhari as the answer to Nigeria’s needs already poses its own set of dangers if we paused to properly take stock. First, I worry that a lot of the people who accepted national assignments under Mr President will hide their ineptitude under his imposing aura. All they have to do is bandy President Buhari’s name and they get the equivalent of their sins being forgiven. Under normal circumstances, the bulk stops on a minister’s table for any failing or inaction in that ministry. The same applies to other appointees of Mr President that are manning government organisations. But if we continue along the current trajectory, there is the risk that complacency will set in as the president’s appointees will see no reason to take ownership of their sphere of influence if the citizens already have the mind-set of holding only the president responsible. Secondly, I already see a pattern of overwhelming the Presidency with demands that should be channelled elsewhere. From where and how I see it, this has the potential to force the nation’s highest office into micromanaging on a scale that can only lead to catastrophic outcomes. For instance, if the transport situation in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory has become chaotic because commercial cyclists, tricycle riders and shared taxi drivers are running riot, this should be the Minister of FCT’s headache. Even though the FCT is the Federal Government’s responsibility, President Buhari already appointed someone as minister and we are at liberty to make the transport situation in the territory part of the minister’s scorecard. Why should the president get bogged down in managing the traffic situation in just one of the nation’s scores of cities? Furthermore, we should all be afraid of setting problematic precedents. If we presently have an energetic and zealous president who is passionate about making a difference, what happens if we ever come to a situation where the president is unable to function on the scale that the incumbent currently does. I suspect the system will simply shut down in that case. Part of the strategy for building systems therefore is to make the component ministries, departments and agencies of government pull their own weights so that they are able to address issues without overloading the Presidency. Those on leadership at these levels are not there on sabbaticals and we should quit treating them as such. Fourthly, I currently find it difficult to make fair guesses as to which sector of our economy is not living up to billing. My present perception of the national situation has fused everything – state government, local government, ministries, agencies and commissions – into one fuzz ball that is Mr President. This tendency, for citizens to create an illusion of super-unitary approach, flies in the face of the established concepts of three tiers and three arms of government. We have to know what is working and what is not for us to make fair demands that will help channel attention to where it is needed. I want to be able to know who has responsibility for what I am interested in: road, healthcare, security and other sectors on a case by case basis. I should even be able to approach the right tier of government as well. Also, there is the risk of other strategic aspects of our lives being neglected as we all fixate on Mr President’s most pressing tasks – security, anti-corruption and economy in this case. I am seeing a situation where appointees who should be running their own organisation stubbornly try to create linkages between their assignments and these focal points even when they are not mutually inclusive. Some of the challenges we knew before this government came into power are being addressed. In my estimate, Mr President’s well thought appointments of the competent persons as military Service Chiefs with a firm anti-corruption stance that ensure needed equipment were procured has empowered the army to contain Boko Haram terrorists. Clearing the security hurdle has paved the way for us to be talking economic direction. When we have charted the economic direction we must move on to other sectors and it is crucial that they are not caught napping when it is time to make them the national focus. But what are we saying about the other sectors? We should be asking those tasked with youths employment about what they are doing. We should be tasking those responsible for reviving industry what they have come with so far. We should not wait for Mr President to make pronouncement about fertilizers and grain storage when some people already have the assignment of making this happen seamlessly. We mustn’t face protracted union strikes before we dig into details of plans to bring education up to par with global standards. When there is economic boom in a secured country we will individually have health issues to deal with. So, we should ask those running the health sector what we should expect. These things should run concurrently and not wait for Mr President to relocate to their headquarters before they know the urgency of their roles even though they are not on the front burner right now. My prescription is that while we all join President Buhari in constantly having a helicopter view of the big picture, we must also use our expertise and areas of interest to monitor the small pictures. We should as citizens use our constitutional rights to oversight sectoral activities and hold officials to account and possibly flag any failing for Mr President to then act on. This is the way we can save the nation from this our own version of water drinking contest of who is most fanatical about our PMB. It is important we do this because we cannot risk the possibility of “water intoxication” from fixating too much on Mr President. Attah is a public affairs commentator based in Abuja.

