A recent article in The Guardian newspaper highlighted the growing challenges of rising living costs in Nigeria, using data from surveys on the daily expenses of an average Nigerian family. As of August, the estimated cost of a single meal for a family of four is N1,255, translating to a monthly food expense of N150,000. This is a troubling reality, especially when compared to the federal minimum wage of N70,000. The survey data shows that a family earning this amount cannot afford even a single meal per day, as the minimum wage is less than half of the monthly food cost required. In effect, a Nigerian family earning the minimum wage can only afford half a meal per day.

Given this context, the recent moves by Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Rivers State Governor Siminari Fubara to raise the minimum wage to N85,000 have been welcomed. Ondo State Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa has also increased the minimum wage in his state to N77,000. Meanwhile, outgoing Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki took the lead by implementing a N70,000 minimum wage for workers in his state even before the federal government and its negotiating team, including the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC), finalized their recommendations. While several other states have gone beyond the N70,000 mark, Lagos and Rivers States have set the highest standard with their N85,000 minimum wage. It remains to be seen whether the ongoing negotiations between the federal government and labor unions will result in a nationwide minimum wage increase to at least N100,000 per month.

As discussions around further wage increases continue, the government should also explore the possibility of shifting to bi-monthly salary payments instead of the current monthly system. In countries like the United States, bi-weekly payments are a standard practice.

Labor leaders in Nigeria should shift their focus from simply advocating for wage increases and start considering alternative approaches, such as adjusting salary payment cycles. While wage hikes remain a primary focus, the frequency of salary payments can also significantly impact workers’ financial well-being. Paying salaries bi-monthly could offer numerous advantages, both for employers and workers. Due to space constraints, I will focus primarily on the benefits to workers.

One of the key advantages of more frequent salary payments is that it enables workers to better manage unexpected expenses. A regular income stream reduces the stress of waiting an entire month for the next paycheck. This adjustment would also allow for more effective budgeting, aligning with bi-weekly expenses, and ultimately enhancing employee satisfaction. This boost in morale could reduce turnover rates among staff.

Transitioning to a bi-monthly wage payment system would be a significant change, and one I strongly advocate for in Nigeria. It could help mitigate the effects of the current rapid inflation, where the prices of goods frequently increase before the next purchase while salaries remain on a monthly payment cycle. This shift would move away from the traditional “30 days make a pay” approach and could better address the economic realities faced by workers.

Having made this seemingly simple yet crucial suggestion to reduce the salary payment interval from 30 days to 15 days, I sincerely hope that labor leaders and government officials consider adopting this practical approach as a means to support workers during these challenging times of high inflation.

Meanwhile, some critics have claimed that the Edo State governor’s decision to raise the minimum wage was politically motivated, aiming to secure votes for his preferred candidate in the governorship election on September 21. Similarly, accusations have been made against the Ondo State governor, suggesting that his N77,000 wage increase ahead of his re-election on November 16 was intended to win support from workers.

However, both governors have defended their actions, arguing that their motives are not politically driven but rather focused on the welfare of workers, which they see as a fundamental duty of their roles.

Regardless of the underlying motivations, the increase in the minimum wage—which has now doubled, with some governors adding even more—is ultimately beneficial for workers. Given that the cost of living has skyrocketed due to the significant devaluation of the naira and the removal of fuel subsidies, workers deserve this adjustment and more.

This situation has been made worse by the recent surge in fuel prices, which now range between N1,000 in Lagos and N1,400 in other parts of the country.

In light of this, Nigeria’s civil servants are in a difficult position, as the high fuel costs—a major driver of transportation expenses—have further escalated living costs, leading to widespread hardship among many Nigerians.

While the current spike in living expenses is undeniably daunting, Nigerians must strive to overcome the despair brought on by these challenges and reject a mindset of victimhood. Only by doing so can they achieve their full potential, which appears within reach and may be realized sooner than expected.

This outcome depends on maintaining the course of reform and enduring the sacrifices needed to secure a better future for everyone, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past—such as when General Ibrahim Babangida’s mid-1980s Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) was abandoned midway, leading to further setbacks for the nation and its economy.

To avoid a repeat of protests like the #EndBadGovernance riots, I urge the current administration, which has committed to achieving a national reset and renewal, to revisit the N70,000 minimum wage. Increasing this wage would help ensure that workers can better cope with rising living costs.

It is encouraging that key government officials—Minister of Information and National Orientation Mohammed Idris Malagi, Minister of State for Labor Nkiru Onyejeocha, and Finance/Coordinating Minister of the Economy Wale Edun—are reportedly in discussions with labor leaders to ensure a smooth and conflict-free adjustment to the minimum wage. This adjustment is essential to help mitigate the impact of the recent fuel price hike, which has worsened the cost of living.

Clearly, the previously agreed-upon minimum wage of N70,000 is no longer sufficient to support workers amid escalating living costs. These economic pressures have been intensified by the political and economic reset pursued by the current administration over the last 18 months, as highlighted in a recent survey by The Guardian.

In closing, it may be helpful to reflect on Jean-Paul Sartre’s view on hardship: “Life begins on the other side of despair.” This perspective suggests that if we view our challenges as opportunities for growth and preparation, we can better navigate the period following the removal of the petrol subsidy and other reforms.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.  

•FG differs as Clark, others allege lopsidedness, Tinubu seeks Senate confirmation

President Bola Tinubu’s cabinet reshuffle on Wednesday, which had Ogun State reportedly producing four ministers, the highest by a state in the cabinet, has sparked reactions across the country.

In a significant cabinet shakeup during the 19th Federal Executive Council meeting at the State House, Abuja, Tinubu approved the re-assignment of 10 ministers to new portfolios, discharged five others and nominated seven new ministerial appointees for onward transmission to the Senate for confirmation.

This came as the President renamed the Ministry of Nigeria Delta Development to the Ministry of Regional Development, scrapped the Ministry of Sports Development, and merged the Ministries of Tourism and Arts and Culture to become the Federal Ministry of Art, Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy.

The seven new ministers, pending their confirmation by the Senate, are Dr Jumoke Oduwole (Ogun State) as Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment; Dr Nentawe Yilwatda (Plateau) as Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction; Muhammadu Dingyadi (Sokoto) as Minister of Labour & Employment; Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu (Imo) as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs; Idi Maiha (Kaduna) as Minister of Livestock Development; Yusuf Ata (Kano) as Minister of State, Housing and Urban Development and Dr Suwaiba Ahmad (Kano) as Minister of State for Education.

The incoming Dr Jumoke Oduwole joins Wale Edun (Minister of Finance), Dr Adekunle Salako, the new Minister of State for Health, who was previously Minister of State, Environment and Bosun Tijani (Minister of Communications and Digital Economy) as ministers of Ogun extraction.

Senate, SANs back FG

While the appointments of the four Ogun ministers raised eyebrows in some quarters, with some of the opinion that it fell short of the Federal Character criteria for appointments, Chairman, Senate Committee on Federal Character, Allwell Onyesoh (PDP, Rivers East), acknowledged that while the Federal Character was a constitutional matter, it wasn’t the sole criterion for selecting ministers and other high-level public office holders.

He said, “Yes, Federal Character is an important issue, and I am sure the President would not want to go against the Constitution. However, what the Constitution states is that one person per state, so, once that has been met, I am not sure there should be an issue.”

Senator Onyesoh added, “The Federal Character isn’t the only requirement; we need competent people. The Constitution also empowers the President to be proactive, which means he is allowed to bring efficient people on board to do their jobs.

“Why are people so critical of this administration? It wasn’t the same for the previous administration.”

