Friday 30 November 2007

Hungarian Students Raise Money to Build Hospital in Africa


by Archie Bonka

But it seems hope has not lost on the other side, for in a small quiet town of Panon Halma, young students of Bences Catholic College answered a call on St. Martins Day. They graced the occasion being organised by Rev Hardi Richard as part of a charity and fund raising concert to assist in building a new eye clinic in Kabinda.click and read more

Cartoon


Killing Own Language with Colonial Mentality

source: Nigerian Tribune


Tuesday 27 November 2007

France’s new anti-black African immigration law

French President Nicholas Sarkozy

By Elie Smith


France has just introduced another new anti-immigration law. The new law requires that, any legal immigrant, resident in metropolitan France, and who wants his family or her family to join him/her, must have three times, the standard minimum wage and if he/she has children, they must also undergo a deoxyribonucleic acid test, in order to ascertain that the children are truly his/hers.
click and read more

Begging the Nigerian Families



By Hakeem Babalola


I am on my knees as I write this….

Before I go in perspective, I would like to ask some simple questions. Why is it that nobody wants to be associated with armed robbers? Why is it that even if one benefits from the proceeds of an armed robber, one is ashamed to say so in public? Why do Nigerians detest armed robbers so much? Why do parents disown their children who are armed robbers? Why is it that armed robbers themselves are not proud of what they do?

I think the answers to the above questions are as simple as ABC, yet it is somehow difficult for Nigerians to understand the sequence of logic in order to solve their daily problems in line with a profession quite similar to armed robbery. Or have you met any Nigerian who is audacious enough to introduce his or her sibling or friend as an armed robber? Even wives or lovers, despite the fact that they know that their partners are men of the underworld, and probably support them; they do not dare defend them as such in public.

Though such denial has not basically licked the problems in question, the psychological and sociological stigma attached to it are still effective. If a daredevil is still afraid and ashamed to tell people his profession, then we know that he is aware that he is an outcast. We know that such character lives in fear even though he terrorizes the minds of his victims. We know that his mind is being terrorized by his action. We know that he is psychologically defeated. We know that he can never be as proud even as someone who belongs to the bottom of the totem pole. You know the ones I am talking about. Don’t you?

Kudos to the Nigerian families for defeating the spirits of the men of the underworld. I believe it is their refusal to recognise these daredevils in our midst that has contributed immensely to the downfall of armed robbery as a profession. Though these lunatics dash harum-scarum all over our communities, the fact remains they are not proud of what they do. They are bound to remain in infernal region even before they visit the House of Hades.

However, it would be a thing of joy if the Nigerian families could extend their tentacles in order to defeat another "professions" quite similar to that of armed robbery. I am talking about polieatics and pen-robbery. These two "professions" have caused as many damages as that of armed robbery. Without mincing words, I violently believe it is the Nigerian families that can successfully thwart the passage of rottenness in our society. For a while moral degeneracy has followed intellectual degeneration. Let the Nigerian families fight.

Corruption. Fighting its opium parlors is easy yet it often appears challenging; it is such an herculean task. I don't want to pretend as if I don't know this. But every Nigerian family can help eradicate the various turpitudes of our communities. I trust we can do it if we want. And this is exactly where the trouble lies. It seems we do not want to cure our depravity. Then why do we chew solutions like kolanut every moment? Why don't we just accept the fact that we know the solution but we don't want the problem solved?

The reason for begging the Nigerian families is actually to re-direct their approach and thinking towards the life we live regarding corruption. If they didn't know, it's time someone told them that the way they herald and honour public officials who stole money, is part of the dangerous and funny aspect of corruption. A Nigerian who is not corrupt is often referred to as being foolish. He is a suegbe. He or she becomes the joke of the family as well as colleagues. Nigerians who have determined to curb corruption would be surprised their spouses and even children are not with them in such a bold act.

There is also contradiction even among those who seem to genuinely abhor corruption; they adore it in other circumstances. For example, is there any Nigerian who can beat her chest saying, "if my relatives assumed public office, I would not directly or indirectly put pressure on them for financial help?" I don't know what my family would think should I assume public office. Is my family going to jubilate, thinking it is now their turn to share the so-called national cake, which is far disappearing anyway?

Would they stay away from asking for contract? If they came for it and I refused them, would they still be my family or friends? Or would they hurriedly call a family meeting, and admonish me for being foolish? would they say, "Oh, by tomorrow you shall be in tears over lost opportunities? Would they laugh at me thinking I have lost touch with reality? Would I be able to withstand such pressure? In short, what would become of me if I refused to sully my hands by accepting bribe?

This aspect of us frightens me as much as a politician's pilfering fingers. As I said earlier, the solution is pretty simple. What if we treat corrupt public officials and pen-robbers as armed robbers? What if no one addresses Umaru Yar'Adua for example, as president because of the way he assumed office? What if the families of Obasanjo, Babangida, Adedibu, Uba and co disown them because of the way they have made people suffer? It is virtually impossible to move forward when people like James Ibori, Alao Akala, Orji Kalu, Alams, Fayose, Atiku, Objoke, IBTief and so on are being hailed as heroes.

The idea is this: if your spouse is a governor and has stolen people's money, divorce him immediately or if he is your lover, dump him as soon as possible. If yours is a son or daughter or father or mother or sister who is a senator, legislator, local chairperson; and he or she has stolen people's wealth, disown him or her. Let it continue like this. It is simple. Isn't it? But it is equally challenging. Am I right?

Nigerian families must be honest with themselves. They must stop deceiving themselves thinking corruption could be eradicated without lending a helping hand. Nigerian families must know that they have been implicitly enriching corruption. Whenever they are ready to get rid of this impairment of virtue and moral principles, let them take the bull by the horn. Let them treat corrupt officials including election riggers as armed robbers. Other alternatives would be wasting of time. It is Nigeria we are talking about.

copyright 2007 mysmallvoice@yahoo.com

Monday 26 November 2007

Bad Breath Is Bad Business

By CHICHI ANIAGOLU-OKOYE

STRICTLY OPINION

Perhaps we can pardon the unemployed. Maybe they have no money to buy toothpaste and chewing gum for periodic refreshing of the breath, but what can we say about public servants, including governors, special advisers, ministers, top civil servants and the like? click and read

Friday 23 November 2007

EU law concerning the status of "3rd country" nationals who are long-term residents

|

32003L0109

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents

Official Journal L 016 , 23/01/2004 P. 0044 - 0053


Council Directive 2003/109/EC

of 25 November 2003

concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63(3) and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(3),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(4),

Whereas:

(1) With a view to the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, the Treaty establishing the European Community provides both for the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring the free movement of persons, in conjunction with flanking measures relating to external border controls, asylum and immigration, and for the adoption of measures relating to asylum, immigration and safeguarding the rights of third-country nationals.

