The first Global African Investment Summit in Africa to be Held in Kigali-Rwanda By Robert Kayinamura, First Counsellor at the Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda. The Global African Investment Summit (TGAIS) in partnership with COMESA and Government of Rwanda has its inaugural summit on the African Continent On September 5-6 September in Kigali -Rwanda. Rwanda being one of COMESA’s Member States, will  host summit to promote the competitive environment created by COMESA markets to drive growth and the deployment of foreign direct investment.  The event will host up to 1,000 high-level delegates from the public and private spheres as well as bringing top global investors in control of over $100Billion USD to Kigali to drive regional growth through FDI. The summit will also engage the private sector on the TFTA initiative and explore how public and private sectors can collaborate to realise the aspiration of Africa’s largest single market. This summit encourages regional trade and investment by giving African governments, business leaders and visionaries the opportunity to present their projects and set up partnerships with new investment pools, operators and partners. The conference’s organisers have highlighted three key areas to address: Developing trade & investment corridors in the TFTA region; Attracting investment and private sector players to enhance the physical infrastructure to facilitate the movement of goods and persons and Creating an environment that enables harmonisation through policy and regulation. The event will feature a dedicated exhibition area where Tripartite investment promotion agencies and selected companies will showcase their capabilities, solutions, products and services, as well as meet with investors, project developers and implementers to discuss bankable projects and investment opportunities. There are several reasons why these big summits are held in Rwanda, among others is that Rwanda’s capital city has illustrated its capability as a high-level international MICE (meetings, incentives, conferences, exhibitions) venue. Also, Rwanda’s development achievements and success have attracted several conferences on development and doing business to be held in Rwanda. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) indicates that Rwanda moved up four places this year to the 62nd position from 66th position last year.  This makes Rwanda the most competitive in the East African Community and third most competitive country in the sub- Saharan African region after Mauritius which ranks 1st and South Africa which ranks 2nd. The top three countries regarding competitiveness in the world are Switzerland, Singapore and the USA respectively. Rwanda benefits from strong and well-functioning institutions, (ranking at 20th position) with very low levels of corruption and a good security environment. Rwanda ranks 2nd in regarding days of staring business, on 3rd position in some procedures to start a business, 4th position, regarding wastefulness government spending, among other subsections of the index. This ranking is a result of extensive efforts by the government to continuously improve the business environment. As we move towards becoming a middle-income country, Rwanda is doing its best to develop a more sustainable and competitive economy that will benefit all Rwandans. The  Government of Rwanda has come up with several initiatives such as the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Private-Public Dialogue mechanism and strengthening higher learning institutions and human capacity to support the country’s economic agenda.

By Barend ter Haar. Always look at the bright side of life, Monty Python suggested. They had a point. A fixation on what goes wrong and what might go wrong can make us blind for everything that goes well. So, let us have a look at the bright side of the problems of our world. Take the age-old scourges of poverty, hunger, disease and violence. For thousands of years it seemed certain that these problems would be with us forever. Life was short and brutal. Most people died from diseases, hunger or violence long before they reached old age. And look at us now. Hunger and violence have become rare[1], not only in the West, but in most parts of the world. Many diseases that were still deadly a century ago, can be treated successfully now. Globally, life expectancy has more than doubled. Few people live in a palace like Versailles, but more than a billion people live much more comfortable than Louis XIV did: better food, better medical care, more leisure time and a much wider choice of entertainment. Of course, we are now confronted with new threats and problems. But look at them from the bright side: they are the unintended price we pay for the immense progress we made during the last century. Take for example our risk of a premature death. Our ancestors often died young because of disease, violence or lack of food, factors that they could barely influence. Nowadays among the main reasons that we die prematurely are eating, drinking and smoking too much and exercising too little[2], all factors we can influence (if we want). What is true at an individual level is also true at a global scale: our new problems are the consequences of our own successes. Climate change and loss of biodiversity are not acts of God, but the unintended result of the growth of human power over nature. Population growth in African and South Asian countries is the result of better health care, not of higher fertility. The number of refugees is on the increase although the number of conflicts is decreasing, because a growing number of people can afford to flee instead of waiting to starve or be bombed. This not to say that the old problems of hunger and war have been solved, or that the new challenges are not huge. To stop self-mutilating policies might be as difficult as to quit smoking, but the bright side is that our capacity to address these challenges (if we want) is larger than ever. ———- [1] About the decline of violence see: The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker, [2] See annex VI of Threats and challenges for the Netherlands by Barend ter Haar and Eva Maas ( https://www.clingendael.nl/publication/threats-and-challenges-netherlands)

