Nigerian economists and financial analysts say the recent drop in price of Premium Motor Spirit (Petrol) upon direct fuel purchase deal between Dangote Refinery and Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria may force inflationary pressures down in the coming months.

Former President of the Council of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, Prof. Segun Ajibola, and the CEO of SD & D Capital Management, Mr. Idakolo Gbolade, disclosed this to DAILY POST in separate interviews on Monday.

This comes as Nigeria’s headline and food inflation climbed for the second consecutive month to 33.88 percent and 39.16 percent in October 2024, according to the National Bureau of Statistics’ latest Consumer Price Index.

On a year-on-year and month-on-month basis, the country’s inflation grew by 6.55 percent and 2.64 percent, respectively.

A further analysis showed that urban and rural inflation stood at 36.38 percent and 31.59 percent for the period under review.

The development showed the worsening situation the majority of Nigerians faced in the past months, weakening purchasing power.

The inflationary pressures are not unconnected with surges in the prices of food items, transportation, pharmaceuticals, energy costs, clothing, and others in Nigeria.

CBN’s monetary policies can’t solve inflationary pressures in Nigeria — Ajibola

Reacting, Ajibola said that monetary policies such as interest rate cost by the Central Bank of Nigeria cannot solve Nigeria’s inflationary pressures because they are cost-induced.

He stressed that CBN over the years has been tackling inflation with the wrong medicine.

“Monetary policies cannot solve inflationary problems in Nigeria. The Central Bank of Nigeria has been fighting a battle that it cannot defeat because the country’s inflation pressures are cost-induced.

“It is because of a rise in demand or an increase in money supply.

“The landing cost of imported items is increasing due to the current exchange rate. Locally, there are pressures from all cost edges. So unless this is tackled, the challenges in Nigeria’s inflation will remain,” he stated.

Inflation: Nigeria yet to recover from fuel subsidy removal, Naira floating shocks – CPPE

The Executive Director of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Muda Yusuf, said the continued rise in Nigeria’s inflation showed that the country is yet to recover from the shocks of the fuel subsidy removal policy and the Naira floating policy by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government in June 2023.

“The rise in inflation is an indication that the economy is yet to recover from the shocks of the reforms in exchange rates and fuel prices.

“Hopefully, with some of the measures being implemented by the government or contemplated under the economic stabilisation plan, temporary import duty waivers, and other policies that will be fully implemented, we may see some reduction in the food prices,” he noted.

Nigerians suffering inflationary pressures for over 10 years — Idakolo slams CBN

Idakolo, on his part, said the CBN monetary policies such as the interest rate hike, which stood at 27.75 percent in October 2024, have not impacted the country’s inflationary pressures in the past 10 years.

“The CBN has tried various policies to stem inflation, but several other factors are making inflationary pressures increase.

“The economy has been experiencing inflationary pressures for the past 10 years,” he stated.

Fuel price cut: Experts speak on Dangote, IPMAN deal

Meanwhile, Ajibola and Idakolo agreed that the Dangote Petrol and IPMAN direct petrol sale deal could be the game changer during the festive period and January next year.

The assurance comes as Dangote Refinery and IPMAN signed an agreement on the purchase of 60 million litres of fuel weekly.

DAILY POST reports the price of petrol dropped between N5 and N50, selling around N1060 and N1150 per litre across filling stations in the last few days.

Speaking on the development, the renowned economist, Ajibola, said the recent drop in the price of petrol attributed to the Dangote Refinery and IPMAN deal may also force inflationary pressures down in the coming months.

“Good enough, the prices of petrol are reducing now because of the direct PMS purchase agreement between Dangote Refinery and the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria; this will have a ripple effect on the cost of doing business in the country,” he noted.

However, he said the fluctuations in the country’s foreign exchange as the Naira fell to N1690.37 per dollar at the official FX market have been major impediments for Nigeria because of its dependence on imports.

“Foreign Exchange has been so tough. It is a major cost item that may require time to address.

“Similarly, the cost of energy, fuel, and electricity will have a major impact on inflationary pressures.

“Reliance on local production, reduction of import duties for some consumables, we may have gradual improvements during this year if all that has been said is implemented,” he stated.

Idakolo further told DAILY POST that “the direct petrol sale deal between Dangote refinery and IPMAN is a welcome development because it will discourage importation of petroleum products and eliminate the cost associated with importation.

“The federal government concession to sell crude to local refineries in Naira is another way of sourcing the locally refined crude at a lower cost. These measures will go a long way to ease inflation in the long run if it is consistent”.

[DailyPost]

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has described Nigeria as a “failed state” due to the policies of both former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu.

Speaking during a paper presentation at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in the United States, Obasanjo criticised the leadership of both men, attributing Nigeria’s state of chaos, insecurity, and underdevelopment to their administrations. In his keynote address, titled “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” which was pre-recorded and played at the event, Obasanjo refrained from naming the leaders directly but referenced them using nicknames given by their critics—“Baba-go-slow” for Buhari and “Emilokan” for Tinubu.

“As we can see and understand, Nigeria’s situation is bad. The more the immorality and corruption of a nation, the more the nation sinks into chaos, insecurity, conflict, discord, division, disunity, depression, youth restiveness, confusion, violence, and underdevelopment. That’s the situation mostly in Nigeria in the reign of Baba-go-slow and Emilokan. The failing state status of Nigeria is confirmed and glaringly indicated and manifested for every honest person to see through the consequences of the level of our pervasive corruption, mediocrity, immorality, misconduct,

Obasanjo also accused Nigerian politicians of compromising the judiciary, contributing to what he called a widespread “state capture.” He criticised the common response to electoral disputes, “go to court,” suggesting it reflects the judiciary’s compromised state. According to Obasanjo, “the judiciary in Nigeria is a very pale version of its once internationally esteemed self.” He went on to say that politicians, after rigging elections, confidently tell their opponents to “go to court” because they know the judiciary has been bought. “A number of judges are in the pockets of wealthy politicians and individuals, making judgments not based on law but to the highest bidder. This, my learned audience, is one of the most effective strategies of state capture — and it must be excised from Nigeria like a surgeon cutting out a malignant cancer,” Obasanjo stated.

