MEXICO has drug cartels which can also be violent. One of the most infamous drug lords, Joaquin Archivaldo ‘El-Chapo’ Guzman, former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel is serving a life sentence in the United States, US. The drug cartels are a problem to Mexico which has other related challenges. First is the seeming insatiable appetite of Americans for drugs which provides a ready market. 

The second is the ceaseless flow of arms from the US to Mexico; some half a million annually, which arms the cartels, and make them difficult to bring down. However, the solution of some American leaders is not to tackle these challenges, but to militarily invade neigbouring Mexico allegedly to take out the drug cartels and cut down insecurity.

On March 15, 2023, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia tweeted: “Our US military needs to take action against the Mexican cartels.” She was reacting to a claimed explosive device wrapped in duct tape thrown from Mexico, which turned out to be sand. That she was wrong on the alleged explosive did not deter her from the campaign to invade a sovereign country. Two months earlier, 39-year-old Representative Daniel Reed Crenshaw of Texas Second Congressional District and a former Navy SEAL, had introduced a bill to “authorise the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilisation in the Western Hemisphere.”

As if on cue, former American Attorney General, William P. Barr in a piece titled: “The U.S. must defeat Mexico’s drug cartels” in the March 2, 2023 issue of the Wall Street Journal thundered: “America can no longer tolerate narco-terrorist cartels. Operating from havens in Mexico, their production of deadly drugs on an industrial scale is flooding our country with this poison. The time is long past to deal with this outrage decisively. Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) and Michael Waltz (R., Fla.) have proposed a joint resolution giving the president authority to use the U.S. military against these cartels in Mexico. This is a necessary step and puts the focus where it must be.”

The next day, Senators Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, and John Kennedy, Louisiana, demanded the US invades Mexico. Graham said: “Drug cartels in Mexico have been terrorising Americans for decades. We are going to unleash the fury and might of the U.S. against these cartels. We are going to destroy their business model and their lifestyle because our national security and the security of the United States as a whole depends on us taking this decisive action (we will) give the military the authority to go after these organisations wherever they exist. Not to invade Mexico. Not to shoot Mexican airplanes down. But to destroy drug labs that are poisoning Americans.”

Interesting. American politicians want to teach the world how to militarily attack alleged drug laboratories spread across neigbourhoods in a sovereign country without invading the country. It is the classic case of wanting to make omelette without cracking an egg. So what would the Mexicans be doing, watching civilians killed in their homes and in crossfire without coming to the defence of their innocent citizens? Conversely, will the US allow or watch the Mexican military attack alleged drug cartels in America?

The irony is that the most insecure country in the region, and one of the most insecure in the world is the US. Apart from other violent crimes, in the last 14 weeks, it has witnessed more than 160 mass shootings with each of those taking at least four lives. Just this Saturday, April 15, Alexis Dowdell was holding her Sweet Sixteen Birthday in Alabama. There were rumours that somebody at the party had a gun. The rumours filtered into her home, and her 18-year-old brother Phil, came to get her. LaTonya Allen, her mother also arrived, turned on the lights, went to the DJ booth and announced that whoever had a firearm should leave the party. Since nobody spoke, she turned off the lights to allow the party go on.

Then, gunfire erupted. Alexis whose brother pushed her down when the guns began to boom said: “All of a sudden you hear gunshots and you just see everybody running towards the door and people falling and screaming.” After the shooting died down, four persons, including her brother, lay dead with 32 injured. Another set of sacrificial lambs for the American gun culture in which for profit, lives and limbs are ceaselessly sacrificed to the gods of the gun industry. To clarify, the overwhelming majority of Americans are against the free flow of arms. In fact, 67 per cent of Americans support a ban on military and assault-style weapons. But they face an overfed war industry that makes huge profits from virtually unrestrained arms trade. So, the populace is forced to go into periodic mourning of children and teenagers, young and old, men and women cut down in the insanity called gun violence.

The US gun culture is a suicidal one from the country that needs to be saved from itself; America has a population of 331.9 million but with 393 million guns in private hands or 120.5 firearms for every 100 American residents. This is about 46 per cent of the total firearms in civilian hands worldwide. The US military itself, holds 4.5 million firearms. In contrast, China with a 1.412 billion population or four and half times the American population, has 49.7 million guns in private hands. While there are all sorts of gun markets in US, Mexico has only one gun store from which people can buy firearms legally.

The American campaign to take out drug laboratories in Mexico is a mere camouflage to invade a neighbour it cannot control and whose President Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador is quite popular. It is also an attempt by American companies to seize Mexico’s resources and turn that country into their own market. The Americans have not forgotten that large swaths of their country like Texas and California were taken by force from Mexico. Some of their politicians might be seeking new ways to place their hands on more Mexican territories.

