IBB re-echoes support for 2 party system

http://ift.tt/2mxyixi

Former Head of State, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida

Former Military President, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida (rtd), on Saturday re-echoed his support for a two-party system, and declared that it was the best option toward deepening democracy.

Babangida spoke in Minna, when the Strategy and Inter-Party Affairs Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presented its report on how to move the party forward, to him.

“Gradually, my earlier suggestion about the practice of a two-party system is gradually coming to the fore in the country.

“In 1999, when I was advocating for a two-party system, some of my colleagues had their doubts, but I told them that it provides a choice, which is the first essence of democracy,’’ he said.

He expressed optimism that PDP could still rule for 60 years “provided it can put its house in order”.

The former leader claimed that the PDP was the only political party, whose presence had been felt, known and accepted by the people.

“PDP’s presence is felt not only in Abuja or Lagos, but down to the lowest level.

“ if you go to the grassroots, the ordinary man will talk about PDP; that is the asset the party has and should use to spring back to reckoning.

“Already, it is accepted and known. All you have to do is work harder and try to convince the people back to your fold,” he said.

Earlier, Prof. Jerry Gana, chairman of the committee, had urged the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to allow opposition political parties to always voice their opinion on issues.

Gana also advised the APC to allow rival parties to develop so as to offer Nigerians other options “at all times”.

“The presence of opposition is key to democratic growth; we must allow Nigerians to listen to the other side,” he said.

He described Babangida as “a visionary leader, who read the future and advocated a two-party system long ago”.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), reports that Gana was accompanied by Alhaji Aminu Wali, Chief Raymond Dokpesi, Chief Tom Ikimi, Mr Emeka Ihedioha, Prof’. Rufai Alkali and former Niger governor, Dr. Babangida Aliyu.

Vía The Guardian Nigeria http://ift.tt/2mNjk6u

Niger to impose taxes on shoemakers, petty traders (Read full details)

http://ift.tt/2lNdTon

TAX

The Niger Government says it will start collecting taxes from shoe makers and other petty traders in the state as part of efforts to boost its Internally Generated Revenue (IGR).

The Commissioner for Finance, Alhaji Ibrahim Balarabe, announced this on Thursday during his ministry’s budget defence at the state House of Assembly in Minna.

He said the state’s inability to meet its IGR targets had forced it to explore revenue windows which hitherto were ignored‎. “We are concentrating on the informal sector now. As I speak, we have enumeration going on, trying to capture them into one platform‎.

“We ‎will no longer turn a blind eye to shoe makers, vulcanisers, s‎uya sellers and other little revenue sources in our bid to improve our IGR. “We know that people like shoe makers move from one place to another but once we have their data, it makes it easier for us to access them‎.

“It is not about how much they make in a day but the idea is to generate from all sources because it is only when you draw from all sources that you have a bigger pool of resources,” he said.

Balarabe said that the state IGR stood at N4.81 billion in 2016 as against its target of N9.39 billion, adding that it was targeting an IGR of N9.5 billion in 2017.

On efforts to recover looted funds, the commissioner noted that investigations were still ongoing and some cases were already in court.‎ The Chairman of the House Committee on Finance, Alhaji Abdullahi Mamagi, urged the ministry to guard against unrealistic budget estimates and extra budgetary spending.

Mamagi urged the ministry to prioritise its projects and execute the necessary ones in view of the dwindling allocation from the Federal Government until the situation improved.

Vía Uzomedia http://ift.tt/2lZ8Gsw

4 North Korean spies involved in Kim Jong Nam killing: Seoul

http://ift.tt/2l5xxw1

South Korea’s intelligence service told lawmakers Monday that four North Korean government spies were involved in the killing of the estranged half brother of North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un.

Lawmakers cited the National Intelligence Service as telling them in a private briefing that four of the North Koreans identified as suspects by Malaysian police investigating the Feb. 13 death of Kim Jong Nam are from the Ministry of State Security, the North’s spy organ.

The NIS was quoted as saying that two other suspects are affiliated with Pyongyang’s Foreign Ministry, according to Lee Cheol Woo, one of the lawmakers who attended the briefing. Another lawmaker Kim Byeong-ki cited the NIS as saying Kim Jong Un directed a “state-organized terror” to kill his brother.

Lawmakers didn’t say how the NIS got the information and if it elaborated on what specific roles these North Korean suspects performed.