The former President also accused political elites of sabotaging Nigeria’s economy for personal gain, pointing to the acquisition of national assets at bargain prices and the allocation of resources—such as minerals, land, and human capital—to local and international actors. He called for robust local and international laws to prevent such practices, emphasizing that the purchase of national assets by political elites and their families must be prohibited.

Without naming individuals, Obasanjo criticised the ongoing control exerted by former governors over their states long after leaving office, singling out one such case of a former governor who continues to hold sway over his state 25 years after his tenure ended. Obasanjo also condemned Nigerian politicians for exploiting the poverty and hunger in the country through “stomach infrastructure” politics, where food items packaged with the image of political candidates are distributed to gain votes. He lamented that destitute citizens are more likely to vote for politicians offering handouts, often funded by looted public money, rather than those offering long-term solutions to the country’s problems.

He pointed out the high rate of out-of-school children, widespread insecurity, and systemic corruption, and urged Nigeria to adopt the virtues that have contributed to the progress of Southeast Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. The event, attended by figures such as Peter Obi, Governor Alex Otti of Abia State, and former Minister Obi Ezekwesili, also featured Obasanjo’s participation in discussions on “Leadership and Democracy in Africa” and “The Future of Leadership in Africa.”

[TheNation]

The Presidency on Monday attacked former President Olusegun Obasanjo over his claim that corruption has reached a fatal stage in the country.

The Presidency also faulted Obasanjo’s call for the sacking of the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, over his conduct of the 2023 election which he described as a travesty.

However, the Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and the New Nigeria Peoples Party backed the elder statesman on the issue of graft, the imperative of electoral reform and other issues he raised in his keynote address at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum, Yale University, New Haven, United States of America, on Sunday.

In his address, ‘Leadership failure and state capture in Nigeria,’ the ex-President canvassed for shorter tenures for INEC officials and a more rigorous vetting process to prevent the appointment of partisan individuals.

He criticised President Bola Tinubu’s performance in office, asserting that corruption continues to rank among the most important problems affecting Nigerians.

The elder statesman said, “More than N700 billion in cash bribes were paid by citizens to public officials in 2023. Most bribes are paid in the street or a public official’s office.

“Private sector bribery is increasing but continues to be less prevalent than in the public sector. Corruption goes with power; therefore, to hold any useful discussion of corruption, we must first locate it where it properly belongs – in the ranks of the powerful.

“Corruption in Nigeria has passed the alarming and entered the fatal stage, and Nigeria will die if we keep pretending that she is only slightly indisposed.’’

He added, “Ranked 150 out of 180 countries in the Transparency International 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index,1 Nigeria’s ranking places it in the bottom 20 per cent of the comity of nations and illustrates how systemic and embedded corruption is in the country. It is, in my opinion, and those of many, the most serious developmental challenge to the nation.”

He insisted that the nation would continue to sink into chaos, insecurity, conflict, discord, division, disunity, depression, youth restiveness, confusion, violence, and underdevelopment as long as it is embedded in corruption.

However, in a pushback on Monday, Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the former President had no moral grounds to criticise INEC, having presided over what he called “the most fraudulent election held in Nigeria since 1960.”

In a statement titled, ‘Former President Obasanjo was not an ideal leader to emulate,’ Onanuga said, “It is hypocrisy writ large when a man who presided over the worst election in Nigeria demands the sack of the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

He added, “After wasting billions of naira on a failed third-term project in 2007, Chief Obasanjo hurriedly organised a sham electoral process that would go down in history as the most fraudulent election held in Nigeria since 1960.

“The beneficiary of the sham election, Umaru Yar’adua, admitted that the election was seriously flawed and, as Justice Muhammed Uwais’ panel recommended, worked towards electoral reforms.”

The Presidency argued that the former leader’s habit of casting aspersions on every subsequent administration overshadowed the expectations from an elder statesman to join a constructive dialogue on attaining national progress.

“In his latest critique of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, whom he pejoratively called ‘Baba Go Slow’ and President Bola Tinubu, who he tagged ‘Emilokan’, Chief Obasanjo used the platform provided by Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University to unfurl his latest treatise on leadership and public morality. He also used the forum to write off Nigeria as a failing country.’’

“The irony of Chief Obasanjo using the platform that celebrates Achebe to sermonise on the ideals of good governance, statecraft, economic management, and corruption should be apparent to discerning minds.

“When he was alive, Chinua Achebe was a universally acclaimed moral, cultural and literary icon with scant regard for Obasanjo,” the statement added.

The Presidency cited Achebe’s rejection of the third highest national honour bestowed on him by the Obasanjo-led administration in 2004 on the grounds of the prevalence of abuse of power, corruption, poor leadership, and, in particular, “state-sponsored brigandage endorsed by Chief Obasanjo in Achebe’s home state of Anambra.”

“In rejecting the 2004 national honour by the Obasanjo administration, Achebe declared: ‘Nigeria’s condition today under your watch is…too dangerous for silence. I must register my disappointment and protest by declining to accept the high honour awarded me in the 2004 honours list,’” the statement read.

The Presidency also cited the unconstitutional impeachment of four Peoples Democratic Party governors – Joshua Dariye of Plateau, Rasheed Ladoja of Oyo, Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa.

It argued, “A man under whose watch all of these egregious infractions occurred should certainly not be the one to give any lecture on leadership and corruption.

“He should not be taken seriously as he reeks of profound hypocrisy of the worst form.”

Onanuga also suggested that Obasanjo’s self-acclaimed reputation as an economic reformer did not align with his record in office.

 The statement pointed out that many challenges Obasanjo highlighted in his Yale address remain unresolved legacies of his administration.

It noted Obasanjo’s admission that his administration failed to prioritise gas development, a sector now receiving attention under the Tinubu administration.