(2) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, stated that the legal status of third-country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals and that a person who has resided legally in a Member State for a period of time to be determined and who holds a long-term residence permit should be granted in that Member State a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by citizens of the European Union.

(3) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(4) The integration of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the Member States is a key element in promoting economic and social cohesion, a fundamental objective of the Community stated in the Treaty.

(5) Member States should give effect to the provisions of this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth, disabilities, age or sexual orientation.

(6) The main criterion for acquiring the status of long-term resident should be the duration of residence in the territory of a Member State. Residence should be both legal and continuous in order to show that the person has put down roots in the country. Provision should be made for a degree of flexibility so that account can be taken of circumstances in which a person might have to leave the territory on a temporary basis.

(7) To acquire long-term resident status, third-country nationals should prove that they have adequate resources and sickness insurance, to avoid becoming a burden for the Member State. Member States, when making an assessment of the possession of stable and regular resources may take into account factors such as contributions to the pension system and fulfilment of tax obligations.

(8) Moreover, third-country nationals who wish to acquire and maintain long-term resident status should not constitute a threat to public policy or public security. The notion of public policy may cover a conviction for committing a serious crime.

(9) Economic considerations should not be a ground for refusing to grant long-term resident status and shall not be considered as interfering with the relevant conditions.

(10) A set of rules governing the procedures for the examination of application for long-term resident status should be laid down. Those procedures should be effective and manageable, taking account of the normal workload of the Member States' administrations, as well as being transparent and fair, in order to offer appropriate legal certainty to those concerned. They should not constitute a means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence.

(11) The acquisition of long-term resident status should be certified by residence permits enabling those concerned to prove their legal status easily and immediately. Such residence permits should also satisfy high-level technical standards, notably as regards protection against falsification and counterfeiting, in order to avoid abuses in the Member State in which the status is acquired and in Member States in which the right of residence is exercised.

(12) In order to constitute a genuine instrument for the integration of long-term residents into society in which they live, long-term residents should enjoy equality of treatment with citizens of the Member State in a wide range of economic and social matters, under the relevant conditions defined by this Directive.

(13) With regard to social assistance, the possibility of limiting the benefits for long-term residents to core benefits is to be understood in the sense that this notion covers at least minimum income support, assistance in case of illness, pregnancy, parental assistance and long-term care. The modalities for granting such benefits should be determined by national law.

(14) The Member States should remain subject to the obligation to afford access for minors to the educational system under conditions similar to those laid down for their nationals.

(15) The notion of study grants in the field of vocational training does not cover measures which are financed under social assistance schemes. Moreover, access to study grants may be dependent on the fact that the person who applies for such grants fulfils on his/her own the conditions for acquiring long-term resident status. As regards the issuing of study grants, Member States may take into account the fact that Union citizens may benefit from this same advantage in the country of origin.

(16) Long-term residents should enjoy reinforced protection against expulsion. This protection is based on the criteria determined by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to ensure protection against expulsion Member States should provide for effective legal redress.

(17) Harmonisation of the terms for acquisition of long-term resident status promotes mutual confidence between Member States. Certain Member States issue permits with a permanent or unlimited validity on conditions that are more favourable than those provided for by this Directive. The possibility of applying more favourable national provisions is not excluded by the Treaty. However, for the purposes of this Directive, it should be provided that permits issued on more favourable terms do not confer the right to reside in other Member States.

(18) Establishing the conditions subject to which the right to reside in another Member State may be acquired by third-country nationals who are long-term residents should contribute to the effective attainment of an internal market as an area in which the free movement of persons is ensured. It could also constitute a major factor of mobility, notably on the Union's employment market.

(19) Provision should be made that the right of residence in another Member State may be exercised in order to work in an employed or self-employed capacity, to study or even to settle without exercising any form of economic activity.

(20) Family members should also be able to settle in another Member State with a long-term resident in order to preserve family unity and to avoid hindering the exercise of the long-term resident's right of residence. With regard to the family members who may be authorised to accompany or to join the long-term residents, Member States should pay special attention to the situation of disabled adult children and of first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line who are dependent on them.

(21) The Member State in which a long-term resident intends to exercise his/her right of residence should be able to check that the person concerned meets the conditions for residing in its territory. It should also be able to check that the person concerned does not constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.

(22) To avoid rendering the right of residence nugatory, long-term residents should enjoy in the second Member State the same treatment, under the conditions defined by this Directive, they enjoy in the Member State in which they acquired the status. The granting of benefits under social assistance is without prejudice to the possibility for the Member States to withdraw the residence permit if the person concerned no longer fulfils the requirements set by this Directive.

(23) Third-country nationals should be granted the possibility of acquiring long-term resident status in the Member State where they have moved and have decided to settle under comparable conditions to those required for its acquisition in the first Member State.

(24) Since the objectives of the proposed action, namely the determination of terms for granting and withdrawing long-term resident status and the rights pertaining thereto and terms for the exercise of rights of residence by long-term residents in other Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved by the Community, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

(25) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not participating in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by or subject to its application.

(26) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not take part in the adoption of this Directive, and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

Subject matter

This Directive determines:

(a) the terms for conferring and withdrawing long-term resident status granted by a Member State in relation to third-country nationals legally residing in its territory, and the rights pertaining thereto; and

(b) the terms of residence in Member States other than the one which conferred long-term status on them for third-country nationals enjoying that status.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) "third-country national" means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Treaty;

(b) "long-term resident" means any third-country national who has long-term resident status as provided for under Articles 4 to 7;

(c) "first Member State" means the Member State which for the first time granted long-term resident status to a third-country national;

(d) "second Member State" means any Member State other than the one which for the first time granted long-term resident status to a third-country national and in which that long-term resident exercises the right of residence;

(e) "family members" means the third-country nationals who reside in the Member State concerned in accordance with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification(5);

(f) "refugee" means any third-country national enjoying refugee status within the meaning of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the Protocol signed in New York on 31 January 1967;

(g) "long-term resident's EC residence permit" means a residence permit issued by the Member State concerned upon the acquisition of long-term resident status.

