 Ex-Quarist Speaker Ali Ahmad Rai to Ahmad Lawan and urges National Assembly to override Baha'iri. This is Trust Politics. I am Mary Anna Cole. A former member of the House of Representatives Ali Ahmad has asked the Senate President Ahmad Lawan to override President Mohammed Baha'iri's decision and some constitutional amendment bills. He explained that Mr Baha'iri specifically rejected some bills that would strengthen the National Assembly as an institution noting that the legislative arm must stand against the President in the interest of the institution. In March, Mr Baha'iri assented to 16 constitutional amendment bills passed by the National Assembly and 24 State Houses of Assembly. However, he declined to sign 19 others into law. Mr Lawan had stated that the Senate will investigate the refusal of the President to assent to these 19 bills. Some of the bills the President declined to have to do with strengthening the National Assembly. Joining us to discuss this is George Ashiru. He is the Chairman ADC, Lake Art State, and Professor Richard Wakocha is a Professor of Law at the Rivers State University of Port Hacker. Thank you so much gentlemen for joining us. Good evening. Good evening. How are you? Thanks for having me. Great. All right. I'm going to start with you Professor Wakocha. Let's look at the issue raised by the lawmaker in Qares data. He obviously was part of those who looked at some of those bills, the 16 that Mr President had given his assent to. But now 19 of those bills are yet to be signed. And one of those is the power to summon the President, the inclusion of former heads of National Assembly in the Council of State and the reduction of the period within which the President or the Governor of the State may authorize the withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the absence of an Appropriations Act from six months to three months. Let's start with the very first one, which is the fact that the National Assembly does have the power, would have the power to summon the President. Now we've seen over time that the National Assembly has summoned several government members of the Executive Council, ministers, sometimes the Governor of Central Bank. We've seen that half the time these people do not honor the summons. Would this not be a way to deepen our democracy in the words of the Qares state lawmaker? Professor Wakata, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you clearly. All right, go ahead. Clearly. Yes. Whether it will succeed in deepening democracy or not remains to be seen. The power of that amendment was speaking. It's not entirely new. Section 189 of the constitution where the National Assembly is empowered to summon any person in Nigeria. Any person in Nigeria means any person in Nigeria. Nobody is excluded who may possess information or document that is relevant to an investigation they are conducting over matters with respect to which they have competence to be clawed. So that power in a way already exists. And if persons have not been obeying it, they have the power to compel attendance of those persons. And if they have not been able to enforce that part or to apply that part of the law, by asking maybe the Inspector General to produce that person, it's certainly a question of enlarging the provisions in the law. If you have a provision already made for you, it's not likely going to get better by the start. I think we have a connection issue with you there. You're breaking. So we're going to try to see if we can get you back into the meeting so that we can hear you better. But let me come to Mr. Shiru. It's very interesting that one of the most important on the list of priority of these bills is the power of the National Assembly to summon governors and even Mr. President to talk about spending or let's look at it generally as accountability of sorts, especially when the lines are blurred. For example, we know that right now, I think just barely 24 hours, the Attorney General of the Federation and the Finance Minister just finally agreed to appear before the National Assembly for some of 200 million that they've not been able to account for. Now we've seen this happen so many times. Governors write bogus budgets and half the time these budgets are not implemented and nobody's asking questions and National Assemblies and States Assemblies should be asking those questions. But how do we deal with that issue if we have Robert Stamp Legislature spread across the country? Thank you very much. I mean, I'm going to take this from a political angle, obviously, as a political leader. I think corporate governance is clearly a problem in a political space. The concept of impunity, it doesn't even start from the electoral season when individual candidates don't even want to appear for debates. How do you then hold them to account for their actions, their thoughts, their policies, their programs? And when they get into power there's this tendency to go back into a cultural instinct which is to protect our power, protect our power base. So what I believe here now is that it's a case of executive believing that it does not report to the Legislature and so it cannot be held to account by virtue of the political process, not even because of the constitution. We already know the constitution is weak in many areas because of the fact that it was put together by military government in a short period of time. It hasn't considered all of the various issues that are pertinent to our nation as a multicultural nation with diverse issues and diverse problems. And that's why the amendments are important. The amendments are trying to correct over time all of the issues that we have, you know, in the absence of a sovereign national conference. And so I believe that