It also acknowledged that Obasanjo’s tenure benefited from rising crude oil prices, which peaked during that period.

Still, it argued that poor economic decisions, including the hasty repayment of $15bn in Paris Club debt while neglecting critical infrastructure, laid the foundation for subsequent economic challenges.

Furthermore, Onanuga faulted Obasanjo for failing to address Nigeria’s infrastructural decay, including federal roads such as the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and the Lagos-Abeokuta Road.

The presidential aide also accused him of undermining public universities by capitalising on their deficiencies to establish private institutions.

The Presidency contrasted this with the security sector, where it credited the Buhari administration with modernising the Armed Forces through substantial investments in equipment and strategy, a trend it claims President Tinubu has sustained.

It also linked the rise of militancy and kidnapping to Obasanjo’s administration, asserting that his tenure allowed such security issues to take root and expand.

On matters of integrity, honesty, and morality in public leadership, it said Obasanjo is “certainly not a paragon of virtue for anyone to model after.”

“Nigerians can still remember the messy public spat between Chief Obasanjo and his then-vice president, Atiku Abubakar, over PTDF money that led to a Senate Public Hearing in 2004.

“The sordid details of the public hearing included unsettling evidence of how Obasanjo instructed his Vice President to buy Sport Utility Vehicles for his mistresses with PTDF funds.

“There was also the Halliburton bribe scandal, which the US Congress probe revealed. Bribe payments were made to the highest political authorities at the Villa while Obasanjo was in charge,” the statement read.

It said Nigerians would also remember how the Obasanjo administration invested $16bn in electricity, which left the country in utter darkness.

The Presidency added, “The colossal amount spent on power was so embarrassing that President Umaru Yar’Adua, Obasanjo’s successor, ordered a probe. Similarly, Obasanjo’s privatisation programme was scandalous. It did not deliver real value for the country.

“His administration cheaply sold national assets to cronies who stripped the assets of the state-owned enterprises. A case in point was the aluminium smelter company ALSCON in Ikot-Abasi, Akwa-Ibom State, built by the military government at the princely sum of $ 3.2bn. It was sold for 130 million dollars.

“Obasanjo also sank money into Turn Around Maintenance of our refineries, which never worked, leading to the massive importation of refined petroleum products.”

Onanuga referenced accusations of gross abuse of office during Obasanjo’s tenure, pointing to a petition filed by former Abia State Governor Orji Uzor Kalu, a member of Obasanjo’s political party, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

He added, “If Chief Obasanjo had addressed the many problems he critiqued in his poorly written Yale lecture when he ruled Nigeria for eight years, President Buhari and President Tinubu would have had a much lighter burden of fixing the country.

“While the Tinubu administration diligently works to overcome the country’s economic challenges, it would be better and more advisable for former President Obasanjo to temper his self-righteousness in his public discussions regarding our nation’s temporary difficulties.

“Instead, his remaining years would be better spent reflecting on the missed opportunities during his own time in leadership, both as military head of state and civilian president.”

Speaking in the same vein, the National Publicity Director of the All Progressives Congress, Bala Ibrahim, said he found it ridiculous that the former President could recommend some measures he didn’t deploy during his eight-year tenure.

As much as the former President is entitled to his opinion, Ibrahim said he could raise the issues he highlighted before the National Council of State where he is a member.

 “Such suggestion can best be tabled before the National Council of State of which he is a member. It would be subjected to scrutiny and a decision would be taken in the best interest of the country.

“In his own time, he was a leader and his election was declared by INEC. Obasanjo was not known to be erratic in changing the leadership of INEC during his time. So, it would be unfair for him to suggest such changes, more so when he is gradually turning himself into an opposition.

“If it’s an issue that is of national concern, Obasanjo may have his reason. But issues like that can best be handled at the National Council of State, where he is a member,” the ruling party spokesman noted.

Corroborating the former leader, the opposition parties demanded the dismissal of the INEC boss and an overhaul of the electoral system.

The PDP said beyond the call for his sacking, people like Yakubu and other INEC officials ought to apologise to Nigerians for dashing their hopes at the polls.

In an interview with The PUNCH on Monday, the PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, asked the anti-corruption agencies to investigate the commission’s staff for alleged mismanagement of resources.

According to hìm, Obasanjo’s comments are a reflection of the demands of Nigerians.

He stated, “In a more honourable society, the INEC chairman would have humbly resigned on his own and apologised to Nigerians, whose trust, hopes, and expectations he dashed through his negligence and inexperience. When he was appointed, Nigerians had high expectations and truly believed he was a breath of fresh air.

“But now, after witnessing his administration’s handling of the affair within INEC, Nigerians are not only disappointed, but they also feel as though they’ve stepped back into the dark ages, where elections were sold to the highest bidder and were neither credible, free, nor fair.

“So, President Obasanjo is not saying anything new. He is simply reflecting the sentiments of Nigerians—well-meaning Nigerians—who understand that what INEC is doing now is a threat to our democracy and a recipe for anarchy if not addressed. I would advise the INEC Chairman to take this admonition seriously if he has any honour left in him.”

The National Publicity Secretary of the New Nigeria People’s Party, Ladipo Johnson, argued that Obasanjo’s comments had some merits.

“He is thorough and must have his reasons for saying what he said. In any event, it behoves Nigerians to look at the performance of INEC since 2015. Are we on an upward trajectory or are we on a downward trajectory?

“The answer is there for everybody. Except we want to continue to fool ourselves. But when an elder statesman makes a call like that, everyone has to revisit the issue and chart a way forward,” Johnson stated.

His counterpart in the Labour Party, Obiora Ifoh, equally said Obasanjo was expressing the minds of the masses, who he said had long given up on INEC.

Ifoh added that ‘’despite being given N1 billion taxpayers money’’ ahead of the 2023 poll to invest in election technology through iREV (INEC Result Viewing portal) and BVAS ( Bimodal Voter Accreditation System),  Nigerians found it appalling that the facilities were not effectively deployed for the elections.