Matters arising from the Supreme Court judgment in the Saraki case

INTRODUCTION: The Supreme Court, our apex court, has spoken in the Dr Bukola Saraki case, and its judgment, delivered on February 5, 2016 carries an authority that is unchallengeable, except in the court of public opinion, which is a vital bedrock of governance in a democratic society, such as we aspire to become. All of us, as stakeholders in the Nigerian state project, constitute the latter court, and have a duty to contribute to the discussion on the questions provoked by the Supreme Court judgment in the case. The unchallengeability of the said judgment pre-supposes that it meets the standards of near-infallibility, conclusiveness and finality expected from a court of last resort, and that it is informed by the compelling need to ensure that decisions of the Court, as a court of last resort, are consistent with each other, and, above all, with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, as well as with laws validly enacted by the legislature, all in the interest of the need, also imperative, for certainty and symmetry in the law and for its orderly development. Whether the Supreme Court decision on the issue of the jurisdiction of the CCT is consistent with the constitution. The judgment in the Saraki case will now be critically examined against the standards and requirements stated above, beginning with the issue whether the decision is consistent with the law of the Constitution which, in affirmation of it supremacy, declares null and void, “any law “ that is inconsistent with its provisions: section 1(3). A court decision is indisputably a law within the meaning of section 1(3). The Supreme Court held, per Onnoghen JSC delivering the lead judgment, that “paragraph 18 of the 5th schedule to the 1999 Constitution as amended is replete with unambiguous terms and expressions indicating that the proceedings before the said Conduct of Tribunal are criminal in nature”, that “the said tribunal has a quasi-criminal jurisdiction designed by the 1999 Constitution”, and that “it is a peculiar tribunal crafted by the Constitution.” The question arising is whether the Supreme Court is right in holding that the Constitution itself invests the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) with a quasi-criminal jurisdiction. The decision is based partly on inference from the fact that many of the stipulations in the Code of Conduct in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution are coached in prohibitory terms. But a close look at the Code shows that, notwithstanding the prohibitory terms of such stipulations, the Code is, in its essential character, simply a body of rules designed to regulate the civil, not criminal, behaviour of public officers, much in the fashion of the Civil Service Rules. The view that the Fifth Schedule invests the CCT with a quasi-criminal jurisdiction is negated by paragraphs 18(3) & (6) of the said Schedule, especially paragraph 18(3) which says that “the sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence” This suggests that the conduct proscribed by the Code is not thereby made a criminal offence. In any case, it is not the purpose or role of a constitution anywhere in the world to create criminal offences, that being the function of the statute law. Conformably with the generally accepted role of a constitution, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 provides in section 36(12) that “a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty thereof is prescribed in a written law, and in this subsection, a written law refers to an Act of the National Assembly or a Law of a State, any subsidiary legislation or instrument under the provisions of a law” (emphasis supplied). Criminal jurisdiction The Constitution is not included. Accordingly, any criminal jurisdiction or “quasi-criminal jurisdiction” claimed for the CCT could not have derived from, or been conferred on it by, the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s attribution of a quasi-criminal jurisdiction to the CCT is also inconsistent with section 6 of the Constitution, which vests judicial power in nine courts listed by name in subsection (5) and “such other courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly [or a House of Assembly] may make laws”. The CCT is not one of the nine courts listed by name in section 6(5). Since it is established by the Constitution, and if it had been the intention that it should share in the vesting of judicial power, the Constitution should have mentioned it by name like the nine courts so named, instead of leaving it to be included by law made later by the National Assembly under the residual clause. It must be concluded, therefore, that the CCT does not partake in the vesting of judicial power; in other words, it is not one of the courts in which judicial power is vested by section 6(1) of the Constitution – assuming it to be a court in the distinctive sense of section 6 of the Constitution. Judicial power The implication of this conclusion flows from the nature of judicial power and the incidents that are exclusive to it. The High Court of Australia (the highest court in that country) has held in Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v. J.W. Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434 at page 444, per Chief Justice Griffith for the Court: “It is not disputed that convictions for offences and the imposition of penalties and punishments are matter appertaining exclusively to judicial powers.” The word “exclusively” is underlined for purposes of emphasis. The learned Chief Justice has observed earlier in the judgment at page 442: “It is impossible under the constitution to confer such functions upon any body other than a court, nor can the difficulty be avoided by designating a body, which is not in its essential character a court, by that name, or by calling the function by another name. In short, any attempt to vest any part of the judicial power…….in any body other than a court is entirely ineffective”. As under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, judicial power is vested in courts specified in section 6(5), it follows that the courts so listed are the only tribunals that can try and convict a person for a criminal offence under the principle laid down by the High Court of Australia in Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v. J.W. Alexander Ltd, supra. The CCT, not being so listed, has no power or jurisdiction, derived from the Constitution, to try, convict and impose punishment on persons for a criminal offence; the decision of the Supreme Court attributing such jurisdiction to it, as jurisdiction derived from the Constitution, is null and void under section 1(3) of the Constitution; also any law made by the National Assembly that confers such jurisdiction on the CCT is null and void (see further below) The principle of the decision in Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v. J.W. Alexander Ltd, supra, as enshrined in sections 6, 35(1)(a) and 36(4) of the Constitution of Nigeria, has been affirmed and re-affirmed by our Supreme Court. Disciplinary tribunal Thus, in Sofekun v. Akinyemi (1981) 1 NCLR 135 where a public officer in the public service of the then Western Region of Nigeria was dismissed upon a finding of guilt for indecent assault and attempted rape by a disciplinary tribunal constituted and empowered in that behalf under the Public Service Commission Regulations, his dismissal was held null and void by the Supreme Court as a usurpation of judicial power. In a judgment concurred in by Irikefe, Bello, Idigbe, Obaseki, Eso and Aniagolu JJSC, Fatayi-Williams CJN said at page 146: “It seems to me that once a person is accused of a criminal offence, he must be tried in a court of law where the complaints of his accusers can be ventilated in public and where he would be sure of getting a fair hearing….. No other Tribunal, Investigating Panel or Committee will do…If Regulations such as those under attack in this appeal were valid, the judicial power could be wholly absorbed by the Commission (one of the organs of the Executive branch of the State Government) and taken out of the hand of the magistrates and judges…. If the Commission is allowed to get away with it, judicial power will certainly be eroded……The jurisdiction and authority of the courts of this country cannot be usurped by either the Executive or the Legislative branch of the Federal or State Government under any guise or pretext whatsoever”. (emphasis supplied). The decision was re-affirmed by the Court in Garba v. University of Maiduguri [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550 where some students involved in acts of rioting and arson were expelled from the University. Constitutional requirement The Supreme Court, reversing the Court of Appeal and affirming the trial court, declared the expulsion null and void: first, since the expulsion was based on criminal offences alleged to have been committed by the students, only the court, but not the Visitor, Vice-Chancellor or the investigating panel set up by the University, is, by virtue of sections 6 and 33(1), (4) and (13) of the 1979 Constitution, competent to adjudicate upon the guilt or innocence of the students for the alleged criminal offences; second, whilst the University authorities may expel a student for misconduct not amounting to a criminal offence, yet as a disciplinary body, they are bound to act judicially, comply with the constitutional requirement of fair hearing and observe the other requirement of the rule of natural justice; in this case, the students were not given a fair hearing, and as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, being a victim of the students’ rampage (his house was burnt down), his chairmanship of the investigating panel created a real likelihood of bias in that he was thereby put in a position of being both a witness and a judge all at the same time. It is remarkable that, in Justice Onnoghen’s 37-page lead judgment, section 6 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s previous decisions in Sofekun v. Akinyemi (supra) and Garba v. University of Jos (supra), based on that section were not cited or considered. They were also not cited or considered in any of the other judgments delivered in the case. The judgments must be taken to have been given per incuriam, with the consequences noted later below. But the public deserves to know why. The issue of jurisdiction in the Saraki case cannot be settled aright without reference to section 6 and the decisions based on it.

