Once again, Nigeria is the target for America as where to transfer its (Yankeeís) unenviable reputation. This time, the issue is the large scale involvement of its business groups in criminal corruption. Since then, the name Halliburton has dominated public discussions.
Rightly? How could we overlook Halliburtonís alleged bribing of topmost Nigerian public office holders as inducements to award the American company contracts worth billions or at least hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some of the hierarchy of this Halliburton are reported to be serving jail sentences for their role. It is therefore understandable if, out of remorse, bitterness or sour grapes, the convicts sang during which top Nigerians were named.
Even then, we should not be carried away by our known political prejudices against some of those accused. Instead, prior consideration(s) must be given to very serious issues raised by the bribe alleged and these are very fundamental. How bribe was the alleged bribe?

Is it mandatory for any contractor to offer bribe if demanded? What is the source of such bribe? From the generosity of the firm concerned? What effect should the Halliburton alleged bribe scandal have on future contracts award system and estimates of such contracts in Nigeria? What use or value, if any, was the so-called due process purportedly, for eight years, aimed at eradicating business as usual?

It is not mandatory for anybody or company to offer bribe especially if demanded as a condition for any exercise. I have a personal experience for which I am taking my time before taking necessary action. NEPA (PHCN these days) bill me highly every month for electricity I do not consume at my country home at Ijebu-Ode since I am a permanent resident outside the town and visit only occasionally. To solve the regular argument, I duly applied for a pre-charged metre with a fixed amount.

I was shocked when the man openly demanded bribe, for which I rebuked him and refused to pay. As to be expected, he said their pre-charged metres were out of stock and gave me his phone number. Since then, any time I phoned, he was attending a meeting at Ibadan, Abigi, Abeokuta or was driving on the express way.
It is therefore not mandatory for anybody to pay bribe if demanded. When a contractor or firm pays such bribe, the source is easy to guess ñ the extra, indeed, vast extra amount padded into the deliberately inflated estimate of the cost of contract. When therefore multi-billion dollars contracts are awarded in ìanticipatory approval,î the category of such deals must never be in doubt.

Facing reality in this matter, Americans have come to regard payment of bribe as an essential condition to secure contracts anywhere in the world, that is including their own country. The only handicap for any foreign contractor unwilling to pay bribe is to lose the bid for the contract. So what? If all the contractors as a matter of integrity refuse to pay bribe, no contract will be executed in a country like Nigeria.
Halliburton must therefore be seen by Nigerians for what it is ñ not just a business menace but really a corporate criminal.
If prosecution ever comes up on this matter, it will be interesting listening to how the offer of bribe came about. It will, however, be worse if, as is more likely, it emerges that the money offer was unsolicited. That could only account for the discovery by Nigeria of the large amount of one hundred and fifty million dollars in a Swiss account not linked to anybody, at least none of the Nigerian suspects.

Clearly, the fact of the huge amount of one hundred and fifty million dollars accruing from alleged bribe to Nigerian public office holders should explain why contract for road construction or repairs costs ten times or more in Nigeria per kilometre than in Ghana. Yet, both countries are in the tropics with identical solid soil.
In tackling this Halliburton menace, we seem to be making some mistakes. The first is the temptation to jump into the bandwagon because the star suspect or accused is ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, the self-acclaimed Nigeriaís only political saint. We are thereby missing the issue. We must not, because we donít like Obasanjoís face, allow America to take Nigeria for a ride.
That is the pattern anytime America is engulfed in a social debauchery. The way out, usually is for the Americans to transfer their shame to foreign countries, especially Africa. We are reminded of the discovery of the deadly AIDS disease in America in the early 80s. AIDS was universally known to be the product of the insane indulgence of Americans in homosexuality.

In desperate search for a breather, the American establishment planted the falsehood in their media that the deadly AIDS originated from Africa, among the chimpanzees. For Godís sake, were that true, how did the Americans contact AIDS disease from African chimpanzees?
Following that was the same plant in American media that AIDS disease had surfaced in Africa, specifically in Uganda. And with that was the gradual slant and defacing of Africa through our naÔve, unpatriotic and undiscerning media, which instead of being worried over this defamation of a whole race, seemed to be too excited.

Hence, the first reported case of AIDS in Nigeria was acclaimed by a section of the press under a banner headline ìAt last, AIDS in Nigeria.
That is the same tactics being employed by the Americans on this Halliburton affair. In a recession triggered by American financial criminals, the ploy is to shift attention to alleged corruption abroad. And where best if not Nigeria?

The Halliburton bribe allegation is in the same class with similar noise over Siemens and Enron bribe allegations implicating Nigerian public office holders. Initially, American contractors were allegedly involved in violating their countryís law against corruption in business transactions especially abroad.
How many of them were tried or jailed? How many Africans (specifically Nigerians) public office holders could be tried? The American authorities, after shifting the focus on Siemens and Enron bribe allegation to Nigeria as a corrupt country, completely failed indeed refused to assist Nigerian authorities with the facts to prosecute any accused.

Meanwhile, international economic sharks and professional mercenaries are gradually moving into Nigeria to exploit the Halliburton bribe allegation. How much did Nigeria not waste on these self promoting foreign consultants on Bakassi for a fruitless venture at the international court last time? Did Nigeria still not lose to Cameroon?
Nigerian government should be careful not to waste otherwise valuable millions of dollars as consultancy fees to these professional sharks, who already are clandestinely chocking us with their past performances and necessary contacts to locate those involved and where the alleged one hundred and eighty million dollars are located.

