Amnesty Program, the MNCs and Corporate Social Responsibility

 Amnesty Program, the MNCs and Corporate Social Responsibility.. By John Idumange

When the first non-racial elections were conducted in South Africa in 1994, Bishop Desmond Tutu – one of the arrowheads of the African National Congress charged the Africans thus: You are powerful people. You can make this world a better place where

 business decisions and methods take account of right and wrong as well as profitability….You must take a stand on important issues: the environment and ecology, affirmative action, racism and sexism; the arms race, poverty, the obligations of the affluent west…” This charge heralded the drawing-up of a development blueprint that is being referred to as “Black Empowerment Programme”. Although, the Black Empowerment Programme has not been so successful, Desmond Tutu’s epochal statement unleashed the creative potentials of the Blacks in South Africa to hold their own against their former oppressors.

From that time on, the ANC government was emphatic that corporate social responsibility should be fully entrenched in the work ethics of all multinational corporations in South Africa. This was done not to overthrow the bourgeois class but to consolidate on the gains of democracy and economic justice, which are inseparable elements of the democratization process. The only place where corporate social responsibility is treated with levity is the Niger Delta Region, where multinational corporations operate in a laissez-faire manner because of the exploitative laws of the land such as the Land Use Act of 1978 as amended and the Petroleum Act of 1969 as enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the Amnesty Programme was introduced by the Federal Government in 2009, relative peace has returned to the oil-rich Region. This is borne out of the fact that Nigeria has not only met her OPEC quota of oil production; Nigeria has often burst her ceiling but while the MNC’s declare fantastic profits, the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the host communities have not improved. Granted the General Memoranda of Understanding (GMOUs) are being implement here and there, the MNC’s have not provided any comprehensive framework for stakeholders buy-in because they have neglected their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – which simply means the obligation of an organisation to act in such a manner as to serve the interest of its stakeholders.

In the main, corporate organizations seek to maintain good relationship with their host communities or customers. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is conceptualized as helping "an organization to achieve a balance between economic, environmental and social imperatives, address stakeholder expectations and demands and sustain shareholder value. The World Bank defines CSR as the “commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, local community and society at large to improve the quality of life, in ways that are both good for business and good for development.

Corporate Social Responsibility is not obligatory but predicated on the belief that people do their best in a healthy harmonious work environment. There is also the belief that organisations function better when located in economically vibrant, socially stable and environmentally clean communities. Moreover, organisations realize high rates of performance and gain in momentum when they treat their natural environment with respect. This also impacts on the organisation’s integrity and reputation.

Within the context of the Niger Delta Region, NDR, CRS implies the inherent responsibilities imposed on Multinational oil corporations to develop their host communities. This could take the form of youth training programmes, provision of physical infrastructure, social amenities and mining the oil resources in a sustainable manner. CRS involves the needs of people within and outside the interest of the corporations. The variegated interests refer to the various stakeholders such as Government, people of host communities, employers of labour and others whose activities are directly or indirectly affect the environment.

Under the leadership of Hon. Kingsley Kuku, the Amnesty Programme has recorded impressive strides, as thousands of Niger Delta Youths are scattered in Africa, Europe and the Americas to acquire skills that would re-engineer and re-generate the economy of the Region. Although the AP was initiated by the Federal Government, there is room for non-state actors such as the MNCs to contribute to the final phase of its implementation.

The MNCs and other non-state actors can contribute in more ways than one. The MNCs are powerful non-state actors who can garner and muster-up international support and sponsorshipof some of the educational programmes mounted under the Amnesty Programme.

The Shell Petroleum Development Company, SPDC; Texaco, Chevron and Totalfinal-Elf can partner the Amnesty Programme by way of influencing world bodies such as the agencies of the United Nations i.e. the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO and the Food and Agricultural Organisation to assist in underwriting the bill of building capacities for Niger Delta Youths. The agencies, depending on the area of expertise, can also provide the manpower to impart skills on the youths.

Another strategy the MNCs can adopt is to pay the allowances of trainees abroad, which is a crucial component of the Amnesty Programme. MNCs can also concentrate on funding postgraduate scholarships abroad under the Amnesty Programme. Perhaps, the most significant phase of the AP is that of providing job opportunities for the youths or empowering the skilled youths to be self-employed when they would have been done with their training.

MNCs can keep a quota of available job opportunities from those who have acquired the requisite skills for the oil and gas industry. Just as SPDC has most of the filling Stations in Johannesburg, MNCs can contribute to the AP by establishing Small and Medium Scale Industries and use the trained experts in entrtepreneurship to manage them. The profit generated from such industries may be shared on equity basis until such as time that the MNCs recoup substantial part of the capital invested in the business.  In addition, MNCs can also use agencies such as the UNDP to train few persons for managerial assignments in the turbulent business environment we have found ourselves since the global economic recession began.