Article 3

Scope

1. This Directive applies to third-country nationals residing legally in the territory of a Member State.

2. This Directive does not apply to third-country nationals who:

(a) reside in order to pursue studies or vocational training;

(b) are authorised to reside in a Member State on the basis of temporary protection or have applied for authorisation to reside on that basis and are awaiting a decision on their status;

(c) are authorised to reside in a Member State on the basis of a subsidiary form of protection in accordance with international obligations, national legislation or the practice of the Member States or have applied for authorisation to reside on that basis and are awaiting a decision on their status;

(d) are refugees or have applied for recognition as refugees and whose application has not yet given rise to a final decision;

(e) reside solely on temporary grounds such as au pair or seasonal worker, or as workers posted by a service provider for the purposes of cross-border provision of services, or as cross-border providers of services or in cases where their residence permit has been formally limited;

(f) enjoy a legal status governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, the Convention of 1969 on Special Missions or the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organisations of a Universal Character of 1975.

3. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to more favourable provisions of:

(a) bilateral and multilateral agreements between the Community or the Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and third countries, on the other;

(b) bilateral agreements already concluded between a Member State and a third country before the date of entry into force of this Directive;

(c) the European Convention on Establishment of 13 December 1955, the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961, the amended European Social Charter of 3 May 1987 and the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers of 24 November 1977.

CHAPTER II LONG-TERM RESIDENT STATUS IN A MEMBER STATE

Article 4

Duration of residence

1. Member States shall grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously within its territory for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application.

2. Periods of residence for the reasons referred to in Article 3(2)(e) and (f) shall not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the period referred to in paragraph 1.

Regarding the cases covered in Article 3(2)(a), where the third-country national concerned has acquired a title of residence which will enable him/her to be granted long-term resident status, only half of the periods of residence for study purposes or vocational training may be taken into account in the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 1.

3. Periods of absence from the territory of the Member State concerned shall not interrupt the period referred to in paragraph 1 and shall be taken into account for its calculation where they are shorter than six consecutive months and do not exceed in total 10 months within the period referred to in paragraph 1.

In cases of specific or exceptional reasons of a temporary nature and in accordance with their national law, Member States may accept that a longer period of absence than that which is referred to in the first subparagraph shall not interrupt the period referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases Member States shall not take into account the relevant period of absence in the calculation of the period referred to in paragraph 1.

By way of derogation from the second subparagraph, Member States may take into account in the calculation of the total period referred to in paragraph 1 periods of absence relating to secondment for employment purposes, including the provision of cross-border services.

Article 5

Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status

1. Member States shall require third-country nationals to provide evidence that they have, for themselves and for dependent family members:

(a) stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned. Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions prior to the application for long-term resident status;

(b) sickness insurance in respect of all risks normally covered for his/her own nationals in the Member State concerned.

2. Member States may require third-country nationals to comply with integration conditions, in accordance with national law.

Article 6

Public policy and public security

1. Member States may refuse to grant long-term resident status on grounds of public policy or public security.

When taking the relevant decision, the Member State shall consider the severity or type of offence against public policy or public security, or the danger that emanates from the person concerned, while also having proper regard to the duration of residence and to the existence of links with the country of residence.

2. The refusal referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be founded on economic considerations.

Article 7

Acquisition of long-term resident status

1. To acquire long-term resident status, the third-country national concerned shall lodge an application with the competent authorities of the Member State in which he/she resides. The application shall be accompanied by documentary evidence to be determined by national law that he/she meets the conditions set out in Articles 4 and 5 as well as, if required, by a valid travel document or its certified copy.

The evidence referred to in the first subparagraph may also include documentation with regard to appropriate accommodation.

2. The competent national authorities shall give the applicant written notification of the decision as soon as possible and in any event no later than six months from the date on which the application was lodged. Any such decision shall be notified to the third-country national concerned in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation.

In exceptional circumstances linked to the complexity of the examination of the application, the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended.

In addition, the person concerned shall be informed about his/her rights and obligations under this Directive.

Any consequences of no decision being taken by the end of the period provided for in this provision shall be determined by national legislation of the relevant Member State.

3. If the conditions provided for by Articles 4 and 5 are met, and the person does not represent a threat within the meaning of Article 6, the Member State concerned shall grant the third-country national concerned long-term resident status.

Article 8

Long-term resident's EC residence permit

1. The status as long-term resident shall be permanent, subject to Article 9.

2. Member States shall issue a long-term resident's EC residence permit to long-term residents. The permit shall be valid at least for five years; it shall, upon application if required, be automatically renewable on expiry.

3. A long-term resident's EC residence permit may be issued in the form of a sticker or of a separate document. It shall be issued in accordance with the rules and standard model as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals(6). Under the heading "type of permit", the Member States shall enter "long-term resident - EC".

Article 9

Withdrawal or loss of status

1. Long-term residents shall no longer be entitled to maintain long-term resident status in the following cases:

(a) detection of fraudulent acquisition of long-term resident status;

(b) adoption of an expulsion measure under the conditions provided for in Article 12;

(c) in the event of absence from the territory of the Community for a period of 12 consecutive months.

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(c), Member States may provide that absences exceeding 12 consecutive months or for specific or exceptional reasons shall not entail withdrawal or loss of status.

3. Member States may provide that the long-term resident shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her long-term resident status in cases where he/she constitutes a threat to public policy, in consideration of the seriousness of the offences he/she committed, but such threat is not a reason for expulsion within the meaning of Article 12.

4. The long-term resident who has resided in another Member State in accordance with Chapter III shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her long-term resident status acquired in the first Member State when such a status is granted in another Member State pursuant to Article 23.

In any case after six years of absence from the territory of the Member State that granted long-term resident status the person concerned shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her long term resident status in the said Member State.

By way of derogation from the second subparagraph the Member State concerned may provide that for specific reasons the long-term resident shall maintain his/her status in the said Member State in case of absences for a period exceeding six years.

5. With regard to the cases referred to in paragraph 1(c) and in paragraph 4, Member States who have granted the status shall provide for a facilitated procedure for the re-acquisition of long-term resident status.

The said procedure shall apply in particular to the cases of persons that have resided in a second Member State on grounds of pursuit of studies.

The conditions and the procedure for the re-acquisition of long-term resident status shall be determined by national law.

6. The expiry of a long-term resident's EC residence permit shall in no case entail withdrawal or loss of long-term resident status.

7. Where the withdrawal or loss of long-term resident status does not lead to removal, the Member State shall authorise the person concerned to remain in its territory if he/she fulfils the conditions provided for in its national legislation and/or if he/she does not constitute a threat to public policy or public security.

Article 10

Procedural guarantees

1. Reasons shall be given for any decision rejecting an application for long-term resident status or withdrawing that status. Any such decision shall be notified to the third-country national concerned in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation. The notification shall specify the redress procedures available and the time within which he/she may act.

