By Luke Onyekakeyah

THE catastrophic 7.0 magnitude earthquake that ravaged Haiti on January 12, 2010 has brought to the fore concerns about the continued habitation of people on the dangerous Haitian tip of the Hispaniola Island in the Caribbean Sea. Though, two countries share the Island, namely: Dominican Republic and Haiti, the Haitian part appears to be more exposed and most vulnerable. That explains why Haitians regularly nurse wounds suffered from one natural disaster or the other. And, of course, that largely explains why the country is the poorest in the Western Hemisphere.

How can Haiti be rich when almost on annual basis one disaster or the other occurs to wipe out whatever the people have acquired? When the rate of removal is greater than the rate of accumulation, there is no way an average Haitian would have anything left. That is a natural principle. But that is the unfortunate fate that has befallen Haiti and its people over the ages. But some element of rationality needs to be applied by the global community together with the Haitians to find a way out.

According to reports, the devastating temblor rattled the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince at about 16.53 local time on the fateful day and left the city almost levelled. The damage was staggering because the quake epicenter was situated about 25 km (16 miles) west of the city at a depth of 13 km (8.1 miles). The U.S. Geological Survey recorded at least 33 aftershocks with some magnitudes 5.0. One aftershock measuring 6.1 rocked the city amid the ruins and humanitarian action. Estimates put the figure of those affected at three million. The Haitian Interior Minister, Paul Antoine estimated the casualty figure at between 100,000 and 200,000 lives. Thousands of the dead were buried in mass graves. Experts say, the quakes was the strongest to hit Haiti since 1770, when a magnitude 8.1 tremor rocked Hispaniola and generated a tsunami that claimed 1,790 lives.

The earthquake caused widespread damage to Port-au-Prince and its environs. Some important landmarks in the city were destroyed. The magnificent Presidential Palace was damaged and so was the National Assembly building, the City’s Cathedral and the main jail. Among the casualty were Monsignor Joseph Serge Miot, the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, the Justice Minister and the Head of the United Nations (UN) Mission in Haiti, Hedi Annabi. The damage to infrastructure was tremendous. The city’s communication system, electricity, the airport, the land and sea transportation system were damaged, which hampered the search and rescue operation.

Many countries have in the wake of the disaster rallied to provide succour. Aid has poured in from different countries including the United States, Cuba, Venezuela, among many others. But this is not the first time that the world is rallying in support of Haiti in disaster. And this may not be the last time. That puts the difficult question of what should be done to save Haiti once and for all. Otherwise how long would it take before another disaster devastates Haiti and the world would be put on its toes?

The history of man on earth is a history of migration and human settlement. From time immemorial, humankind has been on the move. Humans have always migrated from one part of the earth to the other. The push factors include all the uncomfortable factors in the environment while the pull factors are the attractions beckoning at a new location. From ancient times, what determines where men chose to settle is hospitability. That is the ability of a place to provide man with what he needs to live a comfortable life. The ancestors of man were very discernible in choosing where to settle down.

For instance, before men settled in any place, they would ensure that it had food, water, secure from human and natural disasters, among other things. In all this, survival is the key word. The ancients never made the mistake of settling in places where their offspring and descendants would be wiped out by known or unknown forces. Once there was an indication that a settlement was under threat in any way, that settlement was quickly abandoned and the men moved en masse to a new and more comfortable location.

Not all parts of the earth should be inhabited. There are many uninhabited parts of the earth. Equally, there are many uninhabited islands around the world. Places like the tundra areas of North America and Eurasia, the mountainous regions, the Amazon jungle are largely uninhabited. Among the major reasons why such islands are not inhabited is their harsh condition.

Against the backdrop of the enduring principle of migration, the question arises as to the rationale for a human settlement in a place like Haiti with its notoriety for frequent occurrence of natural disasters. With a long history of devastating earthquakes, disastrous tsunamis, damaging hurricanes, etc, why did the first Haitians settle in such a highly vulnerable place against all odds? What were the attractions? What made the endangered people not to vacate the island en masse?