If the MNCs buy the option of establishing new industries, such factories should be related to manufacturing or the delivery of certain services relevant to the Niger Delta Environment. In which case, a social audit may be used to systematize the reporting system on the accomplishments of the industries especially with regard to what they are contributing to Corporate Social Responsibility.

The concept of the Amnesty Programme as a tool of empowerment is too large to be left alone in the hands of the Federal Government alone; it requires multi-stakeholder buy-in and ownership to create the much-needed spill-over benefit. Already, the relative peace in Niger Delta Region is sufficient evidence the MNCs to be involved. I also implore the driver of the Amnesty Programme Hon. Kingsley Kuku to explore every available avenue of partnering with the oil majors.  Whether viewed as part of their CSR contributions to the on-going peace – building process or as an instrument of youth empowerment, the MNCs owe the Region a moral obligation to establish leadership integrity for stakeholders’ buy-in. Irrespective of the existing laws of the land, they cannot afford to ignore the momentum gained by the Amnesty Programme under the Jonathan administration, and the earlier the oil majors establish the requisite ethical leadership the better for industrial harmony, and corporate Social Responsibility integrity of the MNCs.



Idumange John, is a member of Chartered Institute of Administration

FGN Negotiation with Boko Haram is Blackmail By:Idumange John

FGN Negotiation with Boko Haram is Blackmail By:Idumange John

by John Idumange on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:41am

When the federal government first mooted the idea of negotiating with an extremist sect in the Northern part of the country called Boko Haram, I was miffed because I could fathom how deep Nigeria has sunk in terms of insecurity of lives and property. The first idea that raced through my mind is that if the Nigerian security agencies cannot contain localized insurgency, what then will happen if Nigeria faces external aggression? We are indeed the giant of Africa o can negotiate with any group of agitators, but America never discussed with neither Al Qaeda nor did they hold a tea party with the Taliban. Again I started to wonder which of the President’s aides or any security Adviser that would sell such a nasty idea to Mr. President.

Even if a government is desirous of negotiating with an insurgent group, such a tricky enterprise is done by a third party (mediator), because any direct negotiation with insurgents serves as a stamp of credibility for the group (s). I also concluded that whoever could give the President such selfish advice may be fifth columnists, who want President Jonathan to be trapped and held hostage by such groups. In the foreseeable future they will also advise Mr. President to discuss with street cults.

While the Movement of the Actualization of the State of Biafra, MASSOB; the Movement of the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) and the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, MEND, may be said to be insurgent groups, the same thing cannot be said of Boko Haram – which is neither a socio-political movement but a religious one.  One of the major characteristics of insurgency is the existence of an organized structure, with a clearly defined leadership. Such groups have clearly defined objectives such as: environmental justice; the creation of a separate State or agitation for economic justice among others.

Insurgency is not new in contemporary political history. Insurgency as an organized protest or rebellion against a lawfully constituted government has existed throughout history but it has ebbed and flowed in accordance with the dynamics and sophistication of socio-economic and technological advancement. It is either aggravated by cumulative governance deficit or oppression including marginalization and alienation. With the advent of globalization in an internet age, most often have developed the capacity to sustain large scale resistance.  Basically, insurgency is a strategy adopted by groups perceived to be disadvantaged and their sworn affidavit is to extract concessions through psychological warfare, political mobilization and military confrontation.
 Under the first category, the primary antagonists are the insurgents and a national government which has national legitimacy. Usually, insurgencies of this colouration are often triggered by identity, racial, religious and ideological factors. On the other hand, liberation insurgencies are aimed at liberating an occupied territory from an alien nation. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, the Chechnya insurgency against Russia and the Palestinian insurgency are a few examples of Liberation insurgencies.

In Mexico, the Zapatista Movement was started by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), in 1994. The EZLN declared war on the Mexican government and proclaimed a revolutionary agenda against the government. The Zapatista Movement created increased pressure for democratic reforms thereby raising the specter of instability.
In Sri-Lanka, the Tamil Tigers raised a strong guerrilla movement, which actively negotiated the creation of a separate State. In 1956, the administration of Bandaranaike introduced a “Language Policy” of Sinhala Only Act, which replaced English with Sinhala as the “Lingua Franca”. By this policy, the Tamils were placed at a disadvantage. The Tamils came to the conclusion that their socio-economic aspirations could only be fulfilled within a separate Tamil State. Again, in Sri-Lanka, there is the problematic of the “wedlock” between political ideology and communitarian hagiography. It was just last year that the movement was finally crushed by government.