Senators, Reps query CBN over utilisation of N1trn revenue in 2015

ABUJA—THE joint Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on Banking and Currency yesterday queried the nation’s apex bank, the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, for allegedly spending N1.062 trillion revenue above the N482.167 billion proposed income for the year 2015. The lawmakers, who lamented that the apex bank overshot its spending in the 2014 appropriation by over fifty percent during the 2015 budget performance and 2016 budget defence of budgetary allocation to CBN, noted that the bank had imbibed the habit of spending more than what was budgeted to it. According to them, “CBN is developing a culture of spend as I earn attitude. They added hat the bank should have remitted N400 billion operating surplus to government’s treasury. The lawmakers also queried what they described as the astronomical increase in staff cost from N158.134 billion in 2015 to N408.808 billion as proposed in 2016 budget; and non-inclusion of commission for brokers, Dutch income, in its budget proposal. They wondered why the CBN should spend N780 million on the dealing room, N226 million for recruitment, N1.5 billion on research, N75.980 billion loss incurred from SWAP, N.8 billion on data collection and about N1 billion on Entrepreneurial Development Centre. The committee demanded for CBN financial statement, nominal roll, details of foreign and domestic investments, among other contentious issues raised at the meeting. To address some of the contending issues on the operations and core mandate of the banks, the committee resolved to hold a special session next week with CBN management. Speaking at the budget defence, representatives of the CBN disclosed that the country’s foreign reserve which stands at $27.66 billion, might decline further to $18 billion for 2016. On the recent calls for the devaluation of naira, Adebayo Adelabu, CBN Deputy Governor (Corporate Affairs) and Suleiman Barau, CBN Deputy Governor (Operations), while fielding questions from the lawmakers, defended the position of government not to further devalue the Naira. They, however, noted that the bank did not envisage devaluation of naira and assured of maintaining the $196.97/$1 exchange rate. and other interventions in critical sectors of the economy, including agriculture, power, aviation and SMEs, aimed at stabilizing the economy. He further disclosed that the sum of N616 billion revenue was realised from the devaluation of naira in 2014 and that a large chunk of the revenue was spent to stabilize the economy through mopping up of liquidity. Also contributing, Barau, who disclosed that commercial banks had about N8 trillion balances domiciled with the CBN at present, stressed the need to organise real sector reform for banks in the bid to improve lending.

President Buhari takes concrete stand on Naira devaluation

– President Muhammadu Buhari rejects naira devaluation – Says developed countries can afford it because of their competition – Reveals his administration’s plan to cusion the effect of oil fall in the global market President Muhammadu Buhari has once again reiterated that his government would not devalue the naira, Speaking on February 20, at a Presidential Panel Roundtable on Investment and Growth Opportunities at the opening session of the Africa 2016: “Business for Africa, Egypt and the World” at Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, Buhari completely ruled out any though of devaluing the currency. President Buhari, who stressed his disapproval to naira devaluation, revealed that Nigeria cannot compete with developed countries which are already in production competition among themselves. He stated that developed countries can afford to afford to devalue their local currencies. “Developed countries are competing among themselves and when they devalue they compete better and manufacture and export more. But we are not competing and exporting but importing everything including toothpicks. So, why should we devalue our currency?” Buhari asked. The president disclosed that his government was mapping out ways to guarantee national food security before export of food produce to other countries. President Buhari said the only way Nigeria can escape from the current dwindling oil price in the global oil market because of her dependence on oil revenue is to focus on agriculture. He said with the increasing number of unemployed youths in the country, his administration would also focus on solid minerals development. “The land is there and we need machinery inputs, fertilizer and insecticides,” Buhari said.

Police withdraw Tompolo’s security aides

WARRI- GOVERNOR of one of the South-South states and prominent Ijaw leaders in Delta region have counseled the ex-General Officer Commanding, GOC, defunct Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta, MEND, Government Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo, to show up before the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, which renewed a bench warrant for his arrest on Monday. An Ijaw leader, who preferred anonymity told Vanguard, yesterday: “Our counsel to Tompolo is to stem the feared bombardment of our communities and harassment of innocent citizens by security operatives under the guise of searching for him and perpetrators of January pipeline bombing in the state.” Meanwhile, the Nigeria Police Force, NPF, had withdrawn the security aides approved for Tompolo by the Federal Government since 2009 under the leadership of late President Umaru Yar’Adua. Vanguard learned that the security aides, who had been with Tompolo for nearly six years, were withdrawn soon after Justice Ibrahim Buba issued the first bench warrant against the ex-militant leader, last month. A source close to Tompolo confirmed the development to Vanguard, yesterday. In addition, security chiefs in the Niger-Delta were reportedly strategizing, yesterday, on how to track down Tompolo following the court order to produce him on February 19. Two key questions the Joint Task Force, JTF, in the Niger-Delta had posed to those it arrested over the January pipeline bombing in Delta state were their link with Tompolo and his whereabouts, which it was yet to unravel until the court renewed the bench warrant.

