
OTHERS' VIEWS
Coming just after a visit to General Ibrahim Babangida, Mr Peter Obi at an early morning press conference on Thursday latched onto President Bola Tinubu in a way he has refrained from since the last presidential election campaign.
It was easy to speculate that the 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate may have been emboldened by words of courage he picked up during his visit to Babangida.
However, President Tinubu is one who is not deterred by challengers as he is wont to do what pleases him irrespective of whose ox is gored.
Even more, is it any surprise that the Tinubu government is the first since the advent of the Fourth Republic not to have a retired or serving military officer in any serious position?
So, for Peter Obi aiming to draw courage or inspiration from Babangida in the coming 2027 war may be far-fetched if that is part of strategy to grab power and run away with it in 2027.
Famed as among the ‘owners’ of Nigeria, General Babangida alongside some three other Generals, namely Olusegun Obasanjo, Theophilus Danjuma, General Aliyu Gusau and lately Abdulsalami Abubakar were believed ‘ have foisted Atiku Abubakar on the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP ticket in 2019. Then, they were said to have positioned the former Customs man as their choice to push Muhammadu Buhari. The myth around them was solidified when to the shock of many, their emissary who arrived just before the PDP convention kicked off in Port-Harcourt successfully pulled the strings to humiliate Nyesom Wike in his backyard at Port-Harcourt where the convention took place.
Wike had pulled out all the stops to push his former friend, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal for the PDP ticket. But he was shocked on the convention night when Atiku to the shock of many emerged. However, the myth around the owners of Nigeria melted in the General Election when Buhari easily won for himself the presidential election.
So, Peter Obi consulting or receiving inspiration from Babangida may matter little to Tinubu.
But that does not remove from the substance of some issues Obi raised at the press conference.
Fundamental to those issues was his claim that the president is too far removed from the pains of the ordinary Nigerian.
Obi who won popularity among his supporters during the last campaign for his ability to use figures in pushing his claim and with it notoriety from his critics for supposedly churning fake figures was on point as concerning the ratio of Tinubu’s presence in Nigeria and abroad.
According to Peter Obi, President Tinubu has spent 180 of his 580 days in office abroad. That approximates to 31% of his time in office. In practical terms, it means that the president is spending one day out of every three days out of the country.
This is especially worrisome and is not a matter for politicising. The trips abroad are often couched as necessary to woo private investments into the country.
This narration betrays the fact that investments are not necessarily won by the personal visits of the president or his delegation but by the investment climate in the country.
Trade offices and diplomats from foreign countries in Nigeria are always available to tell their citizens and potential investors the truth about the prospects of committing investments into Nigeria.
It is best for President Tinubu to commit more of his days to Nigeria and with it the chances of working out the solutions to the multifarious issues bedevilIng the country.
The example of the late president of Tanzania, John Magufuli who only travelled once out of his country while he was president between 2015 and 2021 is exemplary. In the period GDP growth rate with the exception of one year hovered around 5%. It is telling that he stayed back and addressed the issues in his country that made room for foreign and local capital to be harnessed.
Obi may have spoken truth to power even if it is at the cost of more isolation from political actors who he claimed are afraid of relate with him because they fear losing out from the patronages of the APC government.
Obi was not specific in his charges especially as he alleged persecution from the agents of state. These are weighty allegations that some like us may see as political sophistry but if he is sure, he should boldly come out with the evidence. In that way, the democracy he is helping to build will be helped in addressing the malignancy that comes from one man rule.
Fifty-seven years ago almost to the month, celebrated Kenya political scientist, Ali Mazrui, observed that “for some reason, a disproportionate number of the historic acts of violence in Africa since independence have tended to happen in the months of January and February”. He had good reason for this.
In January 1961, the Belgians and the Americans arranged to hand over to Moise Tshombe in Katanga, Patrice Lumumba, the inconvenient post-colonial prime minister of the country now known as the Democratic of the Congo. The following month, the world learnt of the brutal fate that befell Lumumba. The Congo and indeed Africa have both paid a heavy price for those events.
Togo’s first president, Sylvanus Olympio, was killed in January 1963. Two years later, in January 1965, Pierre Ngendandumwe, Burundi’s prime minister, was assassinated.
In the year before the assassination of Ngendandumwe, meanwhile, Ugandan, John Okello, led the overthrow of Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah in the very bloody Zanzibar Revolution. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would later record with clinical economy that the effect of the revolution was that “the Arab regime of Zanzibar vanished in a single day as its leaders fled, died or were interned”.
The year after the assassination in Burundi, it was the turn of Nigeria’s prime minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, together with the regional premiers in the northern and western regions. The following month, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown while on his way to see Mao Tse Tung in Beijing, China.
Professor Mazrui never did manage a dispositive answer to his question as to whether there is “any special reason why the opening months of January and February from year to year should have had such a disproportionate share of Africa’s great acts of turbulence?” Instead, he offered a telling insight, arguing that these events were the fallouts of the search for two forms of legitimacy essential to the trajectory of Africa after the colonial experience. One was the legitimacy of the state and the other was the legitimacy of regimes or of rulers.
Nearly six decades later, these twin problems of state and regime legitimacy continue to afflict African countries but the ways in which different countries now respond to them have arguably made our collective African Januaries a little more interesting.
In many countries, elections – rather than assassinations – have become the chosen path. In 2024, the people defenestrated ruling parties in Botswana, Ghana, Senegal, and even South Africa. Namibia’s ruling party edged a contest that produced the country’s first female president in an act of political survival for the ruling SWAPO that may just have postponed its day of electoral reckoning.
Some of the elections during the year, of course, re-enacted familiar scenes from a discredited part in Africa’s history. Tunisia’s election in October 2024 arranged to re-select law professor and incumbent president, Kais Saied, with 90.7% of the votes cast. It was like a scene from the period before the Arab Spring.
Since the turn of the millennium, however, many of Africa’s elections have been increasingly decided by judges, not voters. In the latest example, in Mozambique, the ruling FRELIMO party procured a judicial validation of an election widely seen as heavily rigged in its favour. A country already ravaged by a murderous insurgency in its northern region of Cabo Delgado and a destructive cyclone must now live with self-inflicted ungovernability. The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), in power since independence in 1966, made a different choice when the people rejected it.
Judicial involvement in elections is not without high risk to the judges involved or to political stability. To deliver their judgment nullifying the rigged presidential election in 2020, the Malawi Defence Forces arranged to clothe all five judges of the Constitutional Court of Malawi who sat on the case with bullet-proof vests.
In the same year, by contrast, the ruling party in Mali chose to steal through the courts 31 seats won by the opposition in parliament. The result was an uprising that led first to the dissolution of the Constitutional Court, and later the overthrow of the government in a military coup.
Ghana’s 2024 election was the first in nearly one and a half decades not to end up in the courts. The candidate of the ruling party and incumbent Vice-President, Mahamudu Bawumia, conceded the race long before a far-from-credible electoral commission had got around to announcing any results. Ahead of the election, the opposition had made it clear that they would not contemplate going to court if they were denied victory. In his concession, Bawumia saved the country from what would have been an assured date with instability.
Judges do not always wait until after the ballot to weigh in with their own votes. In Burundi in 2015, President Pierre Nkurunziza was determined to run for a third term even though it seemed clear that he was constitutionally barred from doing so. The case ended up before the Constitutional Court where the judges initially decided to uphold term limits barring the president from running for a third term. Under pressure from a barrage of very personalised presidential threats, the vice-president of the Constitutional Court, Sylvere Nimpagaritse, fled into exile and “the remaining judges then changed their decision in Nkurunziza’s favour”.
The model of judicial overthrow of the popular will and its replacement with judges as the only eligible voters is, of course, an exclusively Nigerian invention. The politicians who control Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are quick to intone “go to court” at the end of every rigged election, secure in the knowledge that they have also rigged the courts and have many of the judges safely locked away inside their bedrooms.
In the 2023 election cycle, over 81 percent of the seats contested ended up being decided by the judges. This business model of managing elections is bad both for democracy and for the independence of the judiciary.
First, it denies citizens the right to decide who governs them or on what platform.
Second, the way in which judges achieve this result is not much different from the toppling of elective government by soldiers with guns. The only difference when the judges do it is that they deploy the artifice of law when in fact what they seek to do is to replace legality with corrupt whim.
Third, the depth of judicial involvement in elections in Nigeria makes the judiciary a plaything of the politicians who have every incentive to capture and corrupt it.
Fourth, this creates an internal market in judicial business that casualizes all but political cases where the judges involved increase their chances of trading in judicial power and legitimacy for cash or powerful networks at the hands of politically exposed litigants.
In 2025, Nigeria will enter the foothills of another major election cycle. With all the political parties all but defanged, the main theatre of activity will be the judiciary. In Imo State, for instance, where the National Judicial Council (NJC) has removed the Chief Judge for falsifying her age, the State Governor has chosen not to designate any replacement because, ostensibly, he does not find the options available politically palatable.
In the elections in Tanzania this year and in Uganda at the end of the year, judges will be very active in persecuting regime opponents. In Nigeria, that is already routine even before the electoral gong tolls. The upshot is almost assuredly to guarantee uncertainty instead of ending it.
When he wrote in 1968, Ali Mazrui thought that the opening months of the year seemed to guarantee turbulence in Africa. Today, that tendency occurs all year round. Far from becoming less turbulent, Africa’s January may have infected the remaining months of the year with a turbulent contagion.
A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu
TWICE in less than two weeks, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has repeated his threat to crush inflation from 36.4 per cent to 15 per cent in 2025. His first attack on inflation was at his budget presentation at the National Assembly on 18 December 2024 and then in his New Year message on 1 January 2025.
In both instances, he said his economic policies would push inflation down with 21 per cent. Those who thought they did not hear him well heard him repeat it in the New Year message.
The summary of the presidential message, the Governors, and all those who have deemed it their role to send out similar messages, is abundant hope. The President never misses a chance to ask Nigerians to be patient with his policies. He accuses us of impatience without any proof.
In his 18 months, Tinubu has made the banking system a Point Of Sale, POS, economy where banks no longer allow customers to withdraw cash under the guise of a cashless economy. The ATMs are without cash or configured to discharge an amount like N5,000. How do small businesses cope or people who have to make small purchases?
Cash is always available with the POS merchants whose extra charges import inflation into a transaction on which other charges had been paid. Where else do POS merchants get cash except from the banks?
Is availability of cash in banks against the economic policy of the government? How does the government expect low income earners and rural communities to bear these extra costs that it may not recognise as inflation?
A proposed policy to limit cash one can access from POS merchants is not a solution. It is another wave of hardship on the way.
These, according to experts, are the real drivers of inflation:
.Government is wasting a lot of money in maintaining “a big bureaucracy” against official reports that have suggested cuts to wastes.
.The increase in fuel prices following the removal of subsidy, cost of imported diesel which depends on value of Naira, constant raise in price of electricity, all translate to higher prices of food, energy, and transportation. Rising fuel prices cause increased fares for commuters, and goods. Currently, fuel has no fixed price, and it goes mostly up.
.The continued drop in the value of the Naira is the lead driver of inflation and the impact runs through the whole span of a highly import-dependent economy. Higher costs for machinery, fertilizers, and other inputs for farmers, result in higher food prices. Industries are also mired in increased costs for raw materials, machinery, most of which are imported. High production costs and prices that most consumers cannot afford are the results.
.Insecurity lessens access to farms which means that even if food was produced, evacuating it faces increased challenges. Security has also affected transportation costs as people are using longer routes to avoid certain areas or travel by air.
.Higher global oil prices, the falling Naira, and cost of imported fuel, all contribute to inflation. The arrival of Dangote Refinery was quickly followed by controversies that have not permitted its operations to be felt. Revamped government refineries in Port Harcourt and Warri, if they last, would take time to reduce the inflation that has hugged the economy.
These situations have hit consumers and businesses really hard. Consumers barely have enough to buy basic needs while manufacturers that borrow from banks at outrageous interest rates find it more difficult to remain in business.