calling those in executives to account for their actions is corporate governance. It is expected, it is statutory and them not accepting to go for it. I think voters should take note of it and take that into consideration when people are being voted for in the future. However, purely constitutionally, if the constitution is not very clear, I'm not a person expert like Professor, it's not extremely and very, very, very clear as to the supremacy of the Legislature over the Executive. The President would always feel the Legislature cannot call for it to appear before. I mean, we can't even have a state of the nation address as requested by the National Assembly. The President, the President has the power to veto bills that's going to approve by two-thirds of the entire country. So I think there's a weakness itself in the constitution that needs to be addressed holistically and therefore we will be able to avoid this peaceful approach to solving our national problems. I like how you brought in the issue of sovereign national conference. I mean, all of these things have been adopted one way or the other, different points in the life of this country, especially in our democratic setting, to see how we can address the constitutional loopholes that we have because half the time when you're talking to people about how our governance, how flawed our governance is, many times they point to the inadequacies within our constitution. First and foremost, many would say that this constitution was not crafted necessarily for a democratic system of government. Many would point to the fact that this constitution, as amended, was crafted by military rulers for a democratic setting, hence making it very difficult to adapt to. But then let's look at some of these sovereign national conferences that we've had, even the Comfab that we had. Where are those, you know, the deliberations, the outcome of the Comfab? They're packing up dust somewhere. So it's like we spend money to address these issues, but we never get to the nitty gritty of addressing the issues or even the action of making these issues become some bill or law. Yeah, because the sum total of what was discussed at these various conferences in the past were not converted to bills that were approvable. So you knew that the intention was to have a talk show to come up with ideals, but you then have to go through the painful process of going through either a national referendum, which is not in the constitution, or taking it as bills at the National Assembly and then the State Assembly and a center to by the president so that we can then have the decisions made in those confabs applicable. But we do not know that enough of the issues raised were converted to bills, and that would have made a difference. Of course, because of agitation, certain areas like derivations going to states that are producing whatever materials, we know that some of those ones have been able to scale through, but that's because of armed agitations. It wasn't because the people in power thought this was the wisest way to devolve power to the people. If you look at the exclusive list, if you look at the current list, this is too top-heavy. So the amendments are critical, and the overriding power of the National Assembly is that if a bill has been passed by the National Assembly and State Assemblies, it should be able to stand in the constitution without the president. When the president overrides it by veto power, the National Assembly has the power to override the veto. But when you're in the same party, clearly you're not going to go against your president, and so this is where we are, and the 10th National Assembly is going to be muddled up, we're going to have eight parties there. So let's see how it all goes going forward. Let's see, Prof. Wakota, let me come back to you. Let's talk about the constitutional aspect of this. Just like Mr. Shiru has said, he's mentioned that of course the constitution empowers, gives the National Assembly certain powers. For example, Section 58, Subsection 5 of the 1999 constitution gives the National Assembly power to override the president on a rejected bill. But then we never see, I mean, the Senate President Ahmed Lawman had said they will investigate, and it's a few days to go, and he will no longer be Senate president, and this particular Senate and this particular National Assembly would be passed, and then a fresh set of people are going to come in. Why do you think it's taken so long for the members of this National Assembly to override Mr. President, or could it be that they somewhat agree silently with the position of Mr. President? Well, I think it's unfortunate Mr. President did not indicate why he refused to ascend to those bills. But just looking at the bills the way they are, you may find that some of them are rather duplicative, because if you look at Section 88 of the constitution, as well as Section 89 of the constitution, you'll find that it gives the National Assembly the power to investigate matters, and gives them the power to compare attendance. However, it says any person, and any person covers everybody. But again, you will remember that the persons of the president, the vice president, governor and deputy governor are by Section 308 of the constitution made immune to prosecution. They cannot be compelled to attend any investigation. They cannot be preceded against any civil president or any of such things. So if you look at it critically, that amendment will be proposing that it should be possible for National Assembly to compare the president to do what Section 308 says cannot be done. Those may be some of the silent constitutional issues that may have warranted the non-signing of those particular ones. But as for the decision