By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland. The Hague is world wide well known as the international city of justice and peace with its many international courts and tribunals. But also in other fields of justice and peace The Hague plays more and more an important role. The Hague organization Justice and Peace The Netherlands is active in the field of local justice on a global scale and was the first Dutch so called ‘Shelter City’, followed by the Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Groningen, Maastricht, Middelburg, Nijmegen, Tilburg and Utrecht. What are Shelter Cities ? Many countries in the world suffer under severe corruption, extreme violence and lack of human rights. But in all those countries there are very courageous leaders, journalists, attorneys, artists, scientists and others who risk prison or even their own lives by fighting against violations of human rights. These Defenders of Human Rights are real heroes. Those who take such risks need to be encouraged in their fight. That is what the Shelter Cities do: they each give Defenders of Human Rights from all over the world in the first place a temporary shelter to recover their breath in a peaceful country like The Netherlands. Of course these Shelter Cities do more. For instance: in september 2016 Justice and Peace The Netherlands will organize again the three month The Hague Training Course for Human Rights Defenders on Security. No less than 150 persons from 21 countries from all over the world applied; there has to be made a selection. Justice and Peace The Netherlands organizes meetings and workshops for them with international organizations such as NGO’s, as well as with local organizations such as Universities, local governments, local inhabitants etcetera. The participants of the Training Course themselves exchange their experiences with each other and build a world wide network of Human Rights Defenders. And the NGO’s and all the other organizations mentioned before learn about the usually terrible things the participants tell about the situation in their home countries, what they have done against it and with what results. This is what The Hague organizes several times a year and so do the other seven Shelter Cities in The Netherlands. About the author: Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M., Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs, appointed in 2004 by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague a.beelaerts@planet.nl  

The Immigrant “Other” in US and EU Politico-Religious Experiences: a Comparative Perspective By Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella Refugees trying to get into Europe. Can the EU welcome and integrate the immigrant “other”? Nowadays this urgent question is often asked by historians, sociologists, and political scientists. It has given rise to a plethora of books and academic conferences on the subject. In the light of the events of the recent “refugee European crisis” the conclusions and prognosis are, more often than not, rather inconclusive and ineffective. In the short analysis that follows I’d like to examine the reasons for the deficiency, namely that the philosophy of religion is often ignored, if not downright excluded from the diagnosis, thus ending up with the wrong prognosis. Another aspect of the wrong diagnosis is the lack of comparative perspective on the issue. By that I mean a hard look at the immigrant experiences of both the American and European continents, preferably by scholars who have lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, it was European societies that were the primary immigrant-sending regions to America, South Africa, Oceania and Australia and just about every corner of the globe during the colonial industrialization phase of their history (1700-1920); we are talking about some 85 million Europeans; some 60% of which emigrated to the Americas (some 50 millions). The present paradox is that the flow has now reversed and several Western European societies have now in turn become centers of global immigration. A comparison is logical and in order. There may be hard lessons to be learned from it. There is now a ratio of approximately 10% immigrants living in several European countries (UK, France, Holland, West Germany, Italy). However, they still have difficulty viewing themselves as permanent immigrant societies, the way the US viewed and continues to view itself; or for that matter of viewing the native second generations as nationals irrespective of the legal status of their citizenship. A de facto, second rate citizenship seems to be in place. The question arises: Why is that? This question can only be answered by analyzing how these Western European countries have tried to accommodate immigrant religions, particularly Islam. Although European laws and regulations are now in