2. Where an application for long-term resident status is rejected or that status is withdrawn or lost or the residence permit is not renewed, the person concerned shall have the right to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned.

Article 11

Equal treatment

1. Long-term residents shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals as regards:

(a) access to employment and self-employed activity, provided such activities do not entail even occasional involvement in the exercise of public authority, and conditions of employment and working conditions, including conditions regarding dismissal and remuneration;

(b) education and vocational training, including study grants in accordance with national law;

(c) recognition of professional diplomas, certificates and other qualifications, in accordance with the relevant national procedures;

(d) social security, social assistance and social protection as defined by national law;

(e) tax benefits;

(f) access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services made available to the public and to procedures for obtaining housing;

(g) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an organisation representing workers or employers or of any organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, including the benefits conferred by such organisations, without prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public security;

(h) free access to the entire territory of the Member State concerned, within the limits provided for by the national legislation for reasons of security.

2. With respect to the provisions of paragraph 1, points (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), the Member State concerned may restrict equal treatment to cases where the registered or usual place of residence of the long-term resident, or that of family members for whom he/she claims benefits, lies within the territory of the Member State concerned.

3. Member States may restrict equal treatment with nationals in the following cases:

(a) Member States may retain restrictions to access to employment or self-employed activities in cases where, in accordance with existing national or Community legislation, these activities are reserved to nationals, EU or EEA citizens;

(b) Member States may require proof of appropriate language proficiency for access to education and training. Access to university may be subject to the fulfilment of specific educational prerequisites.

4. Member States may limit equal treatment in respect of social assistance and social protection to core benefits.

5. Member States may decide to grant access to additional benefits in the areas referred to in paragraph 1.

Member States may also decide to grant equal treatment with regard to areas not covered in paragraph 1.

Article 12

Protection against expulsion

1. Member States may take a decision to expel a long-term resident solely where he/she constitutes an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or public security.

2. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be founded on economic considerations.

3. Before taking a decision to expel a long-term resident, Member States shall have regard to the following factors:

(a) the duration of residence in their territory;

(b) the age of the person concerned;

(c) the consequences for the person concerned and family members;

(d) links with the country of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin.

4. Where an expulsion decision has been adopted, a judicial redress procedure shall be available to the long-term resident in the Member State concerned.

5. Legal aid shall be given to long-term residents lacking adequate resources, on the same terms as apply to nationals of the State where they reside.

Article 13

More favourable national provisions

Member States may issue residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity on terms that are more favourable than those laid down by this Directive. Such residence permits shall not confer the right of residence in the other Member States as provided by Chapter III of this Directive.

CHAPTER III RESIDENCE IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES

Article 14

Principle

1. A long-term resident shall acquire the right to reside in the territory of Member States other than the one which granted him/her the long-term residence status, for a period exceeding three months, provided that the conditions set out in this chapter are met.

2. A long-term resident may reside in a second Member State on the following grounds:

(a) exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity;

(b) pursuit of studies or vocational training;

(c) other purposes.

3. In cases of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity referred to in paragraph 2(a), Member States may examine the situation of their labour market and apply their national procedures regarding the requirements for, respectively, filling a vacancy, or for exercising such activities.

For reasons of labour market policy, Member States may give preference to Union citizens, to third-country nationals, when provided for by Community legislation, as well as to third-country nationals who reside legally and receive unemployment benefits in the Member State concerned.

4. By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, Member States may limit the total number of persons entitled to be granted right of residence, provided that such limitations are already set out for the admission of third-country nationals in the existing legislation at the time of the adoption of this Directive.

5. This chapter does not concern the residence of long-term residents in the territory of the Member States:

(a) as employed workers posted by a service provider for the purposes of cross-border provision of services;

(b) as providers of cross-border services.

Member States may decide, in accordance with national law, the conditions under which long-term residents who wish to move to a second Member State with a view to exercising an economic activity as seasonal workers may reside in that Member State. Cross-border workers may also be subject to specific provisions of national law.

6. This Chapter is without prejudice to the relevant Community legislation on social security with regard to third-country nationals.

Article 15

Conditions for residence in a second Member State

1. As soon as possible and no later than three months after entering the territory of the second Member State, the long-term resident shall apply to the competent authorities of that Member State for a residence permit.

Member States may accept that the long-term resident submits the application for a residence permit to the competent authorities of the second Member State while still residing in the territory of the first Member State.

2. Member States may require the persons concerned to provide evidence that they have:

(a) stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain themselves and the members of their families, without recourse to the social assistance of the Member State concerned. For each of the categories referred to in Article 14(2), Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions;

(b) sickness insurance covering all risks in the second Member State normally covered for its own nationals in the Member State concerned.

3. Member States may require third-country nationals to comply with integration measures, in accordance with national law.

This condition shall not apply where the third-country nationals concerned have been required to comply with integration conditions in order to be granted long-term resident status, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2).

Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, the persons concerned may be required to attend language courses.

4. The application shall be accompanied by documentary evidence, to be determined by national law, that the persons concerned meets the relevant conditions, as well as by their long-term resident permit and a valid travel document or their certified copies.

The evidence referred to in the first subparagraph may also include documentation with regard to appropriate accommodation.

In particular:

(a) in case of exercise of an economic activity the second Member State may require the persons concerned to provide evidence:

(i) if they are in an employed capacity, that they have an employment contract, a statement by the employer that they are hired or a proposal for an employment contract, under the conditions provided for by national legislation. Member States shall determine which of the said forms of evidence is required;

(ii) if they are in a self-employed capacity, that they have the appropriate funds which are needed, in accordance with national law, to exercise an economic activity in such capacity, presenting the necessary documents and permits;

(b) in case of study or vocational training the second Member State may require the persons concerned to provide evidence of enrolment in an accredited establishment in order to pursue studies or vocational training.

Article 16

Family members

1. When the long-term resident exercises his/her right of residence in a second Member State and when the family was already constituted in the first Member State, the members of his/her family, who fulfil the conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/86/EC shall be authorised to accompany or to join the long-term resident.

2. When the long-term resident exercises his/her right of residence in a second Member State and when the family was already constituted in the first Member State, the members of his/her family, other than those referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/86/EC may be authorised to accompany or to join the long-term resident.

3. With respect to the submission of the application for a residence permit, the provisions of Article 15(1) apply.

4. The second Member State may require the family members concerned to present with their application for a residence permit:

(a) their long-term resident's EC residence permit or residence permit and a valid travel document or their certified copies;

(b) evidence that they have resided as members of the family of the long-term resident in the first Member State;

(c) evidence that they have stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain themselves without recourse to the social assistance of the Member State concerned or that the long-term resident has such resources and insurance for them, as well as sickness insurance covering all risks in the second Member State. Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions.