of the Senate president, where he hasn't said they have no intention to override the president on the veto of the president. However, considering that they are of the same party, perhaps it's expected that there will be some consultation before they will proceed to the inevitable, which is deciding whether or not in the interest of the nation and of the people they should override the presidential veto. The power to do so is always there. It's the courage and determination to do so that sometimes determines whether or not we see our legislature put that power to use. But I do not think it's a matter to rush because a lot of times our laws are made as if privilege was not hard to the constitution. As if they did not have access to the constitution to see that some of those things are duplicitous and are not necessary because they are already provided for. Talking about timing, I just would like to take our minds back that the National Assembly and all 36 states' assemblies across the Federation had spent three years, expanded billions on considering 36, if I'm not mistaken, 68 of these bills and for them to not again spend more time to see which is most important, prioritize it and see what they could veto on. I mean, because like I said, we're counting down to the handover to a next and a new administration and these bills are yet to be, for me it sounds like something that we often do. We make so much noise about this constitutional amendment, but then we never get to the point where we actually amend that constitution and let the people get value for the monies that we push into these amendments, these bogus amendments. What are your thoughts on this? Perhaps the timing was a bit poor. Timing for forwarding those bills for ascent was a bit poor. But that's it. I think that one month is enough time for the National Assembly to do what it needs to do, where the President has failed to ascent to the bills, where he vetoes the bills. However, I mean, look at it. You have approximately one month and either nine days or ten days left. With that, the National Assembly feels strongly that those amendments that are absolutely necessary, they can go ahead and exercise the power as the gentleman is calling on the Senate president to do. It lies within their power. It's not a question of whether they have sufficient determination to drive those changes for the people and in the interest of the nation. I think subsequently it would be good to adopt a better timing so that you don't do it in the period that you were in earlier and you won't have time to react to the President vetoing the bill. Let me come to you, Mr. Sheru. Let's talk about precedence because, you know, in this country, that's the kind of thing that we always pay attention to precedence. Now, former Speaker of the Senate, Senator Pius, I.A. Pius, you know, he let the National Assembly to veto the President's order of President's Act in 2000. I mean, we all remember that President Zabasinger didn't want to accord due recognition to principal officers in the National Assembly. We remember very well. But the following year, the President also vowed that the NDDC Act would never become law in Nigeria. It's passed by the National Assembly. He vetoed it again. The Senator defied and overrode that veto. And so I'm asking, if we've had so much precedence, again, why is it taking long? I mean, Professor Wakota is saying that, oh, there's some of these bills that already are, that have provisions in the Constitution. But these people have had three good years. Why is it taking long? I mean, if we know that this is already in the Constitution, we'll toss it out and then tell the people, as the Ninth Assembly, this is what we think we should override Mr. President on. And here you have it. And would this not be a good legacy before these people leave office? So you're very correct. And as a matter of fact, I think the critical issue is that it's politics, you understand. As much as the interest of the people is important to those in power, it's also important to keep a certain kind of party discipline. So while there is an understanding that certain issues are pertinent to the people, the process and the timing for applying them are also critical. I don't think a party wants to reduce the power of its president, the president which it has put head into power. And so whatever they do, even when a bill is brought, it can be a private member bill and the bill could come from the opposition. The bill could come from civil society, it could come from citizens. And so the party would do whatever it can to take the items of that bill that are useful and applicable and save at the same time for its tenure in power. So I think if you look at Kyle's onion, what he did at that time was that a lot of bills are presented to Vasudeva for solidated bills. And so it was difficult if he did not agree on one item to simply get this in everything. So he learned to break down the various items into separate tiny bills so that you did not have a consolidated rejection of better. And I think the various national assemblies that have come after that have learned that technique as well. However, it's on record that President Buharia has got to farm mobiles or refused to ascend to farm mobiles than his predecessors. Which means that really 60 bills is quite a lot of bills that this national assembly, this ninth assembly has worked on. And we should give them the credit for that. But the question for us is why is it that all the bills ascended to by the president are bills of things that are not of critical importance to the nation as a whole? They do not influence, like for example, the definition of power to the states, financial independence, those are the critical