The criticisms come as  Ministers vehicles reduced President Tinubu on Thursday restricted Ministers, Ministers of State, and Heads of Agencies of the Federal Government to a maximum of three vehicles in their official convoys.

“No additional vehicles will be assigned to them for movement,” the President affirmed in a statement he signed Thursday titled, ‘President Tinubu issues new directives on reduction in cost of governance.’

Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga, who released the statement, said “The cost-cutting measure was announced today (Thursday) in a statement signed by the President.”

In January 2024, Tinubu issued a directive which the Presidency said was to reduce government expenditure.

The directive included reducing his entourage on foreign trips from 50 to 20 officials.

For local trips, he reduced it to 25 officials.

Similarly, he reduced the Vice President’s entourage to five officials on foreign trips and 15 for local trips.

In the directive, Tinubu also ordered all ministers, ministers of state, and heads of agencies to have at most five security personnel attached to them.

“The security team will comprise four police officers and one Department of State Services officer.

“No additional security personnel will be assigned, he ordered,” the statement read.

President Tinubu also instructed the National Security Adviser to engage with the Military, Paramilitary and Security Agencies to determine a suitable reduction in their vehicle and security personnel deployment.

The Presidency said “All affected officials are expected to comply with these new measures immediately, underscoring the urgency and seriousness of these changes.”

A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), also said there was no law that stopped the Nigerian President from appointing more than one minister from a state.

Agbakoba said it was the President’s prerogative to appoint any number of persons from a state to serve as ministers.

Agbakoba, who spoke to one of our correspondents via the telephone on Thursday, stated that the only restriction was that the ministers must be appointed across all 36 states.

“That’s the only restriction,” he said. So, one may say why four? But nothing stops the President from appointing even 10.

“There’s no law that says he can’t appoint more than one. The only thing the law says is that he must appoint one person from each state on the principle of Federal Character, so that every state feels included. The point is, are all the 36 states not represented in the cabinet? The minimum requirement is that there has to be one minister from all 36 states.”

Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, explained that the constitution stipulated that in appointing ministers, each state of the federation must have representatives.

He added that even though there was no requirement for equality in the number of ministers, the situation where one state had four ministers and another had only one was not good enough.

“I think that the situation whereby one state has four ministers, and another state has only one, does not augur well for inclusivity, for equity, and for justice. And in this particular instance, the government is saying that we should run an economy that is new and budget-friendly.

“So, to then bloat the ministers list by picking four people from a particular state is to give the impression that there are no people from other states,” he said.

“This current government should not replicate the errors of the past. I believe that if somebody is elected from a particular region, he should carry other regions along, so that we can reduce the agitation for separatism, agitation for autonomy and agitation for secession as being advocated by other sections of the country that are marginalised,” he said.

In his response Niyi Akintola (SAN), said the position of Section 14 was very clear as the general rule was to give each state one minister.

He said, “The President is bound to work very hard to ensure that each state gets one minister. And there is no state legally that doesn’t have one minister. 

“The President has complied with the requirement of the law, the Constitution but, where you have discretion, you can use the discretion. Discretion is not mandatory but a duty is mandatory.

He further stated that the duty of the president was to ensure that no state should be without a minister.

“I am from Oyo state and we have only one minister and we are not complaining. Can you point out one state in Nigeria that doesn’t have a minister?  One minister from Plateau State resigned and he was replaced with another one.

“I don’t know why people make noise where there are no issues, we should look at if he breached the Constitution, to me these are not issues,” he said.

Another senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wolemi Esan, said there was no restriction against a state having more than one minister.

Esan cited Section 147(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that states that the President must appoint at least one minister from each state, who must be an indigene of that state.

“The Constitution specifies a minimum number of ministers per state but does not set a maximum. “Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no restriction against a state having more than one minister. “However, section 14(3) of the Constitution emphasises that the composition of the Federal Government should reflect the Federal Character, ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states in government,” he said.

However, Prof Mike Ozekhome (SAN) added that to appoint four ministers from Ogun, one of the smallest states in Nigeria, was against the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Section 141, Section 153 and Section 71 of the Third Schedule, Part One of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

According to him, all these sections deal with the principles of Federal Character, and they emphasise that Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.

“So, by appointing one minister to join the three old ones, making four from Ogun State, the President has breached Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution, because he has appointed four people from the same state, Ogun, and from the same ethnic group of Yoruba, which is against the Constitution.

“By the way, the question must be asked, whether, the team carrying the ministerial lists has actually done anything to change the status quo. I think not. What I’ve seen, what I saw, is against what Nigerians were expecting. We were expecting an earthquake of change in the cabinet, because many of the ministers have shown themselves to be indolent and to be non-performing.

“Now, what we saw, the only ministry I believe that the President did very well is the ministry of Niger Delta, because he tried to stop wastages by bringing the Niger Delta Development Commission, the Northeast Development Commission, the Southwest Development Commission, and the Southeast Development Commission.

“All of them brought under the Ministry of Regional Development. But I believe that the Niger Delta, Northeast Development, Southwest, they were drainpipes where money was being guzzled into.

“But by removing them and collapsing them under the Ministry of Regional Development, I believe that some money would be saved there. But I would think that it should have gone far.

“I also like what he did with the Ministry of Sports Development, by scrapping it and taking the function of it to the National Sports Commission,” he said.

He further stated that many of the present ministries were not functional.

“Why would you have a different ministry for agriculture than another one for water resources? Why not collapse some of these ministries and name it as Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Rural Development? What is the difference between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Blue Economy? Why don’t you collapse them? Blue Economy, where you are having fish, environment, where you also have fish and other things, why don’t you collapse them? Why would the President even introduce a new ministry of animal husbandry or cattle rearing? What is the meaning of that? Why don’t you just put that word quietly under the Ministry of Agriculture?

“So, I believe the President should go far, very far, in rejigging his cabinet, which for now is a drain pipe for the nation’s bigger resources.”

Niger Delta kicks

Tinubu’s new appointments were also met with scathing criticisms by a section of the polity with Second Republic Senator and leader of the Pan Niger Delta Forum, Chief Edwin Clark, accusing the President of behaving like his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, by making lopsided appointments.

The Ijaw leader on Wednesday called on Tinubu to rescind his decision in the scrapping of the Ministry of the Niger Delta Affairs in a swift response to the announcement.

On Thursday, the Ijaw leader, who spoke via telephone at the Special General Assembly of the Pan Niger Delta Forum in Port Harcourt with the theme, ‘Fostering Peace and Unity for Sustainable Development of the Niger Delta Region’, expressed sadness that despite public outcry about inequality and marginalisation in the country, Nigeria was still sharply divided along religious and ethnic lines.

He stated, “Nigeria is divided across the lines of ethnicity, along the lines of religion, hunger and everything that you can think of. Today Nigeria no longer has a middle class. The wealthy have carried away the wealth.

“They seize our oil wells. So we are nowhere. Can you imagine a man like me, two, three years ago, if I wanted anything from the oil companies, from the oil industry I have to travel to Daura (hometown of former President Mahammadu Buhari) to meet with Mr President who would then grant me?

“What type of country do we belong to, a country where we have no respect for one another? They think it is right. And this is still continuing.”

On the scrapping of the Ministry of Niger Delta, Clark added, “Today they declare us arrogant when we ask for our rights. Could you imagine that I was sleeping last night when I woke up to see that they had scrapped the Niger Delta Affairs Ministry?

“It didn’t come to me as a surprise because when they did it the first time they were hardly in office. Up till now they didn’t provide an investigation. They have provided nothing. So, scrapping it now means nothing to us.

“We (Niger Delta) must work together if we must survive in the country. Who owns this country more than yourselves, nobody. Every country has what God has given to that country to be a powerful country. We the people of the Niger Delta are Nigerians, we must fight for Nigeria.