Hispaniola, the Caribbean island shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic is seismically active. The island has a long history of destructive earthquakes. As far back as 1751, the French historian, Moreu de Saint-Mery described a destructive earthquake that leveled buildings in Haiti. The 1770 Port-au-Prince earthquake literally caused the whole city to collapse. In May 1842, another earthquake struck that destroyed most parts of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

The most recent natural disasters that have raged include an unnamed storm that killed more than 2000 people in 1935. In 1946, the largest recorded 8.1 magnitude earthquake rocked both Haiti and the Dominican Republic killing 1,790 people. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel left a swath of destruction after killing over 100 people. The 1963 Hurricane Flora claimed over 8000 lives, making it one of the most deadly hurricanes ever. In 1994, Hurricane Gordon claimed more than 1000 lives. Hurricane George killed more than 400 people in 1998 and Tropical Storm Jeanne caused a major deluge that aggravated landslides and severe flooding that left 2,500 people dead. The litany of deaths, destruction and anguish in Haiti is unending. As it were, the country is literally under siege by terrestrial and subterranean forces. There are few countries that have suffered the onslaught of blind natural forces like Haiti.

Haiti is a historical consequence of the trans Atlantic slave trade. The ancestors of the red Indians (Native Americans) who occupied the Americas migrated from Asia probably across the frozen Bering Strait bordering Alaska into America. That was some 30,000 years ago. They occupied the mainland while most of the islands were uninhabited. The trans Atlantic slave trade opened new frontiers in the American hemisphere thereby leading to the discovery of the Caribbean islands including Haiti.

The quest for sugarcane wealth, which was then a lucrative commodity, made the European slave dealers to import slaves from Africa into Haiti and the other islands. The British first occupied Haiti but later ceded it to the French. The harsh condition on the island killed many of the slaves but the French imported more. There were series of events that led to one revolt after another until in 1804, when Toussaint L’Ouverture, a self-educated former slave led the revolt that earned Haiti its independence. That was how Haiti became the first Black Country to gain independence.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the people of Haiti were not on the vulnerable island by choice but by the greed of European slave dealers. Being slaves at the time, who were struggling to get freedom, they had little or no choice to leave the island even in the midst of disaster. The people were forced to live in Haiti, arguably, against their will. They were in a way tied without opportunity to decide for themselves. It is difficult at this time to think of relocating the entire country of over eight million people to a safer territory. That, absolutely, is what might be good for Haiti. But where do you relocate the people? That is the critical question.

We live in a troubled world. In this age of terrorism, anxiety pervades the world. The 9/11 incident in New York that shook the entire world, the Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami, wars and severe economic crises, among others have shaken even the most stable nations. Practically, no day passes without news of heart-breaking incidents in one part of the world or the other. Despite all the available technology, the modern man is stressed and vulnerable. When all this are added to unpredictable natural disasters, it is clear that the people of Haiti are definitely biting more than they can chew. The United Nations, the U.S., the European Union should think of how to save Haiti from further natural disasters

By Luke Onyekakeyah

THE unhealthy rivalry that prevented President Yar’Adua from presenting the 2010 budget at the National Assembly (NASS) is an ill wind that blows no one any good. Since 1999, when the current democratic dispensation started, Nigerians have not gained anything from the annual ritual called budget made by governments at all levels. What we have witnessed is colossal budget failures apparently caused by infighting and acrimony from the preparation to presentation and implementation.

Consequently, the budgets end up not achieving anything. That explains why infrastructure services across the country remain in deplorable condition. The question is if the previous budgets that were allowed to see the light of the day recorded no success, what would be the fate of a budget that the lawmakers have frustrated from the outset? How on earth would the budget effectively serve the purpose for which it was meant?

Special Adviser on National Assembly Affairs, Senator Mohammed Aba Aji reportedly delivered copies of the budget to the NASS on behalf of President Yar’Adua. This is the second time under this administration that the two chambers of NASS were on warpath over supremacy. The first was in connection with the review of the 1999 Constitution, in which the two fought over the nomenclature of the chairman of the review committee. That contention frustrated the joint sitting of the two chambers as each went it alone. What started as an affront has now assumed a frightening dimension. No one knows what would happen next. If the budget couldn’t be presented, would it ever be approved? What about the implementation, which is the most important aspect?

It is worrisome that a legislature that is predominantly PDP should always engage in a face off that could be resolved internally. This is not in the national interest. What would happen if there were multiple dominant parties? Won’t the business of law making grind to a halt? It is strange that lawmakers belonging largely to the same party now constitute a stumbling block and frustrating a president that belongs to their fold. I can’t imagine the democrats in the US Congress always moving against President Barack Obama in any matter of national importance.

Certainly, what is happening here underscores the futility of expecting much from the legislators. Besides, selfishness and lack of concern for the ordinary citizen is at the bottom of it all. Otherwise, the budget is meant to improve the lot of the common man? Do these lawmakers care whether or not the budget is presented or not? Do they care whether or not it is implemented?