5. Where the family was not already constituted in the first Member State, Directive 2003/86/EC shall apply.

Article 17

Public policy and public security

1. Member States may refuse applications for residence from long-term residents or their family members where the person concerned constitutes a threat to public policy or public security.

When taking the relevant decision, the Member State shall consider the severity or type of offence against public policy or public security committed by the long-term resident or his/her family member(s), or the danger that emanates from the person concerned.

2. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be based on economic considerations.

Article 18

Public health

1. Member States may refuse applications for residence from long-term residents or their family members where the person concerned constitutes a threat to public health.

2. The only diseases that may justify a refusal to allow entry or the right of residence in the territory of the second Member State shall be the diseases as defined by the relevant applicable instruments of the World Health Organisation's and such other infectious or contagious parasite-based diseases as are the subject of protective provisions in relation to nationals in the host country. Member States shall not introduce new more restrictive provisions or practices.

3. Diseases contracted after the first residence permit was issued in the second Member State shall not justify a refusal to renew the permit or expulsion from the territory.

4. A Member State may require a medical examination, for persons to whom this Directive applies, in order to certify that they do not suffer from any of the diseases referred to in paragraph 2. Such medical examinations, which may be free of charge, shall not be performed on a systematic basis.

Article 19

Examination of applications and issue of a residence permit

1. The competent national authorities shall process applications within four months from the date that these have been lodged.

If an application is not accompanied by the documentary evidence listed in Articles 15 and 16, or in exceptional circumstances linked with the complexity of the examination of the application, the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended for a period not exceeding three months. In such cases the competent national authorities shall inform the applicant thereof.

2. If the conditions provided for in Articles 14, 15 and 16 are met, then, subject to the provisions relating to public policy, public security and public health in Articles 17 and 18, the second Member State shall issue the long-term resident with a renewable residence permit. This residence permit shall, upon application, if required, be renewable on expiry. The second Member State shall inform the first Member State of its decision.

3. The second Member State shall issue members of the long-term resident's family with renewable residence permits valid for the same period as the permit issued to the long-term resident.

Article 20

Procedural guarantees

1. Reasons shall be given for any decision rejecting an application for a residence permit. It shall be notified to the third-country national concerned in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation. The notification shall specify the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action.

Any consequences of no decision being taken by the end of the period referred to in Article 19(1) shall be determined by the national legislation of the relevant Member State.

2. Where an application for a residence permit is rejected, or the permit is not renewed or is withdrawn, the person concerned shall have the right to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned.

Article 21

Treatment granted in the second Member State

1. As soon as they have received the residence permit provided for by Article 19 in the second Member State, long-term residents shall in that Member State enjoy equal treatment in the areas and under the conditions referred to in Article 11.

2. Long-term residents shall have access to the labour market in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.

Member States may provide that the persons referred to in Article 14(2)(a) shall have restricted access to employed activities different than those for which they have been granted their residence permit under the conditions set by national legislation for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Member States may decide in accordance with national law the conditions under which the persons referred to in Article 14(2)(b) or (c) may have access to an employed or self-employed activity.

3. As soon as they have received the residence permit provided for by Article 19 in the second Member State, members of the family of the long-term resident shall in that Member State enjoy the rights listed in Article 14 of Directive 2003/86/EC.

Article 22

Withdrawal of residence permit and obligation to readmit

1. Until the third-country national has obtained long-term resident status, the second Member State may decide to refuse to renew or to withdraw the resident permit and to oblige the person concerned and his/her family members, in accordance with the procedures provided for by national law, including removal procedures, to leave its territory in the following cases:

(a) on grounds of public policy or public security as defined in Article 17;

(b) where the conditions provided for in Articles 14, 15 and 16 are no longer met;

(c) where the third-country national is not lawfully residing in the Member State concerned.

2. If the second Member State adopts one of the measures referred to in paragraph 1, the first Member State shall immediately readmit without formalities the long-term resident and his/her family members. The second Member State shall notify the first Member State of its decision.

3. Until the third-country national has obtained long-term resident status and without prejudice to the obligation to readmit referred to in paragraph 2, the second Member State may adopt a decision to remove the third-country national from the territory of the Union, in accordance with and under the guarantees of Article 12, on serious grounds of public policy or public security.

In such cases, when adopting the said decision the second Member State shall consult the first Member State.

When the second Member State adopts a decision to remove the third-country national concerned, it shall take all the appropriate measures to effectively implement it. In such cases the second Member State shall provide to the first Member State appropriate information with respect to the implementation of the removal decision.

4. Removal decisions may not be accompanied by a permanent ban on residence in the cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c).

5. The obligation to readmit referred to in paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to the possibility of the long-term resident and his/her family members moving to a third Member State.

Article 23

Acquisition of long-term resident status in the second Member State

1. Upon application, the second Member State shall grant long-term residents the status provided for by Article 7, subject to the provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6. The second Member State shall notify its decision to the first Member State.

2. The procedure laid down in Article 7 shall apply to the presentation and examination of applications for long-term resident status in the second Member State. Article 8 shall apply for the issuance of the residence permit. Where the application is rejected, the procedural guarantees provided for by Article 10 shall apply.

CHAPTER IV FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 24

Report and rendez-vous clause

Periodically, and for the first time no later than 23 January 2011, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and shall propose such amendments as may be necessary. These proposals for amendments shall be made by way of priority in relation to Articles 4, 5, 9, 11 and to Chapter III.

Article 25

Contact points

Member States shall appoint contact points who will be responsible for receiving and transmitting the information referred to in Article 19(2), Article 22(2) and Article 23(1).

Member States shall provide appropriate cooperation in the exchange of the information and documentation referred to in the first paragraph.

Article 26

Transposition

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 23 January 2006 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.

Article 27

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 28

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Done at Brussels, 25 November 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Tremonti

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001, p. 79.

(2) OJ C 284 E, 21.11.2002, p. 102.

(3) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002, p. 59.

(4) OJ C 19, 22.1.2002, p. 18.

(5) OJ L 251, 3.10.2003, p. 12.

(6) OJ L 157, 15.6.2002, p. 1.

Thursday 22 November 2007

Let Our Son Live

For Tiwadoyin Babalola on His 1st Birthday






















A joy in two hearts
And other hearts too:
Grand parents, uncles, aunties
And well-wishers too.

In pain you came
I was there to less mummy’s pain
In that House of mixed feelings
When you arrived from womb.

Mummy had carried you
For nine full moons
You kicked mummy so hard
As we awaited our honey.