High inflation rate makes savings useless. Earnings depreciate by the day as witnessed in the new national minimum wage that will leave workers almost worse than the situation they were in before the increase.
Are these what Tinubu said he would tackle in a year? How would he do it in a government most of whose top officials may be available but unseen where issues that are their responsibilities are involved? Not many of them recognise service to the people as the purpose of their offices.
They gloat over Tinubu’s presidency as if it is the conquest of those who demand governance and not just a regime change from Muhammadu Buhari to Tinubu.
We should not be deceived. The year will be tougher than any we have been through. Governments have made provisions in their budgets to live above the circumstances that we are all complaining about. They do not feel what we feel.
They have no feelings towards the people they are meant to serve. Retorts and rhetorics have become standard responses to mere questions about how our governments work for our benefit. It is none of their business to improve our lives.
How would they understand how we feel when their own issues are covered in budgets? If they run out of money, they send in papers for a supplementary budget to fetch more money. In all cases, the supplementary budgets are passed with the urgency of an emergency.
Tinubu is not about to attend to the drivers of inflation. He has ruled out chances that he would ever run a smaller government. The same can be said of his other indulgences.
“Under the banner of the Renewed Hope Agenda, President Tinubu is dutifully turning our nation’s fortunes around. He deserves the support and patience of Nigerians to consolidate the deep economic foundation he has laid and deliver a vibrant, prosperous new Nigeria for the good of all. We urge Nigerians to remain confident in the brighter days ahead,” Felix Morka, National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress, APC, has advised those who want to know the direction of Tinubu’s presidency.
Trite regurgitations like Morka’s lay to rest any expectation that Tinubu even listens to what the people feel. There is no chance that he would reduce inflation to 15 per cent as it would run contrary to his policy of not caring about ordinary Nigerians.
Finally…
JUST as the Federal Government did not burden us with how it bundled Nnamdi Kanu into an aircraft in Nairobi to continue his trial in Abuja, it should not bother us with efforts to put Simon Ekpa on trial for the nuisance he has continued to be.
THE 2025 budget would do with a lot of scrutiny. We should have a good look at the budget to cut wastes.
DID you come across the advisory the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued to Nigerians against travelling to Australia? Though it was a counter to one Australia issued to its people, it provided a good laugh. I look forward to the Ministry of Internal Affairs issuing advisories on how safe parts of Nigeria have become.
NIGERIAN Television Authority devoted hours of live broadcast on Friday to Ezewoke Nyesom Wike, Minister of Federal Capital Territory, as his disciples turned out in their numbers to sing Wike’s praises, pledge loyalty to Wike, apologise to him for the comments Dr. Peter Odili made about him, and commend the great job he is doing in Abuja. One called him the Governor of Abuja, and they all called him leader. Wike was very happy, particularly, when the praises were about what he had done for the Ijaws, as articulated by the leader of an Ijaw group that apologised for the “ingratitude” of Governor Sim Fubara. This Port Harcourt event called New Year Luncheon is another Wike innovation.
DEATHS were plentiful during the celebrations – poisoning, accidents, assassinations, murders, and then the incident of a Catholic priest firing shots that killed two people. Bandits still threaten whole villages and execute their threats without consequences. The body counts are too regular that they hardly make headlines these days. Nigeria is getting more dangerous. Someone should help.
THERE are provisions of over N600m in the 2025 budget for provision of infrastructure for nine palaces of traditional rulers in Nigeria, the Nigerian Tribune reported. The allocated were spread thus – North East 1, North West 1, North Central 2, South West 3, South South 1, FCT 1, and South East 0. Our ancestors forbid that there are no palaces in the South East.
HAPPY New Year. Let us make this year count as one in which we intentionally set out to seek our own good only in the race for the common good.
ISIGUZO is a major commentator on minor issues
The door of life is binary; it opens either ways, inwards or outwards. So goes an age-long wisdom. When the Thisday newspaper, on January 1, 2025, announced President Bola Tinubu as its Man of the Year pick, emotions of Nigerians ran riot. Was that decision a product of editorial science or newspaper shamanism? Nigerians asked. To many, the newspaper’s editors must have meandered into some kind of trance, communed with with some unseen spirits and emerged therefrom with their odd pick. To others, Thisday hit the bull’s eye. Suffering Nigerians were even ready to, in the lingo of the millenials, cut the Thisday some slacks. So, they reason: could the newspaper have been seized by some inexplicable emotion of sympathy for the president on account of unprecedented attacks against his government? Did it merely want to decorate him to charm his vanity? So, like Lord Henry said in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, did the newspaper just go “bankrupt through an over-expenditure of (their) sympathy (for Tinubu)”?
For a journalism profession which thumps own chest as “the rough draft of history,” the idea of the newspaper media choosing persons as ‘Man of the Year’ began in 1928, five years after the founding of the Time magazine on March 3, 1923. The “Man of the Year” cover reflects individuals selected for their contributions for that particular calendar year. American aviator. Charles Lindberg, became the first person to grace the magazine’s “Man of the Year” cover that 1928. The choice of Lindberg, according to Time, which has coasted home with the coveted trophy of the world’s largest and first weekly news magazine, was based on his daring audacity of being the first solo aviator to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. He had flown from New York to Paris. With the decision to have Lindberg adorn its front page cover, which the editors said was a mere happenstance, the magazine began an annual ritual that has lasted almost a century.
In 1938, as Thisday editors picked Tinubu as their Man of the Year, the editors of Time picked Adolph Hitler as theirs, too. Hitler was the dictator of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 during which he was believed to have committed suicide. Based on his ancient view that the Jews were the enemies of the German people, Hitler was reported to have executed about six million of them. As leader of the Nazi Party, Hitler believed Germans were superior to all other races. He thus became obsessed with the notion of the racial purity of his Aryan race by which he meant a pure German race or Herrenvolk. His Aryan race, in his thinking, was vested the control the world.
For a magazine which regaled the world with its rather self-adulating motto of “the faces of Time have been the faces of the world,” that same world was aghast and rankled by the Hitler pick. When the magazine’s cover page came out on its January 2, 1939 issue, it had the face of the German despot decorating its globally celebrated Man of the Year page. The world went berserk. Time was assumed to have faced similar bankruptcy of sympathetic emotions for Hitler as the Thisday faced. The world did not hide its consternation. Not dissimilar accusations of having gone on an emotive junket were pelted on Time.
Time had earlier in 1939 whetted the appetite of the world by foreshadowing what was to come. In the course of the 1930s, it featured the Third Reich leader of Nazi Germany over the course of time. Hitler appeared on the magazine’s cover in December 1931 as he made a fiery address. In March 1933 as well, Hitler, donning his emblematic bushy moustache, lounged in a chair by the side of a black German Shepherd. The photo hit the cover page of Time. In an April 1936 cover photograph, Time also had him giving an open-palmed salute.
But, what is the philosophy behind the Man of the Year of Time? Studies have been undertaken to de-couple the fact from fiction. One of the most remarkable of these studies which drilled into the rationale for selecting certain people for the magazine’s covers was done by William Christ and Sammye Johnson in 1985. Entitled Images Through Time: Man of the Year Covers, the authors submitted that Time’s picks are “a person or persons who for better or worse dominated events in the previous 12 months”.
The Man of the Year or Person of the Year concept was however teased out of Scottish philosopher, Thomas Carlyle’s theory of history. Carlyle had written that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” It was the philosopher’s belief that the few, powerful and the famous, in a very essential way, shape our collective destiny as humanity. As such, Time uses its pick as one who best represents the news of the year.
From Time, newspapers all over the world thereafter borrowed the concept of the “Person of the Year”. Today, it has become an annual newspaper ritual. Time uses it to recognize individual or group of individuals who it considers as having had the hugest impact on news headlines in the previous 12 months. When the choice of a person is proclaimed, it is that person who, “for good or ill” has negatively or positively, more than any other person, affected the course of the year. Emotions however rise when the choice is considered to be an honor or a reward.
However, the 1939 portraiture of Hitler as Man of the Year by Time marked a radical departure from the norm. But, as Wilde said in that same Picture of Dorian Gray, behind every exquisite thing that existed, there is something tragic that exists. Instead of the conventional portrait, the magazine had a cryptic illustration by Rudolph von Ripper. Hitler was drawn playing a ‘hymn of hate.’ On the drawing was affixed the title, ‘From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate”.
But, on January 1, 2025, Thisday had no such forewarning. Nor any hint that it was satirizing Aso Rock. It had a smiling Tinubu below its screaming Man of the Year headline. No reflection of the searing pains his people undergo. Nor that the year Thisday decided on his pick as Man of the Year represents one of the most hopeless years Nigerians have lived on earth. Oh, I forgot, Time’s Hitler also looked resplendent. As Adolf sat comfortably on the front page of the magazine, Jews were being murdered in their thousands.
But Hitler was not the only despot to don Time’s front page as Man of the Year. A number of them made controversial appearances as the magazine’s pick. For instance, Joseph Stalin, Soviet despot and totalitarian, was the magazine’s choice in 1939 and 1942 respectively. Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin’s successor, was also adjudged its cover page choice in 1957. So also did Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein, who led an Islamic revolution in Iran; who navigated the country from its political leader, the Shah and ran it as a theocracy from 1979 to 1989. He became its Man of the Year in 1979. In 1935, Haile Selassie, also known as Tafari Makonnem, Emperor of Ethiopia and a despot, started the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. It was at a time when Italian forces invaded Ethiopia. That same year, the Time magazine picked him as its Man of the Year.
In the thick of searing emotions against its controversial choices, Time had always come out to defend its choices. First, it argued that its picks were misconstrued as honour, award or prizes. Literally swearing by its mother’s head, Time swore that the controversial persons’ choices were done “for their impact on events.” It also said that those selections were ultimately based on “who (it) believed had a stronger influence on history and who represented either the year or the century the most.”
Similar to Nigerians’ disgust at the Thisday pick, in a Letter to the Editor penned and signed by Hollywood luminaries and published in the magazine’s 1939 edition, the luminaries frowned at the unmerited space Time offered Hitler. They considered him a blood-sucking emperor and pleaded that “if his picture appears on your cover only as Time’s man of the year, the controlled fascist countries and uninformed of all nations will hail the selection as an award of merit”. Time’s response was that it had noted and observed the letter-writers’ concerns and subsequently referred them to the magazine’s cover.
When in 1994, Time announced Pope John Paul II as its pick for that year’s Man of the Year, the choice was appraised in laudatory terms. This was largely because no citizen of the world commanded the texture of admiration the Pope enjoyed. His globetrotting where he garnered over 1/2 million flying miles to talk to the vulnerable had far-reaching impacts on a fractious world. Many people however disagreed with the Time pick of the Pope on account of his theology and abetment of perceived evil. They argued that, through his sacerdotal pen, John Paul had enough powers to stop Catholic Church’s centuries’ long dogma of “forbidding to marry,” otherwise called forced celibacy. The biblical Apostle Paul, in Timothy 4:1,3, had considered the Papacy’s celibacy as a strand of the “doctrines of devils.” It was also felt that Pope John Paul could stop the rampant child molestation by priests in the Catholic church.
The above historical recount of the concept of Man of the Year should makes it clear that the Thisday newspaper does not have the patent of its pick of President Tinubu as its Man of the Year. Global villains, despots and achievers in the world have hitherto been garlanded with same trophy. The challenge is that, like everything Nigerian, that Times magazine concept has been bastardized. And the Nigerian print media is the culprit. Spurious and shameless Man of the Year awards have been made by newspaper houses in Nigeria over the years which made charlatans primus inter pares in areas they did not deserve. Most of the choices are money-driven, aimed at inflating the egos of the picks for a fee.