 He said, “It is a crime against the Nigerian masses. Obasanjo is someone who speaks truth to power. He is also known not to mince his words. He lives among the poor in his Ota farm settlement. So, he understands what people are going through.

 “Those men at the leadership of INEC are still in office because this is Nigeria. In a developed democracy, they would have resigned a long time ago. But look at them just sitting in their offices comfortably.

 “To make things worse, the judiciary is supporting them. Even in this last election in Ondo State, the President was telling those who were not content with the result to go to court. They are now making our courts look pedestrian because they know if you go to court, they will buy out the judgment.”

 “So, the former President has said it all. I don’t think INEC has done well at all. They have done a disservice to this nation. The ridiculous economy we are having today is as a result of their action,” he stated.

[Punch]

Appointments of ambassadors or high commissioners by the President is a constitutional obligation. There should not be any delay in such appointments. Section 171 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states that:

“(1) Power to appoint persons to hold or act in the offices to which this section applies and to remove persons so appointed from any such office shall vest in the President.

(2) The offices to which this section applies are, namely – (a) Secretary to the Government of the Federation; (b) Head of the Civil Service of the Federation; (c) Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Principal Representative of Nigeria abroad; (d) Permanent Secretary in any Ministry or Head of any Extra-Ministerial Department of the Government of the Federation howsoever designated; and (e) any office on the personal staff of the President. 

(3) An appointment to the office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation shall not be made except from among Permanent Secretaries or equivalent rank in the civil service of the Federation or of a State. (4) An appointment to the office of Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Principal Representative of Nigeria abroad shall not have effect unless the appointment is confirmed by the Senate.

(5) In exercising his powers of appointment under this section, the President shall have regard to the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity.

(6) Any appointment made pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2) of this section shall be at the pleasure of the President and shall cease when the President ceases to hold office;

Provided that where a person has been appointed from a public service of the Federation or a State, he shall be entitled to return to the public service of the Federation or of the State when the President ceases to hold office.”

The delay in appointing ambassadors mirrors the way this government thinks of the roles of ambassadors. Ambassadors actively manage and maintain diplomatic relations between the home country and the host. They engage in political and economic negotiations, promote bilateral cooperation and safeguards the home country’s interest in the host country. Additionally, they supervise the functioning of consulates within their jurisdiction.

They are not just mere desk officers or protocol officers whose schedule is only to hire uber vehicles for President, their relatives and other top officials. They are an integral part of government. 

Ambassadors also engage in delicate negotiations, representing their country’s policies while understanding others’ perspectives. This balancing act is crucial for successful international relations. Their work includes advocating for their home country’s political, economic, and cultural agendas abroad. Ambassadors are the voice of their nation in foreign lands, aiming to foster global partnerships. 

How can we be chasing foreign investments when ambassadors who are to play prominent roles in such negotiations have not been appointed? 

If ministers could be appointed and sworn-in three months after presidential inauguration, why delay the appointments of ambassadors?

At the 79th General Assembly of the United Nation, Nigeria made a legitimate demand for a permanent seat at the United Nations security council. At the time we made the demand, we had no permanent representative in the United Nations. What a contradiction. We undervalue the position of ambassadors in this country. We starve their embassies of funds and we pay little attention to their needs.  

We acknowledged the efforts of Mr. Walter Carrington (24 July 1930-11 August 2020), the American ambassador to Nigeria between 1993-1997 and the role he played in standing for human rights during the General Sani Abacha years. He stood firm by his principles and he was resolute in defending human rights. 

In other countries of the world, the ambassadorship is the training ground for leadership.

To be concluded…

“We eagerly anticipate the coming on stream of the Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt refineries before the end of this year, as promised by the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of NNPCL, Mele Kyari. This milestone will not only end baseless rumours of monopoly but also position Nigeria as a refining hub for petroleum products in Africa.”

 Dangote Group, VANGUARD, November 6, 2024. 

“Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth and falsehood, for the good or the evil side.” — J. R Lowell, 1819-1891, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ p 254.

I deliberately led off this article with the last statement by the Dangote Group in their rejoinder Press Release issued, incredibly on the very next day after the PINNACLE OIL & GAS issued its own Press Release in our paper – Vanguard.

Permit me to start by expressing my appreciation to the two companies for patronising our paper. We need every advert we can get; but Vanguard remains the most objective newspaper in Nigeria irrespective of whether the issue is politics, economics, business, religion or social. All the stakeholders – companies, government regulators, NNPCL, NGOs, activists, lawyers and, of course, the final consumers of petroleum products — engaged in the strife for truth and falsehood on the literally burning issue of fuel will have unfettered access to this paper. The ultimate fate of our country hangs on our individual and collective ability to make the right choices on this combustible matter. We have no choice.

Dangote Press Release interrogated

“An [organisation] is the lengthened shadow of one man.”

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882. VBQ p 105, available online.

 Every company in the Dangote Group, including those quoted on the Stock Exchange, is essentially a one-man business masquerading as something else. Even the Annual General Meetings, AGMs, amount to Alhaji Dangote holding a meeting with himself. Nothing that anybody else says, or thinks, matters. All the proposals, decisions, amendments to the Articles of Association etc, have already been approved before the other shareholders gather for the ritual. The control is absolute. That can sometimes carry unintended consequences for minority shareholders whenever Alhaji decides to bail out.

Since he controls virtually every important aspect of a company’s operations, including external communications, it can reasonably be inferred that he approved of the Press Release cited above. In that case, the last sentences , which would be regarded as “the punch line” for the rest of the rejoinder were very unfortunate. Rather than strengthen Dangote Refinery’s position, they damaged it beyond redemption. Permit me to start from “We eagerly anticipate the coming on stream of the Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt refineries by the end of this year…”.