These fortune seekers are aware of our mob tactics in situations like the Halliburton affair. By all means, the allegation must be investigated but the chances are that the matter will pass as in the past.
If the Halliburton allegation is true, why does Nigeria need any dubious professional foreign consultant? And why the unnecessarily hyped trip of the Attorney-General Mike Andoakaa to the United States to investigate? Investigate what? Okay, he traced almost the entire millions of dollars involved to Switzerland. After that, what followed? A dead end because no owner of a cent of the said amount could be identified, especially if, as alleged, a Nigerian.
If it is true that Nigerian top figures were involved or even guilty of the bribe allegation, why is the American government not co-operating especially now that for the first time, a black American is occupying the White House in Washington?

Again, by unduly jumping into the Halliburton bandwagon, Nigerian government has needlessly committed itself to a task no easier than the previous ones. With the ever-present non-co-operation of American government, Nigerian public will soon turn round to blame Abuja.
Has Halliburton offered Nigeria any lesson? Only if we are a serious nation. Every day, Nigerians are only informed of multi-billions contracts awarded one after another. With Halliburton, the time has come to re-evaluate every estimated cost of each contract, or at least every future contract.
Henceforth, Nigeria must debate seriously why contracts are costliest in its country, compared to other countries in Africa. Libya, Angola and Gabon are equally oil-rich if not richer countries in Africa. Why are government contracts in those countries far less in costs than Nigeria?
A logical answer is that Halliburton either does not engage in contracts in those countries or does not inflate costs of contracts to create funds for bribing public figures.

Does Halliburton still obtain contracts in Nigeria? At what rate, not just how many but the cost of such contracts? If Halliburton still engages in contracts in Nigeria, as in the past, what noise are we then making on the current allegations?
ìNext week: So, Zik and Balewa conspired against Awo?î
Make no mistake about it. I am an unrepentant and an unyielding supporter of Chelsea Football Club. I have been so since 1967, the first time I witnessed a Football Association Cup final there in London between my club and Tottenham Hotspurs.
I just did not agree with everybody that Chelsea would lose the match to the North Londoners on the ground that were Chelsea such pushover, the team could not have got to the finals in the first place. As it happened, Tottenham won the trophy but I have never looked back since forty-two years ago. Victory or defeat, I got stuck with Chelsea. Three of my sons support Arsenal while the youngest son joins me in supporting Chelsea.

This background is necessary to counter football commentators from BBC (radio) World Service to the Nigerian counterparts. It is just not clear what is expected of Chelsea. Financed heavily by a billionaire proprietor? So are Manchester City and Liverpool, not forgetting Manchester Untied.
Before last weekís big showdown with Liverpool, the general impression was that, especially playing away at Anfield Stadium, Chelsea would be massacred. Yet, Liverpool was clearly beaten by a margin of 3-1.
The return match was last Tuesday. Before then, Chelsea sensibly managed a 4-3 victory over lowly Bolton. Instantly, that was an opportunity for the critics to run down Chelseaís chances in the second leg. Oh! Yes, Bolton created a scare fighting back from four goals down to score three within nine minutes.
Critics went to town with their dagger. Listening to BBC commentators was particularly irritating. Where were these commentators when Liverpool destroyed Manchester Untied 4-1 three weeks ago? Manchester Untied was not porous? Their goalkeeper, Van Der Saar was not vulnerable to high balls?
Where were these commentators when against their prediction, Chelsea tore down Liverpool defence three times in the first leg of the Championís League quarter final last week?

Nobody has been able to credit Chelsea with the capacity to fight back to meet Liverpool earlier two goals up. Oh, Chelsea defence so porous to allow Liverpool score four goals. So? Was Liverpool defence not so porous to concede four goals to Chelsea the same night last Tuesday?
Chelsea supporters are in loyalty, like Catholics to the Pope. No apology. Thank God, at the time of writing this, we are through to the semi-finals, waiting for the two other English sides ñ Arsenal and Manchester Untied.
By the way, a Nigerian sportswriter, Fan Ndubuoke, a few years ago, descended disproportionately on Chelsea. The mail reaction of Chelsea supporters rattled him.

The criticisms of Chelsea may even be well intentioned. But has the team so far performed any more poorly than its immediate rivals ñ Manchester United, which conceded two goals at home (Old Trafford) to visiting Porto, Liverpool beaten by Chelsea 7-5 aggregate in the quarter-final of the current European Champions League tournament, and Arsenal?
Chairman of Independent Electoral Commission, Maurice Iwu, is now enjoying near total peace with himself. The man should be able to note a major difference.
With only a week to go before the re-run of Ekiti governorship race, virtually no Nigerian notices that the man still occupies his post. Indeed, for once, Maurice Iwu has not made himself the issue in next weekís election.
The prospects are now that the Ekiti governorship re-run race will turn out the most bitterly fought. Yet, none of the two candidates or rival parties has named Maurice Iwu as the source of their headache and there have been many. Instead, accusations and counter accusations have been limited strictly to Action Congress and the PDP.

Not even a stray bullet has entered Maurice Iwuís territory and that is mainly because he took the advice offered him in this column three weeks ago. The advice was that he should not, consciously or unconsciously get involved in PDPís campaigns, or assume the role of a big stick-wielding village headmaster, unnecessarily throwing his weight about.
Maurice Iwu has now assumed the role of his Ghanaian counterpart by allowing the 2006 Interim Electoral Act to operate. If only he had assumed that role from the beginning, he would not have merited the status of public enemy number one among a major section of the political divide. So far; so good.
He should carry his new image to the elections proper next week and be seen to be the unbiased umpire.
As for the two competing candidates, they seem to be careless about what ideally should be their main demand ñ that all ballot papers should be serialized. T hat is a major guard against stuffing of ballot boxes with fake voting papers. It is not too late for the two candidates to jointly demand the standard practice. Otherwise, nobody should turn round to complain against inflated results.