The only challenge is that the Thisday editors, in arriving at their pick of Tinubu, did not elaborate on whether his choice was for good or ill. In this regard, the newspaper chose to sit on the fence. From the outset, the newspaper should have defined its parameters for the pick, rather than seeking a justification of its choice from the beginning of the essay. Its general statement, its justification, it stated thus: “It is hard to find anyone who could fairly challenge (Tinubu) to the …Man of the Year.” If the parameter for choosing Tinubu was that he is the most audacious Nigerian leader in the last one year, it may indeed be difficult to best the president to the pick. Tinubu is known to have peremptorily taken the most consequential economic decision of subsidy removal of his own volition. The next decision was the flotation of the currency, a decision that could drown this country. The outcome has been gruelling pain, deaths and distress. Even in its choice of audacity as the parameter for canonizing the president, an attempt should have been made to calibrate the word “audacity.” As it means ‘willingness to take bold steps,’ the word also connotes impudence. Some acts of audaciousness can manifest as recklessness if the immediate positive outcome is life-threatening, invisible and inaccessible to the ordinary eye. For instance, if a president who willingly took his country to the unprecedentedly high inflation figure of 33.4% wants to bring it down to 15% in less than one year, should it be done like a Shaman conjuring specimens from space?
While Thisday says its choice of Tinubu, in part, was due to his “resolve to stick to his reforms” because he had forewarned that “you can’t be doing the same thing and expect different outcomes,” this could, in interpretative logic, mean arrogance of power. As good as it is for leaders to be determined and resolute, it is equally a downside for them to be unbendable. If they are, they are a mile away from Despot-ville. The appellation of a “daring” and “gritty” leader, which Thisday awarded Tinubu in the essay, the last time I remember, was also given to the Fuhrer when he began to nurture his Aryan race. In the same mould, a leader who, in the words of Thisday, dammed the consequences of floating the Naira and removal of subsidy can only be allowed to gloat if his paths are not filled with the dead and socially dislocated victims of such policies. Leaders should de-risk their policies.
One of the newspaper’s indices for awarding Tinubu the Man of the Year, according to its essay, was his proclamation in a recent media chat that, “there’s no going back on the tax reform bills.” No leader who sounds as God like this while underscoring the irrevocability of his action should be awarded a trophy for being good. Leaders are assessed by their humanity and not the number of dead persons that line the path of their decisions. The newspaper’s claim of Tinubu’s “measures to cushion the effects” of his policies, which it named to be CNG buses and his “constantly assisting the states with palliatives” is in the mould of the famous Ali and the Angel fabulism.
In the final analysis, while I agree that President Tinubu was worthy of the Man of the Year trophy given him by the Thisday newspaper, I am of the opinion that the award should be for ill, and for worse, in the words of Christ and Johnson. Tinubu has had, more than any living Nigerian in the last 12 months, negative impacts on the lives of Nigerians. His choice as Man of the Year should spell this out.
My choice for the Nigerian Man of the Year will be you; yes, you! In the year that just ended, the Nigerian has gone through an excruciating time. The Nigerian Man of the Year is the president’s friend who tumbled down from owning five Rolls Royce and now rides a Honda Accord, while his friend, the president, rides a Cadillac Escalade and flies a presidential jet that costs about $150 million. My Man of the Year is the Nigerian who is still breathing under this suffocating economy; who can hardly pay his child’s school fees. My Man of the Year pick is the elderly Nigerian who can hardly afford the cost of his drugs but manages nevertheless. My Man of the Year has suffered untold hardship in the hands of Thisday’s Man of the Year pick. Step forward to receive your award, longsuffering Nigerian!
The decision of the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to return History as a compulsory subject to Nigeria’s primary and secondary schools is a welcome development. Announcing the decision on the last day of 2024, Tunji Alausa, our new Minister of Education confirmed that based on the express mandate of the President, “our students in primary schools, JSS and secondary schools will from 2025 have the subject as part of their studies.” According to the Minister, President Tinubu was swift at seeing the need to restore the critical subject to bridge the generational gap in historical knowledge following its erroneous removal more than two decades ago. In other words, the announcement is not as usual about a proposal but a decision already being implemented.
Considering the immense importance of History, Alausa can be said to have successfully scored a decisive early goal in his ministership. It is only fair to commend him because his predecessor began, then procrastinated and finally stopped at the proposal stage. It will be recalled that at the 61st Meeting of the National Council on Education Ministerial Session in 2016, the former Education Minister, Adamu Adamu, had ordered the reintroduction of History as a subject in basic schools across Nigeria. Some 9 years later, another Minister is now taking urgent steps to implement the same crucial decision. The implication of this is that the quest to ensure proper growth and development in the education sector was inadvertently taken aback many years.
If policy vacillation is distasteful, to do so with History is worse asanyone who seeks to comprehend the present must first understand yesterday so as to plan for tomorrow. This is because people’s perception of history often shapes how they view the present. Indeed, some Nigerian scholars including this writer had many years back, argued that the best way to solve the ills of the Nigerian society especially the protracted ones is to employ the historical approach to critically examine when, where and how such ills began as well as what sustains them. In that way, one would underscore the verdict of history as enunciated by the famous Spanish-born philosopher, poet, and novelist, George Santayana (1863 – 1952) who once stated that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
By electing to abandon History as a course of study, Nigeria did not only deprive its youths of the knowledge of what those before them did, it also divested the entire nation from a reliable record of societal events. For history to be authentic, it must be comprehensive and chronological. It must begin from the beginning and must incorporate records of the origin, growth, development and challenges of a given society. When related to Nigeria, the dilemma was not just about the abandonment of the study of History, even the version that was previously taught was essentially fake. All through Africa, History as a course of study was not about African events or any of the innovative initiatives of the indigenes; rather it was a distorted and jaundiced record of European activities in Africa.
Put differently, it was a record which featured several perverse and irrational claims. For instance, for general knowledge and examination purposes, students of African history learnt and quite often had to memorize historical fallacies such as that one alien adventurer – Mungo Park discovered the River Niger. No one bothered to rationalize that a man who was shown the River Niger by the inhabitants of its bank ought not to be credited in history with the discovery of the same river. Even if the supposed discovery was helpful to adventurers and imperialists, it is still awkward for the indigenous people who lived around the river and their successors to be indoctrinated into believing that they too did not know the river until the coming of Mungo Park.
It is because of such poor sense of history that Nigerians were never able to see the fine similarities between colonial masters, military rulers and the current actors of our bogus democracy. They are all the same. In order to suppress and hush the people particularly the leaders of nationalist movements fighting for independence, the colonial masters enacted obnoxious laws such as the Newspapers Ordinance of 1903 and the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909. They also criminalized defamation which is akin to the effort of the military to use decrees especially numbers 2 and 4 to criminalize dissent. Notwithstanding the standard world-wide acceptance that truth is an absolute defence to defamation, today’s ‘democrats’ imprison their fellow citizens before giving them a chance to defend any alleged offensive statements.
Our current Cybercrimes Act contains segments of the law of sedition which elevate those who claim to have been elected by the people into government to operate as emperors. Hence, we have state governors who can sue but cannot be sued and who can use the police to detain their opponents and critics for months even though the law does not provide for more than 48 hours. Our police force as a matter of fact is yet to transition from the Paramilitary Constabulary of the colonial era set up to terrorize blacks and forcefully subordinate them to the political authority. In our special type of democracy, public protests are not allowed as the repealed Public Order Act of 1979 is still being used in breach of the freedom of speech, movement and assembly guaranteed by our constitution.
Before colonial rule, Nigerian traditional institutions served as judges and dispensed credible justice. They ensured that parties involved in a case did not become enemies as the settlements were usually amicably done making those at fault to quite often voluntarily offer apologies to those wronged. Those empowered to settle disputes today abhor technical justice in their public speeches but every case before them is subjected to technicalities – a trend which neither pleases the larger society nor does it sooth the nerves of the aggrieved. There are no records of the positive aspects of our justice delivery system that ought to have been retained and modernized. As a result, the inherited colonial system is used to set criminals free without a consideration of the substance of the allegations made against such accused persons.
For our institutions to become more useful and viable, we need to attain an authentic history which among other things records stories of exemplary conduct. Perhaps leaders who are busy extorting public revenues would never have made laws that give themselves retirement benefits of official houses in their states and Abuja if they had an opportunity to read the simple and humble stories of the life and times of leaders such as Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa or even President Shehu Shagari. Credible internal democracy would probably not have been this convoluted if the relationship between party chairmen and their elected leaders of old were illuminated by historical records.
It is therefore not enough to announce the reintroduction of History as a course of study in our schools; Minister Alausa has much more to do. He must set up an arrangement that effectively and efficiently supervises the reinstated policy. The inspectorate division of the Ministry of Education must be reinvigorated to return to result-oriented business. Alausa must himself lead the venture and ensure that periodic reports on several aspects of the task are retrieved and copied to his office. As an incentive, schools that are able to show progress in adhering to the arrangement should also receive letters of commendation and awards while those lacking behind should be similarly reprimanded. The issue is therefore an Alausa goal that must not be allowed to be toyed with.
Our schools too must be assisted to comply with the arrangement. Infrastructures, books and other essentials must be provided by government. A focus on the matter is far more useful than the indiscriminate setting up of several unequipped institutions which politicians take delight in doing to gain popularity in their constituencies. Alas, their motivation has continued to complicate the situation. It is hoped that the media would throw their searchlight on the policy as a way of ensuring that all hands are on deck to assist the success of the policy. It is indeed an understatement to seek to emphasize the need for Nigerians to get to know the history of their nation. The gap which has been created by years of abandonment of the subject must be quickly and adequately filled while jettisoning the previous versions in which aliens distorted our history.
Happy new year, everyone! As 2025 was rolling in, we were escorted into the New Year by cries of discrimination, attempted marginalisation and emasculation from some politicians who claim to be speaking for the “North”.
Apparently there is a coordinated effort to ensure that the proposed tax reform bills sent to the National Assembly (NASS) by the Tinubu government is stillborn. A section of the northern elite have planted their members around the various media to canvas that the bill be strangled. Their grouse? The legislation is “anti-North”!
Blackmail
Usually, when people disagree with a section of a bill, they submit their protest and suggestions to the National Assembly and proffer rational arguments to convince the legislators that their objection is logically defensible and socially desirable. But the politicians against the bill are not interested in making suggestions to tweak the provisions of the bill. They simply want it killed. They are also threatening to ensure that Tinubu does not win a second term in 2027 if he does not bend to their will.
Part of the reason I enjoy watching politicians playing their game is because one way or the other it provides entertainment. Politicians are the only set of people on the surface of God’s earth who believe that their motives are so well disguised as to fool the rest of humanity. The hawk glides with arrogance in the sky unmindful that the people on the ground are watching its manoeuvres.
When TV anchors ask the anti-tax-reform gladiators to pinpoint the exact clauses they find objectionable in the tax bill, they revert to their habitual circumlocution and complain that there wasn’t enough consultations before the bill was crafted. When told that the public hearing to be conducted by the legislature is meant to ensure that all shades of opinion are heard before a final decision is taken, they say that the bill does not deserve a public hearing and should be scrapped completely.
The anti-tax-reform lobby is all too predictable and presumptuous. When they say “the North”, they mean their family and hangers-on. Take the case of Senator Ali Ndume who railed against the transfer of a department of the Central Bank from Abuja to Lagos as an anti-North move. Hearing his intemperate lingo, you would think that Lagos was not part of Nigeria. It turned out that his daughter was a staff of the CBN and the senator was only trying to prevent the transfer of his daughter from the federal capital to the former capital. The logic of the claim was that whatever affected the good senator also affected the North!
Inclusivity
From the political wilderness came the voice of the former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir el Rufai, condemning what he sees as Tinubu’s nepotism. In a cryptic message of his X platform where he reacted to Farouk Kperogi’s article, “Tinubu’s Buharisation of the NNPC”, el Rufai wrote: “Two wrongs do not make a right. Sensible inclusion always trumps arrogant exclusion.”
Diehard Tinubuphiliacs have sworn that at the appropriate time, they will ask el-Rufai to elucidate on his theory of “arrogant exclusion”. Many of them pointed out that el-Rufai was the least qualified politician to talk about arrogant exclusion.
