WERE he to have just graduated, Philip Asiodu could still have been jobless. But he remains one of those very lucky Nigerians to have graduated during the First Republic. But, then, at 31, he headed mines and power ministry - a feat he attributed to competency.

That shows how promising that era was. Today, being lettered does not in any way simply qualify you for appointment or employment. But Asiodu is sad that Nigeria no longer holds that promise for its citizens. At every stage of this interview, Asiodu lamented that "the tragedy of seventy five" destroyed Nigeria.

"The hiccups to our development or inability to grow as a nation did not start today. It started with the tragedies of 1975 - General Yakubu Gowon's overthrow. That was when the public service was destroyed. 10,000 people were affected and it was without due process. This was done with the applause of the press, anyway I am saying this with due respect," he lamented, typical of every loyal minister in a regime. But this regret is largely harped on his first love, civil service. He condemned the purging of the civil service in 1975 saying that it kick-started the rot in the service today.

The prosperous, former minister also added that Gowon's ouster took Nigeria backwards. As an insider in Gowon's administration, he declared that Gowon meant well for Nigeria. Going down memory lane, he recalled how they opposed Aguiyi Ironsi on unification of the country.

"Do you know the questions we asked Ironsi? We asked what are these policies you want to pursue which you think under our present structure cannot be pursued.

"We couldn't get an answer and we said there is no reason to change the structure and unfortunately, we proceeded. Three months later, we felt he had forgotten it because when we said all these in the economic and finance committee, we were then summoned, Abdulata, Ayida, myself and Ukigbe who had said before this time, he was with Ironsi and I on the podium. And Ironsi said he understood that we are opposing his ideas and we said no and I repeated these questions. Of course, he had no answer"

Bravery! Many would say, but it's not. Serving in the economic and finance Committee then gave him that opportunity.

The former Economic Adviser to Obasanjo, also disclosed why and how he left Obasanjo's administration. Asiodu had expected an administration where his rich ideas could be formulated, but it was not so. And he bowed out. He still maintains that Obasanjo meant well for Nigeria.

Asiodu also spoke on Nigeria's petroleum laws, the land use act and other national issues. Excerpts:

Many have expressed fears that Yar'Adua's administration will be another Shagari's administration, which is generally seen as a failure. This is based on the President's approach to national issues. As an elder statesman who served in that administration, how would you react to this?

I think it is a wrong approach. It is better to take an administration and appraise its policies. It is better than the judgment some people are making about the President. It is also good to talk about an administration's relevance because various ages have different challenges.

Shagari took over in 1979 after thirteen years of military rule and brutal and violent truncation of normal political evolution. And he faced a lot of challenges of overseeing a young democracy, but he succeeded in introducing party administration, even though his party, the National Party of Nigeria, NPN, had only 35 percent of the membership of the legislature. The challenge of the opposition was also there.

In his second administration, we noticed he was willing to introduce a lot of far reaching technological reforms. And you know he had special advisers who were more powerful and influential than ministers because the constitution of that time made it possible. And during Shagari's time, we were not even talking of federal character then. We had Onosode, Galadanci and others. I was the economic adviser and chairman of the cabinet committee which was supposed to meet every week. We were setting macro economic adjustment and were at the point of doing it before the administration was truncated, if not, those reforms would have been put in place.

Then, we were at the same level with Indonesia and we got the same advice with IMF, but they are better than us now. And today, Indonesia's non oil contribution to its revenue is over 60 percent, and their prospects keep growing while we have killed ours.

We were about working on the long delayed LNG project then, which was delayed till 1993 and I was in the transitional administration that we did the final adjustment on it.

So, an administration should be assessed based on its policies. I think the NPN contended with a lot of things then. I think if Shagari failed, as people now think, it's likely Ekwueme would have succeeded. When you look at what Yar'Adua is doing now, it could be a little slow but I hope that the nation will now know what his vision entails.

You mean Ekwueme would have made a better president?

If he had succeeded, all these talks about marginalisation would not have arisen and the quarrels about northern domination or southern marginalisation would have been absent.