 Certainly, only the people at the Dangote Refinery can possibly believe that drivel. Even if they have limited their anticipation to the Port Harcourt refinery, keen observers of the petroleum sector, since June 2023, would have been sceptical. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, had promised to start supplying fuel from that refinery by December last year. Three other deadlines have been missed; and the most reliable information indicates that there might be no fuel from PH this year. The same is true of the Warri refinery. Kaduna is the worst case. The Turn-Around-Maintenance, TAM, on that one has barely got started; and, probably is stalled. Altogether, we are confronted with a huge scam perpetrated by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, NNPCL and the contractors assigned to undertake the TAMs. Dangote Refinery people can wait, if that is their choice, but the rest of Nigerians are sick and tired of waiting for NNPCL fuel this year.

“To murder one’s reputation is a kind of suicide; a detestable and odious vice. —Henry Fielding, 1707-1754, in TOM JONES, VBQ p 213. available online.

 Calling the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of NNPCL, Mele Kyari, as his only witness was perhaps the worst blunder the Dangote Group could have committed. Bluntly stated, Mele Kyari “ has made so many false statements; failed to fulfil so many promises with regard to fuel supply from the four NNPCL-owned refineries that the man has murdered his reputation. It is simply amazing that the Dangote Group will base its rejoinder on the words of someone who has no reputation left to protect. Was it not the same Kyari who, in July this year, told a House of Representatives Committee that NNPCL would be producing 2 million barrels of crude oil by December this year? Is the country anywhere close to that output level now in November?

When the Press Release ended with the assertion that “This milestone will not only end all baseless rumours of monopoly…”,  I really felt bad for the Dangote Group; which appeared like the drowning man grasping at every water hyacinth. The truth is, there will be no milestone to end rumours about monopoly because there are other facts which buttress the charge that Dangote Refinery is gunning for monopoly for reasons too numerous to disclose here; but which go beyond the dispute with PINNACLE OIL & GAS.

Dangote at war with everybody

“War is hell.” — General Sherman, 1820-1891. VBQ p 268.

The US Army General spoke the minds of everyone who has ever been involved in armed or brand conflicts. Troubled days and sleepless nights become more frequent. Peace of mind is lost as long as it lasts.

My worst experience of brand warfare occurred in 1982; when the Board of Directors of North Brewery Limited, Kano, called me; and after thanking me for a wonderful job done with DOUBLE CROWN lager beer and increasing my remuneration package by 25 per cent, announced that they have a new assignment for me. According to the Chairman, “The Board has decided to launch a Stout brand to rival GUINNESS STOUT – which has close to 95 per cent of the market share. We want you to embark on the assignment from this minute; prepare a plan and budget. You will receive all the financial support you need.” As a professional Marketing manager, member of the American Marketing Association, AMA, at the time, I knew better than everybody in that room that I had been asked to start a war against one of the most powerful brands, in its sector, in the world. GUINNESS STOUT had for years held at least 92% of market share in any country in which it was distributed; and the Board was expecting 10 per cent share in two years. I didn’t know whether to rejoice or cry. Here was opportunity and danger wrapped up in one assignment. It was too painful to laugh; but, I was too old to cry.

Dangote might not have realised it when he embarked on building the world’s largest single train refinery in Nigeria, purportedly capable of processing 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day and supplying most of domestic needs for fuel. But, he was embarking on war because the ambition threatened other companies’ plans for expansion and survival. Certainly, no firm would abandon its own plans just because a bigger enterprise had moved to monopolise the market. The truth is, the Dangote Refinery can only survive if it operates without any competition locally….

In my column last week, I discussed how Trump’s victory could impact on Africa, noting that his presidency might not be as bad for Africa as generally thought.  This week I will explore further how his election as the 47th President of the United States could possibly affect the Russo-Ukraine war. The war has been going on since February 2022.

The general assumption is that Trump would pursue a somewhat isolationist policy within the framework of his campaign slogan of Make America Great Again, MAGA, and that he would more likely pull all the funding for Ukraine. During the campaign, Trump had derisively called Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, the greatest salesman in history, implying that he had through sheer marketing skills got more than he deserved from the US and other NATO members who had been supporting his war efforts.

Trump had also suggested that he could impose a blanket 20 per cent tariff on all goods imported into the U.S., with a tariff of up to 60 per cent for Chinese products and one as high as 2,000 per cent on vehicles built in Mexico. For the European Union, meanwhile, Trump has said the 27-nation bloc will pay a “big price” for not buying enough American exports.

Zelensky himself reinforced this belief that the second coming of Trump might be bad news for Ukraine when, after a telephone conversation with Trump following the latter’s electoral victory over Kamala Harris, he told his countrymen and women that he was certain that the war with Russia would “end sooner” than it would have been once Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States in January 2025. “It is certain that the war will end sooner with the policies of the team that will now lead the White House. This is their approach, their promise to their citizens,” he was reported to have said in an interview with the Ukrainian media outlet, Suspilne. He added that Ukraine “must do everything so that this war ends next year, ends through diplomatic means”.  

It should be noted that the US has been the biggest arms supplier to Ukraine in the course of the war. For instance, between February 2022 when the war began to the end of June 2024, it delivered or committed to deliver weapons and equipment worth $55.5bn (£41.5bn), according to the German research organisation, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. At present the momentum in the war seems to be with the Russians. For instance, Russia is reportedly winning significant swathes of territory in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s recent seizure of the strategically important city of Vuhledar appears to have cleared the way for possible Moscow’s advances deeper into Ukraine.

It is also reported that Moscow is preparing for an offensive using about 10,000 North Korean soldiers and about 40,000 Russians in the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces have been struggling to defend the territory they captured during the summer. With this picture in mind, it is understandable why there are apprehensions among Ukrainians and their supporters in the war. The thinking appears to be that the country should use the remaining part of the supportive Biden presidency to do whatever they can to push back the Russians and strengthen their bargaining position before Trump becomes the substantive President in January 2025 and forces them into a negotiating table. Recently, it was announced that the Biden administration has allowed Ukraine to use long-range American missiles against targets in Russia in a move that would mark a new round of tension in the war. 