The fact is that a new world economic and political order is evolving and the American empire might soon lose its dollar, economic, financial and military dominance. Nobody should expect it to go down peacefully and quietly; its establishment would put up a struggle, including overthrowing non-compliant governments and invading other countries. The current campaign to invade Mexico on the excuse that it has violent drug gangs may just be the first step in its attempts to stem the tide of history.

The controversy over the constitutional electoral hurdle a candidate with his gaze fixed on the presidential seat at Aso Rock must clear will continue to befog political discourse until the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement. The debate has been fierce among lawyers as well as politicians. The impassioned nature of the debate has put a great many on edge about what the constitutional requirement actually stipulates with the special reference to Abuja. Is scoring 25 percent of the votes cast in Abuja mandatory? Predictably, some lawyers believe it is, while others vehemently disagree. Some lawyers say the Supreme Court has made a pronouncement on the subject before. That Abuja is to be regarded as a state, yes; but that if a candidate does not scale the hurdle of a 25 percent score, he cannot mount the saddle, not to the recollection of many people who should know. We have Sir Robert Clarke S.A.N.; Dr. Ajulo and Senator Saidu to thank for their enlightenment. Robert Clarke and Saidu said making winning a 25 percent score mandatory in the Federal Capital Territory would be tantamount to according Abuja superiority over every other state in the country. That cannot be the intendment of the framers of the constitution. The constitution recognises the Federal Capital Territory as a state quite alright. It is understandable, with the President overseeing it as a state.

The intendment could not have been to arm it with veto power such that if 36 states in the country say yes, but Abuja says no, Abuja would carry the day. It would mean Abuja can overturn the choice of 29 states put together as in the case of Bola Ahmed Tinubu—Abuja with a current population of 3,840,000. In 2022, the metro area population was 3,652,000. The number of registered voters in Delta State is 3,221,697. That of Oyo State is 3,276,675. The voter population in the two states beats that of Abuja. Rivers alone has a 5,537,190 voter population. The Federal Capital Territory is trailed by Katsina with 3,516,719 registered voters. Kaduna: 4,335,208. Kano: 5,921,370 and Lagos with the highest voter population of 7,060,195. If scoring 25 percent in Abuja is an unassailable conditionality, it would mean whatever choice is made in Abuja must be superior to the choice made by any other state or a combination of them, implying that voters everywhere else are second-class citizens. That certainly is absurd, indeed provocatively ridiculous.

There are 93.4 million Nigerians on the voter register. INEC reported that only 87,209,007 which are 93 percent collected their Permanent Voters’ Cards (PVCs). Even then, only 25,286,616 voters, that is 28.63 percent of all eligible voters in Nigeria, participated in the Presidential election, with voter turn-out dropping from one election cycle to the other. In 2011, voter participation was 53.7 percent which was described as impressive. This declined to 43.7 percent in 2015. In 2019, it came down to 34.75 percent. This year, the participation went further down to 28.63 percent. Increasing voter apathy is a subject for another day. Why are Nigerians staying away from polling booths? It is a serious matter for reflection.

In spite of voter apathy, we must worry about the process and what the Constitution says. I can see why it may be tempting for the Labour Party to throw the Abuja cut-off mark into the faces of everybody, insisting that a Presidential candidate must have 25 percent of the votes cast in addition to the 25 percent in two-thirds of all the states of the Federation. In Abuja the Labour Party won by a very wide margin — Labour Party: 170,392 beating APC to 29,596 and PDP to 26,407 votes. But we cannot look at Abuja alone. Before the supplementary elections of last Saturday, 15 April 2023, APC already had 57 Senators; PDP, 28 Senators and Labour Party, 6. In the House of Representatives, APC was already ahead, boasting 162 Seats, PDP, 102 and LP, 34.

In the words of the Constitution, Section 134, sub-section (2): “A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election—
(a) he has the highest number of the votes cast at the election; and
(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