It was because of the former governor’s bad record in matters of inclusivity that his political rival, Senator Shehu Sani, argued that el-Rufai had no moral authority to criticise Tinubu. Sani accused el-Rufai of turning Kaduna into an apartheid state during his tenure.
According to him, “There were people who were silent when Buhari was filling political offices with his kinsmen and have now found their voice when the equation doesn’t favour them. Let’s not make reference to the nepotism that marginalised Southern Kaduna for eight years. Kaduna was an apartheid state for eight years.”
So, when next you hear politicians like el-Rufai claiming that the North is marginalised or that the Tinubu government is unduly favouring Lagos with its plan to participate in the provision of rail infrastructure in the former capital, you may want to seek further clarification. Pray, if Nigeria under Buhari’s leadership could fund a railway line to Maradi in Niger Republic, why can’t the country under Tinubu invest in its former capital?
My own theory of a common wealth is that every section of the country should be helped to thrive and flourish. A poor North will negatively affect Nigeria. That is why it is important to carry the region along with many productive schemes such as the newly established Ministry of Livestock Development. But the days of the feeding bottle are over.
Mercifully, the North is rich in mineral resources. All that is left is to develop the human resources. Instead of fighting to share in the Value Added Tax (VAT) generated by other states from the consumption of alcohol, the northern states should embark on a massive basic education and skill acquisition drive. Such a move will rid the highways of the street urchins known as almajiri and at the same time provide the needed manpower to translate the vast mineral resources to wealth.
But let no one delude himself that time has stood still in any part of Nigeria since Independence. It will be delusional to categorically talk of the North as one monolith as if we were in 1959. If a plebiscite was taken today, it is likely that we shall find that different sections of the country have different concerns. So, when a political gambler threatens that he would ensure that “the North” does not vote for Tinubu in 2027, you may want to ask, “Which North?”
Tax Bill
There is no ambiguity in the intentions of the tax bill. According to the presidential committee saddled with the task, the reform seeks the discontinuation of all consumption taxes other than VAT. Its explanation is as follows:
Basis of distribution – the current formula for sharing VAT among states is based on 20 percent derivation, 50 percent equality and 30 percent population. The tax reform proposes a different model of derivation which will attribute VAT to the place of supply and consumption rather than the current model which attributes VAT to the state where it is remitted thereby favouring states with companies’ headquarters. Further, derivation under the new model will account for 60 percent of VAT distribution for better equity and to discourage any state from seeking to administer VAT as a state tax, which will not only result in much lower revenue for all tiers of government but will impose a higher burden on businesses… The 5 percent to be ceded by the federal government can be set aside for equalisation transfers to cater for any shortfall to a state under the new model. This ensures that no state is worse off in the short-term while significantly enhancing economic activities and revenue for all states in the medium to long-term.
If the above is true, I honestly don’t see why any section of the country would be crying foul. A more positive reaction would be to do the math, gather your papers and raise your objections at the National Assembly hearing. That is the democratic imperative, not blackmail.
Happy New Year
I welcome you to 2025 with the words of the contemporary Turkish playwright, Mehmet Murat ildan: “In the New Year, never forget to thank your past years because they enabled you to reach today! Without the stairs of the past, you cannot arrive at the future!”
Many people think – though erroneously – that Man or Woman of the Year, Person or Personality of the Year is given only to saints; even devils have a right to it, and have many times been so “rewarded” in the past! The award is usually a recognition of who impacted lives the most, globally or within a geographical location, for good or for bad within the period under review. Who did the most extraordinary things – whether to the people’s acclamation/applause or derision/opprobrium? Who was the most enigmatic, the most controversial and talked-about, again, for good or for bad? Who surprised people the most – in their speeches, actions, and the successes recorded; whose sound bites travelled farther than those of any other person, thus etching a permanent impression on people’s mind and psyche? Emilokan! Make America Great Again! Whose presence/personality, policies (imagined or anticipated) and actions (threatened or real) have impacted or moved people to action more than at any other time in recent history? These are some of the qualities that determine who is so crowned – for better or for worse. Now, think of any Nigerian other than President Bola Ahmed Tinubu whom the cap fits! Had the Dangote refinery not dashed Nigerians’ hope of a substantial reduction in the price of fuel, Aliko Dangote would have been the undisputed Man of the Year 2024. But as things are, Tinubu is, in many respects, the Nigerian version of the United States’ Donald Trump, its former (45th) president as well as incoming (47th) president, a few days from now.
Many in the US were gutted when TIME magazine announced Trump as its “Person of the Year 2024”, perhaps more so than when Trump won the November 5, 2024 US presidential election by a landslide, winning both the popular vote and the electoral college, and leaving no one in doubt that he was the choice of the vast majority of the American electorate. Expect here a similar backlash to Tinubu being Personality of the Year. Maybe we should first take a look at how TIME arrived at its choice of Trump because the similarities between the personality and politics of Trump and Tinubu are striking in many respects.
“ For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice was a difficult one. In 2024, it was not.
“Since he began running for President in 2015, perhaps no single individual has played a larger role in changing the course of politics and history than Trump. He shocked many by winning the White House in 2016, then led the U.S. through a chaotic term that included the first year of a pandemic as well as a period of nationwide protest, and that ended with his losing the election by 7 million votes and provoking the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The smart money wagered that we had witnessed the end of Trump.
“If that moment marked Trump’s nadir, today we are witnessing his apotheosis. On the cusp of his second presidency, all of us—from his most fanatical supporters to his most fervent critics—are living in the Age of Trump. He dispatched his Republican rivals in near record time. For weeks, he campaigned largely from the New York courtroom where he would be convicted on 34 felony counts. His sole debate with President Joe Biden in June led to his opponent’s eventual exit from the race. Sixteen days later, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally. In the sprint that followed, he outlasted Vice President Kamala Harris, sweeping all seven swing states and emerging from the election at the height of his popularity. “Look what happened,” Trump told his supporters in his election-night victory speech. “Isn’t this crazy?” He almost couldn’t believe it himself.
“Now we watch as members of Congress, international institutions, and global leaders once again align themselves with his whims. The carousel of Trumpworld characters spins anew. This time, we think we know what to expect. Supporters cheer even his promises to take revenge on his enemies and dismantle the government. In a matter of weeks, Trump will be returning to the Oval Office with his intentions clear: tariff imports, deport millions, and threaten the press. Put RFK Jr. in charge of vaccines. Chance war with Iran. “Anything can happen,” he told us.
“Sitting with TIME three weeks after the election, Trump was more subdued than when we visited him at Mar-a-Lago in March. He is happiest to be in a fight, and now that he has won, he sounded almost wistful, recognizing that he had run for office for the final time. “It’s sad in a way. It will never happen again,” Trump told us. And while he is thinking about how that chapter has ended, for Americans and for the world, it is also the beginning of a new one. Trump is once again at the center of the world, and in as strong a position as he has ever been.
“Over time, we’ve seen the Person of the Year franchise shift: from Man of the Year to its current designation; from the period between the world wars, defined by leaders like Mohandas Gandhi and Wallis Simpson, to the first quarter of the 21st century, an era marked by the tremendous changes ushered in by a technological revolution. Although the American presidency has evolved across these eras, its influence has not diminished. Today, we are witnessing a resurgence of populism, a widening mistrust in the institutions that defined the last century, and an eroding faith that liberal values will lead to better lives for most people. Trump is both agent and beneficiary of it all.
If it was not difficult for TIME to choose its Person of the Year 2024, it should be no less for us here in Nigeria. Tinubu has been an influential recurring decimal in Nigeria’s political scene since he was elected as senator in 1992. He was a leading figure in the pro-democracy activism that fought military dictatorship to a standstill before becoming a two-term governor of the country’s most important state of Lagos (1999 – 2007), where he shone like a million stars. From there, he became a godfather, snatching the political leadership of the South-west from his erstwhile political godfathers. By playing a pivotal role in cobbling together the All Progressives Congress alliance to snatch power from a sitting president, he helped to engineer what had not happened before in Nigeria’s political history. He rode on the crest of that momentum to contest and win the presidential election in 2023.
Like it was thought of Trump after he lost his 2019 re-election bid to Joe Biden, everyone thought the end had come to Tinubu’s political career when his own party, the APC, gave him the cold shoulder from 2015 to 2023. Who ever thought the Asiwaju of Yorubaland and Jagaban Borgu would win the APC presidential ticket, not to talk of going ahead to win the presidential election of 2023? But he did, surprising even himself! Despite the barricades erected by party cabals, and the betrayals he suffered, even from some of his most trusted lieutenants! The Muhammadu Buhari he helped to make president was indifferent, even adversarial, to his own presidential ambition. To quote Anthony in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the buffeting Tinubu endured from some of his supposedly die-hard godsons qualified as “the unkindest cut of all”. Just like some of the closest associates of Trump who showed up in court to testify against him!
TIME says Trump virtually shuttled between the courtrooms (answering to sundry allegations and criminal charges) and the campaign ground, so also did Tinubu face a barrage of allegations and accusations bordering on his name/identity, age, schools attended/certificates, state of origin/paternity, health status, corruption charges, name it! Like Trump, he survived them all, including erstwhile CBN governor, Godwin Emefiele’s currency change in the rundown to the presidential election that was widely interpreted as targeted at derailing Tinubu’s campaign strategy.
Unlike Trump who still has a few more days to wait before taking over and rolling out his stated policies which have not only Americans but the entire world catching cold already, Tinubu has been in the saddle for a little over one-and-half years and has exploded from his first day in office with policies that have thrown the entire Nigerian system into a tailspin, so to say. His twin policy of “subsidy is gone” and floating of the Naira has become the defining moments of his presidency. At no time in this country’s recent history has any government or its policies affected – nay, afflicted – Nigerians as these two-some, which critics have aptly described as Tinubu-Pain but which the Tinubu government itself optimistically sees as Temporary-Pain necessary to prevent the total collapse of the economy while restoring it to good health again over time.
Like Trump, Tinubu is audacious. They both share the same never-say-die spirit. The stubborn streak in both men steeled them to plunge into storms head-on like an eagle, daring to be different and seeing victory where everyone else sees defeat. Marching gallantly where even angels fear to tread must be one of the qualities that qualify them for Man or Person of the Year. The decisive steps on state police, local government autonomy, revamping of the comatose refineries, and the proposed tax reforms all indicate that Tinubu is not one to fear stepping on powerful toes. If Trump’s comeback was of “historic proportions” as TIME says, Tinubu’s ascendancy to the Nigerian presidency was no less. Who would have thought that the former governor of Lagos, with all the baggage hewn on him, would succeed where the trio of the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo; Chief Olu Falae, and Basorun MKO Abiola failed?
Congratulations, Mr. President, but rather than rejoice or go to sleep, be reasonably advised to wear this accolade with fear and trembling (Phillipians 2: 12) because “better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof” (Ecclesiastes 7: 8). The renewed hope that you canvassed; the light at the end of the tunnel that you promised; the T-Pain that you said is temporary; the better days ahead for all Nigerians that you said in your New Year speech are around the corner – all these must materialise if the joy of today is not to turn to ashes in your mouth.
Do you know that Jigawa can become the richest state in Nigeria? Don’t laugh at me and say “this guy has started again”. I will explain myself, but my central point remains that we have a mental block when it comes to understanding the wealth of a state. We have limited it to mineral resources and the sharing of the contents of the federation account by the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC). We downplay many potential sources of revenue staring us in the face every day of the week and devote our energies to the allocation sharing formula. This wouldn’t be much of a problem if not that it always raises the temperature of the nationhood discourse. Who will save us?