South-East students burdened with fees, levies

Awka—Although the governors of the five South-East states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo, always affirmed their determination to give priority to the education of youths as leaders, the situation on ground show otherwise, as students pay exorbitant school fees in the region. Imo State is the only exemption as it had been providing free education for students since Governor Rochas Okorocha assumed office in 2011. y. However, Okorocha has vowed to introduce fees for non-natives of the state as Imo people resident in other states were made to pay school fees. He said it was foolhardy to provide free education for non-natives when it was not the same thing in other states, where Imo people reside. A survey carried out in the five states showed that apart from Imo, which was implementing free education at all levels, the other four states were not education-friendly as they charged high fees even as some implemented discriminatory school fees among the students. … of fees, levies In Anambra State, where education is regarded as the biggest industry, students in public primary and secondary schools pay levies instead of school fees. Senior secondary school students pay about N3,000 as levies, while those in the junior classes pay about N2,500 per session even as admissions into such schools attracted an initial payment of about N12,000 for each student. Those seeking admission into any class are usually charged fees for the three terms in a session, even if they were changing schools in the third term. The situation is, however, different for the private and missionary schools where fees range from N20,000 to N100,000 per term. Apart from the official school fees, levies are charged through the various Parents’ Teachers Associations, PTAs, especially if there were projects to be executed in the school. For the tertiary institution, fees at the state-owned Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University range from N100,000 for non-professional courses to N130,000 for professional courses. The fees include sundry charges such as students’ union dues, departmental fees, laboratory fees among others. Abia In Abia State, primary and secondary schools are also said to be free, but some schools charge illegal levies of between N1,000 and N3,000 yearly. Fees charged at the state’s tertiary institutions are high compared to the financial capacity of the indigenes. At Abia State University, the fees are between N65,000 and N300,000, depending on the course of study. Medicine and other related courses cost much higher than the arts and social sciences. At the state polytechnic in Aba, students are charged between N50,000 to N60,000, per semester, while those at the College of Education, Technical, pay fees ranging from N45,000 to N50,000, per semester. Ebonyi In Ebonyi State, which is the most educationally backward in the geo-political zone, primary and secondary schools are also said to be free. At the College of Education, Ikwo, new and year two students pay N35,000 with those in their third/ final year paying N20,000. For those of the Federal University Ndufu Alike, Ikwo, new entrants pay N56,000 while the old students pay N36,000 per session. The state government, however, charged discriminatory fees as non-natives of the state paid much higher. Ebonyi State indigenous students pay N80,000, while non-indigenes pay N120,000 each. Enugu There are no tuition fees in public primary and secondary schools in Enugu State. However, various levies are paid at both levels. Primary school pupils pay an average of N1,000 for various projects initiated by the Parents’ Teachers Associations, PTAs. Even those in secondary schools pay various levies ranging from N100 to N900 per session. Both JSS 3 and SS 3 students pay between N700 and N900 in addition to the official fees charged for their examinations. At the Enugu State College of Education, Technical, ESCET, new students for NCE programme pay N48,000 while those undergoing degree courses pay N69,000 including acceptance fees. Also in ESCET, Sandwich/Part-Time Degree tuition, including acceptance fee, is N80,000. Students at the Enugu State University of Science and Technology, ESUT, pay N126,000, excluding N25,000 acceptance fee and other departmental fees. Students who choose to stay in the hostels pay an additional N40,000. At the Institute of Management and Technology, IMT, new students pay N65,000, including acceptance fees, while hostel accommodation is N40,000. The University of Nigeria Nsukka, UNN, which is a Federal Government-owned institution, pegged its own fees at N90,000 apart from a compulsory laptop fee of N75,000 for new students, even as old students pay N55,000 each. Imo Imo State Government has been operating free education programme since Governor Okorocha came on board in 2011. He promised giving school bags, textbooks, desks, sandals and teaching aids to the pupils and their schools. The governor took off with the programme, but events had since proved that he has slowed down or completely stopped the implementation of the policy. Some school heads, interviewed within the week, confessed that they had since run out of instructional materials, even as they said that parents now provided books and uniforms for their wards. South East Voice investigations showed that it was doubtful if the state government would go on with the free education policy, especially with the current economic down turn in the country. Only recently, Okorocha told journalists that he was seriously thinking of slamming fees on non-indigenes, pointing out that it was foolhardy to give such people free education in Imo, while Imo people were forced to pay fees in other states.

