Next Thursday, Britons go to the polls to elect a new parliament and prime minister. This will be the third time in four years, quite unusual in British politics. Also, within the same period, two prime ministers, David Cameron and Thereza May, both of the ruling Conservative party lost their jobs. And only after early results next Friday morning will it be clear if current prime minister Boris Johnson can survive. Such is the closeness of the contest between the ruling Conservative and opposition Labour parties.
The three successive elections were caused by disagreement within British parliament as well as inter/intra party disputes over Britain’s future in the European Union. In 2015, prime minister David Cameron unnecessarily gambled with a Yes or No referendum on whether Britain should quit EU. Cameron openly promoted Britain’s continued membership but he was shocked by some fifty two per cent of the voters who opted to quit European Union. Cameron had to resign. The shock result falsely created the impression that quitting Europe would merely be routine for Britain especially as new prime minister Threza May instantly invoked the relevant section (Article 50) of the European Convention. She turned out to have miscalculated or misread the mood of 
British parliament
Whatever her proposals or agreements with European Union were rejected in series of forward/backward exercise at least four times by both European Union and British parliament. Three years later, following, substantial members of the ruling Conservative party led by maverick Boris Johnson against leadership of prime minister Thereza May, she had to resign in tears for the job she claimed outside her official residence at Downing Street to “love so much.”
New prime minister Boris Johnson experienced no less headache in failing to reach agreement for Britain to quit European Union. Hence, like his predecessor, Boris Johnson turned to voters for a clear personal mandate with which to pursue Britain.s exit from Europe.
Many issues are at stake in next week’s elections. First is the political career of the major combatants – Prime Minister Boris Johnson and opposition Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. It is most unlikely any of the two can secure overall majority in parliament. Forget all opinion pools with bogus predictions ever proved wrong since 2010 elections which returned the Conservatives to power after 13 years of Labour rule. Boris Johnson is the leader of young Turks in the Conservative party rightly or wrongly insisting on Britain’s exit from Europe. Otherwise, key party elders like former prime minister John Major, former deputy prime minister Michael Hazeltine, former chancellor of exchequer Kenneth Clarke are bitterly opposed to Britain’s withdrawal from Europe. Against such formidable opposition, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s job and leadership are on the line should the Conservstives lose the elections. His position in defeat will even be weaker than ex-prime ministers David Cameron and Theresa May who both quit in similar situations.
For opposition Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, his defeat of a third successive Conservative prime minister will earn him an accolade. If however, Labour loses the elections, Jeremy Corbyn who defied strong opposition from everybody, former prime ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, ex-party leaders Neil Kinnock, Ed Milliband and other very influential Laour top notchers to emege the party’s leader five years ago, will at last have to step down
Also at stake in this election is the potential future of Scottish independence from United Kingdom. Victory for the Conservatives will incentivise the Scots to pursue their agitation for independence. In such an exercise some five years ago, barely 45 per cent favoured independence. But there have since been dramatic changes in Scottish politics. In the 2015 referendum on Britain’s continued membership of European Union, only Scotland voted massively to remain in Europe, while other parts of United Kingdom voted to quit. Also in the 2017 general elections called by former Prime Minister Theresa May, the Scottish Nationalist party (the ruling party in Scotland) virtually wiped out the Labour party, the Lib/Dems party and substantially the Conservatives. Victory for prime minister Boris Johnson means Britain quitting the EU but the Scots are sticking to their referendum result to remain in Europe
The Scottish Nationalists Party (SNP) has also touted an offer to block Boris Johnson from forming government in the event of inconclusive elections, even if that means asssisting Labour party to form government in view of the party’s pledge for a return referendum which will most likely reverse the 2015 referendum of Britain quitting European Union. Such development will consolidate the Scots in not quitting Europe.
There is also some interest for Nigerians in the coming elections. A British Nigerian Chuka Umuna is staking his seat in the British parliament. Umuna, along with others, was to contest for the leadership of Labour party with Jeremy Corbyn some five years ago. But with days to the Labour party leadership contest, Umuna withdrew and the speculation in the media sourced his withdrawal to imminent unfavourable media exposure. Then, early this year, Umuna quit the Labour party over disagreement with the party’s alleged vague position on Britain’s continued membership of Europe. The Nigerian wants Britain to remain in Europe despite the preference of 52 per cent of Britons for the country’s withdrawal. Umuna is contesting on the platform of Lib/Dems, a more of an irritant group which sparks only occasionally in local government and general elections. Umuna can therefore only be elected on his personal merit in his London south west constituency with heavy concentration of ethnic minorities from West Africa and West Indies.