The bone of contention is the sub-section (2). The argument has been left to mainly lawyers to beam light on what the section is saying, yet we know that hardly do we have two lawyers agree on the meaning, the letters, and the spirit of a statute. Statutes everywhere are clothed in obscurity. The more elements of obfuscation a draftsman can infuse into a law, it would appear, the closer to winning a gold medal he stands. It requires a special skill. And only judges can disentangle the knots. With the sword of Damocles hanging on the head of the nation, with boasts and threats flying from some directions, perhaps we should implore linguists, grammar experts, and those who pre-occupy themselves with language, to come to our rescue. Take Sub-section (2) (b), for instance, that is the crux of the disputation, speaking as a layman, inserting a comma between “…one-quarter of votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” to read “… one-quarter of votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all States of the Federation, and the Federal Capital, Abuja.” The use of commas in the latter rendition gives Abuja a special place as a state among her sister states. That is when the argument that to be pronounced a President is conditional on scoring 25 percent in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, can, in my view hold water. That is when it can be said it is mandatory for a Presidential candidate to score 25 percent before he can be said to have won. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines comma as a punctuation indicating a break made for the sake of clarity. It goes on to state that it is derived from “16c Latin, from Greek comma short clause.” Over to you, Professor Segun Awonusi! Over to you Prof. Olatunji Dare; Prof. Jemie; Henry Odukomaiya and George Okoro, my bosses; Dan Agbese; Dr. Chidi Amuta; Ray Ekpu, and Dr. Lasisi Olagunju!! Banji Adisa, my colleague, where are you? Or perhaps we summon Adamu Ciroma or famous linguist Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) from the Beyond. There are many more that worry about the correct use of the English language. Will Wale Edun and Yemi Ogunbiyi step forward, please, and be counted?!

In the absence of a comma, or semi-colon in the sub-section, no special attention is being drawn to FCT. Abuja as a state is not any more crucial than any other state in the Federation. If a candidate were to win in 24 states and he needs an additional state to make 25, the Abuja score of 25 percent is as good as the score in any other state. He would have met the mandatory number of states in addition to having the highest number of votes, which the grundnorm stipulates, to become the victor. If he were to win in 30 states but fails to add Abuja to his kitty, he has not lost anything because a loss there is not any threatening than not scoring 25 percent in Ebonyi State or Yobe State.

All said we await the pronouncement of the Justices who will be expected to draw on their learning, wisdom, and keen sense of justice.

Back To The Basics
My thoughts in the foregoing on the essence of clarity of language remind me of a piece I wrote on these pages 30 years ago, directed at the erudite Professor, Ben Nwabueze. The article was captioned Professor Nwabueze, please! “Back to basics.” Prof. was Education Secretary the nomenclature that would go today for Minister of Education. The article making reference to International Express, a weekly at the time, read in part:

“SCHOOL English classes are set to return to basic, traditional lessons in grammar, punctuation and spelling. New guidelines will finally banish ‘modern’ methods. Under plans drawn up by government advisers, teachers will be told to encourage pupils as young as six to speak standard English and not local dialect.”

I am recalling the column to see if anything has changed on the subject in many quarters over the years. The publication continues:

“OUT go the remains of trendy teaching methods from the 70s. IN are correct use of capital letters and full stops by the age of seven, commas by the age of 11, apostrophes and speech marks by 13, and colons by 16. The National Curriculum Council also wanted 16-year-olds to be taught the error of split infinitives like ‘to boldly go’ and youngsters to read by the traditional method of sounding letters”. I did state at the time:

“The above culled from International Express, a weekly, should interest our Education Secretary, Professor Ben Nwabueze. And if I may add: he should return us to pre-1966, that is the era before rigour was taken out of the study of English language in secondary schools, the era students familiarized themselves with ‘subject and predicate,’ ‘clause analysis,’ ‘restricted and unrestricted parenthesis.” It was when students were able to identify a ‘nominative absolute,’ and students of Literature could do literary appreciation of a work.” They could tell when to use the phrases ‘Owing to’ and ‘Due to.’

“These days, even in respectable quarters, you hear ‘Mr. President will be the Chief Guest of Honour at Ereko. He will be in town tomorrow.’ If I remember my conjugation well, ‘Mr. President’ is a Vocative Case, not a Nominative. It should be ‘The President will be the Chief Guest of Honour at Ereko.’ Where the word President is preceded by Mr., it becomes vocative: “Mr. President, Sir!’ or ‘Mr. Speaker, Sir!’

“Why the concern over the declining standard of English language, it may be asked. What is wrong with the new words being manufactured to tear down gender barriers? There is a lot wrong with introducing distortions into a language. Language is the mode of expression of a people. Words which they press out from within them and string together form sentences which they cloak in sound—the spoken word. Any distortion to a language obviously diminishes its perfection. The language retrogresses, and in the process narrows the range of vision and dims the clarity of the people who use it. They are dragged down.

“The point being made will be appreciated better if we draw from a higher perception of the word with which any language is formed. Words as we are permitted to know today, is a gift to human beings, for it is a faint reflection of the sacred Word which is Life and out of which Creation arose following the great Word of the Most High, the Almighty: “Let there be Light.” The Word being radiation of Divine Will formed Itself into the Living Cross, the radiating, living form of Truth. It was from the Cross, its radiations that Creation issued. Thus, Cross is the Truth, the Law. The Cross was seen by those gifted radiating behind the Lord Christ, being Life and Truth and Dove, signifying the Power of the Holy Spirit above His Head—both testifying His Identity when He lived on earth among us. We owe our existence to the Word, to the Cross. Everything swings in the Word, in the Cross, in the Law.