place, each nation, deals with immigrant religions in markedly different institutional and legal structures on how the immigrants may publicly express religious beliefs and practices. Here a thorough knowledge of modern Western European history vis a vis religion can be useful in assessing the different reactions of various EU nations. The French model of laicitè (or secularism) is primary in this respect. In practice secularism means a strict privatization of religion, its elimination from the public forum, while pressuring religious groups to organize themselves into a single centralized churchlike structure and serve as intermediary between it and the state, so as to better regulate and manipulate it. The model is in part the concordat with the Catholic Church established in Italy in 1929. Religion is tolerated but it is a private matter even when its symbols are pervasive in the country’s traditional culture. A great wall of separation between Church and State exists, as indeed is also the case in the US whose founding fathers well remembered the disastrous European wars of religions of the 17^th century. The Concordat of 1929 between Italy and the Church Great Britain, by contrast, while maintaining the established Church of England, allows greater freedom to religious associations, who deal directly with local authorities and school boards to press for changes in religious education, diet, etc., with little direct appeal to the central government. Germany, following the multi-establishment model, has tried to organize a quasi-official Islamic institution, at times in conjunction with parallel strivings on the part of the Turkish state to regulate its diaspora. But the internal divisions among immigrants from Turkey, as well as the public expression and mobilization of competing identities (secular and Muslim, Alevi and Kurd) in the German democratic context, have undermined any project of institutionalization from above. Holland, following its traditional pattern of pillarization, seemed, at least until very recently, bent on establishing a separate state-regulated but self-organized Muslim pillar. Lately, however, even traditionally liberal and tolerant Holland is expressing second thoughts, and seems ready to pass more restrictive legislation setting clear limits to the kinds of un-European, un-modern norms and habits it is prepared to tolerate. But let us now look more closely at the comparison between the EU and the US. If one looks at the European Union as a whole, there are two fundamental differences with the situation in the United States. In Europe, first of all, immigration and Islam are almost synonymous. The overwhelming majority of immigrants in most European countries, the UK being the main exception, are Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Western European Muslims are immigrants. This identification appears even more pronounced in those cases where the majority of Muslim immigrants tend to come predominantly from a single region, e.g., Turkey in the case of Germany, the Ma’ghreb in the case of France. This entails a superimposition of different dimensions of “otherness” that exacerbates issues of boundaries, accommodation and incorporation. The immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic de-privileged “other” all tend to coincide. In the United States, on the other hand, Muslims constitute at most 10 percent of all new immigrants. it is estimated that from 30 to 42 percent of all Muslims in the United States are African-American converts to Islam, making the characterization of Islam as a foreign, un-American religion even more difficult. The dynamics of interaction with other Muslim immigrants, with African-American Muslims, with non-Muslim immigrants from the same regions of origin, and with their immediate American hosts are, depending on socio-economic characteristics and residential patterns, much more complex and diverse than anything one finds in Europe. A nuance this which escapes the simple-minded approach of a Donald Trump and his cohorts. The second main difference has to do with the role of religion and religious group identities in public life and in the organization of civil society. Western European societies are deeply secular societies, shaped by the hegemonic knowledge regime of secularism. As liberal democratic societies, they tolerate and respect individual religious freedom. But due to the increasing pressure towards the privatization of religion, which among European societies is now taken for granted as a characteristic of the self-definition of modern secular society, those societies have much greater difficulty in offering a legitimate role for religion in public life, and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities. Muslim organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety, not only because of their religious otherness as a non-Christian and non-European religion, but, even more significantly, because of their religiousness itself as the “other” of European secularity. Presently, a post-secular Europe as envisioned by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, is not on the horizon yet, if anything, things are going from bad to worse with the advent of right-wing ultra-nationalistic parties resurgent all over Europe and threatening the democratic system buttressed by Christian principles as envisioned by the EU founding fathers, the likes of Aedenauer, Schuman, Monet, De Gasperi, etc. Signing of the EU Constitution in Rome on the 29^th of October 2004 In this context, the temptation to identify Islam