Mama and Papa watch you grow
Everyday you look different
You eat and poop and poop
Ah, you cry and cry.

What a smart little man
Cause you know how
To catch mama and papa’s attention
Whenever they neglect their honey.

"dadadada," you cried. "Mamamama"
Even when mummy tired,
Mummy must wake up
To attend her little sheep.

As each day wax,
We see your name in us
Honey radiates our roof
We kiss happiness as it flies by.

We watch your efforts
As you learn to crawl
As you learn to take steps
As you fall and learn.

You bring forth memory
Of yesteryears in mum and dad
You become a mirror
And a link to our past.

Your smile is a joy to us
Your laugh is contagious
We want you to laugh more
So we can joy more.

You are such a wonderful baby
So wonderful that mama and papa
Would like another one
Just like you to play with

Above all,
the knowledge man
Say everything alright
It lessens our anxiety.

But my baby,
Life is not bed of roses
I think much of this life
How it will benefit you.

How your peers will ride you not
WAZOBIA you must speak
To preserve your identity
But WAZOBIA dead?

Then Yoruba you must
Oh, our baby, our honey
Freedom of thought and eloquence
Shall guide you through.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO OUR SON






















Wednesday 21 November 2007

Nigeria beats Switzerland 1-0


Taye Taiwo scored in the 79th minute and gave Nigeria a 1-0 victory over Switzerland, the final friendly match of the year for the 2008 European Championship co-host.

The left back who plays for Marseille struck with a strong left-foot from outside the box on a pass back from captain Peter Odemwingie, sending the ball into the left corner just beyond the hand of diving Swiss goalkeeper Diego Benaglio.

It was the fifth loss in 10 games for the Swiss this year. The traveling Nigerians ended a series of friendlies with their second win to go along with a pair of draws and two losses.

A crowd of 12,700 attended the match in Zurich's refurbished Letzigrund, one of the four Swiss stadiums to be used for next year's championship finals.

Both sides were missing some of their key players because of injuries.

The Swiss were better organized in the first half. After a flurry of Swiss action around the Nigerian goal at the start of the second half, the visitors seemed to gain strength as the match progressed.

source: International Herald Tribune

Monday 19 November 2007

Under the Baobao Tree

by Archie bonka


Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
thinking my own thoughts,
suddenly there come this stranger
along this dull water logged plains.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
i offer him my last kola nut
we hold each other looking and staring
smiles on our faces

Villagers rush to see the new stranger
they stare at him, smiles fall on their faces.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
weighing the level of our hospitality
our dear stranger introduce his religion
with curiosity to learn, we embrace it.

losing touch with our own religion,
then comes destruction
of our civic society.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
the stranger does not stop there
he starts to divide my people
by inciting hatreds among us

he creates wars
which lead to our enslavement
oh, he shackles us, takes us
to unknown foreign lands.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
we are sad but life must go on
so we must fight for our freedom.

After this shameful act of slavery
he does not stop there
for he brings another agenda.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
this stranger divides our families, our nations,
creating misery among us - again.

we have come a long way:
cold war, dictatorship, military coups,
democrazy and globalization a new order
we have come a long way.

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree
bit by bit the house fly eat dog wounds

once again sitting under the baobao tree
reflecting upon my thoughts
about my first encounter with this stranger
this alien who has come to stay

Under the baobao tree, this huge tree....

Sunday 18 November 2007

The "Father of Modern Nigeria" drums for the "Father of PDP"(People Deceiving People)


Two stupid elders dancing naked in the market. Obasanjo, former Emperor of Nigeria, drumming for his soul mate, Adedibu, a political thug. May God save Nigeria from Agbaya meji ti o n jo ijo eleya.

Friday 16 November 2007

Western Union, The Judiciary And Poor Folks


By Fidel Odum

IT is common knowledge that the money transfer conglomerate, America's Western Union is an international household word because of the speed with which it remits money from one end of the world to another. For years it enjoyed a virtual monopoly in Nigeria before other competitors such as Moneygram arrived on the scene. But much as Western Union is a kind of electronic open sesame for fast cash, it is increasingly causing great apprehension in the minds and hearts of many across the world. Nigeria has become a high-risk nation where the chances are very good of losing money in the system. There is, therefore, an emergency need for the cash delivery giant to revisit and tighten its security system.

In at least two cases known to this writer, substantial sums of money (in US dollars) have been stolen in the Western Union system. In other words, the intended or authorized receivers did not get the money. In order to cash money at any of the authorized points of payment (usually banks and post offices but mostly the former), an intending receiver must fill a stipulated form and produce an identity card (ID), usually a driver's license or an international passport.

In the form, the receiver is expected to fill his/her name, address and the name and address of sender. There are also provisions for city and country of both the receiver and the sender, including telephone numbers. Most important of all, the receiver must provide answer to the amount expected, the test question, test answer (password) and money control number of the transaction as given by the sender and expected to be known only to the recipient.

Unfortunately, while all the above worked smoothly for years in most cases and, to some extent, continue to work substantially well for countries with low or negligible levels of crime, in Nigeria it has become different. It is no longer secure to rely only on the major requirements of test question, answer (codeword), money control number, amount expected and use of a valid ID. Fraudsters in this country have found ways to access such information. It appears that some of the world's best criminal minds are born in this country.

After many years of living, studying and working in America, I was amazed to learn a few months before my return in 1982 that some young Nigerian students who had only spent a few months in America had mastered the most sophisticated ways of frustrating the American credit card and telephone systems. An elder brother and I were shopping at a Virginian suburb one morning in 1981 when the shop manager approached us with a name of a Nigerian girl who had swindled the shop of thousands of dollars in credit, using different cards. He pleaded for our cooperation in tracing this girl.

On another occasion, I was standing outside a telephone booth waiting for a young man to finish a call. From his loud and boisterous language I had observed that he was a Nigerian. He had spent a long time in the booth but as I proceeded to replace him he apologized for staying too long and, noticing that I was a Nigerian, he offered to help me to make my calls to any distance without paying. I politely declined his offer even as he boasted that it was all simple.

Operators of the Western Union money transfer should no longer assume that their system is theft-proof. There are now too many thefts to render this theory obsolete. We have read in one widely published case last year of three Bank officials, namely, the Head of Banking Services, the Western Union manager for an Orile Iganmu (Lagos) branch and a cashier, all women, who were arrested after so many cases of loss of money involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. During the police raid, two sacks containing licenses and international passports were intercepted as desperate efforts were being made to hurl them outside. No doubt, these licenses and passports are forgeries. There are three principal ways Western Union transfers can be frustrated:

* If the test question, answer (password), money control number and the amount sent are leaked, either through carelessness or betrayal.