“Thus our words are formed under the pressure of the Law. These words ought to be invested with nothing other than their natural purity and approached in awe, reverence so that they can formingly also bring beauty, quickening, upliftment, nobility to us and our environment. Forms arise from the meaning of words even if a different meaning from what was uttered was unintended. From the foregoing, we can see that language is much more important than the levity with which various peoples have tended to treat it. The word, the language moulds a people. We now know through recognition afforded by higher knowledge that you can tell the nature of a people from the way they speak. A ponderous language forms a ponderous people. A man of polish cares about his language, and he speaks sparingly!
The early educationists admonished their pupils to use language correctly, to write and speak it well. They encouraged the pupils to watch their diction. Queen’s English was the standard. The picture one gets reflecting on Queen’s English is that of grace, majesty, polish and propriety. It is not the same picture Pidgin English flashes before our gaze or presents to our ears. A slang, broken English must produce a distorted, broken people, considering the power of language. A soothing word brings peace and harmony. An idle, careless talk causes harm and strains relationships. Good writing gladdens the heart of the reader. And most of us enjoy listening to good speakers: Professor Ayo Banjo; Dr. Stanley Macebuh, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, Professor Alfred Opubor, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, Chief Segun Olusola to mention but a few in public glare. We should not shrink from protecting whatever language we choose to speak.

“The discussion here is not exhaustive. The human word will be treated fully at some other time.

“Professor Nwabueze, one more assignment before you go in addition to returning voluntary agency schools to their owners: Back to basics.”

That was 30 years ago. What has changed if I may ask?

What played out last weekend in Adamawa State during the supplementary gubernatorial poll can best be described as attempts by desperate politicians to subvert democracy and undermine the will of the people. The electoral heist must be totally condemned in all its ramifications.

In the show of shame in broad daylight, the whole world was shocked to see the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Hudu Yunusa-Ari, on television illegally announcing Senator Aishat “Binani” Dahiru, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the winner of the election when results from 10 local councils were still being expected. How low can we get?

The electoral law does not recognise RECs to collate and announce election results in the states; that is the job of the Returning Officer. So, what Yunusa-Ari did was brazen, illegal and it could only have been inspired by an animal boldness of the worst kind.

Instead of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) summoning Yunusa-Ari to Abuja, he should have been arrested in Yola immediately and made to face the full wrath of the law. What happened next is even more shocking: Senator BInani, whom Yunusa-Ari declared illegally as the winner, read an acceptance speech, thanking the people of Adamawa State for electing her.

That was a lie from the pit of hell; she was not elected because she did not win the election. Binani is desperate to set a record as the first female governor in Nigeria but she has to be properly elected – not through the backdoor, subterfuge or illegality.

We may have seen bad behaviours displayed by politicians in the past but what Senator Binani and her enablers did at a time we are trying to improve on the electoral process takes the cake. How far will politicians go in the theatre of the absurd?

On top of this travesty and brazen shenanigan, Binani approached a High Court in Abuja, seeking a judicial review in an attempt to stop INEC from voiding her illegal declaration as the “winner” of the governorship poll as announced by Yunusa-Ari.

I have never seen anything like this before. If we truly want to be honest with ourselves, politicians are the biggest threats to our democracy.

What the Adamawa REC and Binani have done should come with consequences; otherwise it will become a standard playbook for other politicians who do not have any sense of shame or higher purpose.

Because of Yunusa-Ari’s egregious conduct, another national commissioner deployed to Adamawa for the supplementary poll, was beaten black and blue and then stripped naked. It was clearly a case of the anger of the mob.

Yunusa-Ari appeared defiant on the day he made the illegal announcement in the presence of security personnel. He was confronted by onlookers in the room that he had no powers to announce the winner. He was also reminded that it was the holy month of Ramadan – the ninth month of the Muslim year, during which strict fasting, prayer and deep reflections are observed from dawn to sunset.

In his desperation, the Adamawa REC who has now been disowned by INEC set aside all the entreaties and spiritual injunctions. There must have been something in it for him to have taken such risk for a zero-sum game.

Before the supplementary governorship elections in Kebbi and Adamawa States, INEC had been in the eye of the storm. The reputation of the electoral umpire had taken severe beating arising from the previous elections in February and March.