things people want. They want some kind of the capacity to believe that we're a federation and therefore the state partners are just as powerful and so on and so forth. So those are the bills that currently now have these issues, as well of course the power of summons. Because then if you're not... Okay, let us even leave the immunity of the president. How about the central bank government? How about ministers? Are they open with you? They're not immune. But they believe they are covered by presidential privilege. That if the president says don't you, that the president's immunity covers me. So those areas are very important to be attended to on their own merits. And you know, after May 29, any bill that is not ascended to and there's no overriding of that veto, it would have to be taken from scratch all over again by the New Assembly. That is even if they decide to bring it forward to a new president. So it's a challenge, it's a political system. I think it's political we were talking about now. It's more than constitutional issues. It's whether the party in power that has the majority in the National Assembly think these issues are important enough to promote and push and approve. And unfortunately, we are at the tail end of that particular party as a current leadership. So let's see if anything changes in the next one. Except of course, the president decides to sign some of those bills if not all of it before May 29. Let me come back to you, Professor Wakota. Let's talk about the role of our National Assembly. Over time, since we began what we call a nascent democracy in this country. I mean, let's look at how in other climes, for example, when we see Prime Minister's questions, they call them PMQs in the UK, where the Prime Minister shows up and he's questioned on certain issues or actions that he's taken. And these questions are thrown at him by members of the National Assembly or members of the parliament because they are speaking to issues that concern members of the constituents, meaning that they're representing their constituencies. We also see in the US where half the time when issues are being deliberated on it's basically and purely in the best interest or the common interest or overall interest of the people that they represent. How is that reflective here in this part of the world over the years and it's not just about the Ninth Assembly. All of the assemblies that we've seen, how well have these people done in terms of representing the interest of their constituents as opposed to personal interest? I think we have scored very low on the area of developing democratic culture. In our discourses, you tend to find us talking of powers and powers and not the people, the interests of the people. Both the government and all the institutions of government are answerable to the people, they belong to the people and the interest of the people is supposed to be the driving force in formulation of policies. But unfortunately, that does not appear to have been important to us as a nation throughout almost throughout our National Assembly experience. You'll find that the will to do what needs to be done because it is in the interest of the people has always been rather very low. And so you find this debate about pandering to the dignity of the office or the president, the president's desire to retain the powers of the president or the party's desire to retain the powers of the president. I think perhaps we are not putting sufficiently equipped and prepared people into those positions because the National Assembly is the supervisor to the executive. The president is answerable to the National Assembly. Even though he has immunity, the National Assembly is the only body that can exert dissonant reaction against the president including removing him from office. It is not for nothing that that body is drawn from the constituencies where the people vote them into position. So I think it's about the National Assembly being a little more accepting and being more conscious of the fact that they are there to serve the interests of the people and the interests of the nation. Look at the these amendments we are talking about and look at the examples we are giving. Ministers refusing to honor invitations. Central Bank of Nigeria, the governor of Central Bank refusing to honor invitations. What says the National Assembly cannot compare them to attend? Section 189 provides for the power to issue warrant to compare their attendance. The inspector general could be asked compared to bring them to the National Assembly. That has not been done. We are expecting them to be gentlemen and to work in accordance with democratic culture to respond to responsible and reasonable invitations to come and explain to the representatives of the people or to the people through their representatives. But we are not accepting ourselves. The law provides for us to be able to compare them to attend. So is it that we are trying to be nice to the president or to the executive that we don't want to exercise our power? The power is there in your hand. You don't want to exercise it and you are not calling for amendment of the constitution to enable you. Someone, the one that the constitution says cannot be someone to explain anything criminal or civil. In reasonable countries, the president attends and explains to the legislature because they understand and explain to the people through their representatives. That is the culture we have not developed yet. Perhaps as a result of the crop of people we have voted into these positions of responsibility. I bet that you could someday have people who will be conscious of what their commitment is that their commitment is to the people and who will on their own offer to come and explain when