and fundamentalism becomes all the more pronounced. Islam, by definition, becomes the other of Western secular modernity allegedly rooted in a universal European enlightenment. Therefore, the problems posed by the incorporation of Muslim immigrants become consciously or unconsciously associated with seemingly related and vexatious issues concerning the role of religion in the public sphere, which is a question European societies assumed they had already solved according to the liberal secular norm of the privatization of religion. The assumption has resulted premature. Americans, by contrast, are demonstrably more religious than Europeans. Therefore there is a certain pressure for immigrants to conform to American religious norms. It is generally the case that immigrants in America tend to be more religious than they were in their home countries. I can confirm this on a personal level: I do not remember my parents attending Church on a regular basis on Sunday in Italy while they did so once they emigrated to America. I am quite sure such was the case for my grandfather once he emigrated to New York when my father was born in 1912. Statue dedicated to the Italian Immigrant in America (St. Ambrose Church) But even more significantly, today as in the past, religion and public religious denominational identities play an important role in the process of incorporating new immigrants. The thesis of Will Herberg concerning the old European immigrant, that “not only was he expected to retain his old religion, as he was not expected to retain his old language or nationality, but such was the shape of America that it was largely in and through religion that he, or rather his children and grandchildren, found an identifiable place in American life,” is still operative with the new immigrants. The thesis implies that collective religious identities have been one of the primary ways of structuring internal societal pluralism in American history. Due to the corrosive logic of racialization, so pervasive in American society, the dynamics of religious identity formation assume a double positive form in the process of immigrant incorporation. Given the institutionalized acceptance of religious pluralism, the affirmation of religious identities is enhanced among the new immigrants. This positive affirmation is reinforced, moreover, by what appears to be a common defensive reaction by most immigrant groups against ascribed racialization, particularly against the stigma of racial darkness. In this respect, religious and racial self-identifications and ascriptions represent alternative ways of organizing American multiculturalism. One of the obvious advantages of religious pluralism over racial pluralism is that, under proper constitutional institutionalization, it is more reconcilable with principled equality and non-hierarchic diversity, and therefore with genuine multiculturalism. American society is indeed entering a new phase. The traditional model of assimilation, turning European nationals into American “ethnics,” can no longer serve as a model of assimilation now that immigration is literally worldwide. America is bound to become “the first new global society” made up of all world religions and civilizations, at a time when religious civilizational identities are regaining prominence at the global level. At the very same moment that political scientists like Samuel Huntington are announcing the impending clash of civilizations in global politics, a new experiment in intercivilizational encounters and accommodation between all the world religions is taking place at home. American religious pluralism is expanding and incorporating all the world religions in the same way as it previously incorporated the religions of the old immigrants. A complex process of mutual accommodation is taking place. Like Catholicism and Judaism before, other world religions, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism are being “Americanized” and in the process they are transforming American religion, while, much as American Catholicism had an impact upon the transformation of world Catholicism and American Judaism has transformed world Judaism, the religious diasporas in America are serving as catalysts for the transformation of the old religions in their civilizational homes. This process of institutionalization of expanding religious pluralism is facilitated by the dual clause of the First Amendment which guarantees “no establishment” of religion at the state level, and therefore the strict separation of church and state and the genuine neutrality of the secular state, as well as the “free exercise” of religion in civil society. The latter includes strict restrictions on state intervention and on the administrative regulation of the religious field. It is this combination of a rigidly secular state and the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion in society that distinguishes the American institutional context from the European one. In Europe one finds, on the one extreme, the case of France, where a secularist state not only restricts and regulates the exercise of religion in society but actually imposes its republican ideology of laïcité on society, and, on the other, the case of England, where an established state church is compatible with wide toleration of religious minorities and the relatively unregulated free exercise of religion. As liberal democratic systems, all European societies respect the private exercise of religion, including Islam, as an individual human right. It is the public and collective