“We should not allow anyone who cannot manage people’s diversity, who believe that once they are in power their people must take over, our people must be suppressed. Former President Muhammadu Buhari did it.

“He (Buhari) said the Fulanis are the only Nigerians. Every office was headed by a Fulani or Hausa. And today most of these things are being repeated by President Tinubu. In doing so he has followed the pattern of his predecessor in office. Where are we? We produce the oil, produce everything.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has said the Ministry of the Niger Delta Affairs was expanded and not scrapped as reported in some sections of the media.

The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Senator Heineken Lokpobiri, stated this at the PANDEF event.

He said, “It is very important to use this opportunity to explain that I was at the Federal Executive Council (meeting) when that decision was taken on the issue of Niger Delta Ministry.

“The Ministry was not scrapped at all. It was rather expanded to coordinate all regional development agencies. Apart from the NDDC there is nothing stopping the South-South Region from getting the South-South Development Commission.

“And I think something like that has already gotten to an advanced stage. So the Ministry for Regional Development will co-ordinate not just the NDDC it will also co-ordinate if there is any South-South Development Commission, it will coordinate that. It will coordinate North-East, it will coordinate South-East, it will coordinate all regional development under the leadership of your own son.

“Your own son is still the leader. We must understand that point, I want to use this medium to explain to you that we have nothing to lose at all. We are in fact losing nothing. Rather we may gain more if we have the South-South Regional Development Commission.”

He added, “Let me also say this to you that the Niger Delta till tomorrow is considered the most strategic region in the country and the President acknowledges that. Some of the very steps that we are taking today will benefit people of the Niger Delta more than others.

“Sometimes when you are making very bold decisions people may feel anxious. But that is the price we need to pay to get to the Promised Land.

“You recall that as of today there is more money for states and local governments and not to the federal government. It is also important to state here that my leaders don’t hold the federal government accountable alone. The time has come for every tier of government to pay its own share of the development of the Niger Delta.

“Last month the three tiers of government shared about N1.3tn. Some of our states got N50bn, N60bn. It is time for PANDEF not to look at what it can get from the Federal Government alone. But see how we can challenge our local government now that there is local government autonomy.

“Local Governments are also getting N600m, N800m. Yes local governments and I say some of these things we complain about could very well be done by local governments but because everybody is looking at the Federal Government, we have given people their honeymoon for too long. Let that honeymoon end now.”

Speaking, Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara said the Niger Delta region had a burden in its hands to advocate for stronger institutions in the federation.

Fubara, who was represented by his Commissioner for Budget and Economic Planning, Prof. Peter Medee, said, “Instead of stronger individuals,  we have produced stronger individuals from this region and from several regions yet the development of our region as well as to be able to plough back the benefit and the resources of our region to use it to produce and get the economy of our region to  develop has suffered.

“So as you gather here today in the  General  Assembly to be able to articulate and plan.  We will discuss further the need for unity, peace, and the development of our state.  I  call  on  all  of  you  to  use  the  unity  in  our  diversity to our  advantage.”

He added, “A  lot  of other regions are taking advantage of our disunity to divide us further.  The time has come,  especially now,  when the governors of our respective states have taken it as a point of sincere commitment and dedication to unite the region.  You,  as  leaders  of  the  region,  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  discuss and  come  up  with  issues  that  will  lead  to  our  regional  development.”

In his message, former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Obong Victor Attah, expressed sadness over the scrapping of the Niger Delta Affairs Ministry.

 “I felt a bit offended if I can use that word, that the Ministry of Niger Delta that we fought so hard to have established alongside the Niger Delta Development Commission should be abolished without any notice to any of us. And nobody knows what really that means for our development,” Attah said.

“We are now going to come under a commission for regional development. Quite some time ago, I remarked that maybe the name NDDC was wrong because Niger Delta is a defined geographic area.

“Nobody doubts the boundaries of the Niger Delta. But suddenly NDDC was scheduling for Imo, Abia or everybody that had oil. So, I asked, ‘Why don’t we go back to OMPADEC (Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission)?’

“Bring just the oil-producing areas commission, rather than pretend that it is a commission for developing the Niger Delta. I think, as defined in the President’s address, as a treasure trove of this country, we should have a lot to say about what happens to the treasure of this country.”

[Punch]

Approaching the Enugu home of Professor Humphrey Nwosu, former czar of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), who died on 24 October 2024 at the age of 83 and who presided over the 12 June 1993 election that was annulled by the military president, Ibrahim Babaginda, one could not but be curious. It was the same anticipation exhibited by many young men when Nelson Mandela, the immediate past South African leader, was about to be released from the apartheid jail after 27 years. How would Mandela look? What a lot of young Africans were used to were photographs of the anti-apartheid fighter, with chubby cheeks, parted hair, infectious smile and the occasional cigarette dangling between his lips. It was a sharp contrast to the man who walked out of prison with a halo of grey.

Nwosu was, unlike Mandela, not in the slammer, but he kept himself out of public glare and rarely granted media interviews or delivered public speeches for years after the election he presided over was cancelled. How would the professor of political science look? Had he grown fatter or older? Had he jettisoned his penchant for theatrics, a usual feature on television where, as NEC Boss, he trenchantly explained his commission’s policies?

Mr Kunle Ajibade, Executive Editor, leader of our interview team had, a day earlier, booked an appointment with Nwosu and we were naturally excited at the opportunity to speak with the former NEC boss. As the the group alighted from their vehicle, a gardener materialized between the building’s black gate that was crying for a fresh coat of paint. That gate actually shielded the neatness, fine architecture and horticulture of Nwosu’s compound. Outside, a palm tree swayed over a row of flowers, a portion of carpet grass, a bough of an orange tree that rests from inside the fence and a metal plate warning intruders: “Danger! Wires Electrified.” The American barbed wires in their big spirals rested on the perimeter wall seemingly harmless but dangerous.

The gardener collected Ajibade’s complimentary card and disappeared inside. About three minutes later, the gate eased open and the man ushered in the team. The guests walked past a small roundabout where the roots of a mango tree had cracked the asphalted forecourt. In the distance is another palm tree, swaying over the sea of grass, an almost stunted orange tree and creepers. To the left is a bungalow with a surfeit of burnt brick decoration and an extended garage where a flat boot Mercedes car was parked. In the front of this small house, the first structure on the big compound built by Nwosu, there is a row of what looks like a car park with locked red metal doors. To the right is the big house where Nwosu holds court; a combination of four burnt brick-decorated structures, the chief of which is a semi circular architectural piece, with a red conical roof, facing the main (compound) road.

We were soon ushered into a large living room with three sets of sitting areas. The first was a set of grey settees-four single and one triple. On the low brown centre table was a pink synthetic flower and miniature porcelain images of angels, and the Virgin Mary. On the wall was an oil-on canvass portrait of a boy carrying a kid on his back. The second sitting arena was elevated and decorated with imported deep grey rococo furniture over which was a giant chandelier. A standing fan, a black television set, busts of historical figures and another wooden carving of a man whose hands are behind his back, complement this part of the big hall.

Ibrahim Babangida

Then a “cot-cot” sound approached from the staircase. A man dressed in green guinea brocade and a black Mahatma Gandhi cap walked past the dining area where a set of six rococo chairs was arranged beside a long table. “Who is Kunle Ajibade?” the man asked as he pumped the hands of his guests. With his average height, stature, deep accent and broad smile that could light up a dark tunnel, Professor Nwosu has not changed much over the years. “I attribute my youthfulness to the fact that I have a happy marriage, “Nwosu later told the journalists. He led his guest to the third sitting area, about three steps below the first, second and the dinning, separated with black metal works. It was here that Nwosu fielded questions on his tenure as NEC chairman and the elections he presided over, which culminated in the presidential one which was annulled by IBB.