The NIS has a mixed record on reporting developments in the secretive North. The agency said it cannot confirm its reported assessment on Kim Jong Nam’s death.

Malaysia hasn’t directly accused North Korea of having masterminded the Kim Jong Nam killing but is pursuing several North Korean suspects, including a diplomat at the North Korean Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.

Kim Jong Nam died Feb. 13 at Kuala Lumpur’s airport in what Malaysian police say was a well-planned hit by a Vietnamese woman and an Indonesian woman who separately wiped a liquid onto Kim’s face.

Police last week identified the substance as the banned chemical weapon VX nerve agent, and Malaysia’s health minister said Sunday the dose was so high it caused “very serious paralysis” and killed him within 20 minutes.

Malaysian officials have said four North Korean men provided the two women with the VX agent, then fled Malaysia the same day.

It was unclear if those four were the four North Korean spies cited by South Korea’s intelligence agency.

North Korea has repeatedly criticized Malaysia’s investigation and has not acknowledged the victim’s identity.

Source: ABC News

Vía Uzomedia http://ift.tt/2l5yS6d

Trump’s travel ban legal battle an uphill undertaking

http://ift.tt/2lAXSOk

US President Donald Trump / AFP PHOTO / NICHOLAS KAMM

After his travel ban suffered two defeats in the US court system, President Donald Trump has vowed to continue his judicial fight — but with the controversial measure now on shaky ground, it is likely to be an uphill battle.

Trump’s executive order — issued on January 27 with no prior warning — suffered two blows over the course of two weeks in western US courts.

Since then the president has proffered a variety of solutions, from taking the matter to the Supreme Court to simply writing a new executive order.

The president’s decree, which temporarily barred nationals from seven mainly Muslim countries and refugees, was halted nationwide by a federal judge in Seattle on February 3 and last Thursday a three-judge panel in San Francisco declined to reinstate the ban.

Following the latter decision, Trump tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

But the options available to him are not extremely appealing.

After a day of evaluating the best course of action, the White House Friday evening betrayed its understanding of this fact, expressing hesitation at taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

For Trump and his administration, the top court would be a risky bet, as it is currently divided evenly between four conservative and four progressive justices.

A tie vote would leave the San Francisco court’s halt in place. And it would mark defeat at the highest level of the judiciary for the brand new president.

– Keeping ‘options open’ –

The high court is not the Trump administration’s only legal option, however, and the White House could consider taking the case back to a lower level.

“We’re keeping all our options open,” one official said.

On Thursday, the three San Francisco judges who upheld the ban from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only weighed in on whether the lower court’s suspension should be upheld. In doing so, the judges only partially touched on the legal validity and underpinnings of the decree.

A possible hearing to delve further into these matters would be heard in a lower court rather than the Supreme Court.

As if there were not enough options on the table, Trump told reporters Friday while traveling on a plane to Florida that he would consider writing a totally new executive order.

“The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order,” Trump said, adding that any action would not come before next week.

Regardless of the path Trump choses, the decision rendered in San Francisco on Thursday will carry substantial weight going forward: in their 29-page ruling, the judges expressed deep concerns with the measure.

– Arguments against ban –

In upholding the suspension, the three judges said that the government had provided no evidence that any foreigner from the countries named in the order had carried out a terrorist attack on US soil.

They also rejected the idea that the impact of the ban was light. Although the Trump administration reported that 109 people were held for questioning under the executive order, the court pointed to the thousands of visas that had been abruptly cancelled, hundreds of travelers forbidden from arriving in the United States and the detentions.

While the court sided against the administration’s argument that the temporary ban was within the president’s prerogative, it declined to decide whether the executive order discriminated against people from the seven barred countries — all of which have Muslim-majority populations — on the basis of religion.

The court did, however, open the way for future hearings in which opponents would be able to cite anti-Muslim rhetoric made by Trump and his advisors.

“Recognizing that national security matters are the purview of the president, the Ninth Circuit refused to bury its head in ‘alternate facts,'” said David Pressman, a lawyer and former assistant secretary of Homeland Security.

Instead, he said, the court “considered the real ones — including the impact of the president’s executive order on so many and the unambiguous statements of the president’s discriminatory intent.”

Vía The Guardian Nigeria http://ift.tt/2l5EADY