In my previous article, ‘Let’s Be Kind to Nigeria, Please’, I analysed the malignant negativism that has afflicted many Nigerians. Only bad news about Nigeria excites them. Anything positive depresses them. Even in a silver cloud, all they want to see is a dark lining. If Boko Haram terrorists kill one soldier, they will amplify it. If soldiers eliminate 100 terrorists, they will look away. Their definition of “speaking the truth” is saying “Nigeria is finished patapata”. Those who say “there is hope for Nigeria” are ridiculed as “PR consultants” and cowed into silence. Thus, positive Nigerians keep quiet to avoid being “dragged”. I said you can hate your president and still love your country. It is legal.
Malignant negativism aside, another mental block eating us up is in the area of revenue allocation. The proposed VAT sharing formula has set another fire to our delicate fabric as an aspiring nation. The north is pitted against the south (yet again) over revenue sharing. The current VAT formula allocates 15 percent to the federal government, 50 percent to states, and 35 percent to LGAs. States share their slice on a ratio of 50:30:20 — equality, population, derivation. The new proposal is 10 percent for federal government, 55 percent for states and 35 percent for LGAs. States will use a ratio of 20:20:60 — equality, population, derivation — for their own share if the amendment is passed.
The point of friction is the 60 percent portion for derivation. Many northerners are arguing that the derivation is designed to marginalise “the north”. To the best of my knowledge, revenue is not shared region by region or zone by zone. Rather, it is state by state. Kwara does not collect its allocation and share it with Kogi just because they are both northern states. Borno does not pay the salaries of Bauchi workers. Kaduna doesn’t build roads in Kebbi. The loans taken by Niger are not repaid by Nasarawa. All states share and spend revenues individually. Why then do some people purport to speak on behalf of the entire north on matters that affect every state differently? It is all politics.
Well, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. My problem is when politics stifles alternative thinking and creativity. Agora Policy has done a simulation of VAT distributions for November 2024 based on 55 percent allocation to states and 60 percent of that for derivation. Agora used location of consumption to calculate derivation (instead of the headquarters of remitting companies, which heavily favours Lagos). The simulation shows that 10 of the 19 northern states would be net gainers. How then does that amount to marginalising the entire north? The north-east is most affected, but the North East Development Commission (NEDC) already gets 3 percent of VAT. Let’s apply reason.
But here is my point. Rather than resort to our typical mindset about Nigeria — the fixation with our comfort zone called “federation allocation” — how about going a step further by baking a much bigger cake? I am not suggesting that those to be affected negatively by the proposed derivation formula should stop talking. However, aside the protests, what policies, programmes and projects can Nigerian states design to boost their local economies so that we can end up with a win-win? That, to me, will be more beneficial in the long run. I insist that we have every ingredient to make Nigeria prosper, but we must apply our brains positively to take full advantage of our endowments.
In this essay, I intend to discuss some practical ways of defusing this revenue sharing warfare. There are two assumptions underlining my proposals. One, I assume that a state truly wants to start reducing dependency on the federation account. (By the way, federation account is not a gift from the federal government. The revenue is only being collected on their behalf by the federal government. It is their right, not a favour.) Two, I assume that a state is genuinely interested in raising more revenues and not just talking a good game. Let me add a third assumption: that a state is sincerely open to ideas and there is a political will and vision to address the revenue challenges.
Spoiler alert: I am not proposing anything new. I am simply repackaging what has been tried by some states and which, in my evaluation, worked and can be refined and replicated on a broader scale. The first of my three proposals is that states can part-own profitable private ventures, profitable being the key word. The good thing is that they would not be running the businesses. It is their investments that would do the work and make returns. The funds some states have been spending on building unprofitable airports (I guess the motive is to allow chartered flights and private jets land directly in their backyards) could have been invested in businesses that would yield handsome dividends.
Here is an example. When Nigeria launched its telecoms revolution in 2001, three states — Akwa Ibom, Delta and Lagos — invested millions of dollars in what was then known as Econet (now Airtel), one of the three GSM licensees. The share value doubled within five years. Given what we later got to know, the investments would have generated — and still be generating — millions of dollars in returns to the states. That would have bolstered their non-FAAC revenue. For reasons that were never made public, they divested. Else, they would still be earning dividends. I have my suspicion on what went down. That is why I often try to distinguish between genuine and personal interests.
Another example. When Dangote Cement acquired Benue Cement Company (BCC), the Benue state government (its original owners) got a percentage of the shares as part of the political settlement of the opposition to the sale. The state was getting dividends, which regularly supplemented its income from the federation account. Ahead of the 2015 general election, the state government woke up one day and said it was selling its remaining stake in Dangote Cement. It got $122 million. If you ask me where the money went, who am I going to ask? But imagine the value of the shares today with the weight Dangote Cement carries in the market — and the dividends Benue would still be earning.
What’s more, states can invest in firms operating in profitable fields such as oil, solid minerals and ICT in order to supplement — and even surpass — their federation allocations. For instance, we have somehow reduced the entire petroleum sector to who owns the oil and who doesn’t — but there is no law that says states cannot buy stakes in companies operating in exploration and marketing and earn dividends for life. Absolutely no restriction. We like to blame the 1999 Constitution and lack of “true” federalism for every problem in Nigeria. Of course, it is all politics. Our mental block makes us ignore more opportunities and possibilities because of the fixation with Utopia and comfort zones.
I said Jigawa could be the richest state for illustrative purposes only. But wait for this. The state recently decided to buy privately owned Khadija University for N11 billion. I kid you not. ELEVEN BILLION NAIRA. Already, there are three universities in Jigawa, including the state-owned Sule Lamido University. If N11 billion was invested in a fintech company, imagine the returns. With intelligent investment in profitable ventures, losing N500 million monthly in VAT revenue would be insignificant and should not be a reason to set the polity on fire, but this is the way we have structured public debate. Until we deal with this mental block, we will keep insulting one another.
Let me now move to my second proposal. That is, states can directly set up companies in competitive areas of the economy. But there is a big BUT — the businesses should not be run by the states. Many states have enterprises but they are run like civil service. An option is a joint venture to be managed by the partners. I like the Nigeria LNG model. It is jointly owned by the federation (49 percent) and the oil majors (51 percent). However, it is managed by the oil majors. It is a huge success. Hand it over to the ministry of petroleum and it will become a disaster. Another option is for a state to fully own a company and lease out the management so that it can be run like a proper enterprise.
My third proposal is for states to create the right environment for the growth of their local economies. They can benefit more from tax revenues. These would include personal income tax from jobs created and VAT derivation from consumption. Unfortunately, this involves critical thinking and heavy lifting which would make them sound attractive. Some states hurt businesses: they are only interested in how to suck them dry rather than how to water the field for them to flourish. There is no part of Nigeria that is not endowed with natural and human resources, even if not equally. However, because of our mental block over revenue sharing, many states cannot think of earning.
In sum, it is obvious that Nigeria can be far better than this. We are just scratching the surface. If we get our act together, we will be flying. But Nigeria cannot change until Nigerians change. We have to deal with the mental blocks afflicting the leadership and the intelligentsia — and being aggressively passed on to the streets. We must deal with the malignant negativism and mischievous politicking. All countries that have exited underdevelopment saw opportunities and possibilities, not doom and gloom. The countries we call advanced today evolved through a nation-building process, including internal battles with strife and scepticism. But you know what? Every problem has a solution.
AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…
REFINERIES’ REVIVAL
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited promised to revive our refineries. After much delay, the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries are back on stream, even if not fully. Many Nigerians are understandably sceptical about the news. For decades, we were told the refineries would work but they never did — after billions of dollars had gone down the drain. Nigerians have every right to take the latest news with a pinch of salt. In response, the NNPC has been inviting Doubting Thomases to come and take a tour and see things for themselves. My suggestion: those refineries must now be privatised, else the latter end will be worse than the former. Forewarned.
HEALTH AND CARE
Mr Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 general election, has advised President Bola Tinubu to visit federal government hospitals in the new year and consider doing his medicals in the country. This, he said, will let him assess the state of medical facilities “to make informed decisions on how to upgrade and make them efficient”. This is a beautiful suggestion, if you ask me. The only thing I would add is that governors should also do the same, since health is on the concurrent list. If I were to advise our leaders, I would say they and their cabinet members should regularly pay unscheduled visits to public hospitals and schools as well as to slums. Practical.
Despite the negative vibes being spread about Nigeria across the world, it was good to see so many A-list foreign celebrities celebrate the festive season in the country. Chloe Bailey, the American popstar, was the first in the news. American rappers Saweetie and Gunna were soon spotted at parties. Tyla, the South African star, was over the moon, describing December in Nigeria as “too much”. What about the “I Just Got Back” gang? Detty December is now a major tourist attraction in Lagos, like the Calabar Carnival in Cross River, and that means a lot to the local economies, at least on a seasonal level. I know this saddens the “Najia sceptics” but what can we do? Delightful.
NO COMMENT
In a major setback for the campaign against rape, the appeal court sitting in Lagos nullified the conviction of Dr Femi Olaleye, managing director of Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, but the Lagos state government has now appealed. The life imprisonment sentence by the high court was quashed by the appellate court on the grounds that the wife’s evidence was “tainted” and “unreliable”, that she was motivated by the desire to take over the appellant’s assets upon his incarceration, and that the lower court relied on “hearsay evidence” of the other witnesses on the age of the alleged survivor because — wait for this — none of them was present when she was born. Wonderful.
Let us start the new year on this column by looking at the mining sector and some matters arising therein. This is particularly important because of the much-talked-about need for alternative streams of largescale income for the nation. About two weeks ago the ban on solid minerals exploration and exploitation in Zamfara state was lifted by the federal Government. This was coming after more than five years of a “no fly and no go” zone imposed on the state’s miners, mining sites and environs, in 2019 by the Buhari government, due to serious security and humanitarian concerns.
Zamfara State and its home of large-scale gold mining, known as Bukuyum, is a place I have visited in the past. The grinding poverty and visible misery in that mineral-rich community presents a frightening contrast to the billions the land yields up on a regular basis to both legal and illegal miners. The long table of food times laid out at the local government headquarters during the visit was raided by half-clad, desperately hungry and partly bewildered looking children and youths. Some of those who helped to lay the table and place the food and plates joined in the free for plunder of the meal table. It was a pitiful sight to behold.
The expectation at the time the Federal Government imposed a ban on mining activities in Zamfara State, under President Buhari, was that the activities of bandits, and other security concerns, would abate in the wake of the ban. Many observers justifiably considered it a short-term emergency measure, especially given the perceived linkages between banditry and illegal mining activities in the area. But the expected gains did not materialize. Meanwhile, the ban was not lifted.
The decision to lift the ban last year was based on the current government’s perception, as announced by the Minister for Solid Minerals Development, Dr. Dele Alake, of “significant improvements in the security situation” across Zamfara state. It would appear that this development arose from new, intelligence-driven, and better-coordinated, security operations that led to the progressive and visible elimination of major leaders of criminal gangs and leaders of bandit groups.
The observable reduction in incidents of insecurity, as well the elimination or capture of some of the most wanted bandit commanders, like Halilu Sububu, in open and covert operation gave fillip to the recent decision to resume mining activities in Zamfara. But the essential point for me in all of this is the fact that the nation stands to gain much by the revitalization of mining activities in the Zamfara axis. Of course, with the necessary security, regulatory and other logistical entablements in place to guarantee sustainability.
While the ban lasted, the miners who were officially and formally granted lease by the mining cadastral office to carry out mining activities had to hands off, and stay off, the area. While these duly recognized miners were held in abeyance by the ban and the law, the space they left unmanned was taken over by non-state actors like bandits and illegal miners. The proceeds of these questionable mining activities were going into the pockets of individuals, especially bandits. Sundry marauders and other socially disruptive stakeholders were also the beneficiaries.
The massive quantities of gold, lithium, copper and other associated minerals in the state were thus being mined during the period of the ban, but not in the interest of the nation or its treasury. The positive security mileage that would have come from the ban, as well as the good intentions behind it, were nowhere to be see. Instead, the ban unintentionally opened the space for unlawful activities that worsened the security problems in the area.