Nwosu’s sack on 26 June 1993 was preceded by the annulment of the 12 June Presidential election of 1993, adjudged to be the fairest and freest conducted in the country. Aside this, one striking feature of that year’s election was that for the first time, a Yoruba, Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, won the election. Abiola, with his running mate, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, rode on the back of the then Social Democratic Party (SDP), to trounce Alhaji Bashir Tofa and Chief Sylvester Ugoh of the National Republic Convention (NRC). There were booby traps set by the military and their civilian collaborators to scuttle the transition programme. One of such groups was the infamous Association for Better Nigeria, ABN, led by the controversial Arthur Nzeribe, which had gone to court to stop the election from holding. Two days to the poll, precisely on 10 June, an Abuja High Court presided over by Justice Bassey Ikpeme, now deceased, granted interlocutory injunction to the ABN suit.

Nwosu disobeyed the injunction. He cited Section 19 (1) of Decree No 3 governing the presidential election for his action. The decree states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 17) as amended, or any other law, no interim or interlocutory order or ruling, judgement or decision made by any court or tribunal before or after the commencement of this decree….”

Though the election took place, almost mid-way through the announcement of results, another judge, Justice Mohammed Dahiru Saleh, granted a relief preventing NEC from announcing the remaining results and declaring the winner of the polls. This time, the former university teacher allegedly compromised, a development that fueled speculations that he was either heavily influenced or never believed in the tortuous course he was steering. Nwosu, however, fired back: “Absolute nonsense and lie. No one gave me anything. I challenge any person to come out with proof. There were dud cheques circulating and all that kind of nonsense. I never flirted with either of the contestants because it was an open, transparent election.”

Nigerians wanted explanations from the Ajali-born politician but it did not come until Saturday 4 July, almost a month after the poll. Nwosu appeared on NTA to justify his continued silence and absence from public glare. He denied being detained and attributed his absence to “my preoccupation with other matters”. Not many Nigerians would believe him, especially in the face of a strong rumor that IBB’s goons beat him up and detained him for days. A day after his NTA appearance, Nwosu delivered an unusually brief valedictory speech to his former staff. And since that day, nobody heard about Nwosu until 2001 when he dragged a kinsman to an Abuja court for libel. He had alleged, that his former student, Dr. Fidelis Okoli in a pamphlet entitled, “What do you know about Akpu and Ajali in Orumba South and North Local Government Area respectively of Anambra State of Nigeria, “accused him of influencing the sitting of Orumba North Council headquarters in Ajali, his home town.” Before his appearance in court, Nwosu was at the burial of his former teacher and predecessor at NEC, Professor Eme Awa in Amaekpu-Ohafia in Abia State.

These visiting journalists began firing their questions. They were eager to know those behind the annulment of 12 June 1993 election. But Nwosu kept saying “Wait for my book,”… which will be launched … at the Ladi Kwali Conference Centre, Abuja Sheraton Hotel and Towers.

To reach a compromise, they asked Nwosu to reveal the names of the “annullers” even if he did not say in specific terms what they did. He clammed up, again urging TheNEWS to wait for his book. Then Ajibade adopted another approach. Could Nwosu give us a copy of the book before the launch date? No dice. The interview drifted on, with Nwosu evading questions, scratching over the head of others while going full blast on those that touched on how well he performed as NEC chairman. He even admitted that the late Chief M.K.O Abiola won the election.

As the interview wound to a close, Nwosu asked the journalists whether they read what Dr. Reuben Abati wrote about him in The Guardian recently. At that point, Nwosu remembered that he had not invited the columnist to the book launch. He promised to give the journalists some invitation cards for Abati and other top journalists in Lagos.

Nwosu later excused himself and disappeared into one of his inner rooms. He returned with his chamberlain in tow, who carried two trays containing four glass cups, six cans of Star lager beer, two bottles of fruit juice, a bottle of brandy and a bottle of Coca-Cola. Tension in the room, thereafter, dissolved in gulped beer and soft drinks…

“Ajibade, how did you get my phone number?” Nwosu asked. He was apparently enjoying the drink or the new, tension-free drift of the conversation. Ajibade, with his penetrating look and ringing voice, replied: “I won’t tell you if you don’t reveal those who were responsible for the annulment of June 12 election.” Nwosu, with drink in hand, threw his head back and exploded with guffaw.

Interview completed, the guests rose to leave. As they waited outside, surveying the compound which Nwosu acquired when he was Commissioner for Agriculture and later, Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in the old Anambra State in the 1980s, the professor again excused himself to bring the invitation cards for Dr. Reuben Abati and his friends. When Nwosu returned, Ajibade called Abati on phone to speak with Nwosu. The two men spoke with the latter asking the columnist to attend his book launch by all means.

However, the invitation cards which Nwosu handed over contained some information which unsettled the visiting journalists. Curiously, those who worked against June 12, especially Babaginda, the annuler-in-chief and the unsurper, Chief Ernest Shonekan, head of the interim National Government, were invited. In fact, while Shonekan would chair the occasion, Babaginda was to be the guest of honour.

Nwosu is expected to be fearless and honest in his revelations on the June 12 crisis. But the old scholar avoided inviting intellectuals who could shred his book. Col. Abubakar Umar (retd), one of Babangida’s boys, will be the reviewer! The question is: why not an Odia Ofeimun? These, as the journalists reasoned, pointed to two possibilities. One, it could be that Nwosu wanted to demonstrate broad-mindedness that is an essential ingredient to lasting reconciliation. Nwosu showed this when he referred his guests to the 1 March 1993 edition of TheNews with the cover story titled Dirty Humphrey. The report narrated a contract scandal to which the former NEC boss was linked. “There was actually a contract like that, but you people got many facts wrong in that story. But if I have not forgotten the past, I would not have granted this interview,” he quipped. But the speed with which he accepted the interview proposal, as Nwosu admitted, was to help promote his book.

On the other hand, there is another strong feeling about why Nwosu invited anti-democratic elements to launch his pro-democracy book. Will the much-expected publication exonerate Nwosu’s principal, IBB and blame the annulment on those who pushed the dictator out of power? It is also curious that Nwosu invited Shonekan.

If the book turns out so, the political science professor should expect flaks from the media, civil society, the academic community and the general public. If it is otherwise, then Nwosu might have contributed his quota in setting the records straight and charting a course for the future.

Born in 1941, Nwosu attended Saint Michael’s Primary School, Enugu and later Presbyterian School, Abakaliki for his primary education. He proceded to Macgregor College, Afikpo, and was later admitted to the University of Nigeria, Nuskka, to study Political Science.

He graduated in 1966 with a first class honours and later, he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the same discipline from the University of California, Berkeley, USA. Thereafter, he returned to his alma mater and in 1979, was made Associate Dean, Faculty of Political Science. Four years later, he was appointed Professor of Political Science at the age of 41.

Before he got the NEC job on 7 March 1989, Nwosu had, at various times, served as Commissioner for Local Government and chieftaincy Affairs of Old Anambra State; Chairman, Technical committee on the Application of Local Government Services in 1987 and member of the Local Government Review Committee in Nigeria in 1988.

• Originally entitled “Echoes From The Past,” this Preface to Cover” (Nwosu’s cover interview) was published in the 16 June 2008 edition of TheNEW.

SOON after the disparate states of the Italian peninsula were unified to create a single nation on March 17, 1861, Massimo Taparelli, the Marquess of Azeglio, popularly called Massimo D’Azeglio, a Piedmontese-Italian statesman, famously remarked: “We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians.”