INEC had the opportunity to redeem its image but, apparently, the likes of Yunusa-Ari with his gang of co-conspirators had other plans. There was now palpable tension in Adamawa State which could have led to a breakdown of law and order.

As it turned out, INEC worked very hard to do damage control. Last Sunday, the electoral body announced that the REC illegally announced the winner which was declared null and void.

In order to calm frayed nerves, INEC suspended the collation of results and the supplementary election. INEC’s statement did not leave anyone in doubt. “The attention of the Commission has been drawn to a purported declaration of a winner in the Adamawa Governorship election by the Resident Electoral Commissioner even when the process has not been concluded.

“The action of the REC is a usurpation of the power of the Returning Officer. It is null and void and of no effect. Consequently, the collation of the results of the supplementary election is hereby suspended.”

Thankfully, INEC concluded the exercise and declared the incumbent governor, Ahmadu Fintiri, as the winner of the governorship poll. Any further delay would have caused unnecessary anxieties for mob action and violence.

However, the facts of the matter must stand. Before the collation exercise was suspended on Saturday night, Binani was nowhere near winning the election as she was trailing Ahmadu Fintiri, the incumbent governor and candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). By this time, results from 10 local councils had been announced.

Nigerians were outraged by Yunusa-Ari’s unacceptable conduct and disregarded the announcement that he made. In the meantime, no one has told us where Mele Lamido, the Returning Officer, has been hiding; he just disappeared into thin air.

Was he part of the plot to sabotage the will of the people of Adamawa State? Could it be that the RO did not agree with the REC to announce Binani as the winner without results from all the 69 polling units?

The drama in Adamawa State happens in other states and it is a reflection of our inverted value system: we condone impunity without consequences and it has gone to great lengths to damage the moral fabric of society.

For example, why would a parent buy exam question papers for his/her children to gain undue advantage? The same parent will also join those accusing INEC of improper conduct of our elections. Isn’t that hypocrisy?

After the meeting of its National Commissioners in Abuja which held on April 18 over the supplementary governorship election in Adamawa State, INEC resolved to write the Inspector General of Police for the immediate investigation and possible prosecution of Yunusa-Ari who, by the way, is a lawyer.

How can a lawyer superintend over such travesty and be the lead actor in a poorly scripted drama? To tell you the truth, Yunusa-Ari pretended to be an actor who wanted a Nollywood-like fame but he failed his audition woefully by announcing a fake election result that was not his responsibility in the first place.

Is he still a “learned colleague”? What action is the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) going to take?

INEC will also write to Boss Mustapha, the secretary to the government of the federation (SGF), to inform President Muhammadu Buhari that his appointee, Yunusa-Ari, has been “unworthy” of the appointment as Adamawa State REC. His “unwholesome behaviour” should be reported by the SGF for further action.

The commissioner of police in Adamawa State has been redeployed by the Inspector General of Police. That was a timely intervention and commendable action but it does not go far enough. He should be sanctioned immediately. Under his watch, Yunusa-Ari orchestrated a dangerous plot that could have sparked an orgy of violence.

We are all witnesses to the disgraceful conduct of politicians even in their parties where there’s complete absence of internal democracy. The Labour Party has also joined APC and PDP in poor housekeeping manners because if you have been following the political developments in Imo State, Labour Party has two factions (Ikechukwu Ukaegbu and Chibutu Isiguzo factions laying claims to the ticket) in the run-up to the party’s primary to elect its gubernatorial candidate.

With parallel primaries, the factions usually end up in court because politicians are generally bad losers – everyone wants to win. How’s that possible?

If party primaries are fraught with rigging and violence, what then should we expect at the state and national elections? Are they not the same people?

When the outcomes of our elections are poor, we are quick to blame INEC instead of desperate politicians and their supporters. What in the world was Yunusa-Ari thinking when he declared Binani as the winner of the Adamawa governorship poll? Was he expecting Nigerians to clap for him?

He should have emulated the Returning Officer in the Abia State gubernatorial election, Prof Nnennaya Oti, vice chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO) which Alex Otti won. This amazing amazon refused to be intimidated even at the risk to her life; she stood her ground and the will of Abia voters prevailed.

But Yunusa-Ari couldn’t because he sold his conscience for a mess of porridge.

Braimah is a public relations strategist and publisher/editor-in-chief of Naija Times (https://ntm.ng)

It is a given that the incoming Federal Government of Nigeria will have to tackle decisively the macroeconomic challenges of a fraudulent and wasteful petrol subsidy regime, our debt, revenue and resource allocation crisis, and a broken foreign exchange regime in order to get our economy back on track. But, if we are to put our country on a firm path to prosperity, we must go beyond these well-known challenges because they are only symptoms of deeper, more foundational obstacles. Three BIG ISSUES have kept us poor – the absence of nationhood, the absence of political will for real reform, and knowledge gaps in economic policymaking. The links between these issues, on the one hand, and high rates of poverty and unemployment and low economic productivity, on the other, have not received adequate attention in the past.