If the as much as 200 kilogrammes of gold could be found in the camp of the now-neutralized bandit leader, Sububu, can you imagine what has been going on with many bandit leaders like him in the last five years?
Yes, the ban has been lifted, as announced by the minister, but the illegal miners are still there. Yes, there was the Presidential Artisanal Gold Miners Initiative (PAGMI), under president Buhari, which was designed to bring the unlicensed fringe actors in the sector within a regulated umbrella. It was designed to ensure that the government and the nation block a revenue and resource leakage, in the interest of the national treasury.
But let us not forget that the whole point of renaming illegal miners and creating a presidential initiative for their “domestication” is for them to be quickly brought within the Standard regulatory Environment (SRE) established for the sector. That is why PAGMI should perhaps be reviewed in such a way that a timeline for integration and better streamlined mining sector determined. Its relevance to the Solid Minerals Development Fund is understandable, but the ministry must decide now whether PAGMI should be retained in perpetuity.
As mining activities are now set resume in Zamfara, the minister must also consider the predicament of many companies whose facilities and machinery were vandalized and even taken over and badly damaged by illegal miners in the five years that the ban lasted. Yes, banditry is now “degraded” in Zamfara, but it is still there. The ruined communities still have many existential problems to deal with.
It is good that part of what the minster has put in place is a security tax force, known as the Mine Police, also now called Mining Marshal Police by some, to combat illegal mining and smuggling. But we must also worry about their capacities and military firepower, vis-a-vis, the bandits they have to contend with; especially bearing in mind the military grade training of some bandits. The Mining Act guarantees protection for all licensed miners, but it does not guarantee the quality, or dependability, of that protection.
Yet the good news remains. This is what the Minister had to say about the lifting of the ban: “The existential threat to lives and properties that led to the 2019 ban has abated. The security operatives’ giant strides have led to a notable reduction in the level of insecurity, and with the ban on exploration lifted, Zamfara’s mining sector can gradually begin contributing to the nation’s revenue pool”.
One thing is clear, namely, that the lifting of the ban will improve government regulation of mining activities in the state, especially after the “five years eaten by locusts”. It will also improve government revenue and give the mining sector an improved regulatory framework for effective intelligence gathering to combat illegal mining and ensure the nation benefits maximally from the state’s rich mineral resources.
As for the recent controversy surrounding the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Nigeria signed with France, there is no question of Nigeria relinquishing control of its mineral resources to, or entering into any military pact with, France. Not at this point in our national history. So far, available information suggests that the core of the MOU is on training and capacity building for mining professionals. Yes, we need further technical and financial capacity development and support in the sector and some of that can be provided by the French, but not at the expense of our national sovereignty.
Ours is a nation endowed with substantial solid, liquid and gaseous mineral deposits, for which extant internal capacities are not enough. We have such rare endowments as columbite, tantalite, beryl, aquamarine, lithium and tourmaline, besides gold, coal, tin, lead, zinc, limestone, granite, laterite, barite, gypsum, kaolin, marble, iron ore and wolframite. We need to bridge the gap between our natural endowments and our capacity for their exploitation. It is only through clear-eyed technical partnerships, technological support, security of the operating environment and reforms and guaranteed regulatory compliance that the sector can be taken to greater heights.
This ministry must be supported in its efforts to live up to its mandate of helping the nation to maximize the expected benefits of the solid minerals sub-sector. This sector is one sure route to economic diversification and the expansion of revenue streams for the nation. It is only with well thought out policies, regulatory guidelines, fiscal incentives and effective partnerships that the minister can administer all aspects of mining and mineral exploitation, such as issuance of permits, licenses, leases, collection of rents, fees and royalties, prospecting, quarrying, mining, handling, sale and consumption of solid minerals. And all of this on templates that are guided by global best practices.
In addition to the aforementioned minerals, our lithium, graphite and nickel, which are vital for the global energy transition of today places Nigeria in the spotlight, because of growing interest by global investors and rising global demand for these minerals. The unique opportunity to stan d forth as a key supplier in this emerging market is here with us.
What needs to happen, in addition to the good works being done so far are: (1) Availability and accessibility of high-quality geological data. (2) Popularization of the National Integrated Mineral Exploration Project (NIMEP). (3) Improvements in critical infrastructure, like roads, rail, and power supply. (4) The leveraging of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to fund and develop such infrastructural support services. (5) The review of the existing incentives framework for mining, to determine whether it is sufficiently attractive to investors in the sector. (6) Disaggregating and evaluating fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to ascertain to what extent they are competitive and aligned with investor expectations and global industry practices.
Finally, the ministry and the minister need to keep The Nigeria Mining Week in the front row of their enlightenment and public visibility programmes. It serves as a good forum for networking in the mining sector. The connections made, the opportunities, the conferences and technical sessions from each edition offer great opportunities. Stakeholders are enriched with knowledge, stronger industry connections, and a renewed sense of optimism for the sector’s growth. The minster’s surmising, that Nigeria Mining Week has evolved into more than a gathering of industry experts and is now “a powerful forum where we refine our shared vision, aligning our goals to create a robust, self-reliant mining sector in which Nigeria’s mineral wealth serves as the backbone of economic diversification, job creation, and community development, advancing our national interest for the benefit of every Nigerian” is easy to understand.
Last week’s column on what I called the “relentless Yorubacentric take-over of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC)” based on information I was given by a Yoruba supporter of Tinubu who is close to the circuits of power in the Tinubu presidency drew far more attention than I had anticipated.
Northern politicians like former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai who had defended, or at least had no problems with, Muhammadu Buhari’s never-before-seen provincialism (and who probably hated me for calling it out at the time) used my column as a crutch to get even with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who threw him under the bus after his full-throated support for his election. Well, such opportunistic pivots are part of Nigeria’s political theater.
However, anyone who follows my public interventions knows that I have no allegiance to any set of narrow, predetermined interests and that my public commentaries are animated by my well-considered estimation of what constitutes Nigerian society’s collective good.
That’s why I have a revolving door of critics and admirers—praised by one group under one administration, scorned by the same group under another. My principles remain constant, even if public sentiment does not.
Several of the people who applaud my critiques of a southern president revile and slander me when a northerner is president, and several of the people who are bent out of shape because of my critical columns on Tinubu praised my “bravery” and “truth to power” when I wrote similar columns under Buhari.
This isn’t the reason, of course, for revisiting my column (which I rarely do) because self-interested commendations and condemnations of the expression of critical opinions are natural to the territory of public intellection.
I am returning to the issue because I felt compelled to clarify an important aspect of last week’s piece.
A trusted older friend pointed out that Bayo Ojulari, who is rumored to be Tinubu’s pick to succeed Mele Kyari as head of the NNPC, is not merely a Yoruba man but a Yoruba northerner from southern Kwara State. This distinction fundamentally alters the narrative.
Had I known this earlier, I would not have written the column as I did. I have no desire to perpetuate the regressive, ethnocentric narratives that gained prominence during Olusegun Obasanjo’s presidency where the North was invidiously dichotomized into a “core” and a “periphery.”
Northern identity, as historically defined, transcends ethnicity, religion, or geography within the former Northern Region. It is a shared geo-political and cultural construct.
A northerner is anyone from the former Northern Region irrespective of ethnicity, religion, or location within the region. Being a northerner requires nobody’s approval and isn’t invalidated by anybody’s disapproval.
As the late Sunday Awoniyi used to say, when Frederick Lugard delineated the North and included his people into it, his ancestors were not consulted; he just found himself a northerner and embraced it because it has defined him since his birth. (The only prominent Yagba people from Kogi State I know who say they are not Yoruba are Professor Etannibi Alemika and prominent journalist Tunde Asaju).
The North isn’t an ethnic group; it’s constructed geo-cultural and political identity that encompasses a diversity of ethnicities. It’s Nigeria’s most complex, ecumenical identity.
As I pointed out in previous columns, a real, Ahmadu Bello-type northerner would regard Yoruba people from Kwara and Kogi states, or even Igbo people in Ado, Oju, Obi and Okpoku local government areas of Benue State, as integral “regional kin” deserving of every privilege that is accruable to a northerner.
To argue that certain individuals cannot represent the North based on their ethnicity invites uncomfortable questions about the region’s cultural and political boundaries.
If Bayo Bashir Ojulari, an Ahmadu Bello University-trained engineer who identifies as a northerner by origin, cannot lead the NNPC because of his Yoruba heritage, then the resentment of Yoruba people in Kwara and Kogi seeking affiliation with the Southwest becomes understandable.
It becomes intolerably churlish to talk about “outsiders” “dividing” the North, as we like to do when fissiparous tendencies emerge within the region. Either we accept all as northerners, or we fracture the identity entirely.
This clarification is necessary because I do not want to be on record as having opposed Ojulari’s ascension to the headship of the NNPC on account of his ethnicity, especially after realizing that he is a northerner who just happens to share the same ethnicity as the president.
Ultimately, it’s up to the president to navigate this complex identitarian landmine, but as someone who researches and is writing a book on collective identity construction, it would be remiss of me not to point out that Ojulari’s northern identity is as valid as Kyari’s— or any other northerner from any part of the region.
This admission does not, in any way, take away from my broader point about the Yorubacentric—or more specifically Lagoscentric—provincialism of Tinubu’s government.
The NNPC’s official response to my column, which asserted that merit alone determines staffing decisions, is a load of unvarnished drivel. In a plural society like Nigeria, meritocracy is never the sole determinant of appointments; symbolic representation and political expediency often play decisive roles.
Moreover, the NNPC is far from a paragon of merit-driven excellence. Its inefficiency and dysfunction are legendary. A truly meritocratic organization would not consistently deliver the subpar performance for which the NNPC is infamous.
There are, of course, agencies of government in Nigeria that have distinguished themselves because of the quality of people who head or headed them.
Given the well-known, inherent weakness of institutions in Nigeria, government agencies habitually assume the character, temperaments, and expertise of their heads. For example, NAFDAC used to be vibrant, visible, and virile because of the vivaciousness and vitality of Dora Akunyili.
Through her bold leadership, counterfeit drug syndicates were exposed, and public confidence in the agency soared. Tragically, in the years since she left the agency, it has receded into near oblivion. Few now rely on its assurances, which is a far cry from its former prominence.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) became a household name and a reference point for fighting corruption in Nigeria because of the vigor, sincerity, and incorruptibility that Nuhu Ribadu brought to his work as its head.
He famously rejected a $15 million bribe from a politician, an unprecedented act that inspired my paternal uncle to name his son Ribadu. (After letting my uncle know that Ribadu is the name of a town in Adamawa State and not a given name, we still chuckle about the oddity of a Ribadu Kperogi whenever the topic comes up!) Today, the EFCC struggles to maintain even a fraction of the credibility it once had.
The late Hamman Tukur’s fearlessness and forthrightness gave visibility and verve to the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). Now no one hears about the commission anymore.
Yemi Kale’s tenure at the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) similarly transformed what was once a lackluster agency into a cornerstone of policy and economic analysis. His analytical rigor and commitment to transparency made the NBS a respected institution in Nigeria’s socio-economic landscape.
Today, however, the NBS struggles to maintain its once-sterling reputation. It has succumbed to the fate of NAFDAC, EFCC, and RMAFC.
So, I recognize the importance of merit in the choice of leadership.
However, the NNPC isn’t amenable to the merit-driven transformational leadership we saw in NAFDAC, EFCC, RMAFC, and NBS.
It’s a conduit for patronage and the dispensation of favors to cronies. Choice of its headship is therefore necessarily political. That means people are justified to refract the choice of its leadership from the lenses of Nigerian identitarian politics.
More...
Warning by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to Nigerians not to expect the passage of the 2025 budget before January 31, 2025 aptly foretells the uncertainty and gloom that will mark the country’s 2025 economic outlook. Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, Yemi Adaramodu, said in Abuja that the joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on Appropriation would start meeting on January 7, 2025 to take budget defense by heads of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
He said the earliest the outcome of the joint committee work would be presented for consideration by the Senate would be January 31, 2025. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu presented the 2025 Appropriation Bill to a joint session of the National Assembly on Wednesday, December 18, 2024; exactly two weeks to the end of the year. This is contrary to the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) 2007 which stipulates that the Appropriation Bill shall be presented by the President to the National Assembly not later than September 30th of each year.