Two influential lobbies are flaunting their respective influence in this election even if through nuances. Ephraim Marvis has renewed the complaints of anti-semitism by some members of Labour party with Jewish ancestry. How far that concern may affect the party’s electoral fortune will be noted. Equally, Muslim leaders have complained against alleged Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Also seeking their pound of flesh? Election results on Friday morning will reveal.
In the weeks before dissolution of parliament, it seemed all set for a landslide for Prime Minister Boris Johnson. However, fumbles and incoherence of the Conservative leader may have closed the gap. On the other hand, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, so far, has lived up to his image of a veteran of effective campaigner. His offer to abolish university fees is not being ignored in university towns all over the country. The ruling Conservatives may also not have convinced voters on the alarm raised by Jeremy Corbyn that Prime Minister Johnson had concluded plans to sell the British National Health Service to American President Donald Trump. How about this shot in the foot by the Labour leader? Jeremy Corbyn has alienated the lower segment of the middle class with new tax policy to clobber salaries from £80,000.
Law to the rescue
With the world now virtually single, thanks to various hardly beatable modern technologies, suspected crimes can harly go undetected. And despite various standard in different countries, the average is that an accused is presumed innocent pending trial and conviction. Such culprit would therefore have enjoyed right of fair hearing against all the allegations. This, so far, is the undeniable privilege of Nigerian aviation magnate, Allen Ifechukwu Onyema, who was alleged to have violated financial regulations of United States.
Onyema personally and through his Nigerian lawyer,has vowed to vigorously fight his cause to prove his innocence. That is the only reasonable response of a man who believes his story is credible.. That is being fair to himself and indeed Nigeria’s reputation. Accordingly, unsolicited advocates insinuating ethnic origins the source of Onyema’s current embarrassment should be discarded and in fact, disowned as they can only lose Onyema sympathy he might earn, if any. To be fair, in all his comments, even through his lawyer, Onyema has never sought refuge in his ethnic affinity as the source of his problem. Here is an enterprising Nigerian who established his business asa Nigerian and employed capable and willing Nigerians remarkably without quota system.
Also, noticeably, it is standard for United States Government to enforce its laws without bias. That is, much as most Nigeriansuspects or criminals in United States are southerners, these criminals are never arrested, convicted or deported as south westerners, Niger Deltans or south easterners. Rather, they are arrested or accused as NIGERIANS and therefore should be allowed to face their music as such. Anything less will be an act of desperation to befog the issue. Nobody travels abroad as a southerner or south easterner or south westerner or Niger Deltan. You travel with your passport which identifies you as a Nigerian. It is tactless and unhelpful to insinuate that Onyema was indicted as anybody less than the NATIONALITY on his passport
Ifechukwu Onyema would not be the first Nigerian to be indicted or even arrested by the United States authorities. None of these others was ever claimed to be less than his/her Nigerian nationality. There was a Ninalowo recently indicted by the US government. He is a Nigerian resident in America and he is awaiting trial for clearly specified financial crimes as a Nigerian. There is also a Nigerian senator who, for years has been battling Nigerian and American government against attempts to extradite him to America. Both are facing their ordeals as Nigerians since they were not indicted other than Nigerians ans nobody has pitied as less than Nigerians. Therefore, the attitude towards any Nigerian to face trial in such circumstances should be to allow the law to take its course, provided necessary legal processes are complied with.
What is more, the EFCC has commenced investigations into Nigeria’s end of Onyema’s indictment. The only reservation is that the EFCC is exploiting the opportunity to refurbish its image. Where was the EFCC whena huge sum of fourteen million dollars was allegedly being wired from Nigeria to United States? Is it not the law under the EFCC act that banks should instantly alert the EFCC on the movement of unusually large summ of money? If American Department of Justice did not issue this indictment, the money would have gone unnoticed. It was exactly the case when politicians were sharing tens of billions among themselves. Did the banks which handled such various large sums of money alert the EFCC? If not, why? Has EFCC taken action against the banks affected as provided in the EFCC Act?
Criminal bank chief executives and directors destroyed entire financial sector with outright looting, thereby sending investors into their graves prematurely. For some unknown reasons, the EFCC either deliberately or incompetently handled the ensuing cases, such that from high courts to appeals, the bank looters were being discharged and acquitted until the Supreme Court halted the rot and ordered retrials fro the high court. How many of these cases has the EFCC retried? Would the supreme court have ordered retrial of the bank executives if there was no need or chance of conviction?
Whenever it wishes, EFCC pollutes the atmosphere with bogus claim of its intention to crack down on bank criminals. There the bragging diversion ends. How many of the bank chief executives have been arrested?
There is hardly any state governor who did not leave office without becoming multi-billionaire. Such fortune is neither kept in their house nor even in Nigeria. Through Nigerian banks, such proceed of daring theft of public funds are remitted out of Nigeria. Did the banks ever alert the EFCC? Whether yes or not, what action did EFCC take in such situation?