Nigeria cannot become a wealthy, prosperous country without first becoming a nation with a shared sense of national identity and unity of purpose, even in our diversity. Development begins in the mind. When people agree on a common goal of prosperity, based on an inclusive sense of national identity, shared values, justice and equality before the law, they can collectively put their shoulders to the wheel and push in unison. This characteristic, sometimes described as “social cohesion”, can have a transformative impact in terms of productivity. Because our country has been fractured along ethnic and religious lines of primordial identity, our politics reflects this fractionalization. Electoral outcomes create  “Governments of Nigeria” that frequently (mis)manage the economy not for purposes of real wealth creation, but for that of advancing group vested interests of class, ethnicity, religion, or partisan political affiliation. In essence, then, what passes for economic management has become mostly a “rewards” system for chosen cronies of multiple hues. A national economy managed in this manner, rather than on the basis of technocratic competence, cannot create the wealth of nations.

Moreover, the matter of constitutional reform back to real federalism has foundational implications for Nigeria’s chances at economic prosperity. The recent constitutional amendments signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari, including giving states powers over electricity generation,  transmission and distribution, as well as to establish railway services, are a pointer to the potentially positive impact on our economy of an even more foundational constitutional restructuring of Nigeria. Such restructuring will also address questions of nationhood, equity and justice, creating a more durable foundation for development.
Political will to embark on necessary reforms to reverse state capture by vested interests requires  self-confidence and courage of elected political leaders. While it might be assumed that such political will can only come from a political leadership that emerges from “outside the system”, there is nothing that decrees — especially given the existential crisis of the Nigerian state and its economy — that it cannot exist, even if imperfectly,  in a leadership that has emerged from “within”. Whatever its provenance, such political will depends largely on the decisiveness of an elected political leader, and is essential for our national economic progress because of the challenge of state capture.

Perhaps the most tricky problem of economic policymaking in Nigeria is that of knowledge gaps. I use the word “tricky” advisedly, and based on both insight and experience. Most Nigerian political leaders have university degrees and Nigeria has thousands of brilliant economists, yet we have a suboptimal economy. This reality is due not just to the two big issues of a weak sense of nationhood and absent political will, but just as important, a frequent lack of fundamental understandings about economics and its relationship with the other social sciences, law, and technology to create a productive economy.
The first problem is that, even within the economics profession itself, there often is an emphasis on the technical and the mathematical, with little appreciation and application of a sound knowledge of economic philosophy and political economy as the necessary foundations of economic development and wealth creation. All successful economies are based on some sort of philosophical foundation or the other. The internal dynamics – and sometimes contradictions – of these philosophical leanings matter for economic policy, as do their differences. This, then, requires a certain amount of intellectual interrogation, a level of comfort with ideas and concepts, and their application to everyday economic policy challenges. Alas, this is only too rarely a habit of economic policymaking in Nigeria.

Let me illustrate: Most Nigerians today believe in profit-oriented, market activity. We are dynamic and entrepreneurial. We are therefore mainly capitalist in persuasion, at least to varying degrees. But, you see, capitalism is a philosophy. If we fail to understand this, as we often do, we will copy capitalist societies who understand this, and then fail to create wealth for 200 million Nigerians the way these societies have done for their citizens. The wealth of a few and the poverty of many is the natural outcome, because we are “doing” but without first thinking deeply. According to the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) , 99.4 percent of Nigerians that are banked have less than 500,000 Naira in their bank accounts. From this we can see why, for the average Nigerian, an “alat” hitting his or her “acant” is a truly big deal.

In order for capitalism to create wealth, we must come to a clear, pragmatic understanding of the right balance between the state and the marketplace (this leans too much in favour of the state in Nigeria, thus distorting the economy), the essential bedrocks of successful capitalist economies (strong property rights as opposed to state ownership of land, an important factor of economic production, under the Land Use Act, an innovation-driven economy, and capital), as well as the four kinds of capitalism – entrepreneurial capitalism that is dominant in the United States, welfare capitalism that is practised in Europe, crony capitalism that is dominant in Russia and Nigeria, and “state capitalism”, an unlikely but functioning oxymoron that has been invented and practised in China over the past 40 years.