This late presentation of the national budget by Mr. President connotes the country’s relapse into distorted and uncertain budget cycle, contrary to the regular January to December fiscal year. A national budget is a crucial comprehensive financial plan which outlines a country’s projected income (revenue) and expenses (expenditures) over a fiscal year.
A national budget plays a critical role in shaping a country’s economic policies, allocating resources and promoting sustainable economic growth. It will usually contain the fiscal planning, providing for infrastructural development, debt management (borrowing, repayment, and debt servicing); projecting inflation, interest rates, crude oil production and price levels.
In all jurisdictions, the existence of the national budget makes for transparency and accountability in government spending, ensuring that funds are used efficiently and effectively. Therefore, for each fiscal year, it is the running budget that provides the guide and direction of socio-economic progress or otherwise of the nation.
As it were for Nigeria, that the ‘life’ of the 2024 budget is being extended to some months into 2025 clearly shows the dangers ahead. The socio-political and economic factors at play in 2024 are not necessarily the same for 2025; which is why the budget assumptions for 2025 are markedly different from those of the previous years.
The 2024 budget assumed an inflation rate of 21 per cent; but all through the year, hyperinflationary trend persisted—such that by end-November 2024, the rate stood at 34.6 per cent. Most disturbingly, rather than the Government making an assumption for 2025 in tandem with the spiking inflation rate trend, its 2025 budget proposal carries an utterly unrealistic assumed inflation rate of 15 per cent!
This inflation rate (15 per cent) presents the entire 2025 budget proposal as being built on faulty foundation. This is because more than ever before, the factors driving the high inflationary trend remain very potent. Food scarcity/insecurity in Nigeria is yet at its worst: leading to over 40 per cent food inflation for several consecutive months this year.
Imported inflation also remains active, essentially because of the crashing of the Naira in the foreign exchange (FX) market. The more the quantum of the local currency deployed to procuring the dollar for importation of raw materials, machineries and other inputs, the more costly the finished products—locally. This is a cost-push factor.
The fiscal operations of the Government as well as a huge ‘informal’ economy also lead to so much money in circulation—a lot outside the financial system. This obviously remains one of the core drivers of the high inflationary trend in the economy. In part, this account for why the fight against high inflation by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), using hikes in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) has yielded little or no results.
Again, on the part of the Government, it is also too hypothetical to project that crude oil production in 2025 will stand at 2.06 million barrels per day (mbpd). In reality, Nigeria in several years has not been able to hit oil production level of 1.5 mbpd. Indeed, the 2024 budget is based on 1.78 mbpd production level—but has never been achieved.
Given what has been happening in the oil and gas sector in Nigeria (and globally) in recent times, it is overly ambitious/optimistic to attain such a huge jump in oil production volume. Raging oil theft, pervasive pipeline vandalism, massive organized sabotage, coupled with energy transition that has seen most International Oil Companies (IOCs) leaving Nigeria in droves—all pose deadly threats to the sector.
According to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Nigeria’s crude oil production level which stood at 1.4 mbpd in October 2024, only inched up to 1.41 mbpd in November. It is therefore rather otiose or whimsical for the Government to propose the 2025 budget based on an oil production level of 2.06mbpd.
It also beats the imagination as to how the Federal Government arrived at using an exchange rate of N1500 to the US dollar as basis for the 2025 budget. This is as against the subsisting exchange rate of about N1700/$; and which is very likely to deteriorate further in the months ahead.
Indeed, a reputable investment and research company—Afrinvest—in its latest study, has projected that the Naira will depreciate to N1804/$ at the official window of the FX market in 2025. Afrinvest said that it anticipates “that exchange rate volatility would persist in 2025, albeit at a modest pace. Our prognosis is hinged on the belief that the CBN would be constrained from adequately meeting market demand on a consistent basis, as the recent FX reserves accretion was largely driven by inflows from inorganic sources, including those with stringent conditions on usability.”
Afrinvet’s report titled “Beyond the Rhetoric: Transforming Reforms to Tangibles,” detailed a number of factors that could drive the anticipated decline of Naira in the FX market. In this regard it needs be noted that a chunk of the FX reserves is majorly inflow from Foreign Portfolio Investors (FDIs), drawdowns on foreign loans and proceeds of dollar bonds.
The much anticipated rise in oil proceeds is yet to materialize due to the scorching constraints facing the sector; non-oil export is also not experiencing a boom yet. Neither is much coming into Nigeria via Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)—owing to the obviously uncompetitive business environment. No wonder, Nigeria has been witnessing an exodus of many blue chip companies.
Continued dissonance over some critical policies will certainly put a drag on the economy in 2025, and thereafter. Specifically, President Tinubu’s hard stance on the Tax Reform Bills already before the National Assembly is opposed to inclusivity and negotiation. A number of critical stakeholders have called for the withdrawal of those Bills for more consultations and deliberations: the National Economic Council (NEC), Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and several geo-political groups, to name a few.
Without a doubt, whatever becomes of those Bills stand to rub off positively or otherwise on the Nigerian economy in 2025 and beyond. Unfortunately, Mr. President’s pronouncement on those Bills during his maiden media chat recently amounted to foreclosure of further discussions on them. Even if the Bills end up being forced down the throat of economic agents, there could be massive hidden resistance to realizing their intendments.
On the background of all these is the existential threat posed by insecurity in the land. Although the insecurity in the country is shrouded in propaganda, in reality the fragile situation is a serious counterpoise to meaningful investment drive. In all climes, security of life and property is a prerequisite for FDIs and other investment inflows.
In all, it will take something like a miracle for the Nigerian economy to make any appreciable progress in 2025, given the factors analyzed above. In particular, the ‘faulty’ foundation of the 2025 budget makes it prone to a multiplicity of pitfalls. It’s all a leap in the dark!
The author, Okeke, a practicing Economist, Business Strategist, Sustainability expert and ex-Chief Economist of Zenith Bank Plc, lives in Lekki, Lagos.
Niger Republic Head of State, Brigadier-General Abdourahmane Tchiani, on Christmas night, December 25, 2024, accused Nigeria of conspiring with France to destabilise his country. France, he claimed, is working with terrorist groups to undermine Niger’s security, adding that: “Nigerian authorities are not unaware of this underhanded move.” He also claimed that the Nigerian government had been paid huge sums by France to establish a military base in Northern Nigeria.
Tchiani’s claims might have been partly based on assertions eleven days earlier by Nigerian health practitioner, Shehu Mahdi, alleging the presence of French troops in Nigeria. He had backed this with a video purportedly featuring Nigerian and French military officers.
Mahdi, apparently based on the video, had written: “Just listen to the clip below to enable you understand that Tinubu and Co are taking Nigerians for a ride, for granted, betraying all our laws, insulting our collective intelligences and on a journey to mortgage and destroy Nigeria. It is left for conscious Nigerians to open their eyes wide, act wisely, with precision, and be willing to sacrifice anything for the survival of Nigeria that few wicked people are bent on destroying. Niger is kicking them out, Nigeria is bringing them in! It seems like we will stay colonized forever! With this terrorism will never end. But why are African leaders so stupid? What in the world are we doing to ourselves? What good is France other than to steal and to destroy?”
When I read this, I felt some sympathy for Mahdi because he is a person who seems incapable of differentiating reality from falsehood. His pranks and claims can be so childish and bizarre, that they border on some medical condition. For instance, in 2021 Mahdi accused then Katsina State Governor, Bello Masari and some of his officials, of a N52 billion corruption scandal.
He was arrested but claimed he was sick and could not stand trial. When the judge insisted he must appear in court, he was carried like an invalid with neck and back braces and crutches. In the court room he was weeping. After the hearing, he was returned to his cell where, unknown to him, the security team had installed hidden cameras. Immediately Madhi got in, he packed the crutches to a corner, readjusted the mosquito net over his bed, and resumed normal activities.
Mahdi, who identifies with a group that claims Islamic terrorists and bandits in Nigeria are liberation fighters, was a foot soldier of the infernal Abacha regime which from 1993 to 1998 imposed a reign of terror on the country. In one of the most heinous crimes of that regime, the conscientious journalist, Bagauda Kaltho, was abducted and has not been seen since then. In 2022 Mahdi tried to exculpate the Abacha regime from Bagauda’s murder by spinning a yarn that the journalist was a terrorist who killed himself while planting a bomb at the Durbar Hotel, Kaduna. But Mahdi was apparently not well briefed. For instance, he claimed he was in the vicinity of the blast on December 21, 1995 while, in truth, that blast was on January 18, 1996. Mahdi claimed that within two hours of the blast, he personally briefed the then Military Administrator of Kaduna State, Lawal Jafaru Isa, about the blast and the identity of the bomber, and that the next day he gave a similar briefing to then Head of State, General Sani Abacha. When contacted, Isa said he could not recall such briefings. On the other hand, Madhi’s other witness, Abacha is dead.
Thirdly, while Mahdi claimed that the Abacha regime was within two hours aware that the Durba bomber was Bagauda, the facts on ground show that until the end of that inglorious regime 27 months later, it was desperately trying to unravel the victim.
Mahdi is also involved in all sorts of controversies. For instance, when he was arrested in February, 2024, he claimed that it was because he had called on President Bola Tinubu to probe former President Muhammadu Buhari and some top officials of his government. But erstwhile Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, clarified that Mahdi had been arrested for trying to take advantage of his wife, Aisha, for a sum of $500,000.
It has now turned out that what Mahdi has been spreading on the internet as the video of French military presence in Nigeria in 2024, was actually a video shot in 2013, that is, eleven years earlier.
So, if the Nigerien government had put any store on Madhi’s video, it showed the low quality of its intelligence system.
Nigerian government officials have been quite prompt and direct on Tchiani accusations. Information Minister, Mohammed Idris Malagi, clarified that: “These claims exist solely in the realm of imagination, as Nigeria has never engaged in any overt or covert alliance with France – or any other country – to sponsor terrorist attacks or destabilise the Niger Republic in the wake of the undemocratic change in the leadership of that country.”
National Security Adviser, NSA, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, in dismissing claims of a foreign military base in Nigeria, said: “Even England, which colonised Nigeria, never stationed soldiers here. When France wanted to bring its troops, we refused. Why should we agree now?”
Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, also explained that: “As brothers and neighbours, Nigeria and Niger share deep historical and cultural ties, underscored by trade and economic interdependence. These enduring connections are reminders of our intrinsically linked destinies. Therefore, unfounded allegations cause needless tensions that could cause disaffection and threaten the collective progress of our region”.
While these are good reactions, we must know that our brothers and sisters in Niger Republic may not believe us. Besides, Niger has also accused Nigeria of economic sabotage. Also, the military of both countries have joint anti-terrorist patrols and operations.
So, before matters get out of hand, the Tinubu government needs to move quickly to douse tensions. Nigeria is like a person carrying burning coals in its hands; it has no time for debates or brickbats. It should immediately send emissaries to Niamey. It can follow up with a meeting between President Tinubu and General Tchiani.
Nigeriens and Nigerians on both sides of the colonial border are same people with same language and culture. We face the same issues of mass unemployment, high inflation, serious insecurity and high costs of fuel. Therefore, it is in our collective interests to work together, avoid unnecessary conflicts and concentrate on our old project of borderless, integrated communities, not just in our region, but continent-wide.
Nigeria as the bigger brother who also has no fears of foreign invasion, should take the first step. So, when is Nuhu Ribadu going to Niamey?
It’s a new year, a year that will possibly see to the passage and implementation of the People’s Bill, also known as the Tax Reform Bills. For Nigerian workers, the conversation surrounding this legislation is not just a political or economic issue but a matter of personal and collective empowerment. Following the recent call for its withdrawal by Joe Ajaero, President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), it is imperative to dispel any misconceptions and highlight the truth.