But the military struck and that took us to the 1999 situation when we got fed up and insisted that the military must go. And that was in the wake of Abiola's martyrdom which made the presidency to be conceded to the South west.

So, in appraising Yar'Adua's performance, we should base it on his policies. Also Shagari succeeded in some areas. He was able to get the budgets passed on time, even as a minority in the parliament. Nigerians should appreciate the President and his efforts rather than attack him. We need to cultivate some intellectual humility to move this nation forward. We must not be too critical of men of good will.

So we should look at Yar'Adua constructively in order to arrive at a balanced judgment. We should look at this administration within the context of the circumstances through which it came to power.

Do you think his policies, so far, are sound enough to heal this nation?

If we are to hold Yar'Adua responsible for his policies, we should base it on his seven point agenda. You know his seven point agenda talks about security, education, security especially the Niger Delta, electoral reforms and others. There is also the Vision 2020. Now, the next thing is translating all these into specific policies, and drawing programmes, projects, targets and deadline for achieving them. It is also good to have a good team that can deliver these programmes on time.

I think the President will deliver and his stand on the rule of law is healthy. With Peter Obi's victory, Yar'Adua sent the message of rule of law across the nation and it has given the administration some level of stability.

The settling of the long running battle with Lagos State, regarding local government funds, is another good point. The stalemate resulting from that under Obasanjo is gone now. With Yar'Adua, there is a harmonious relationship between Lagos State and the federal government and this shows that he is visionary and wants good governance for all and such relationship is healthy in a federal system.

In places like United States, there are certain recognitions given to some urban areas which have grown into big cities and require special attention. About sixteen metropolitan areas get financial support from the federal government. That is why Lagos needs special financial support from the centre.

You know about 60 percent of the industrial and economic activities of this nation takes place in Lagos. We also have about 18million people with 16 million in the metropolis of Lagos. Therefore, the need for direct support from the federal government to maintain infrastructure is soimportant to the economy and that is what I think Yar'Adua will do.

For example, if goods are delayed clearance to transit from the habour in Lagos, it will affect prices in this country. The way people stay in the traffic for long affects the economy of the nation and that is why infrastructures must be upgraded and created through federal support.

Also, wanting to be among the twenty largest economies requires a great deal of work to conceptualise what it means.

On the electoral reform, I think we should expect them to do a good job. But beyond tinkering with electoral laws, it unfortunate that we appear to have lost. That is the basic idea of what it means to have a democratic government and that should be to serve one's nation and advance its progress.

As civil servants in those days, we saw ourselves as the custodians of certain irreversible principles of public behaviour. These approaches and discipline are, unfortunately, absent today and that is why we have not improved on the gains recorded in the seventies.

Are you saying that if Lagos State continues to lack federal attention, Vision 2020 will remain a mirage?

This involves the energy needs and the transportation needs for easy movement. There is also the need to invest in human capital requirement. These must involve education, acquisition and others. All these things have to be spelt out and pursued vigorously. These essentials will now complement this vision in terms of plan that, over the next thirteen years, there will be results. I think it is fair to say that, long before now, we should have gotten the presidential will to pursue it. If it had happened, you, in the media, would have been busy sensitizing and mobilizing people about it. To some extent, we have lost some guidelines in that respect.

So, where do you think this administration is getting it wrong and how can we fast track this needed growth. You know that many have argued that, over one year into the life of this administration, Nigerians are yet to believe that it has focus?

All the things we are seeing today did not start in this dispensation. The hiccups to our development or inability to grow as a nation did not start today. It started with the tragedies of 1975 (Gowon's overthrow). That was when the public service was destroyed; 10,000 people were affected and it was without due process and it was done with the applause of the press.

These people were trained under the British and European model to be impartial executants of policies, but they were discharged wrongfully. These were people who presented various options on how to realise political dreams to their political bosses. These people were also the custodians of the people's confidence because we swore to an oath. Like myself, I swore an oath as a federal permanent secretary under Zik and Balewa to defend the integrity of Nigeria.