Another example: We are fixated on economic GDP growth. “The Nigerian Economy Will Grow by X % in 2023” is a frequent headline of economic news. But we have taken our eyes off the ball: Such growth must be inclusive. To be precise, this means it must be broad-based across sectors and anchored on a steadily increasing productivity of labour. This misunderstanding takes us away from a more important focus on overcoming poverty with skilled human capital, jobs, and increasing GDP per capita. Nigeria’s GDP per capita is $2000, and its average between 1960 and 2021 was $1,867.70. Comparisons with Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil and South Korea will make you weep, and I don’t want you to cry. Our economic policymaking going forward must understand the distinctions and the three stage-linkages between human development (literacy, water, health, skilled human capital), economic growth, and structural economic transformation. Economic growth without real human development is not just unsustainable.  It will not be able to yield structural economic transformation. The latter means a shift from subsistence agriculture, commodities and mineral resources as a share of the GDP to value-added manufacture and export as an increasing part of GDP. This cannot happen without “productive knowledge” (PK), or skills. This means that educational system reform must become the number one priority for our medium/long term economic progress.

We were once tipsy with the “Africa Rising” myth, when the continent had not yet become an industrially productive economic powerhouse, with a significant share of world trade (only 3 percent today) and foreign direct investment (5 percent). Ten years ago, I argued in my book Emerging Africa: How the Global Economy’s ‘Last Frontier’ Can Prosper and Matter against the conventional wisdom that Africa was rising. The continent, I asserted, was simply emerging from the shadows, and set out an agenda for its possible rise. “Rising” was more accurately applicable to Rising Asia – China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Looking back now, I take no pleasure in having been proved right.

I would recommend two (in my view) critical executive education programs for political leaders and economic managers in Nigeria (federal and state levels). The first is “Leading Economic Growth”, taught at Harvard Kennedy School by Professor Ricardo Haussmann and his colleagues. This course provides important knowledge and perspective on how to actually diversify an economy and achieve “economic complexity”. The second is “Macroeconomic and Financial Sector Management” , taught at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Institute.

And then we have the matter of institutions. Without strong, independent institutions to uphold accountability and the Rule of Law, and to regulate the economy to create a level playing field for market players, a national economy cannot prosper. Institutions need to be independent precisely so that they can work for the citizens and the economy broadly, and not for cabals or for partisan political interests. Where the latter is the case, the economy suffers because it weakens investor confidence, reduces both foreign and local investment, and promotes capital flight. But the truth is that institutions also cannot be strong, especially in an economy such as ours, without strong, competent individuals leading them.

These are the big issues as I see them, along with the immediate crisis of the petrol subsidy, irresponsible and untransparent borrowing, and a dysfunctional forex regime all of which need to end  as soon as possible in order to stop the economic bleeding of our country. Alongside these reforms, however, we must also engage the heavy lifts – the even bigger work that must also proceed apace – of national consensus building and constitutional reform for greater national stability and prosperity. Nigeria can be the next China – on its own terms. The foundation can be laid over the next four years.

•Prof. Moghalu, a former deputy governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, is the CEO of Sogato Strategies LLC, an emerging markets investment and risk advisory firm, and the President of the Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET), a public policy think tank.

Hadiza Bala Usman’s new book, “Stepping on Toes,” is a cautionary tale for anyone hoping to work in public service in Nigeria, particularly in the Federal Government. It’s an incredible story by the former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) of how to break your heart, if not your spirit, in public service.

In Nigeria, public service is a big deal. At no time is there a greater vacancy than when a new government comes in. The turnover in this sector, which consumes nearly 60 percent of Nigeria’s yearly budget, is unknown. However, in the US, it was estimated in the April 2021 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory that the government loses close to 3,000 of its top executives every time a new president takes office.

It was around this period of political transition seven years ago that Hadiza, relatively young, doe-eyed and full of patriotic zeal, got her first high-profile appointment in the Mohammadu Buhari government which she had worked to bring into power the year before. 

Her recommender, major financier and former Director General of the Buhari Campaign Organisation, and the new Minister of Transport, Rotimi Amaechi, was someone she was just getting to know. 

Hadiza had earlier been appointed as Chief of Staff to Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai. She had barely settled down when Amaechi, who had obviously been impressed by her work in the campaign, called her to play an even bigger role on the national stage. 

It’s hard enough to be a female chief of staff in a male-dominated cabinet in a conservative state. It’s an entirely different matter to be appointed the first female chief executive of a 61-year-old public institution regarded as one of the country’s cash cows, with annual revenue of nearly N370 billion in 2022 that equals the budget of three states – Osun, Ekiti and Ebonyi – combined. 

Hadiza not only thought it was an honour for her country to appoint her to break the glass ceiling, she was also inspired by her father’s sterling legacy as one of Nigeria’s foremost intellectuals.