South-East students burdened with fees, levies

Awka—Although the governors of the five South-East states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo, always affirmed their determination to give priority to the education of youths as leaders, the situation on ground show otherwise, as students pay exorbitant school fees in the region. Imo State is the only exemption as it had been providing free education for students since Governor Rochas Okorocha assumed office in 2011. y. However, Okorocha has vowed to introduce fees for non-natives of the state as Imo people resident in other states were made to pay school fees. He said it was foolhardy to provide free education for non-natives when it was not the same thing in other states, where Imo people reside. A survey carried out in the five states showed that apart from Imo, which was implementing free education at all levels, the other four states were not education-friendly as they charged high fees even as some implemented discriminatory school fees among the students. … of fees, levies In Anambra State, where education is regarded as the biggest industry, students in public primary and secondary schools pay levies instead of school fees. Senior secondary school students pay about N3,000 as levies, while those in the junior classes pay about N2,500 per session even as admissions into such schools attracted an initial payment of about N12,000 for each student. Those seeking admission into any class are usually charged fees for the three terms in a session, even if they were changing schools in the third term. The situation is, however, different for the private and missionary schools where fees range from N20,000 to N100,000 per term. Apart from the official school fees, levies are charged through the various Parents’ Teachers Associations, PTAs, especially if there were projects to be executed in the school. For the tertiary institution, fees at the state-owned Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University range from N100,000 for non-professional courses to N130,000 for professional courses. The fees include sundry charges such as students’ union dues, departmental fees, laboratory fees among others. Abia In Abia State, primary and secondary schools are also said to be free, but some schools charge illegal levies of between N1,000 and N3,000 yearly. Fees charged at the state’s tertiary institutions are high compared to the financial capacity of the indigenes. At Abia State University, the fees are between N65,000 and N300,000, depending on the course of study. Medicine and other related courses cost much higher than the arts and social sciences. At the state polytechnic in Aba, students are charged between N50,000 to N60,000, per semester, while those at the College of Education, Technical, pay fees ranging from N45,000 to N50,000, per semester. Ebonyi In Ebonyi State, which is the most educationally backward in the geo-political zone, primary and secondary schools are also said to be free. At the College of Education, Ikwo, new and year two students pay N35,000 with those in their third/ final year paying N20,000. For those of the Federal University Ndufu Alike, Ikwo, new entrants pay N56,000 while the old students pay N36,000 per session. The state government, however, charged discriminatory fees as non-natives of the state paid much higher. Ebonyi State indigenous students pay N80,000, while non-indigenes pay N120,000 each. Enugu There are no tuition fees in public primary and secondary schools in Enugu State. However, various levies are paid at both levels. Primary school pupils pay an average of N1,000 for various projects initiated by the Parents’ Teachers Associations, PTAs. Even those in secondary schools pay various levies ranging from N100 to N900 per session. Both JSS 3 and SS 3 students pay between N700 and N900 in addition to the official fees charged for their examinations. At the Enugu State College of Education, Technical, ESCET, new students for NCE programme pay N48,000 while those undergoing degree courses pay N69,000 including acceptance fees. Also in ESCET, Sandwich/Part-Time Degree tuition, including acceptance fee, is N80,000. Students at the Enugu State University of Science and Technology, ESUT, pay N126,000, excluding N25,000 acceptance fee and other departmental fees. Students who choose to stay in the hostels pay an additional N40,000. At the Institute of Management and Technology, IMT, new students pay N65,000, including acceptance fees, while hostel accommodation is N40,000. The University of Nigeria Nsukka, UNN, which is a Federal Government-owned institution, pegged its own fees at N90,000 apart from a compulsory laptop fee of N75,000 for new students, even as old students pay N55,000 each. Imo Imo State Government has been operating free education programme since Governor Okorocha came on board in 2011. He promised giving school bags, textbooks, desks, sandals and teaching aids to the pupils and their schools. The governor took off with the programme, but events had since proved that he has slowed down or completely stopped the implementation of the policy. Some school heads, interviewed within the week, confessed that they had since run out of instructional materials, even as they said that parents now provided books and uniforms for their wards. South East Voice investigations showed that it was doubtful if the state government would go on with the free education policy, especially with the current economic down turn in the country. Only recently, Okorocha told journalists that he was seriously thinking of slamming fees on non-indigenes, pointing out that it was foolhardy to give such people free education in Imo, while Imo people were forced to pay fees in other states.