Are you saying that you and your fellow super permanent secretaries were unjustly retired then. If yes, do you remember that the purging of the civil service by Murtala was welcomed by Nigerians?

What I mean is that, had the civil service not been destroyed then, Nigeria would have been better off now. Then, we had technocrats in the right ministries, and that eventually contributed to the success of Gowon's administration. Gowon meant well for Nigeria and there was cohesion among the various ministries then. The important thing is that, in the process of formulating policies by one ministry, others would be consulted, and the system worked simultaneously for a common purpose - nation building.

The advice then was identical advice at the cabinet meetings and it led to quick delivery. Then, there were no delays on decisions because each ministry makes its inputs. Now, part of what we are suffering is the destruction of the homogeneous, collegiate approach. I am not complaining that we were retired. I became a permanent secretary at 31 and I gave my best to this nation. Such premature retirement destroys tenure and continuity. What then happened was that people's hope of rapid progress and improving quality of standard of living were not achieved.

How was it possible for you to get to the pinnacle of you career at that age?

In the old days of the British, the leaders of the civil service were looking for high-fliers, which involved people of talents, and that made it possible for young people to emerge ahead older ones when succession issue came. It does not necessarily mean that the oldest person must be a leader. Ability to deliver results was pre-eminent then. Then, people were given acting appointment for six months and, if results are delivered, they get permanent appointments.

But that is no more today. I became a permanent secretary at 31; Mr.Ayida became a permanent secretary after eight years in service. We can not have this kind of practice again because the normal process was truncated in 1975. The normal due process was not respected because, then, people kept their head high, even when they were to be queried. But that process was not engaged in 1975. That never happened. Then you will be in your office working and you will hear over the radio that your appointment has been terminated. People would be arguing cases in court and hear that they have been retired. Some of those people who were retired had done well for the country and were recommended for accelerated promotion.

When we joined the service, we were outstanding models and that was why we performed. That was why our political masters looked at us as promising people and that helped us to rise in our careers.

After the second coup in July 1966 and when Gowon was chosen, we were among the first people who worked with him. We identified questions likely to be raised by the international media and prepared him for it and I am happy to tell you that there was no question put to him which we did not articulate and prepare him for. So, that is to show you how the government operated then.

How and why did you part way with the Obasanjo administration?

We had a lot of expectations before 1999 but I never found them materialising in that administration.

When serving as special adviser to President Obasanjo, was there a time you had a clash of interest?

Well, I do not believe there was any clash of ideas between me and Chief Obasanjo. Obasanjo is a very interesting personality and I think, when you talk with him, he really means well. But I think the problem is a bit complex. While I was there, there were no clashes of ideas between me and Obasanjo.

I found that the head of the planning commission was the vice president, but the laws setting up the planning commission originally had the President or the Head of State as its head. But this was changed sometime during Babangida or Abdusalami's regime, so that the Chief of Staff will now meet with the military head to become the head of the planning commission.

We also had the privatisation council which I was a member of and right from the beginning, I disagreed with the way privatisation was done because the first thing we said was that we would privatise public quoted companies so that there will be no dispute concerning their values.

Unfortunately, we forgot and we moved back to evaluation, which came in different prices. Transparency went and then the basis of evaluation soon got to us and landed us in what I consider optimal core investors which did not work out.

Secondly, on planning, the British, the Indian and the whole Commonwealth have formal rules. We have a conventional system where former heads of the state preside over the policy making. Now, some people understood the enmity between the non executive and the Chief executive, and, unfortunately, that was not the situation. So it is different from my previous positions.

But I did my best within that little period. One of the things African rulers have to do to be great rulers is to be able to recognise that you deliver best when you select lieutenants with abilities. This involves lieutenants of independence and reputation. These are people who can deliver eight out of ten times. If these people get it right, the credit goes to the ultimate ruler.

