Dessell    ,     August 05, 2012

I know for sure that i don't belong to the deescribed class of illiterates, neither do I belong to the praise-singing class that think every poetic write up is brilliant without actually analyzing the message.

They marvel at the delivery and pay little attention to the actual message.I have no problem with a writer calling people illiterate vs ignorant..Semantics. I have no problem if an article is written in a condescending tone..freedom of speech.

Oh well, my main point here is that people are busy! Not everybody has time to read through an article, that is why writers use headlines. Headlines are important; and if you write a misleading headline and people respond back to the headline without reading the body of the message, you cant fault them and call them ignorant.

The writer should be blamed not the reader and I cant believe the misleading headline made me open this tab. I kept it open for 3 days till i finally got a chance to read it. Phew! Good job Omojuwa!

OMOTAYO, J. A.    Lagos, NIGERIA    June 18, 2012

There is nothing wrong with being in support of or against a person or an issue. What is wrong is in the distortion of facts. The argument adduced by Mr. Waklok in support of Mr. Farouk Lawan-led Committee Report are good. But the references to both Messrs Wole Soyinka and Tai Solarin (late) do not fit in. There was no record or indictment of both men over bribery allegation or illegal enrichment of themselves. For those who might not know the facts, here are a few details: When Mr. Ibrahim Babangida assumed office in Nigeria as a military head of state, he established the Federal Road Safety Commission and appointed Mr. Soyinka to head it. Similarly, he established the People’s Bank and made the late Mr. Solarin as the chairman.
The appointment of Mr. Soyinka came long ahead of that of Mr. Solarin.

Because the coming to power of Mr. Babangida in a palace coup was suspicious, most people opposed to the taking over of government attempted to distance themselves from the regime. Some called on Mr. Soyinka not to honour the appointment. But he did. Up till the time of his exit, he was not accused of corruptly enriching himself nor indicted by any personality, whether corporate or individual. In the case of Mr. Solarin, some of his colleagues and subordinate officers looted the fund. But the chairman, Mr. Solarin, was not involved.

The snag in the two was that Mr. Babangida proved ironically that if they found the management of the units under them to difficult to monitor every activity, he as head of state should not be blamed for corruption of his members of cabinet, governors, etc.

The case of Mr. Lawan was different. He at least is now being investigated on $620,000 bribery scandal. What prompted him to reach an agreement with Mr. Otedola after the committee had concluded her Report? What prompted him to accept the said $500,000 in one or two tranches in Mr. Otedola’s house? What prompted him to seek an amendment to the final report so that the names of two companies earlier indicted in the Report could be removed? And the said names were removed on his proposal.

Did that constitute a deception of the whole House of Representatives or not? What then is integrity if Mr. Lawan could involve himself in such a mess? I hope to find time to review the whole issue in greater details.

God save Nigeria.