* Through hackers or so-called Yahoo boys (computer fraudsters). One way this is said to happen is when someone uses a public computer (in a cyber cafZ) and fails to properly shut down the system, rather than just logging out. Computer experts claim that an observant Yahoo fraudster can deftly reopen one's email address immediately the computer user leaves the cafe, only logging out but not shutting down the computer. All of one's information can thereby be retrieved.

* By deliberate action of dishonest bank officials. This usually happens in cases where the thief observes that the receiver is timid or not very smart. In this case, he or she is usually sent off to go and crosscheck the money control number or some other detail from the sender. Invariably, on return, the money will have been stolen by the dishonest bank officer who must have passed on relevant information to an accomplice in another part of town, another bank or another city.

Other times it could be a combination of some or all of the above. To reduce theft, Western Union, taking into account the advanced nature of criminals in this country, must revise its rules for Nigeria. Firstly, it must insist on only a clearly reproducible ID. For any bank official to cash money with a blurred ID calls into question the professionalism and integrity of the bank and the official. In one case, the sum of $7000 was cashed by a bank official at Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos, with a totally blurred ID and no picture was taken of the recipient as most bank do. In this particular case, the proper (intended) receiver, a Catholic priest, resides in Enugu. Yet, the bank used a Lagos address to cash the money, ignoring the one in Enugu, a church, written by the sender. Western Union insists that the address is a negligible item on the form, not minding the contradiction. This matter is awaiting hearing in court.

The Western Union, therefore, as a second step, must insist that for Nigeria or Africa, money cannot be paid in another city without first referring back to the sender for further clearance or authorization.

Thirdly, the Western Union must instruct its agents that once a transaction has been started in one bank, that bank must be held ultimately responsible for any subsequent loss. If an intending receiver is asked to go and crosscheck any item on the form, a higher official of the agent must give a written undertaking to release the cash once that condition is fulfilled. Meanwhile, the transfer must be treated as concluded by that bank while the receiver goes to contact the sender.

Finally, Western Union must insist that once any information, no matter how negligible, given by the intending receiver contradicts the one given by the sender, the transaction (though deferred for payment) cannot be concluded, while the sender's further instruction is awaited. In the case of the $7000 meant for an Enugu-based priest, the Ikeja bank paid this large sum of money even with the receiver providing a Nigerian GSM number in the space provided for the sender's number who resides in Singapore. Can there be a clearer indication of collusion between the receiver and the paying agent when coupled with contradicting addresses?

In this age of rapid communication, it is advisable that all relevant information (test question/answer and money control number) be provided through telephone call or text message.

What has helped the Nigerian racketeers is the slow nature of our judicial system. Many fraudsters know that victims, many of them poor, cannot hire lawyers and even when one can afford a lawyer, the case may never be heard. In Lagos alone, so many pending cases have not even appeared on the judicial diary. Perhaps there are too few judges, but how can injustices be redressed if the poor do not even have a chance to be heard. Many of the stolen monies lost in the Western Union system are intended for school fees, the sick in hospitals, for the jobless and socially incapacitated loved ones to eat or to fend off harassing landlords, etc. Meanwhile, the fraudsters and offending bankers are feeding fat and driving about in their air-conditioned automobiles. Today, they are "the successful ones." But the justice of God is patiently waiting for them.

Odum lives in Lagos.

Wednesday 14 November 2007

Yar’Adua’s Exit in Perfect Order

Hakeem Babalola

From the day he was sworn-in as the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I had also sworn not to recognise him as such. For the first time in my life I strongly believe I have had enough. Yes, enough is enough. I felt that unless people like me take such stand, certain class of people would always take us for a ride.click and read more

Thursday 8 November 2007

Yar’Adua presents N2.4tn budget

Special Report

President Umaru Yar’Adua on Thursday sought the approval of the National Assembly to spend N2.4tn for the 2008 fiscal year. In the budget proposal presented to the joint sitting of the National Assembly, payroll and overheads, which constitute recurrent non-debt expenditure, account for 55.2 per cent click and read more

Confessions of a Virgin virgin

Ronke Macaulay


Did the above title get you going? All I meant was the story of the very first time I flew with a particular airline…click and read more

Wednesday 7 November 2007

US-based Nigerian Killed Wife

Features
By Bayo Alade
A Nigerian, Kelechi . C . Emeruwa, 42, living in Burtonsville, Montgomerie United States of America, has been convicted for stabbing his wife to death. The murder took place on January 1 this year.

Emeruwa was found guilty of first-degree murder and three counts of second-degree assault following a six-day trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

His wife, Chidiebere O. Ochulo, 36, with whom Emeruwa was living in Nigeria before both relocated to the US, was found dead in her home in the 4200 block of Dunwood Terrace by her brother-in-law at about 2:30 a.m. on New Year Day 2007. County police and fire and rescue workers reported that Chidiebere had multiple stab wounds in her upper chest and back.

Chidiebere, who was separated from Emeruwa at the time of her death, had previously filed one assault charge and multiple protective orders against her husband, according to charging documents.

Emeruwa picked her up from the airport on Dec. 31, 2006, upon her return from a three-week trip to Nigeria where she went to bury her dad and drove her back to her home, where Emeruwa’s mother had been watching the couple’s children — two boys (Jachi,8; Elijah, 4 and a girl, Anthoinette 6).

Both apparently had a quarrel over the car that Emeruwa drove which belonged to Chidiebere. Other members of Emeruwa’s family arrived at Ochulo’s house at 10:30 p.m. that evening, but Emeruwa refused to allow them in the house, saying he was taking the children out and that Chidiebere was sleeping.

Family members noticed the children were upset and later called the police. Officers came to the house about 11:30 p.m. but left when no one answered the door. Family members returned to Chidiebere’s home hours later, when her body was discovered.

Officers captured Emeruwa after an all-day search on January 1, 2007, culminating in a police chase that ended when Emeruwa rammed several police cruisers, according to police sources. His three children were with him in the car, and all four suffered minor injuries when police started to frantically search for them after the murder.

Chidiebere was born on June 1, 1970 and attended schools in Umuahia and Yola before proceeding to University of Nigeria Nsukka where she bagged a degree in Microbiology. She got married to Kelechi in 1996 and left for the US same year, having won the American Visa lottery.

In an effort to really settle down in the US and get a respectable job, she took a second degree in Nursing and began a carrer at Washington Hospital Centre. As a result of her hard work, she got to the peak of the administrative cadre as a Deputy Director, Clinical Services, at the Centre.