Now, the circumstances that I would have enjoyed did not approximate to this model. Once someone starts thinking that the way to succeed in an election is the amount of fund stolen, it compounds the corruption circle, and I am not surprised with the huge amount alleged to have been misappropriated on failed projects. People just wake up and pay any amount to anybody without due process.

At a meeting under the Prince Ogubanjo Foundation, I developed a paper looking at the Babangida constitution and I said that it was impossible for an ordinary honest citizen to become the president of Nigeria.

How?

I looked at the presidential race without bribery and corruption. If an aspirant has an office in each of the 36 states, these offices will be manned by staff and they will be paid for twelve months. Perhaps, the same thing could be replicated in the local governments. And then advertising in the newspaper was N150,000 and doing that without bribing any official would require several billions of naira. Who has such money in Nigeria? If such amount is invested in business, you will know what the person will get.

Once you need such an amount for elections in Nigeria, you either get it from a god father or a syndicate who wants to invest. In each case, the person will work for this people when he is in power and that will be detrimental to the business of good governance. Therefore, we have to look at our constitution again and make good amendments.

We also have to make provision for independent candidacy. If you look at the calibre of people who vied for the presidency at that time, you will know that we needed to fix Nigeria. That is why I went into the transition. At that point, Nigeria was on its throes. The likes of Shonekan, Ella, Douglas were selected into the transition government.

Under this system, such people will not make that list, but if we allow independent candidates, it will be possible for this country to rally round some outstanding candidates. That may be possible without going to look for billions to buy votes.

What happened to the Obasanjo Nigerians seemed to love in 1999 and the one Nigerians seem to to hate now?

I told you that before 1999, I hoped to re-integrate Nigeria into the world, create the invention, re-enact and put Nigeria back on the conception of development. We should start going at 10 percent per annum, all the things that are in that Vision 2010 are still valid. What they need is to be updated now and merged with 2020.

What happened was that, in 1999, it was possible for us to envisage that, under this leader whom the world knew and had been an eminent person, that all these dreams of getting back to the pedestal of 10 percent development, of creating a good economy, of advancing the rule of law, of a more harmonious relationship between the legislators and the executive would bet met.

What then happened was that the hopes people had for rapid progress, of improving the quality and standard of living were not achieved. Then, there was another hope that they would be able to discipline the process, but it was not to be. Some of us had hoped that each party could be forced to become parties.

Firstly, they should be made to get proper programme and manifestoes, and have internal democracy, but we were allowed to continue the old way, that is, the way to power is when election comes, you distribute one bag of rice here and there and once that is done, you carry on. I am not surprised to read some of this terrible things I read, how billions of naira were thrown away in the name of contracts and no invoices, no resignation from the Accountant General because everybody is corrupt.

Nigeria's presidency really got fractured during the Obasanjo and Atiku years. With what you saw before leaving that government, what do you think could have been responsible?

The point is, if there was a time to form a proper party, interaction over three or five years, we may not have had that problem. But forcing people with different background to work together under six months? I think we must try and find a way of limiting, by law as America did, that everybody can not contribute to the party system. There is also need for an open and regular accounting of political expenses.

There should be time to form new political parties based on some ideologies because this present situation of greed is not good. I am very sorry for many of them because, when you collect money you cannot spend money or collect money you cannot sign, it becomes a problem.

Many believed that you and your colleagues then were more powerful than the state. Hence, you were seen as super permanent secretaries. Can we know what made you people super Perm-Secs?

That impression is completely wrong. First, the question of super Perm-Secs was invented by journalists. Late Jose and others invented it. As permanent secretaries, we swore oaths of allegiance to the federal government. Then, crises came up and a few of us thought we could help beyond the call of normal duty. We took the decision to make sure that the Nigerian government was not making people laugh at it because some of us were very competent.

Secndly, we did our best to influence the military and, luckily, Ironsi and Gowon knew how high you had to rise in the anal before you were brought into mixed council, so they respected the civil service and the civil service structures were intact.

A few of us were already in the economic and finance committee of permanent secretary set up by Balewa to advise the government on inter-ministerial issues. Among us were few of these people who did not mind losing their jobs, they were ready to go to the military and say you can't do this.