D’Azeglio, who was Prime Minister of Sardinia, was worried about the fate of Italy, which had just become a nation-state, but his famous quip aeons ago resonates loudly in today’s Nigeria.

It is easier to create a country than to unite the citizens around an overarching worldview that defangs rather than fan the embers of ethnic and religious discord.

In her book, “The Pinocchio Effect: On Making Italians, 1860-1920,” Suzanne Stewart-Steinberg, assistant professor of Italian studies and comparative literature at Brown University, explored all the ways that identity was constructed through newly formed attachments, voluntary and otherwise, to the young nation – Italy.

Taking as her guiding metaphor the character of Pinocchio — a national icon made famous in 1881 by the eponymous children’s book, Stewart-Steinberg argued that just like the renowned puppet, modern Italians were caught in a complex interplay between freely chosen submission and submission demanded by an outside force.

That is the same complex interplay that Nigerians are caught in today, so much so that 110 years after Nigeria came into being with the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by Lord Lugard, there are hardly Nigerians.

That is the country’s bane. The British made Nigeria but we have failed to make Nigerians. When it suits them, Nigerian leaders preach patriotism. Most times, they stretch their duplicity by quoting the historic words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” which challenged every American to contribute in some way to the public good and it was not difficult for Americans who perceived the sincerity of purpose to rally round their leader for common good.

But here in Nigeria, the leeches who masquerade as leaders even when they mouth such rhetoric fail to put their words into action. The inability of Nigerian leaders, across board, to walk their talk by practising what they preach is the primary reason why the country is plumbing the depths of misery.

Because Nigerian leaders talk the talk every time but don’t care a hoot about walking the walk, nothing is sacred. They manipulate the primordial cleavages and the country’s historic fault lines for personal aggrandizement even when they insist, as former President Muhammadu Buhari did in his August 21, 2017 national broadcast, that “Nigeria’s unity is settled and not negotiable.”

After an extended medical tourism in 2017, Buhari, unarguably the most divisive, blinkered and narrow-minded leader Nigeria has ever had, gave what was, perhaps, his most insouciant, divisive speech claiming a non-existent national consensus on Nigeria’s indivisibility.

“We shall not allow irresponsible elements to start trouble and when things get bad they run away and saddle others with the responsibility of bringing back order, if necessary with their blood,” he boasted.

Coming from a leader who elevated bigotry to an act explains why a century after, we have a Nigeria but hardly Nigerians. It is also important to remember what Buhari said on national unity in a 2021 television interview.

Asked how he intended to resolve the crisis in the South-East, Buhari’s answer was bloodcurdling.

“Well, South East em…. I was encouraged by what I heard, nobody told me, two statements from the South-South, one by elderly people – they said this time around, there will be no access to the sea. I am sure you will understand what they mean,” he told his interviewers.

“Again, the youth made the same statement and such encouraged me. So, that IPOB is just like a dot in the circle. If they want to exit, they will have no access to anywhere. And the way they are spread all over the country, having businesses, having property, I think IPOB doesn’t know what they are talking about.

“In any case, we say we will talk to them in the language they understand. We will organize the police and the military to pursue them. That is what we can do and we will do it,” he concluded leaving his interviewers dazed.

In saying that, Buhari was trying to be clever by half, pretending to be talking about IPOB when he was actually sending an unambiguous message to Ndigbo.

That was why in the eight years of his presidency, he unleashed mayhem on Ndigbo. Unfortunately, President Bola Tinubu has continued on the same trajectory, refusing to politically resolve the Nnamdi Kanu conundrum even when Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba nation agitator like Kanu, is a free man. He has even submitted a petition to the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to consider the creation of a Yoruba nation without as much as a whimper from those who have made Kanu a prisoner of conscience.    

Such double standards are a recipe for disunity, hence the instability in Nigeria. Unity helps a society stay strong and deal with challenges better. But Nigerian leaders deliberately promote disunity and conflict, thereby failing the people who they claim to lead.

Do Nigerians want to stay together? Maybe! But that is in a country where there is equity, fairness and justice, a society that does not deliberately promote discrimination as a governance art. The reality here is that on the issue of unity, Nigerian leaders have refused to walk their talk.

Luckily, some Nigerians have taken the initiative of uniting where leaders divide, loving where leaders hate and promoting inclusiveness where leaders exclude.

And that is exactly what Mr. Lekan Ogunbanwo, a veteran broadcast journalist, who retired from the Lagos State civil service after serving as a permanent secretary for 13 years is doing with his radio station, Kwenu 93.9FM.

Penultimate Saturday, the radio station which is known for delivering a unique blend of Igbo and Pidgin content through both digital and traditional platforms, marked its one year anniversary – a celebration of its role in fostering cultural integration.

That occasion afforded Ogunbanwo, a bona fide Lagosian from Ikorodu, an opportunity to share the inspiration behind Kwenu 93.9FM, which is to promote unity and give the Igbo community a voice in Lagos.

“Before Kwenu 93.9FM, there were no stations dedicating up to seven hours daily to the Igbo culture and business in Lagos,” Ogunbanwo noted.

“Research shows that Igbos control about 60% of distributive trade in Nigeria, with 70% of this trade centred in Lagos. Today, there are between four and six million Igbos living in the state.

“We wanted to give the Igbos a platform to ensure there is no fear of Igbos ‘taking over’ Lagos… This is our country, and we must focus on what unites us rather than what divides us. Nigeria binds the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, and others as one people. We all have a responsibility to maintain peace and avoid misunderstandings, as chaos hampers business and growth. Promoting oneness is crucial for our progress.”

This is all it requires to make Nigerians after the British made Nigeria decades ago, a task that Nigerian leaders have refused to carry out since Independence in 1960, particularly since the end of the 30-month fratricidal war in 1970.

It is worth noting that Ogunbanwo, an authentic Lagosian, is creating maximum impact by amplifying Igbo voices, not just in Lagos but across the country, at a time when some people, most of whom are not from Lagos and cannot point at their fathers’ graves anywhere in this cosmopolitan state are ratcheting up their Igbo must quit rhetoric as an existential imperative, a desideratum of sort. 

What Lekan Ogunbanwo has done with his Kwenu 93.9FM is to walk his talk on the challenging issue of national unity. If only the leaders, including President Tinubu, can toe the line knowing full well that no amount of gaslighting, cajoling and inveigling can guarantee unity.

The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Wale Edun, has confirmed that the federal government would impose 15 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) on luxury goods, adding that total subsidy removal became effective last month.

Fielding investors’ questions at a meeting on the sidelines of the on-going IMF/World bank Annual Meetings in Washington DC, he said that a bill before the National Assembly would bring about a situation where rich Nigerians would pay VAT rate that would increase over time to 15 percent.

He clarified, however, that the poor and vulnerable will pay less or zero VAT on essential goods.

According to him, the list of such essential goods that would attract zero VAT would be made available to the public in due course.

His words: “In terms of VAT, the commitment of President Bola Tinubu is that while implementing difficult and wide-ranging but necessary reforms, the poorest and most vulnerable will be protected.

“And in the case of VAT, it is a very efficient tax for reasons well-known but it is also a tax that is targeted. So the bills going through the National Assembly in terms of VAT will raise VAT for the wealthy on luxury goods while at the same time seeking to exempt or seek a zero rate for the essentials and for what the poor and the average persons will purchase.

“Those bills will single items for zero rate of VAT while hitting luxuries with a higher rate of VAT.”

Edun was optimistic that the oil sector was set to increase the accretion of foreign exchange (FX) into the market, as according to him, oil production was being ramped up with better security in the oil-producing areas and new investments, especially those announced by Total and ExxonMobil.