free exercise of Islam as an immigrant religion that most European societies find difficult to tolerate, precisely on the grounds that Islam is perceived as an “un-European” religion. The stated rationales for considering Islam “un-European” vary significantly across Europe, and among social and political groups. For the anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist Right, represented by Le Pen’s discourse in France and Jörg Haider’s in Austria, the message is straightforward: Islam is unwelcome and un-assimilable, simply because it is a “foreign” immigrant religion. Such a nativist and usually racist attitude can be differentiated clearly from the conservative “Catholic” position, paradigmatically expressed by the Cardinal of Bologna when he declared that Italy should welcome immigrants of all races and regions of the world, but should particularly select Catholic immigrants in order to preserve the country’s Catholic identity. Sad to say, when it comes to Islam, secular Europeans usually liberal in their views on religion in general, tend to reveal the limits and prejudices of modern secularist toleration. The politically correct formulation tends to run along such lines as “we welcome each and all immigrants irrespective of race or religion as long as they are willing to respect and accept our modern liberal secular European norms.” Revealingly enough, some time ago Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in his address to the French legislature defending the banning of ostensibly religious symbols in public schools, made reference in the same breath to France as “the old land of Christianity” and to the inviolable principle of laïcité, exhorting Islam to adapt itself to the principle of secularism as all other religions of France have done before. “For the most recently arrived, I’m speaking here of Islam, secularism is a chance, the chance to be a religion of France.” The Islamic veil and other religious signs are justifiably banned from public schools, he added, because “they are taking on a political meaning,” while according to the secularist principle of privatization of religion, “religion cannot be a political project.” Time will tell whether the restrictive legislation will have the intended effect of stopping the spread of “radical Islam,” or whether it is likely to bring forth the opposite result of further radicalizing an already alienated and maladjusted immigrant community. The positive rationale one hears among liberals in support of such illiberal restrictions on the free exercise of religion is usually put in terms of the desirable enforced emancipation of young girls, against their expressed will if necessary, from gender discrimination and patriarchal control. This was the discourse on which the assassinated liberal politician Pim Fortuyn built his electorally successful anti-immigrant platform in liberal Holland, a campaign that is now bearing fruit in new restrictive legislation. While conservative religious persons are expected to tolerate behavior they may consider morally abhorrent such as homosexuality, liberal secular Europeans are openly stating that European societies ought not to tolerate religious behavior or cultural customs that are morally abhorrent, insofar as they are contrary to modern liberal secular European norms. What makes the intolerant tyranny of the secular liberal majority justifiable in principle is not just the democratic principle of majority rule, but the secularist teleological assumption, built into theories of modernization, that one set of norms is reactionary, fundamentalist and anti-modern, while the other is progressive, liberal and modern. In conclusion, from the above considerations and reflections, we can safely assume that sociological-historical considerations, while helpful for the analysis of the issue of religion vis a vis the secular “enlightened” state, are not sufficient by themselves to arrive at a proper diagnosis and prognosis of the problem. What is also needed, and is solely missing in the ongoing dialogue, is an analysis that takes seriously and incorporates the philosophy of religion. Without a philosophy of religion the analysis and consequently the prognosis will continue to remain incomplete and ineffective. But let the dialogue continue among people of good will, be they believers or non-believers. About the author: Dr. Emanuel Paparella has a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism with a dissertation on Giambattista Vico from Yale University (1990). He currently teaches philosophy at Barry University and Broward College in Florida, USA. One of his books is titled Hermeneutics in the Philosophy of G. Vico, Mellen Press, N.Y., 1993. He also authored two books on the EU and the Transatlantic relationship titled A New Europe in Search ot its Soul, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, Indiana, 2005, and Europa: an Idea and a Journey, Xlibris, Bloomington, Indiana, 2012. His e-book Aesthetic Theories of Great Western Philosophers was printed in Ovi magazine in June 2013.

Pictured  President Muhammadu Buhari. Nigerian government is working round the clock to address the security and economic challenges confronting the oil rich nation. The Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to President Muhammadu Buhari, Mr. Femi Adesina in this interview with our West Africa Editor, Sunday Oyinloye speaks on what government is doing to bring the economy back on track, the fate of the school girls abducted by Boko Haram, Nigeria-Netherlands relations and other topical issues.