there is a situation. For now, we are still playing the traditional game of who has the power, who is more important, who is the superior one, who can do and undo and all of that. Now, the legislature needs to take us beyond the territory and implement the law. Section 89 provides for them the capacity to compel attendance by issuing warrants. They should do so and let the inspector general or police fail to produce those people. Then we can turn back to the executive to blame the executive. Or for now, they are not asserting themselves. They are not implementing the provisions of the existing law, the constitution as it is, without amendment. We'll take a quick break. When we return, we'll talk about the role that we as the populace play in the kind or the level of impunity that we experience in leadership in Nigeria. Stay with us, we'll be right back. It's still plus politics and I'm being joined still by George Ashiro, the chairman of the ADC here in Lagos State and Professor Richard Aduche Warkocha, who is a professor of law at the River State University in Port Hackett. Gentlemen, thank you very much for staying with us. Before we went on that break, Professor Warkocha, you were making a point about, you know, the owners being on the National Assembly and to, you know, make some of these changes. But let's talk about impunity and the level at which it is thriving in our nation. I mean, we see this among politicians and I mean, I don't need to go into the description or the definition of what impunity is, but our leaders have so far displayed so much level of impunity over time, so much so that even those who walk within and around them are beginning to tap from it. We see that level of impunity also within our law enforcement. We see that same level of impunity even within the civil service. So my big question is, how do we even begin to pivot away from this level of impunity if it has become the order of the day? Mr. Ashiro. Well, impunity will clearly refer to the fact that we have a culture and, you know, in any space, whether it's a corporate space, whether it's a military space, whether it's traditional institutions, culture determines how people behave. And that culture is inherited from the leadership. So when the leadership displays a sense of not inaccountable, then you do not expect followers to be accountable because they have picked up the vibe, so to speak, from the leadership. And I think we have to look at models of leadership all over the world. We can see that in other states of America, whether the president, the former president of Trump is not going to be held to account for violations of certain areas of the law in New York, whether it's business laws or political laws or constitutional laws, he's held accountable for it. And that's because you have a judiciary that is independent. Even the government itself is independent. You had the justice department investigating and getting its own president. You might not be able to bring him to the stand, but once he's out of office, you have a reason to arrest him. So I think the general idea is that democracy is still new to what's in Africa. We are still learning the context and concept of democracy. We are still transitioning from, really, from military rule, I believe. And so Imundo has been 24 years plus. Really, our people are governments and various institutions in government. They do not understand the idea of accountability, of public governance, of justice, of equality of human rights, and all of the things that are critical. And that's culture. That's the culture we do not have. And I'm not talking about culture as in terms of your genetics or your tribal culture. I'm talking about a nation. We do not have a national culture. We do not have a national ideology of what we believe in, that people will follow through and say, Nigerians, we don't steal. As Nigerians, we know we're not corrupt. As Nigerians, because, unfortunately, what has been seen through history is that different people have come into leadership, done whatever they want to do, and just gone away with it. And it's become the culture that future generations have picked up from, even good quality individuals. The moment you get into a system, a system then becomes, you know, your culture, your practice. So that's why you hear good people go into politics and that because there's not enough osmosis of those kinds of people. And we need to do a lot of work by creating democratic institutions that will teach that kind of culture, which we are hoping for, so that hopefully the next National Assembly, the next leaders of the country, and so on and so forth, even at the political party system level, we understand the importance of doing what is best for Nigeria, not what is best for us, putting party before the people. That's what I think. Professor Wacocha, let's talk about us, the people, the electorate, and the role that we play in how we are led, because you can't have leaders without the lead. Do we place less emphasis on the people? Do we sit a lot on the fence and say, well, they have the police, they have the army, they have the monies, they have everything, and we have nothing. We're just mere people. I ask this because I know that at some point in my life, I know that I had been to homes of some of these political leaders, local government, chairman, senators, and there are people who leave off of these people, not caring where these monies come from, but they go to them with all their problems, financial and otherwise, and I'm asking, could we also be responsible for the kind of leadership that we're getting, not as a result of just the fact that they come from our environment, but the pressure that we put on them, wrong pressure? Well, you can tell yet, we subject public officials to pressures that are not... Professor Wakota, are you still there? Deserable for the people who want to come. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you now. Professor, are you still there? Yes, yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Okay, good. So, you can tell yet, that we subject them to pressures that are not desirable for people who want to leave it. But that is not enough prison. It's not at all enough prison. The reason we take pains to commit policies to law is to make them compulsory, to ensure that the public space is governed by prayer grid norms. And when that is done, it does not matter what you are asked to pay. You know, I have consistently argued even on this station that the degree of responsibility government exhibits is directly related to the effective scenario system that no government would want to be branded as a government that is irresponsible to complaints, or as a government that is detached from the people. They will pay a price at the next election. So, I see a direct relationship between our perfecting our electoral reforms and getting government to be responsible and responsible. What you are experiencing in this country happens where government is detached from the people. That detachment usually results from government being able to get this... Professor Wakocha, are you still there? I think that we have lost that connection. But let me just back to... Mr. Sashiri, can you quickly just chime in there before I pose my next question? Sorry? Can you quickly chime in? Asper, what our role in making sure that these people do their job as opposed to what we do going to them for handouts? Well, I mean, if you look at the nature of our democracy, I keep saying it, it's a new culture. It's a generational issue that we are coming out of a repressed society that has been repressed over the years from inheriting the monarchical system then into the experimentation with the elementary system for a very short period of time and then a long period of military rule. And so people have become jundiced that it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do. People in authority will do whatever they want to do and that's why the citizens there's a lot of apathy. Look at these last elections. Despite the massive voter drive the voter turnout was seen very, very low. Extremely low. And so it indicates was that people don't believe in democracy yet. People don't trust the democratic system. People believe people are dissolution in the leadership that we offer them. And a lot of citizens believe that regardless of how they vote, decisions have been made before as to who emerges a leader. And so when you have all of these factors for people to see, it then makes sense for them not to be interested. And besides, there's no safety net for people economically. So you cannot say, oh, if I choose to fight for government, if I take my time, you know, to fight for this right or that right, I'm still protected in terms of my welfare, in terms of my education, my children. And so when all of these factors are put together, it is difficult to hold the citizens responsible for the apathy they show in governance. It is difficult. I would say that because we are politicians who are moving in the grassroots level, we deal with people on a daily basis. We're not in, you know, echelons of power where they are shielded with bulletproof vehicles and doors. We see and hear from these people every day. And at the end of the day, it's going to take a transformational or transcendent level of leadership to be able to relate with the people and still provide a very top. And unfortunately the way we vote right now is because we haven't got anybody or enough people demonstrating that type of leadership to say, oh, this is the standard. And you can see young people screaming and shouting on social media now because they are frustrated. They want something that shows more of what they've seen abroad. But as 30 years ago, without the internet, we didn't have the access to know how other nations and other countries, other citizens, how they took their money to account. But now it's obvious. Anything you do here in Nigeria can see in real time. So hopefully, in my lifetime we will begin to see people holding those in power to account and enforcing it judicially. I like that you brought in the electoral process because I was about to say that we can't talk about accountability without talking about the process in which brings these people into power . I think you and I have had this conversation before about how the political systems that throw up whoever the candidates or the flag bearer would be at the end of the day. Again, you talked about the fact that we had a low voter turnout. Whether it was voter repression or suppression at Big Your Pardon or it was voter apathy, a combination of things. But then it still had to be changed. I think you mentioned the electoral process. Now you're saying that yes, the democratic process is still new. It's still fresh to us and yet to understand and embrace it. But then if we want to change, we obviously ought to be part of that change. But then when you talk about change, the average person is saying, well, I came out to vote. I got my PVC. But does it end there? Or does it go back to the electoral process in itself? And is it still this flawed? Look at what happened in the Damawa state. Can we really ask for accountability from people who are results of this process? Again, it is a matter of law. If someone has found a constitutional process either through the electoral system or criminal activity, the duty of the citizens to hold them to account, especially if they're already in public office. It