There is no doubt that Trump would like to reduce or drastically cut funding to Ukraine in keeping with his campaign promise of America First. There are however other considerations that might influence his decisions on the Ukraine war:

The first is that Trump, who regards himself as the ultimate dealmaker, is a very transactional politician – and might be open to be influenced by Ukraine or the Europeans depending on the sort of ‘deal’ he is offered. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who spoke with Trump after the US election, alluded to this when he reportedly told the German media that the incoming US leader had a “more nuanced” position on the war than was commonly assumed. It has been suggested that Zelensky could offer two ‘deals’ to Trump: The first will be for Ukrainian troops to replace some American units in Europe after the war in order to reduce the cost of America’s commitment to NATO. The second could be opening up some of Ukraine’s resources to the US and other Western allies. Offers such as these would, however, be contingent upon Ukraine winning the war and being admitted into NATO – which at present is far from certain.

The second consideration for Trump  is geopolitical and geo strategic. South Korea, an American ally, has reportedly supplied hundreds of thousands of artillery shells to Ukraine via the United States and had also pledged a $2.3bn low-interest loan to Kyiv. South Korea is the world’s 10th-largest arms exporter and its clients already include four nations that border Russia – Poland, Estonia, Finland and Norway. The South Korean systems are meant to supplement Patriots, the advanced American air defence systems.  It is said that the South Korean laser needs nothing but electricity – and could be deployed to the Ukrainian cities that have no Patriots or similar Western or Taiwanese air defence systems. A crucial question is whether Trump would be insensitive to deals entered with Kiev by its ally South Korea in his decision on how he wants the Ukrainian war to end or even in any decision to stop funding Ukraine’s war efforts. 

Related to the above  is the report that around 10,000 North Koreans, USA’s historical enemy, has joined the war on the Russian side, with the possibility of Belarus also joining. Following the axiom that the friend to my enemy is my enemy or at least not to be trusted, the increasing collaboration between North Korea and Russia is also a factor to be taken into consideration by Trump in his decision on the Russo-Ukraine war. Similarly, claims by Ukraine’s Western allies in September 2024 that Iran, another enemy of the West, has sent short-range ballistic missiles to Russia in a major escalation – a claim Tehran has rejected as “completely baseless and false” –  will be another consideration.  

A third major consideration that could influence Trump’s decision is the Truman Doctrine that makes it an article of faith during the Cold War for the US to seek to contain Soviet expansionism. There have been signs of America’s revival of the Truman Doctrine since the Putin presidency, especially after Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014. Russia has not hidden its desire to create a multipolar world in a bid to overthrow or whittle down the influence of the current Western dominated security and governance systems around the world.  Irrespective of the nature of the personal relationship between Putin and Trump, it is unlikely that Trump would not respond to a resurgent Russia’s attempt to whittle down its global influence.

As a dealmaker, Trump is likely to be looking for a deal which would reduce the US military presence in Europe, drastically cut the military assistance to Ukraine, and give Kiev a long term hope of joining NATO in exchange for territorial concessions to  Russia. In this way, Trump would be able to publicly claim that he won the peace without undermining NATO  and without  making Russia appear the outright winner in any diplomatic negotiations to end the war.

However the war ends, it will be a mixed bag for the world and Africa globally. For instance, African countries that benefit from the current Western sanctions against Russia would have to re-adjust if Western sanctions are eased while those that have been hurt by the sanctions, especially importers of wheat and fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine, may heave a sigh of relief. 

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.

Fela Durotoye, a Nigerian public speaker, says he worked in the administration of President Bola Tinubu for just six months without receiving a salary.

In October 2023, Tinubu appointed Durotoye as senior special assistant on national values and social justice.

Following Tinubu’s appointment of Daniel Bwala as special adviser on public communications and media, on Friday, some Nigerians on social media criticised the president for appointing a plethora of media aides without considering the cost of governance.

In a 13-man list that went viral on social media, Durotoye was named as one of the media aides to the president.

In an opinion piece published on Monday, Durotoye said his appointment as aide to the president ended in March 2024.

He added that throughout the six months of his appointment as the president’s aide, he didn’t receive any salary, allowance, or upkeep as a government official.

“Like many other issues in the public discourse, social commentary often has the tendency to overgeneralise; and broad assumptions may sometimes lead to errors of misconceptions, misstatements and misinformation,” Durotoye said.

“One of such errors is in a recent case study that went viral on social media regarding the current media team of the president, where my name was listed as one of the president’s media aides. Unfortunately, this statement needs to be updated to accurately reflect the current media team of the president.

“For clarity, I served briefly in the role of Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Values and Social Justice (SSA-NVSJ) for a tenure of six months, from October 2023 to March 2024.

“When I was invited to serve in this administration, I expressed, as a condition for accepting the call, my desire to NOT receive a salary from the government, as I considered this to be my service to my nation.

“When I finally accepted the role in October 2023, it was on the condition that I would not receive any salary or allowances. During my six-month tenure, I did not accept any government funds for my service, expenses, or upkeep.

“I rented my apartment and took my personal car to Abuja. My utility cost, fuel cost and upkeep were all borne by me and I never requested a reimbursement from the government for any expenses I incurred. Everything I contributed—time, effort, and resources—was paid for by me and my family.”

[TheCable]

President Bola Tinubu has re-designated the positions of two recently appointed officials in the State House media and communications team to enhance efficiency within the government's communication machinery.

The restructuring is as follows:

1. Mr. Sunday Dare – hitherto Special Adviser on Public Communication and National Orientation is now Special Adviser, Media and Public Communications.

2. Mr. Daniel Bwala – announced last week as Special Adviser, Media and Public Communication, is now Special Adviser Policy Communication.

These appointments, along with the existing role of Special Adviser, Information and Strategy , underscore that there is no single individual spokesperson for the Presidency.

Instead, all the three Special Advisers will collectively serve as spokespersons for the government.

This approach aims to ensure effective and consistent communication of government policies, decisions, and engagements.