Chidiebere was said to have done everything to save her marriage but it was as if it was doomed for failure. She was fully responsible for the payment of her children’s school fees. When the issue of her troubled marriage came up in her last encounter with her mother when she came home for her father’s burial, she was said to have told her mum: “But Mama, I love KC.”

Does African Man Love Himself?

Hakeem Babalola

Other men have been using their low but beguiling voices into making the African man abandon his self. After the partition, his religion, language, lifestyle, and even ways of thinking were taken from him. When other men told him that his religion was evil, he echoed evil and abandoned it.
click and read more...

Monday 5 November 2007

What They Don’t Tell You About Illegal Emigration

Chichi Aniagolu Okoye

For most Nigerians, acquiring a visa (or crossing the desert) to any other country, especially those in the western hemisphere, is equivalent to dying and going to heaven. Most people spend a good percentage of their lives and incomes applying for visa, paying dubious agents and anyone else for that matter that they feel can help them gain access to the United States, Canada or Europe click and read more

Let Fekete Pákó Be

Archie Bonka

Since the end of the cold war and the collapsed of communism, the media has changed drastically in Hungary and other European countries. The approach has changed from censorship to an extreme and aggressive reporting.

Perhaps in order to survive in a very competitive market, such approach is inevitable. It is the reason you don't only see a page three girl but four, five, six, etc on some of the newspapers we read these days.

Fekete Pako came from nowhere with fresh idea to breakthrough a sector which is highly competitive. I mean the music or showbiz, whichever preferred. An African singing in Hungarian native language! This is a surprise to most Hungarians.

The kind of music Pákó dabbles into brings back memories to an already established music lovers who are starving for something new to add to their gypsy girl (TIGAN LANYA) collections. I mean a nostalgic look back at the old school stuff.

Although Fekete Pako is not a good singer as he does confess but he has another character. For example, being funny or stupid which has helped him a lot. You can't be a Michael Jackson without dancing or Fela Kuti without yabis.

Some of the magazines that were finding it tough to break-even did not waste time jumping on the wagon to take a piece of the action in other to survive. Therefore, the media has played a vital role in making sure Fekete Pako survived in other for them to survive until another Fekete Gonja comes around.

So whether media bashing or not, both Fekete Pako and the media have managed to put our fresh colour on the map of Hungary and in the eyes of Hungarians in the Diaspora. Some of us have been mistakenly called Fekete Pako either affectionately, funnily, sympathetically and what have you.

Who say yabis de touch body? Go and ask Michael Jackson or Britney Spear. This is the trend in the media. Fekete Pako, your die hard fans are waiting for another ADIDI ADADA.

Lastly, the media does not have time to write about a successful egghead who has never been home to pay back his or her debt for scholarship in which our poor parents contributed to.

Technology is the root of all evil


By Philip Emeagwali

"Africa’ s lack of substantial technological knowledge of the Internet and its potential may lead it to be assaulted or manipulated in unexpected ways, just as it was devastated generations ago for the lack of a simple compass. We didn’t recognize the power of the compass then; the danger is that we don’t recognize the power of technology today," writes Philip Emeagwali, voted Africa's greatest scientist by New African and extolled as “one of the great minds of the Information Age”.

According to history books, gun-wielding European slave traders kidnapped one in five Africans and transported them across the oceans to the Americas
. A less visible, but no means less drastic technological tool of suppression, is the compass, a device used worldwide for navigation. In the same way that Britain used its maritime knowledge and the US harnessed its intellectual capital to rule the world, the early slave traders used the simple compass to wreak havoc on civilization.

It is a sad fact that the innocuous navigation tool originated during and was fuelled by the Atlantic slave trade. The technological development of the innocent compass, invented in China for religious divination 2,000 years ago, allowed Africa to be ravaged in unspeakable ways.

It was the compass that created the Atlantic slave trade, enabling the early colonial navigators — and their blood merchants — to chart an accurate course from Gorée Island, off the coast of Senegal, to Brazil; paving the way for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which began on August 8, 1444. This trade in human merchandise covered four continents and lasted four centuries, and serves as a shameful beacon for the depravity of human greed and conquest.

The compass became the de facto weapon of mass destruction, which led to the de-capitalization and decapitation of Africa. It created the African Diaspora with one in five people taken out of the motherland. It was the largest and most brutal displacement of human beings in human history.

Today, it is hard to imagine that such destruction and the wholesale abduction of a race could result from a tool as common as the compass. Yet, as a people who survived the slave trade, we must draw our strength from lessons learned from the past and draw our energy from the power of the future. And the power of the future lies in “controlling” technology and harnessing it for the benefit of mankind, not for his destruction.

The people of Africa must take note that the Internet is our modern-day compass, and within it resides our own clay of wisdom. As we prepare for our great journey into the cyberspace of the future, with its technological promise — its clay of wisdom — we must understand the strategic value and potential of this all-important tool. Our image of the future inspires the present and the present serves to create the future.

Africa’s lack of substantial technological knowledge of the Internet and its potential may lead it to be assaulted or manipulated in unexpected ways, just as it was devastated generations ago for the lack of a simple compass. We didn’t recognize the power of the compass then; the danger is that we don’t recognize the power of technology today. While Africa merely contemplates the future, the West, the quickest off the mark to wield technology’s weapons, actually makes the future.

This fact, and how the power of technology can be wielded against the poor, was brought home to me clearly when I received the following email recently:

“About a year ago, I hired a developer in Africa to do my job. I am paying him $12,000 a year to do my job, for which I am paid $67,000 a year,” the sender wrote. “He’s happy to have the work and I’m happy that I have to work only 90 minutes a day. Now I’m considering getting a second job and doing the same thing.”

Technology in the hands of others has been used to exploit Africa for centuries. But now it's time for Africa to grasp technology and finally embrace the modern age’s clay of wisdom and advancement. Africa has the chance to show the world how technology can be used for good, not evil. And the people of Africa can use today’s technology, not to mimic their own exploitation, but to right the wrongs of the past and empower themselves with the same tool that has been used to oppress them in the past. Africa can provide a shining example for the world in using technology for its own upliftment and the benefit of mankind.

This time, it is our choice.

*Excerpted from a keynote speech delivered by Philip Emeagwali at the African Diaspora Conference in Tucson, Arizona. For the entire transcript and video, visit http://www.emeagwali.com. Nigerian-born Philip Emeagwali won the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize, the Nobel Prize of supercomputing. He has been called “a father of the Internet” by CNN and TIME; extolled as “one of the great minds of the Information Age” by former US president Bill Clinton; and voted history’s greatest scientist of African descent by New African.