In the Philippines, there is the security dilemma associated with the continuing conflict of the government with armed communist and Islamic insurgent groups. The government and insurgents trade accusations and denounce each other as the cause of the nation’s economic stagnation. The communists had since the late 1960’s started to pressure the Filipino government for policy reversals. Government also reacted with brutal suppression of the insurgents. The Muslim insurgents unlike the communists are not intended to supplant the national government. Under the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Muslims seek to establish a separate Muslim state in the Southern Philippine Island of Mindanao. So if Boko Haram is angling for the creation of a separate State then it would be regarded as a political movement that would lead to the creation of either a Boko Haram State something like it. If that is the goal of BH, then, the imperatives of a Sovereign National Conference of separation have become all the more imperative.

In the Sudan, John Garang led an insurgency, which raged for about 25 years over the control of resources and power. Only recently, Sudan held a referendum and people voted massively for a separate State in South Sudan, with its capital at Juba – thus becoming the 193 State in the world.  A similar trend is noticeable in East Timor, Turkey, Indonesia and Peru by the Tu-Pac Amaru.
The modus operandi of insurgents differs, there are some common techniques employed by insurgents irrespective of the time or geography they operate. The most common techniques include the use of propaganda or information warfare which is used to popularize the struggle and demonstrate the incompetence of the legal regime. Propaganda is often used to inspire recruitment by defiance. When insurgents use “armed propaganda” they attract the angry, disillusioned and unemployed and appeal to the articulate segment of the populace.
The only thing I know about BH is that “Western Education is evil”. I know that may not be the reason for the vile and belligerent posturing of the politicians using religion as a veil. If the BH members say they are peacefully protesting against mal-governance in the land, I will also carry a placard for them, but the magnitude of mayhem and atrocities BH has committed has de-letimized whatever the intentions of the Group might be. If BH is begrudging the Amnesty granted the youths of the Niger Delta, then one may be forced to ask what commodity they are producing of how much do they contribute to the economic viability of Nigeria? It will be a piece of injustice for the Jonathan administration to buy is peace when the circumstances do not arise.

Amnesty was granted the ex-militants because they will secure oil facilities and ensure the uninterrupted production of crude oil – which is the live-wire of the economy. There is massive evidence that since the Amnesty was introduced, the quota of oil production has not only increased, and Nigeria sometimes burst the ceiling of her quota. For the likes of Sarah Jubril flying the kite of amnesty, what will Boko Haram give if government gives them amnesty? Is Isam a commodity that has market value? No true Muslim will reduce the Islamic Religion to that level. It is one of the religions, which teachings I cherish. Sarah Jubril is one of those over-recycled politicians being rehabilitated by the Jonathan administration. She is a beneficiary of Western education. Is she saying that since Boko Haram abhors Western Education, will Western education be withdrawn from the North? Who is blackmailing the Federal Government to open negiotiations with a faceless group?
He advised that the Nigerian government should solicit the help of partners that have a lot of experience in handling terrorism, pointing out that the military must remain in Borno in order to check the group. “They are villains and must not receive any sympathy. In a democracy, the government is elected by the majority and this small group wants to overthrow the government by violence and that should not be allowed to happen.” He pointed out that failure of the government to protect the lives and properties of the people they swore to protect should lead the government to resign or call for another election in which the Boko Haram can field a candidate and see if the people like their alternate system of governance.
It is against international law for Government to negotiate with criminals. If BH says  Western education is unacceptable the members should stop the use of mobile phones, dynamites, bombs, writing in Newspapers, radios, Television, etc all of which are products of Western education.

I smell double standard in this country. When the Niger Delta Youths protested the full weight of the federal might was deployed to raze down Odi, decimate Okerenkoko, Agge, Odioma, Ayakoromor, Kaiama and several Niger Delta Communities.  Now some youths now provide security to guide the pipelines from being vandalized. Kidnapping is now a thing of the past. The Kingsley Kuku led Amnesty programme has done very well in the court of public opinion. Countless number of youths has been sent to different countries to learn skills such as under-water and pipeline welding; marine engineering, boat building, piloting, Information and Communication Technology, petroleum engineering and many skills that would make Niger Delta Youths employ themselves. My recommendation is that the Federal Government should increase the funding of the Amnesty Programme to avoid a relapse to the status quo ante. Those blackmailing the federal Government to negotiate with BH are patrons of the group and they should be treated as fifth columnists in the Jonathan administration.

Idumange John, is Fellow, Association of Certified Commercial Diplomats, City of London