I must point out that the rivalry over in which chamber the budget should be presented is novel in our post-independence experience. It simply underscores the degenerate political culture that has taken root in the land. It is a dangerous trend that should be stopped forthwith. I have not heard of any country where the head of state, in peacetime, sets out to present a budget but was frustrated by the lawmakers. It is unheard of and portends danger for the polity. By their action, the lawmakers have missed the opportunity to have the president read his appropriation bill with the fanfare that goes with it.

It is important to realise that countries have norms and traditions that keep the system going. Not every norm and tradition may be written in the Constitution. There are unwritten laws in every society. Though the 1999 Constitution states in Section 81 (1) that “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year”, it has been the tradition in this country for the president to present the budget to a joint session of NASS in the lower chamber of the National Assembly, presumably because it has wider space to accommodate the lawmakers. The tradition has been there in good fate without strings attached.

I don’t think that those who started the practice had any sinister motive other than the interest of the country. It saves time, resources and energy for the president to have the budget presented in one joint session than to read the same document separately to the two chambers. And after the joint presentation, each chamber constitutionally takes the document back to its fold for separate debate.

In other climes, budget presentation marks an important event. In Kenya, for example, many offices close for work on budget day (which is fixed) to be at the parliament to listen to the finance minister who usually presents the budget. That is the tradition in Kenya and no one has kicked against it. But in our own case, a tradition that meant no harm to any body is being used to create bad blood out of selfish interest.

If this tradition has been upheld for decades, and as a matter of fact, since 1999 when the present democratic dispensation began, why remembering only this year what the Constitution says? Since this is the third budget of the Yar’Adua administration, where were those supremacists when the two previous budgets were read in the same fashion at the lower chamber? Were they sleeping or what? These questions are warranted if there was no hidden agenda by the lawmakers.

Whatever is the cause of the unpatriotic act by the two chambers of the National Assembly is not in the national interest. It is also not in the interest of the Yar’Adua administration or the ruling PDP. For, I don’t think that there has been such a situation in this country before. Denying the president the opportunity to present his budget, which is his Constitutional right, amounts to a slap on the president, the Constitution and the people of Nigeria.

If the contention was caused by overt egocentric disposition of the Senate President, David Mark and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, then the two have a duty to explain in whose interest they were fighting for. They should explain why their personal ego should stand over and above the interest of the country. But if unseen forces contrived the contention, as some are wont to speculate, to save President Yar’Adua in his unhealthy condition the pain of reading the long budget, then there is no wisdom in doing that either.

For the Constitution mandates the president to present the budget at any time in each financial year. What it means is that the president has a period of twelve months to present the budget. It is as flexible as that. President Yar’Adua could have chosen another time when he is better disposed to do so. All that is needed is understanding and rapport in government circles to reach a compromise. But the whole thing has been handled in the most embarrassing and undignified manner. At the same time, the matter is not yet over until the budget is passed and signed into law.

It is most regrettable that the history of budgets under this democratic dispensation is a history of rancour, acrimony and personality clash. These merely herald the expected failure of the budget at the end of the day. If the energy put in fighting over the budget presentation and approval was put in its implementation, Nigeria would have been better off. But this, sadly, is hardly the case. There is intense fighting over what figures should be approved for sub-heads that end up with nothing to show.

The budget, if properly articulated on the basis of specific national needs, is a critical instrument for national development. National development can only be accomplished on effective budgets. Without such instrument, no development could be possible. To that extent, the importance of budget to national development cannot be overemphasised. Thus, anything that frustrates the preparation, presentation and implementation of the national budget could as well be regarded as our collective enemy.

Each time the ordinary citizen looks at what is happening at the corridors of power at all levels of governance in this country, one has course to conclude without equivocation that there is no sincerity in the leadership. There is little or nothing to convince the ordinary Nigerian that someone at the leadership position, with responsibility over his or her welfare is thinking about that.

That is why the lawmakers could frustrate the budget without losing anything. As a matter of fact, they have everything to gain. It is the ordinary citizens that suffer. For instance, does it matter to the lawmakers if the roads are impassable? Do they care whether or not there is water or electricity? Who cares whether the schools have teaching facilities or whether the hospitals are functional? The lawmakers are special people. They have been numbered among the saints. Whatever it is that worries we mortals is not for them. Let the budget go to hell. What would the people do? Nothing.