Under Ironsi, when some people felt schemed out and proposed the unification of Nigeria, a few of us opposed it and said why? We asked Ironsi if there is anything he, as supreme commander, wanted to do which any of the lieutenant colonels as military governors have not done. We also said, 'what are these policies you want to pursue which you think, under our present structure, can't be pursued', but we couldn't get an answer.

I was in a barber's shop three months later when I heard a long speech that the regions were abolished. Then, Gowon came, and Gowon is very well meaning that, sometimes, you have to push to get him to do things. Then, a few of us used to go to the Head of Service and say 'look, the country is drifting and you must take a decision'. He agreed and went to Gowon and argued with him and, at the end, a decision was taken. Now, some of the other permanent secretaries did not like it, they thought we are playing beyond civil service job. But we were doing it because the country was in danger.

Then, during the civil war, two or three of us and some military men used to be with Gowon till 2 or 3 am, agreeing on what should be done. I and Ayida will fly, at least, 10,000 miles a month to America, Russia and France. Some people did not like these and they did not have the energy of inclination and so that is it.

Finally, we always had the great. The great permanent secretaries were in Group 4. But there were some permanent secretaries who could be in Group 3. Usually, they were finance, Attorney General and there was a promotion. We didn't ask for it (promotion) but we got it. Ayida and I, then the Daily times and others went to press, but the actual thing was that we said we were worth beyond that.

There is this talk about your tenure as a super permanent secretary and that most of the oil laws which appear to be holding the south down today were made in the seventies. Can you please explain?

As permanent secretary in the ministry of mines and power, founder of the Nigerian national oil corporation and execution general, I was there 1971 to 1975 and one of the things which the south south is denouncing and which has been produced in my own papers was this thinking that it is the land use decree, that they are confusing the land use decree which dealt with land being vested in government with the decree which vested such rights in the federal government, that was in 1944, that was one of the four ordinances being denounced by being of not sure because many did not understand. The petroleum acts were to control operations of the oil company - that's it - but it has nothing to do with the repatriation of the resources, even that was 1969.

When I came on board, one of the first things I said was that I was concerned with local content. And we notice that they used to sack our people as soon as they are reaching the top and one of the things we did, not strictly according to law, was that once a Nigerian reached a certain point, no oil company could sack him without approval, but I think they must have forgotten that now. It is not these laws that are causing problem in that sector now. That time we felt that we own the gas and that ownership of oil does not confer ownership of gas. And that the federal government should be able to take the gas at the point of flaring without paying a penny.

Again people should be careful when they talk about the revenue arrangement under the First Republic. Sixty percent was on rent and royalty to the local and everything was not from oil then. This did not include petroleum profit tax because people did not know its importance then.

On the dispute about land use decree and petroleum laws, people should go and read them properly. Nobody should drag me into the land use decree. Justice Idigbe was the head of the commission that looked into the land issue. Ten out of eleven said leave our land as it was. It was a minority report of one person that Obasanjo accepted and implemented as a military Head of State. And, as we have found out, it has not helped in land acquisition. In terms of cost, the community and corrupt officials are paid. You find out that these officials delay it before it ever reaches the governor to sign.

Some governors have used it in the past as an instrument of intimidation to revoke peoples land. Even in some states, it has never been applied. In Lagos, yes, and may be in Delta. Have you ever seen anybody taking land from an Igbo where solid minerals development, agro- allied industry and others will come in. For example, Japan and Korea have no oil, yet they are developed nations today.

This oil has become a mixed privilege because of land use decree. I think it is good for it to be reviewed. It is not that when it is reviewed, each community will say you can't drill. It can't work like that. As a Delta man, I would say part of this money which we will now get, I will do it the way Kuwait is doing today because oil and gas are not renewable resources. I will invest it in renewable income generating activities. It will position well for the future when oil and gas revenue will reduce.