The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of Agricultural products in the world, what is the government of Nigeria doing to tap from the Netherlands experience in view of the fact that the country is the largest European investor in Nigeria? Nigeria and Netherlands do things together particularly in the area of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, Chief Audu Ogbeh recently visited the Netherlands. We know that Netherlands is very strong in dairy products. That is an area Nigeria wants to develop because the amount we spend on milk importation annually is huge and if we are able to conserve that it, will help our economy. There is a lot Nigeria can benefit from the Netherlands, and with the emphasis of this government on agriculture, solid minerals, manufacturing and other ways in which the economy will be diversified, you can be sure that we will have a lot to do with the Netherlands. The government of Nigeria is trying to diversify the economy with more emphasis on Agriculture. What parts of the world is the government partnering with to achieve this goal? I know that wherever the President has traveled to in the past one year and three months in which he has been in office, Agriculture has always been one of the key things he discussed. Any country that has something to bring to the table in terms of agricultural development, Nigeria is ready for such partnership. There is the allegation that some of the state governors are mismanaging the bailout funds given to them to pay salaries of workers. What is the Federal Government doing to ensure accountability in the use of these funds? We are a federation and in a true federation, the Federal Government cannot dictate to the states, however since the Federal Government is the one giving the package to the states, it has also come up with some conditions. Those conditions are meant to help use the package they collect for the good of the people. For instance, the last one that was done, you have to subscribe to TSA in your state which is one way to ensure that the money is not mismanaged. There are other conditions like that before they could access the money. However, what is important is for citizens themselves to begin to monitor what their leaders do. Citizens have to be interested in what is happening in their states. If your governor has collected stimulus package, you have to be interested in how it is used. Some critics of President Muhammadu Buhari have described his anti-corruption fight as being selective. How would you react to this?

  There will always be critics. There will always be people who differ. They are critics, so they don’t have to agree with everything the government does. But the question is, are these critics right? The answer is No, they are not. When they say anti-corruption is selective, I say give me examples, but they have not been able to provide one. There are retired Generals currently facing trails. Are they members of the opposition, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)? .They are not. Don’t forget that PDP was in power for 16 years, and it is those who have access to the treasury that can abuse it. They abused the treasury so they are answering for it But some of the major players in the last administration are now in the ruling party. Is that not a way of escaping probe? Being in the ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC) does not amount to a cover automatically. If there is an indictment against anybody, not just in APC even if the person is in government, you can be sure we will not spare such a person. Some people have been arrested for their roles in the alleged massive looting of the treasury during the last administration especially over the arms funds which were looted. Interestingly the Head of that government who was the Commander –in-Chief of the Armed Forces is still walking as a free man. Is that fair enough? You don’t just put people in detention; something has to be traced to that person, so let’s leave it at that. Are you saying that nothing has been traced to former President Goodluck Jonathan? Let us leave it at that. The Senate President is currently on trial over alleged false declaration of assets. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is also alleged to be involved in budget padding; these are leaders of the ruling party. Is the Federal Government comfortable with that? Each person will answer for what he or she has done. That is what I can say about that. If they have done what they were alleged to have done, then, they didn’t do those things because they members of All Progressives Congress (APC) they did it as individuals, so let each individual answer for what he or she has done The abducted Chibok girls by Boko Haram are still in captivity, will they ever be found? We are hopeful, we are positive. We believe in God that one day they will be reunited with their families. Why is it so difficult for Nigerian security agencies to track the girls considering their large number? Because reaction was l ate. The government that was in power then didn’t even believe that the girls were abducted. It was after two weeks that they made moves by which time; the abductors had gone far with the girls. It was difficult to track them by the time the administration accepted that there was abduction. Do you believe that the girls are still alive? From the video released by Boko Haram, we believe a good number of them are still alive, but nobody can say with certainty what number is still alive. Some Nigerians are critical about the pace of economic efforts of the President. They said the President is slow. How would you react? In his October last year broadcast, he said one significant thing. He said order is better than speed. That answers the question. Easy does it, they stumble that run fast. The state which Nigeria is, you need to be methodical, you need to be systematic. It doesn’t calls for speed that will cause further confusion. Eventually, we will get to where we are going. What makes President Buhari different from other Heads of Governments that Nigeria has had His integrity. He was a Military Governor; oil Minister, after that he became Head of State and later PTDF Chairman for five years and he remains simple, he remains a man of modest means. Have you ever seen an oil Minister without an oil block? Very rare, have you ever seen a former governor who will not have a foreign account? Very rare. So integrity and transparency make him stand out. What should Nigerians expect from the Federal Government in the next three years? Nigerian can look forward to a diversified economy, an economy that is not solely dependent on oil. They can look forward to a regenerated and rejuvenated infrastructural development. They can look forward to a better quality of life; they can look forward to a more secured country. The President is working towards a more secured country. They can look forward to a country where probity and transparency are held in highest esteem. Photography by State House Press.