is the duty. So what I was trying to explain is that the people who are going to hold you to account also depend on you to feed. You can imagine the dichotomy because we do not have individual day economy has not empowered enough people to be sufficiently financially independent. Look at the police who you are going to ask to arrest the man in power who is the one feeding the same men in power. How is he going to be able to do a job effectively? So until the very tips that we are fighting for these various amendments allow the you know, true independence of the of the security apparatus, true independence of the judicial apparatus, true when I mean true. I mean powerfully, constitutionally and financially independent so that they can do their job without the worry that the process that brings me forth as the chairman of this institution or chairman of that institution requires the political approval of the same people that I want to prosecute. So there has to be a strong enough, I mean, whether we'd like it or not, these constitutional amendments, which is the basis of this conversation tonight, they are critical to the survival of our democracy in the long term. It's not for individual parties or individual leaders to say, oh, for the sake of me protecting my power, the greater good of the people is not taken into consideration because what then happens is that there is no change between the state of the people 30 years ago till now. The GDP remains to my per capita remains the same. That obviously means something has gone wrong. There has to be a concept of legacy, which means we are constantly and consistently over the years improving the welfare of the people and the statistics must show it. Because if you look at inflation in the UK, I mean, when I was in school in the UK, I looked at how much, you know, my pounds was getting for pounds at that time. I still get to the same amount for now. I could buy the same things I was buying for 10 pounds 30, 20 years ago. And the same things I could buy for maybe just about 80, 80 pounds. But here it's impossible. It is an order of two, three, four, five thousand percent in terms of my inflationary pressures. So we know truly well that our stations are not getting stronger. They're not getting better. So there is something wrong fundamentally. And so this conversation cannot stop. And that's the duty of the media constantly ensuring that the right information and the right issues are raised. No stop until at least given by those in authority. All right. Well, I want to say thank you gentlemen. Unfortunately, we are out of time. George Ashiro is the chairman, ADC Lagos State and Professor Richard Aduche Wokoccia is a Professor of Law at the River State University of Portugal. Thank you so much, gentlemen, for being part of the conversation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor. All right. Well, thank you all for joining us on the show tonight. And thank you all for being part of the conversation from Monday till today. As usual on Fridays, we leave you with the highlights of the week. And here you go. My name is Mary-Anna Kun. We'll see you next week on Post-Politics. And it is time to begin to put the interest of Nigeria first. And I will tell you, if you want to put this election that has just happened side by side with the 27 election, you will see a lot of similarities with the way I manner the elections are conducted. And we should stop lying to ourselves as Nigerians. We cannot be doing the same thing as we are expecting different results. And has gotten us to me, it was, we didn't have the clear-cut economic policy. There is no way you can point any clear-cut economic policy of this administration. Since everything was done at just a snap, you know, something I just wake up and say, okay, I want to do it now and now and now. So that's how we got to the stage that we are now. We want it prosecuted and we want appropriate political measures to be meted. Else, else, Nigerians, we look at it as paying yes, it has done what it was being asked to do. We have seen series of policemen in this country running foul of our laws, of our rules and the rules of engagement. The moment they are being transferred, when they are being transferred, they will say, yes, they are being transferred. And that will be the end of it. Nigeria or today is different from Nigeria or yesterday. We want that particular policeman to be brought to boot. And not only that, even the wreck that had gone outside is jurisdiction. To go and announce results should not just, should not only be prosecuted, as an anti-Cherman is being demanded. We want him prosecuted and we want him to be punished accordingly. There is a cardinal principle about borrowing. And that is, you have to have a project to commit that borrowing to. Anybody who is borrowing to feed is in trouble, is in financial crisis. That is the first time. The second thing is your ability to repair your loan. Anywhere you go, anywhere at all, you go to a bank or a financial institution and you want to take a loan. That bank or financial institution is going to look at your finances and check that you are able to repair that loan. If you are not able to repair that loan, then regardless of what you want to use the loan for, regardless of your network, the bank or financial institution is going to decline, giving you the loan. A country that is using 96% of its total earnings, just to service that 96% or whatever the country ends, and that is Nigeria, is used in servicing that, meaning the rest of the expenditure of this country, including recurrent expenditure, which involves payment or salaries, travels, office costs, and all of those kind of things. Abit finance with borrowing is in financial catastrophe.