He also said that total removal of fuel subsidy became effective in September 2024.

“Savings from fuel subsidy savings would become more impactful on the economy going forward, the complete fuel subsidy became effective only last month,” he stated.

[Vanguard]

Vice-President Kashim Shettima’s trip to the 2024 Commonwealth Heads Of Government (CHOGM) summit in Samoa has been aborted.

Bayo Onanuga, the president’s special adviser on information and strategy, said the cancellation was due to damage to the vice-president’s aircraft.

Onanuga said in a statement late on Thursday that a “foreign object” damaged the cockpit’s windshield.

He said the incident occurred during a stopover at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

“President Tinubu, acting promptly, has approved a ministerial delegation to represent Nigeria at the summit in the Samoa capital of Apia while the plane’s repair has commenced,” Onanuga said.

“The delegation, which will now represent Nigeria at the 2024 Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa, is being led by the minister of environment, Balarabe Abass Lawal.”

Onanuga said the vice-president and Yusuf Tuggar, the foreign affairs minister, have left New York for Nigeria.

TheCable had reported that President Bola Tinubu directed Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the summit.

The theme of this year’s summit is resilience, unlocking potential, leveraging the Commonwealth advantage, and fostering a connected, digital Commonwealth for member countries.

Shettima was expected to participate in the People’s Forum, engage with global leaders on development issues, and attend bilateral meetings and executive sessions.

The summit which began on October 21 is billed to end on October 26.

[TheCable]

Nigeria, Africa, and indeed the world face a critical juncture. Energy systems are evolving remarkably, shifting from fossil fuel dominance to renewable sources, and this transition fundamentally reshapes economies and the environment. In this transformation, we are tasked with an essential question: How do we harness the energy-economy-environment nexus to foster good governance and achieve sustainable development?

To explore this, we must first acknowledge the complexity of the nexus. The energy sector fuels economies, creates jobs, and drives industrialisation but also contributes to environmental degradation if not properly managed. On the other hand, environmental preservation is essential to long-term economic stability but requires carefully planned energy policies. This balancing act necessitates robust governance frameworks that ensure transparency, accountability, and effective resource management. Energy is the backbone of economic development. In Africa, energy access is critical to unlocking the potential for industrialisation, innovation, and improved livelihoods. However, many across the continent, including Nigeria, remain energy-poor. According to the 2022 Energy Access Report from the World Bank, Nigeria has one of the most significant energy deficits in the world. Also, as of 2021, 85 million individuals – more than 4 out of 10 Nigerians, do not have access to power from the national grid.

The empirical literature is unanimous on the importance of energy to human development. Chien et al. (2023), and Luan et al. (2023) argue that energy is a fundamental element for sustaining human survival and development. Thus, excessive energy poverty may hinder sustainable human development. Energy poverty stifles economic growth, education, healthcare, and gender equity. Similarly, studies like Pachauri et al. (2004), Sesan et al. (2013), and Belaïd (2022) identified energy poverty as one of the critical developmental challenges faced by developing and emerging economies.

The nexus of energy generation and consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation revolves around three significant hypotheses: the growth hypothesis, conservation hypothesis and feedback hypothesis. The growth hypothesis studies claimed that economic growth depends on energy consumption (Adams et al., 2018; Zafar et al., 2019). The conservation hypothesis was the opposite: economic growth fuels energy consumption (see Destek & Aslan, 2017). However, a feedback hypothesis is upheld where a two-way causality exists among these three variables (i.e., energy, economy and environment) (Aydin, 2019; Tugcu et al., 2012).

In Africa, some research has been conducted to ascertain the extent, causality and implications of energy consumption. One such example is the work of Acheampong (2018), who found that a positive shock to GDP increases energy consumption and carbon emissions in the short run but also increases stability in the long run. This finding corroborates with Paramati et al. (2018), who noted that industrialisation enhances energy saving for most African countries. On the contrary, Awodumi and Adewuyi (2020) discovered that CO2 emissions across African economies remained highly unstable, with Algeria being the leading carbon emitter due to the dominance of non-renewable energy consumption.

Therefore, energy consumption apparently promotes economic growth but contributes to higher carbon emissions. This raises some pertinent questions: To what extent do production and consumption of energy resources contribute to economic growth and carbon emissions in African economies? Should policy focus more on growth than reducing carbon emissions arising from energy resource consumption? These are policy-relevant questions.

Regarding the nexus between energy and good governance, pioneering studies have shown that the empirical side of the nexus aligns with economic theories. Fredriksson et al. (2004) analysed 12 OECD countries. They concluded that corruption reduces the effects of energy policy: increasing corruption leads to increased energy intensity and, implicitly, a decrease in energy efficiency. Stern (2012) discovered that the decline in corruption directly leads to increased energy efficiency. Further, Nicolli and Vona (2015) concluded that increased corruption indirectly affects renewable energy policy through its impact on the regulation of the energy products market.

The African continent is energy-poor, the poorest in the world. About 600 million Africans lack access to electricity, while over 900 million rely on traditional biomass fuels, such as wood and charcoal, for cooking and heating. These fuels lead to deforestation and indoor air pollution, contributing to an estimated 600,000 premature deaths annually (WHO, 2022).  Limited access to electricity hampers economic development, educational opportunities, and healthcare services, further perpetuating poverty and inequality.

Moreover, an estimated three billion people worldwide still lack access to clean energy technologies for cooking (IEA, 2022). In the IEA’s most recent Global Energy Outlook report, global energy demand will increase by around 33% by 2050. This implies that energy, and sustainable energy for that matter, will remain central to our daily lives, the lifeblood that enables us all to function and prosper.

There is no doubt that the world needs more energy, but this need must be met ever more efficiently and sustainably, considering the challenges posed by climate change to our future. However, Africa needs even more energy. Its population is set to increase from 1.4 billion people today to around 2.5 billion by 2050. Its economic output is expected to triple, and energy demand will increase by 82%. It would increase even more, by 150%, if its GDP per capita doubled to 5,000 dollars in 2050 (World Bank, 2021).

At the same time, Africa suffers significantly from the effects of climate change despite being the least responsible for it. Africa’s cumulative Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are very low, and even today, Africa accounts for only 3 to 4% of the world’s total GHG emissions despite being home to 17% of the world’s population.

Given the evident developmental challenges confronting the African continent, it is clear that the narrative that Africa should abandon the development of its natural resource base for environmental protection is misguided. A wealthier Africa would be better positioned to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts while addressing its energy security and socioeconomic development needs.

By leveraging the continent’s abundant natural resources, African nations can bolster their economies, lift millions out of poverty, and create the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the adoption of renewable energy technologies in the future. However, harnessing the potential of natural resources in Africa is not without challenges. One of the primary obstacles is the lack of infrastructure capacity to transport and distribute natural gas, for example. Constructing pipelines, liquefaction plants, and other infrastructure requires significant investments and long-term planning. My company, Green Energy International Limited, is already leading the way here in Nigeria by constructing the first indigenous terminal in Rivers State.

As Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria’s wide range of livelihoods, agricultural practices, and commodities are threatened by climate change. Rising sea levels increase vulnerability to flooding and waterborne disease. Additionally, drought and increasing flooding hinder agricultural production and fishing, reducing food security and negatively impacting health and nutrition in our dear nation. Drought, reduced rainfall and rising air temperatures inhibit the country’s hydropower systems. The energy sector, deforestation, and land-use change are the most significant contributors to Nigeria’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (USAID report, 2023).