Also once we see the result of this, the rest of the country will go through the process. This oil is less a blessing, it is a curse to us. Before oil each part of our country developed on the basis of agriculture. One of the tragedies is that the coup came when oil was going to become important. If there was no coup in January 1966, the First Republic would have done well. They had already had a farm settlement scheme and other things that were going on. And oil money would have gone into it. But oil money came in big proportion just after the civil war. Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation consumed benefited much from the money. But now the states have now developed the habit of going to Abuja to share this money without personal responsibility to make sure that the money is properly spent.

On resource control

As far as I am concerned resource control should not be a big debate. Federal government should concede the twenty five percent immediately. But the money should not go directly to the government. I would rather prefer a special fund with banks including World Bank with a technocratic board. And the fund will be dedicated to transforming the lives of the people in the region. The development should be a marshal plan that will produce a result by 2015. And it includes the East/West road, North/South road, dredging the rivers, creating model towns and others. The important thing in this is implementation. It involves introducing the projects to the people.

Then they should be allowed a say on the project they want and the federal government will respond profitably. I will challenge the community, which includes the militants or anybody, to produce a community relations manager. This person will help guarantee the peaceful condition under which the project can work. Instead, they should lay down your arm and stop kidnapping. I will suggest a three year immediate cease fire. That will make the project get going everybody will be involved. Then nobody will have time for kidnapping and looting. If we go on with this programme the people will gain much from it. Everybody involved will be remunerated handsomely. That is why I think we should have that pragmatic approach. If you go to these communities, you will see them defecating and fetching water from the same river. And 200 yards away, you will see an estate of the oil companies. That is provocation.

There is a precedent that emanated from the Obasanjo/Atiku feud. The Supreme ruled that Atiku was right to have decamped to AC and still remain Vice-President. Looking at that scenario, if a Goodluck Jonathan leaves PDP for any party floated by MEND or any of the Niger Delta militant groups, how do you think it will augur for the polity?

Law is one thing, politics and morals are different also. Legally and technically what the Supreme Court said is correct. What our constitution says is that a candidate must belong to a party to pick up nomination for the presidency. The point is that he was running mate of the president, who went through the process of selection. It is after the selection hat he picks the running mate. Morally, as a man of dignity, I will not find myself in that situation. For Goodluck to join another party, I will say that it is not sustainable morally.

But if you go into the other dimension politically, you will know that Nigeria is divided into different zones. My ambition and anybody's could be to be the president of Nigeria. Even at that I don't think any politician can team up with any group against the interest of Nigeria. I said what the Supreme Court said was legally sound but morally the person involved should not have continued one day longer. I don't expect him to have stayed longer after what the office of the president and vice became ridiculed by their feud. The impression we had about them when I was part of that government was that of harmonious relationship.

Some believe your expectations have not been largely met by this administration and that, perhaps, makes you sad. So, what are those things that you expect Yar'Adua to do?

I would want him to continue on the path of rule of law. I would want him to go into serious dialogue with governors and legislators and agree that the bulk of resources available to the country should go into capital expenditure. It would help us to revive the education, power and health sectors. That means that having about eighty percent going to recurrent like in the past, sixty should go there. We can't just appropriate money and start spending it without project. For a country on our level of development, it will be good to spend forty or thirty percent of our budget on education. We must rebuild our educational system. We should take the physical dimension which involves better pay for teachers.

I think he should look again on how we are pursuing privatisation. I think we should pick the formula we adopted for GSM. Nigeria should be put into four or five zones and bring the big boys to come and invest. They should be guaranteed that they can generate and transmit at their discretion. But the regulatory authority must insist on inter-connectivity. The prices should be regulated also but it must be made profitable to recover the money invested. The money will help them to continue to expand according to demands.

If we take all our money and put on subsidy for electricity and fuel, it means we will not be able to fund some projects. We should stop deceiving ourselves. There is nowhere you will find free electricity. Power is an area that we can not fund with budget money alone. We need to get profit oriented companies into it. If we could tackle power supply, education and health, I think there will be immediate impact. In all these, if we don't have a capable civil service, it would be difficult. The civil servants translate these ideas into results.