Bayo Onanuga
Special Adviser to the President
(Information and Strategy)

President-Elect Donald Trump, set to assume office as the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025, is preparing to usher in transformative changes that are already evident in the composition of his team. These changes, so striking, might have been considered heretical during historical periods of rigid orthodoxy, such as the Age of Inquisitions.

In those times, heresy—defined as expressing opinions that sharply contradicted established beliefs—was often met with severe punishments, well-documented and notorious enough to need no recounting. Today, Trump’s detractors, particularly the “Never Trumpers” who champion adherence to conventional political norms, might view him as guilty of defying what they see as the “correct” political dogma.

This perception may partly explain why Trump, who frequently labels his opponents the “radical left,” faced extreme resistance throughout his political journey. Evidently, his adversaries sought to thwart his resurgence through three significant attempts: impeachment, imprisonment, and even assassination—all of which, ultimately failed due to Trump’s unwavering faith in himself and indefatigable spirit.

To understand the depth of resistance Trump faces, one can draw parallels with historical instances where revolutionary ideas were met with fierce opposition. In the past, when groundbreaking discoveries challenged widely held beliefs—such as the realization that the Earth was not flat but spherical—those who introduced such ideas were often vilified, persecuted, or even killed for defying established norms. These innovators were seen as threats to the existing order, just as Trump’s unconventional approach has unsettled the entrenched political establishment in Washington.

The intertwining of religion and governance in historical eras often justified persecution under the guise of upholding divine order. In the modern context, Trump’s legal battles, impeachment proceedings, and public scrutiny evoke similar resistance to change—albeit in a political rather than theological sense.

Democracy, as a system of governance, emerged in Athens, Greece, during the 5th century BCE and was later refined by philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle. Over time, it evolved through influences from thinkers like John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in France leading to its various manifestations around the world. Examples include the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom and the presidential system in the United States and India.

Despite its enduring prominence, democracy has coexisted with alternative governance systems, including monarchies, oligarchies, and diarchies, which remain prevalent in parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Japan. Some nations, like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have embraced “democratic socialism,” blending socialist economic policies with democratic governance—a stark contrast to the capitalist inclinations of the United States and much of the global West.

Trump’s leadership style signals a potential departure from the entrenched democratic norms that have shaped governance since the Byzantine era. His proposed reforms—and the unconventional choices for his cabinet—suggest a willingness to disrupt traditional politics in favor of a more transformative approach.

It is conceivable that by the end of his term, President Trump could draw comparisons to Constantine the Great, the Roman leader whose political and administrative reforms in the 4th century CE significantly influenced governance and shaped elements of democracy as we know it today.

Unsurprisingly, the prospect of such sweeping changes has unsettled Washington’s political class. These traditionalists, deeply rooted in the bureaucratic structures that have defined their careers, now face the disruptive reality of Trump’s second term—a term that promises to challenge the status quo and redefine the fabric of American governance.

The impending shift in U.S. leadership under President-Elect Donald Trump is generating significant anxiety, not just in Washington but globally. U.S. allies in NATO, trading partners like China, and adversaries such as Iran are all bracing for potential changes. In Africa, concern is also evident, compounded by unfounded allegations from Trump’s critics—referred to as “Never Trumpers”—who falsely claim that he harbors disdain for Black people in the U.S and on the African continent.

For years, a baseless narrative has circulated, alleging that Trump referred to African nations as “shithole countries.” This claim is unfounded, as Africa is a continent, not a single country, making it implausible that Trump made such a statement in the form attributed to him. These rumors appear to be part of a deliberate attempt by detractors to sow discord between Trump and Black communities worldwide.

In reality, the relationship between Africa and a second Trump administration is likely to be complex and multidimensional. However, as an analysts l would argue that Trump’s “America First” approach may introduce protectionist policies that could disrupt global trade, with potential repercussions for African economies. For instance, a reevaluation of trade initiatives such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) or a preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral ones could challenge Africa’s economic landscape, particularly if these moves undermine the African Continental Free Trade Area.

However, these challenges also present opportunities since Africa is a new frontier. So, if African nations act decisively, they could position themselves as viable alternatives in global supply chains, particularly in light of Trump’s campaign promise to impose a 16% tariff on imports from China. By stepping into roles vacated by China, African countries have the potential to strengthen economic ties with the U.S. under a Trump-led administration. This could be achieved through upgraded bilateral trade agreements or a reimagined “AGOA 2.0” that aligns with Trump’s vision. Who knows, there could even be Trump Tower in Abuja in the forseable future.

Security collaboration is another potential area of alignment. Strengthening the U.S. Africa Command to provide enhanced counterterrorism support could bolster peace and stability across the continent. Such efforts are critical for creating a secure environment conducive to trade and investment. Programs like Prosper Africa, launched in 2019 to promote U.S.-Africa trade and investment, could see renewed momentum if insecurity on the continent is addressed.

Ultimately, the trajectory of U.S.-Africa relations under Trump’s leadership will depend on several factors, including his administration’s policies, the responsiveness of African governments, and broader global economic trends. As such, African leaders must seize this moment to leverage emerging opportunities, particularly by adopting a strategic and business-oriented approach to engagement with the U.S.
Already, the biggest American embassy in the world is under construction in Eko Atlantic City, Lagos. That to me is a demonstration of US.to Nigeria as a development partner. It goes without saying that embassys are veritable international facilitators.

For Africans—and Nigerians in particular—this could be a chance to benefit from Trump’s presidency if leaders align with the evolving U.S. policy framework. With the U.S., the world’s largest economy, potentially transitioning from its “global policeman” role to a leading creator of global wealth, Africa could capitalize on this shift for mutual gain.

Turning to Trump’s unique and controversial persona, parallels can be drawn between his experiences and those of historical visionaries who challenged prevailing orthodoxy. Just as the discovery that the Earth was spherical contradicted the long-held belief in its flatness, Trump’s unorthodox positions—such as his initial skepticism about the catastrophic framing of COVID-19—have made him a target of political and media backlash.