About 70% of Nigeria’s primary energy supply is derived from biomass. Poor on-grid power supply, which rarely exceeds 5 gigawatts, forces Africa’s largest economy to rely on more than 14 gigawatts of inefficient petrol and diesel backup generators across the country, contributing to around 30% of the fine particulate matter emissions from the continent (USAID report, 2023). According to the United Nations, Nigeria has the highest rate of deforestation worldwide, losing about 3.7% of its forest yearly.

All hands must be on deck to address the existential challenges of climate change. As responsible citizens of the globe, we must recognise that there is no ‘Plan B’ in addressing climate change. Today, it is more important than ever to drive forward the global energy transition in the interest of climate change mitigation, energy security, and economic diversification and development.

We are already witnessing the global energy landscape changing dramatically, as seen in the succeeding United Nations-organized Conference of Parties. Countries and regions have developed energy transition plans. However, it is important to stress that energy transition in developing countries, including Africa, must involve transitioning out of poverty, transitioning towards growth, transitioning towards development, and transitioning sustainably.

Global investment in renewable energy reached a record high in 2022—at USD 0.5 trillion—, but this represented less than 40% of the average investment needed each year between 2021 and 2030, according to World Bank statistics, to meet the sustainable development goals and limit global warming to 1.5°C. More striking than the absolute numbers is that sub-Saharan Africa received less than 1.5% of the global investment in renewable energy.

The disparity in renewable energy financing received by developed versus developing countries has increased significantly over the past six years. For this reason, we must be creative and develop new approaches to ensure that no one is left behind regarding sustainable and affordable energy for all by 2030 and beyond.

African governments must prepare energy transition plans considering the reality of green growth. These plans are critical policy and investment tools to deliver affordable, reliable, and clean energy while expanding energy services for all. Many African countries have demonstrated a willingness to be leaders and equal partners in the energy transition, with countries like Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and others developing world-class whole-economy transition plans (ETPs).

These ETPs are very important, and I may use the example of the Nigeria ETP, which Former President Buhari launched at COP26. The ETP in Nigeria is backed by law. The ETP covers all sectors of the economy, including the power sector, transport, housing, agriculture and forestry, and clean cooking. The ETP gives a price tag of USD 1.9 Trillion for Nigeria to reach net zero by 2060, of which USD 410 billion will be above business-as-usual spending. These figures are definitely beyond Nigeria’s ability alone. The Advanced Economies must come to her aid.

While energy drives economic growth, we must not ignore its profound environmental impact. Carbon emissions from energy production and industrial activities have escalated the climate crisis, leading to more frequent natural disasters, rising sea levels, and extreme weather conditions that disproportionately affect the poorest populations. We have a collective responsibility to act. Africa, while contributing the least to global carbon emissions, remains one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change impacts. This paradox compels us to think critically about our development pathways. 

Meanwhile, renewable energy offers a beacon of hope. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 per cent of the world’s electricity will come from renewable energy by 2050. This is an opportunity we must seize. In Africa, it is likewise projected that 76% of the continent’s energy could come from renewable sources by 2040. If harnessed efficiently, Africa is endowed with abundant solar, wind, and hydropower resources that can power our industries, rural areas, and fast-growing cities. The energy transition presents a path to prosperity for millions of Nigerians and Africans, but only if we prioritise infrastructure, innovation, and research investments to ensure the transition is inclusive and equitable. Africa needs help to achieve the energy finance and advanced technology needed to achieve this.

Sustainable development demands that we embrace renewable energy solutions that reduce our carbon footprint. Adopting solar energy, wind farms, and energy-efficient technologies is no longer a choice but a necessity. Moreover, Africa’s vast forests, wetlands, and ecosystems must be protected as carbon sinks, vital for mitigating climate change. However, achieving this will require more than just good intentions. We must build the institutional capacity to monitor and enforce environmental regulations, ensuring that our natural resources are preserved for future generations. Robust governance frameworks that integrate environmental sustainability into economic planning will be essential.

Good governance lies at the heart of this nexus. The glue holds the energy, economy, and environment together in harmony. Without sound governance, policy fragmentation occurs, leading to inefficiencies, corruption, and, ultimately, failure to achieve sustainable development. Governance in the energy sector requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Governments must lead with clear, long-term strategies but cannot act alone. Private sector investments, international cooperation, and the involvement of local communities are crucial. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be encouraged to accelerate energy infrastructure projects, and innovative financing mechanisms should be explored to support renewable energy adoption.

Furthermore, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. Citizens must be informed and involved in decision-making, particularly regarding resource allocation, environmental management, and policy implementation. Open dialogue and inclusive governance foster trust and drive the effective execution of policies that benefit the economy, the environment, and society.

The energy transition is a global challenge; no single nation can solve it alone. International cooperation is essential, particularly for African nations. Technology transfer, capacity building, and financing are areas where partnerships with the international community can support Africa’s energy transition and climate resilience efforts.

We must also recognise that Africa’s energy and environmental issues are not isolated. Africa must be a key player as global energy systems move toward renewable dominance. This means engaging with international bodies, leveraging global best practices, and ensuring that Africa’s voice is heard in global forums, from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The nexus between energy, the economy, and the environment is the cornerstone of sustainable development. We need bold leadership, sound governance, and an unwavering commitment to sustainability to harness this nexus. Let us focus on actionable strategies to address Africa’s energy challenges, promote economic growth, and protect our environment.

What we do today will determine the legacy we leave for future generations.

Sustainable consumption is not necessarily about consuming less. It is about consuming better—in an intelligent and environmentally sustainable way.

Prof. Anthony O. Adegbulugbe, FNAEE, FNES is the Chairman/CEO, Green Energy International Limited

Nyesom Wike may have misplaced many passes during his time as the Minister of the FCT, but on his planned removal of street beggars from Abuja, the intense and indefatigable former Rivers State governor seems to have hit the mark with uncanny accuracy. It is simple: beggars cannot be allowed to hang around Abuja anymore. Their wretched existence and enterprise deface Nigeria’s capital. The irritants they have become disgust Nigeria’s establishment to no end.

If this position appears elitist, there is very only very little wrong a country that should be doing everything to rid itself of begging can do in the society. To be clear, begging is a symptom and not a cause of Nigeria’s problems. A country where begging is lucrative employment for many is a country that is not getting something right.

For Wike, moving the beggars out of Abuja is a priority, but where will they be moved to? Most importantly, what can be done to urgently wean them of a habit, hobby, and handiwork that they are prepared not only to do all their lives but pass on to their children like some cherished heirloom?

The government must go beyond the crater to seek the cure. Why are there so many beggars in Nigeria? It is worth remembering that those referred to as “beggars” by Wike are only a fraction of the beggars in Nigeria. There are more beggars elsewhere and on the streets of social media than any street in Nigeria can contain. All of them form Nigeria’s humiliated horde, those who have been dehumanized by Nigeria, dumped on the streets and forced to eat from hand to mouth.

There are many who tired of their wretched existence in their rural villages find their way to cities to beg. Begging from morning to night in strategic locations, they soon begin to make enough money to send back home. Encouraged by how lucrative the venture is, some of their relations soon join them in the city to join the begging business.

How about the almajiri children who clog many public spaces in Nigeria, unwashed and unkempt, with ringworm and eczema battling over every inch of space on their skin? The trauma caused to innocent children of that age range in the name of Islamic religious education is simply unthinkable. It is heartbreaking that it is religion that enables that kind of systemic dehumanization of kids that emphasizes begging, child neglect and child poverty.

As president until 2015, Goodluck Jonathan floated and sunk billions of public funds into building schools in the North in a bid to take almajiri children off the street, rehabilitate them and prepare them for a better future. Today, the schools lie moribund, suffocated by a poisonous cocktail of religion, superstition and poor maintenance culture. Many of them celebrated his defeat in the 2015 elections not minding that they were celebrating the end of their hopes.