While not everyone who gets political appointment may end up bruising toes like Hadiza, her odyssey in 1,785 days on a job where she could have served and potentially given a lot more is a warning for those contemplating political appointment. 

As Hadiza would later find out, office politics for a political appointee could be more fierce, more complicated and often more vicious than electoral politics. And if you’re going to make too much noise about principles or patriotism, Hadiza wrote, you must be prepared to resign or have your head served on the platter of the big man. 

The pressure to second-guess or suck up to your benefactor in a perpetual demonstration of gratitude could bring far more misery than contemplated.

And it often comes down to what happens around the big decisions on contracts – money, big money. From Hadiza’s account, three major decisions: 1) her decision to break Intels’ oil and gas monopoly, a logistics infrastructure and services company in which former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has interests, and her insistence that the company, which had been unilaterally deducting 28 percent of revenues at source, should comply with the Federal Government’s Single Treasury Account policy; 2) the dismantling of the monopoly in the secure anchorage area; and the 3) reforms in dredging and water channels, brought her in a head-on collision with well-connected operators who had come to regard the maritime sector as their own oil blocks. 

For years, they had been cashing out in millions of dollars for work either poorly done or not done at all. No Hadiza was going to get in the way.

There were minor issues, according to her, including her tight-fistedness which meant she “did nothing” for the minister from NPA. Not even “a birthday present”, someone told her. I also think going to the former Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, and short-circuiting the minister during the Intels monopoly fight was ill-advised. But the main issues, she said, were about the contracts, the money and well, the reforms.

As I raced through the book, written in conversational everyday language, my mind went to two friends – both women – who had been through this same road before. One of them was invited by a big man, her state governor, to serve. They got on well; so well, in fact, that after four years, he recommended her to serve on the national stage. 

Not long afterwards her problem started. The big man expected to be treated differently. He expected exemptions, waivers and downright cover-ups even in matters where Federal Government financial regulations clearly stated otherwise. 

Matters soon got to a head during the face-off between the Federal Government and the states over the Paris Club loan refunds when the woman insisted that no state could be treated differently. 

She had tried to help where possible, but she would not break the rules for her benefactor. The governor was mad. Her “stubborn” refusal to grant him a special dispensation not only bruised his toes, it was also an affront on his masculinity, his manhood. He promised to clip her wings, break them, defeather her, and then hang her out to dry. 

The governor dragged her out of office, executing his revenge by hiding in plain sight. What took Amaechi 1,785 days to achieve with Hadiza, took this governor 746 fewer days.

The second woman’s story was slightly different. Unlike Hadiza, and the governor’s mincemeat, Yewande Sadiku had been headhunted as executive director of Stanbic IBTC to serve as Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council (NIPC) in 2016, about the same time Hadiza was appointed to NPA. Her battles were, however, of a different kind. 

They were not against the benefactor godfather’s thirsting for huge slices of contracts or libations of scotch on their birthdays. She fought against vested interests in the system aided and abetted by business moguls whom she once told me promised her that except she “played ball” by granting outrageous waivers, her tenure would be guaranteed misery. 

Her “crime” was shining the light on the Council’s affairs. Against the odds, her five-year tenure was a breath of fresh air, making NIPC one of the most transparent MDAs in its nearly 20-year history. For daring to swim against the tide, however, she was constantly attacked by the press and haunted by the National Assembly. In the end, she refused to ask for a renewal. Her position was later given to a rascal, the very kind that our broken system incubates and nurtures.

“You will be surprised,” Hadiza wrote about her lessons, “at how you are left to fight your own battles when they occur in public service. In the days after my suspension, many of those you would have expected to intervene did not.”

In some ways, “Stepping on Toes,” also reminds me of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s “Fighting Corruption Is Dangerous,” in which she told the story of how her 83-year-old mother was kidnapped during the government’s crackdown on the fraudulent subsidy cartel. She was blamed for putting her mother in harm’s way by carrying the fight against corruption on her head. 

Yet for every Okonjo-Iweala, Oby Ezekwesili or Ifueko Omoigui-Okauru who survived stepping on the toes of the Nigerian big man and his fragile ego, there are dozens of Hadizas who bear the stripes of injustice.

The former MD of NPA was asked to “step aside” with a query sensationally claiming that N165 billion was not remitted between 2016 and 2020. The panel that investigated her however found that over N182 billion had indeed been remitted to the government’s treasury on her watch!

Hadiza’s “offence” was then watered down from unremitted N165 billion to stepping on the minister’s big toes. She was sacrificed in the search for what was not missing. And without the courtesy of telling the public that Hadiza’s trial was an idiot’s tale, the government replaced her on the advice of the minister, whose main contribution was being Buhari’s ATM eight years ago.

That, sadly, is how we roll.