These challenges are reminiscent of times in history when those who defied conventional wisdom faced severe criticism.

Throughout history, those who delivered groundbreaking insights or defied orthodoxy often faced resistance or persecution from entrenched authorities. This historical pattern mirrors the opposition that President-Elect Donald Trump is encountering from traditional politicians in Washington, as his unconventional policies aim to challenge the status quo and serve the interests of the more than 76.5 million Americans who decisively supported him.

Ancient Greek philosophers set the precedent for challenging established norms with transformative discoveries. Pythagoras (c. 570–495 BCE) observed the Earth’s shadow during lunar eclipses and hypothesized a spherical Earth, a theory further supported by Aristotle (384–322 BCE) through observations of disappearing ships on the horizon and shifting constellations. Eratosthenes (276–194 BCE) even calculated the Earth’s circumference with remarkable precision. Despite their significant contributions, these thinkers often faced skepticism and resistance from the leaders of their time.

Similarly, heliocentrism, first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310–230 BCE) and later revived by Copernicus (1473–1543 CE), met staunch opposition. The Catholic Church opposed Copernicus’ model, and advocates like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei faced severe consequences—Bruno was executed, and Galileo was confined to house arrest for defending the idea of a Sun-centered universe.

Trump’s political journey bears striking parallels to the struggles of these historical figures. Like them, he has faced significant resistance—allegations of election fraud in 2020, impeachment efforts, legal challenges, and even threats to his life during the 2024 campaign. Yet, his return to the presidency, set for January 20, 2025, underscores his resilience and broad support. The Republican Party’s simultaneous control of the Senate and the House of Representatives—a first in a century—further highlights the movement he has built.

Trump’s determination recalls figures like Ferdinand Magellan, whose historic circumnavigation proved the Earth’s spherical shape. Just as Magellan’s expedition was driven by perseverance, Trump’s commitment to “draining the Washington swamp” and instituting bold reforms is poised to reshape the U.S. political landscape.

This anticipated transformation is comparable to other seismic shifts in human understanding, such as the visual confirmation of the Earth’s shape via 20th-century satellite imagery or the revolutionary effects of artificial intelligence and social media. These innovations redefined how humanity interacts with the world, much like Trump’s policies are expected to redefine U.S. governance and global influence.

In preparation for his second term, Trump has begun assembling a team reflective of his unorthodox approach. He has appointed long-time ally Susie Wiles as Chief of Staff, crediting her for his electoral success. Key nominations include Tom Homan as Border Czar, Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and former Congressman Matt Gaetz as Attorney General.

Other notable appointees include Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, as Director of National Intelligence; Chris Wright, an oil industry executive, as Energy Secretary; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a controversial figure due to his stance on vaccines, as Public Health Secretary. These choices signal Trump’s intention to challenge conventional governance and implement transformative changes during his upcoming term.

Former serviceman Doug Collins, known for defending Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial, has been appointed as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, while North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, with extensive business and governance experience, has been named Secretary of the Interior. John Ratcliffe will serve as CIA Director, and Kristi Noem has been chosen as Secretary of Homeland Security. Matt Gartz, defense secretary nominee has generated a lot of furore as it has been aledged that he had been accused of some improprieties. Even the current defense secretary ,Lloyed Austin suffered a similar push back based ruled that could have precluded him from eligible but in the end he received confirmation from the senate.

Among Trump’s appointments, the most innovative is the creation of a new federal agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This agency will be led by tech billionaire Elon Musk and former Republican rival Vivek Ramaswamy. DOGE’s mission is to streamline government by reducing excessive regulations, cutting wasteful spending, and restructuring federal agencies. Announcing the initiative, Trump stated:

“I am pleased to announce that the great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’). Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excessive regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies—essential to the ‘Save America’ movement. This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in government waste, which is a lot of people!”

These reforms are expected to challenge Washington’s entrenched systems, ushering in an era of efficiency and innovation that could influence global governance trends for years to come.

Interestingly, Trump’s DOGE initiative draws parallels to Nigeria’s 2012 Oronsaye Report, which outlined measures to reduce governance costs by consolidating Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs). Despite its potential, the report has been largely ignored for over a decade, contributing to Nigeria’s current debt crisis, which the Debt Management Office estimates currently N134.3 trillion. President Bola Tinubu’s recent reforms, such as removing fuel subsidies and devaluing the naira, align with Trump’s bold approach and could serve as inspiration for addressing Nigeria’s governance challenges.

Trump is also targeting “wokeism,” a term that originally referred to awareness of social injustices but has evolved into a critique of perceived political overreach and divisiveness. Trump’s opposition to wokeism resonates with financial giants like Elon Musk, who joined his campaign partly due to personal experiences—Musk’s son underwent a gender transition, a decision Musk attributed to ideological influences propagated in US.schools to minors which he opposes. Musk reportedly contributed $118 million to support Trump’s campaign and challenge cultural trends they see as harmful.

Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 will make him only the second U.S. president, after Grover Cleveland, to serve two non-consecutive terms. In his victory speech, Trump described this achievement as the “greatest political movement of all time” and vowed to restore the country’s values, saying:

“There’s never been anything like this in this country, and maybe now it’s going to reach a new level of importance because we’re going to help our country heal. We have a country that needs help, and it needs help very badly.”

Trump’s reforms aim to reset America’s moral compass, reflecting the values of its Founding Fathers and challenging what he perceives as a decline in societal ethics. His focus on combating wokeism and restoring traditional principles underpins his broader vision to Make America Great Again (MAGA).

While implementing these changes will be complex, Trump’s presidency could redefine governance and democracy for the modern era. Much like Athens pioneered democracy in the 5th century BCE, Trump’s efforts may reshape democratic systems globally. His forthcoming term, marked by ambitious reforms, will likely serve as a critical test for the resilience and adaptability of American democracy.
Trump’s confidence is underpinned by the over 75million American electorate who gave him their mandate to become the 47th president and drain the swamp in Washington.

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