Northern Nigerian beggars

A country where children who should be in school are begging for a living is one with unaccountable problems. A country where women spread helpless toddlers like rags under the sun and thrust out bottomless begging bowls to passersby right in the heart of its capital city is a country sitting on a time bomb.

Many of the children reduced to begging by poverty and neglect now form the prolific pool into which terrorists dip to recruit conscripts. Yet, Nigeria wonders why its war against terror refuses to end.

Wike said that the beggars were a source of embarrassment as well as security threats in the FCT. He was not far from the truth. His method of dealing with the menace is what appears to be far from effective.

Experience has shown that once removed, these beggars find a way to return or simply reinvent themselves and transport their begging bowls to different locations as long as those locations are lucrative.

What Nigeria needs is a permanent solution to the menace of street begging, which will be no simple task. Its root causes of systemic poverty and inequality must be addressed firstly.

Already, those who beg are dehumanized by the poverty of their chosen enterprise. Many of them are left with no choice in the face of life’s raging hardships. Restoring their dignity should be at the core of finding any solutions aimed at rehabilitating them.

The Nigerian political landscape is often fraught with controversy, intrigue, and speculation, especially when significant changes occur in government positions. The recent removal of Hon. Uju-Kennedy Ohaneye as the Minister of Women Affairs has sparked considerable debate across the nation. Some argue that she was dropped because of her non-conformist stance on various national issues, while others believe it was due to her perceived non-performance in office. The question on everyone’s lips is: Was Ohaneye dropped for being a non-conformist or a non-performer?

Ohaneye, a vibrant politician and lawyer, was among the few women nominated for ministerial positions by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu earlier this year. Her nomination was seen as a symbol of progress, representing the effort to include more women in Nigeria’s decision-making corridors. With her impressive background in law and public service, many Nigerians were optimistic about what she would bring to the table. However, her time in office was abruptly cut short, leaving the public puzzled about the reasons behind her dismissal.

From the onset of her appointment, Ohaneye was seen as a bold and assertive figure, unafraid to challenge the status quo. Her outspoken nature and willingness to speak truth to power earned her both admiration and criticism. In a political climate where conformity is often rewarded and dissent suppressed, Ohaneye’s refusal to play along with traditional political norms likely rubbed many of her colleagues the wrong way.

One of the key instances where Ohaneye displayed her non-conformist attitude was her stance on the subsidy removal policy. As many politicians within the ruling party rallied around the government’s decision to remove fuel subsidies, Ohaneye publicly questioned the timing and implementation of the policy. She argued that while subsidy removal might be a necessary step, the government had not put in place adequate measures to cushion the impact on the poor and vulnerable. This position placed her at odds with the pro-subsidy removal camp within the administration, which may have contributed to her being sidelined.

Ohaneye also took a firm stand on the need for comprehensive electoral reforms. She was one of the few ministers who openly advocated for the implementation of recommendations made by civil society groups for free and fair elections. While some saw this as a principled stance, others within her party felt that she was too critical of a system that had put them in power. In a country where political loyalty is often prioritized over principles, her unwillingness to toe the party line could have led to her removal.

While Ohaneye’s non-conformist nature might have raised some eyebrows, it is essential to consider whether her performance as a minister also played a role in her dismissal. Government critics have pointed out that during her time in office, there were several areas where she failed to make a significant impact.

The ministry under her supervision, Ministry of Women Affairs, is no doubt a portfolio that is crucial for addressing the needs and rights of women in Nigeria. Critics argue that during her tenure, there was little to no progress in advancing policies that directly impacted the lives of Nigerian women. Issues like gender-based violence, access to education for the girl-child, and economic empowerment for women were reportedly not given the attention they deserved under her leadership.

Ohaneye also faced criticism for her handling of budgetary allocations. Some reports suggest that there were delays in disbursing funds meant for key programs under her ministry. These delays, according to insiders, hampered the execution of projects that could have had a tangible impact on women’s lives, further cementing the perception that she was not delivering results.

Moreover, there were allegations of poor coordination within her ministry. Staff members reportedly complained about a lack of clear direction, with many initiatives stalling due to indecision at the top. This inefficiency, critics argue, reflected poorly on her managerial capabilities and ultimately contributed to her removal.

Adding fuel to the ongoing debate about Ohaneye’s removal were reports of an unusual reaction within her former ministry. Not long after the news of her dismissal broke, media outlets reported that staff members within the Ministry of Women Affairs were seen celebrating her departure. According to these reports, some staff even described her removal as a relief, hinting that working under her leadership had been challenging.

This reaction raises questions about her relationship with the ministry’s staff. While it is not uncommon for tensions to exist between leadership and subordinates, the fact that her removal was met with open jubilation suggests that her management style may have contributed to discontent within the ministry. The staff’s response has fueled speculation that her leadership approach may have led to inefficiencies and internal friction, potentially justifying her removal on grounds of non-performance.

In Nigerian politics, the performance of a public official is not always the sole determinant of their fate. Power dynamics and political maneuvering often play a significant role. Ohaneye’s fall from grace may also have been the result of political calculations within the ruling party.

It is worth noting that Ohaneye’s appointment was seen by some as an attempt to appease certain interest groups within the political landscape. As a member of the southeast, a region that has historically been marginalized in Nigeria’s power distribution, her inclusion in the cabinet was expected to balance regional representation. However, her removal has led to renewed accusations of marginalization by southeastern leaders, who see this as yet another instance of the region being shortchanged in national appointments.

There is also the possibility that Ohaneye became a victim of factional infighting within the ruling party. Nigeria’s political parties are often divided along various interest groups, with different factions vying for influence and control. It is possible that Ohaneye’s removal was the result of her alignment with a particular faction that found itself on the losing side of an internal power struggle.

Without a doubt, Public opinion on Ohaneye’s removal is divided. Her supporters argue that she was a victim of her non-conformist approach, which did not sit well with the political elite. They view her as a principled leader who was unwilling to compromise her values for political gain. Many Nigerians, especially women’s rights activists, have expressed disappointment over her removal, arguing that she was one of the few female voices in a male-dominated cabinet.

On the other hand, her critics believe that her removal was justified, pointing to her perceived lack of performance in office. They argue that while she may have been vocal on certain issues, her inability to deliver tangible results was ultimately her downfall. The jubilation within the ministry following her removal only adds weight to these claims.

It is likely that Ohaneye’s removal was the result of a combination of factors, including her non-conformist attitude, perceived non-performance, and political maneuvering within the ruling party. In a political system as complex as Nigeria’s, it is rarely one factor that determines the fate of public officials. Instead, it is often a delicate balance of performance, loyalty, and political survival.

In Ohaneye’s case, her boldness and refusal to conform may have alienated her from key figures within the government. At the same time, her critics could point to her lack of results in office as justification for her removal. Ultimately, her dismissal serves as a reminder of the delicate tightrope that public officials in Nigeria must walk, balancing their principles, performance, and political alliances.

Chinyere Ohaneye’s removal as a minister raises important questions about the criteria used to evaluate public officials in Nigeria. Was she dropped because she dared to challenge the status quo, or was it because she failed to deliver on her promises? While the exact reasons may never be fully known, her case highlights the complex interplay of performance, principles, and politics in the Nigerian government.

The jubilation within her former ministry after her removal adds an additional layer to the discussion, suggesting that her leadership style may not have been well-received by those she worked with. Whether her downfall was due to being a non-conformist, a non-performer, or a mix of both, Ohaneye’s case serves as a reflection of the broader issues facing governance and accountability in Nigeria. As the country continues to grapple with political challenges, the case of Ohaneye will likely remain a point of reference in discussions about governance, leadership, and representation.