Joe Ajaero’s call for the withdrawal of the Tax Reform Bill raises questions that I believe demand serious scrutiny. Are other Labour members in agreement with his stance, or is this an isolated position? Has there been adequate consultation with unions, economic experts, and the workers who stand to gain the most from this legislation? With breakdowns of the bill consistently shared in the media, I wonder if Ajaero has taken the time to truly study its provisions. Is his opposition rooted in legitimate concerns or a misunderstanding of the bill’s intent and structure? To me, the Tax Reform Bill is not just another policy document; it is an initiative aimed at ensuring a more inclusive and equitable economy for all Nigerians.
Tax Reform Bill is more concerned about the masses, especially Nigerian workers. The Bills bring targeted relief to Nigerians by exempting those earning up to ₦1 million annually from PAYE taxes and reducing rates for salaries below ₦1.7 million monthly. Essentials like food, healthcare, education, and electricity are zero-rated for VAT, transport, rent, and baby products, directly reducing living costs. These measures prioritize affordability and financial relief for low and middle-income earners.
Small businesses, long regarded as the backbone of the Nigerian economy, are set to benefit from an increased tax exemption threshold, now raised from ₦25 million to ₦50 million in annual turnover. This means many small enterprises will enjoy full exemptions from company income tax and withholding tax, thereby reducing operating costs and enabling growth. Simplified tax processes further ease compliance, encouraging formalization and transparency. For larger businesses, the corporate income tax rate has been lowered from 30% to 25%. Additionally, the introduction of the Office of Tax Ombud will ensure swift resolution of disputes and protect taxpayers from arbitrary assessments. These are just a few of the benefits, and the Tax Reform Bill is truly focused on you, the Nigerian people. It ensures that Nigerians, from hardworking workers to small business owners, benefit from a more equitable and supportive tax system.
In addition to the proposed changes, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has also demonstrated a clear intention to modernize the tax administration system. President Tinubu’s moves emphasize simplifying and making the tax process more transparent, while also protecting taxpayers’ rights. The government has been actively engaging with stakeholders, including the private sector, to ensure that the reforms align with the needs of businesses, especially small enterprises. The emphasis on reducing the corporate income tax rate from 30% to 25% is a clear indication of the government’s commitment to attracting both local and foreign investment. This reduction is expected to stimulate job creation, promote business growth, and ultimately enhance the economic environment.
Furthermore, the government has been working to harmonise tax policies across different states, aiming to eliminate overlapping levies that have historically hindered business operations. The bill now gives 60% of VAT revenue to the states where goods and services are consumed. This means states with more consumption will receive more funds, helping them improve services like roads, schools, and healthcare. With the bills, states will rely less on federal funding and have more control over their finances, allowing them to better meet the needs of their people and grow their economies. These actions underline the government’s dedication to creating a more investor-friendly economy.
In conclusion, Nigerian workers should be aware that the Tax Reform Bill will bring relief through reduced company income taxes, unlimited VAT input claims, and other reforms that will lower tax burdens and business costs. These changes will make businesses more profitable, enabling them to retain existing workers and create new jobs, driving expansion and promoting a more robust economy.
The Tax Reform Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape Nigeria’s economic sector in favour of its people. Nigerian workers deserve nothing less than the truth, and they deserve to see this bill implemented to realise its full potential.
Arabinrin Atoyebi is the technical assistant, broadcast media to the executive chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).
“I find it interesting that everybody defines me as being Nigerian. I identify less with the country than with the specific ethnicity [Yoruba]. That’s what I really am. I have nothing in common with the people from the north of the country, Boko Haram, where Islamism is. Those were our ethnic enemies and yet you end up being lumped in with those people”
“My point is that the only authentic identity for the African is the tribe… I am Nigerian because the white man created Nigeria and gave me that identity. I am black because the white man constructed black to be as different as possible from his white. But I was Igbo before the white man came.”-Chimamanda Adibie
In regard of the first excerpt above Badenoch is guilty of generalisation and lack of empathy for the cause of promoting Nigerian national integration and little else. In which case, she belongs to the camp of the majority of Nigerians who are similarly alienated from contemporary Nigeria. Her real offence boils down to Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the “medium is the message”
‘The medium is the message” is a phrase created by Marshall McLuhan which sums up that the medium through which we choose to communicate holds as much, if not more, value than the message itself; that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message’. If, therefore, Badenoch is not a potential Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, UK, I doubt she would have provoked the current agitation of Nigerian commentators.
Similarly, conflating the entire Islamic North with the precolonial Sokoto caliphate is a category mistake to which we are all prone and care less about. It is reflected in such Yoruba local parlance as Gambari pa Fulani, ko le jo nnu (that a Gambari kills a Fulani is of no concern or consequence, they are understood as six and half a dozen). A ponle ni malla, Hausa ni Hausa jé (calling Hausa a malla is superfluous, Hausa is Hausa).
In his typical diabolical humour, Olubadan Asanike once issued a warrant of arrest on Audu Sokoto. Search parties reported they could not found Audu Sokoto but found another Audu called Audu Kano. Asanike promptly ordered the arrest of the latter as a good enough.
Any agitation beyond this amounts to scapegoating the top British politician
for the ugly political reality of Nigeria. Badenoch’s outburst is the symptom of a deeper underlying malaise with a deep tap root in colonial and precolonial Nigeria. As Anthony Kirk Green, soberly reflected, “The tragedy of 1967 is that many of its seeds were not, as is often claimed, sown in October or even July 1966, but in the 1950s or, as some see it, in 1914 or maybe in 1900 itself.
Nigeria has gotten this nasty habit of provoking the worst instinct from her citizens and then turn around to blame them for commensurate behaviour. Among Badenock’s critics are worse culprits including certified felons and nation wreckers who have stolen Nigeria blind; the oil subsidy scandal rogues and thieves, government spokesmen who openly propagated genocidal hatred against the Igbos; those who would deliberately lacerate Nigeria’s cleavages with unconscionable Muslim/Muslim Presidential ticket.
Amongst them are those who follow the Buhari precedent to institute Yoruba parochial and discriminatory overcompensation; who arrogantly fostered apartheid rule over Kaduna state. Among them would number those who support the institutionalisation of Almajiranchi; who employed political sharia to subvert a president who does not share their ethno-religious identity. Not to talk of a rogue Judiciary.
They bury their heads deep in the sand like the ostrich, and choose to break the mirror for projecting their ugly but correct image back to them. With or without Badenoch, isn’t the most popular refrain in the country today is Nigeria is more divided now than at any time of post civil war Nigeria?
I’m not a fan of right wing politics, let alone the neo Trumpian extreme right radicalism posturing. They generally tend towards bigotry; the pseudo ideologues, the demagogues and sundry political mercenaries who without real ideological convictions merely employ the platform as a tool for political gain.
I had earlier taken the position to refrain from joining the fray until we started seeing a trend of gross and chauvinistic demonisation of Badenoch complete with a left handed salute to her esteemed parentage
For those who thrive on dealing with the symptom while ignoring the underlying disease,let us provide authoritative retrospective context to the fulminations of Mrs Badenoch.
In a typically honest appraisal of the ugly Nigerian reality, His Eminence, Sultan Saad Abubakar, on the 29th of January 2021, said “We are not saying Fulanis are not part of the kidnappings as mentioned by the Secretary of Miyetti Allah, seven to eight kidnappers arrested are Fulanis, but that doesn’t mean every Fulani is a criminal, no they are not”. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
On May 19th 2019, Mr Nigeria himself former President Olusegun Obasanjo lamented what has become of Nigeria “It is no longer an issue of lack of education and lack of employment for our youths in Nigeria which it began as.“It is now West African Fulanisation, African Islamisation”.
On the 24th March 2018, the man who should know, Theophilus Danjuma fingered the Nigerian state as complicit in the genocidal atrocities being perpetrated on the Middle Belt Christian community “If you wait for the armed forces to stop the killing, you all die one-by-one,”
“The ethnic cleansing must stop in Taraba State and other parts of Nigeria. otherwise, Somalia will be a child’s place. I urge all of you to be at alert and defend your country. defend your territory, defend your state,”
On June 5th 2022, two days preceding the attack on the Owo Catholic church, the chairman of the Miyetti Allah, Bello Bodejo, “addressed a mammoth crowd of Fulani pastoralists from across Nigeria and beyond and “rained curses on some state governors whom, he claimed, chased Fulani pastoralists away from their states assuring them that peace will continue to elude them until they reverse their decisions “We know our friends and enemies and we will act at the right time,”
On the 11th of June 2022, Professor Wole Soyinka responded “He (Governor Rotimi Akeredolu) was targeted and there is no question about that. It was not an accident and it passed a message to the rest of us. That is why I’m here. I want the governor to know that we have received the message”.
“We understand it and we came to sympathise with him that he was selected as a medium of that message”
On the 27th July 2018 ‘a major actor in the 1967-70 Nigerian civil war, Gen.Alani Akinrinade(rtd) took a cursory look at what Nigeria has become 39 years after its end and declared “I regret fighting in that war” which he says “could have been avoided if the Aburi Accord (reached in Ghana) was not unilaterally jettisoned by General (Yakubu) Gowon”.
“it was useless fighting that war” and regrets his participation in it. On the Buhari charge that Nigerian national unity is not negotiable, Akinrinade remarked that: “Anything that’s not negotiable cannot make progress.”
On 7th August 2021 Obasanjo asked the Beninoise authorities to grant Sunday Igboho asylum, and not to return him to Nigeria.
On the 1st of May 2022 ‘Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka met with Yoruba Nation campaigner, Sunday Adeyemo also known as Sunday Ighoho.
Also at the meeting was Professor Banji Akintoye”.
Is it a coincidence that all these personalities are Yoruba save the Sultan? All these in a situation in which Buhari was playing Sinn Fein to the IRA of the Fulani militia.
Further back in time was the corrosive and subversive contribution of the British colonialists who nurtured a relationship of hatred and enmity as the legacy of colonial rule to Nigeria. Testimonies abound:
“Lugard pledged to the Sultan of Sokoto the commitment of the British administrators to protect the Muslims of the north from Christian proselytization. Sir Theodore Adams went as far as to say, in 1941, that the emirs considered the Northern provinces as a separate country and that enforced cooperation with the South would lead to a demand for ‘Pakistan”
In its 1958 editorial, the Time magazine captured the scene at the London conference on the independence of Nigeria in 1957 with a sense of foreboding, “Under the great chandeliers of the Lancaster House music room, the Premiers (Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ahmadu Bello and Obafemi Awolowo) bickered, shot insults back and forth like poisoned darts.”
According to Ruth First “a frequently heard quip was that if all the Africans were to leave Nigeria, the Southern and Northern administrations could go to war”
“In administration, in land policy, in a dozen different fields of colonial government, the administration reinforced not the unity of the colony, but the differences between North and South”
In her day, Lady Lugard had contrasted “the higher types of the Northern States” with the “cannibal pagans” of the South. “The nearer to the coast, the worse was the native type… Sorcerers, idolaters, robbers and drunkards, they were indeed no better than their country” pined Flora Shaw”
‘Aided by his wife, Lugard’s fabrications still colour Whitehall’s attitudes to Nigeria, which can be summed up as pale-skinned Moslem North good, black-skinned Christian South bad’
Fast forward to contemporary Nigeria and the siege laid to the South-West by preponderantly Fulani marauders and what you get is a sense of dejavu
Dr Olufemi Adegoke died in the thick of another Yoruba nationalist resistance politics in 2021 against the degrading invasion of a Fulani herdsmen militia.
For people who were not resident in the South West at the material time, it may prove difficult to appreciate the provocative sense of degradation and helplessness.
Victims are seldom constrained to view their perceived tormentors with detached objectivity. Who feels it, knows it.
It begs the question: historically, how should the Yoruba characterise the caliphate seizure of Ilorin and their instrumentality to the collapse of the Oyo empire especially as the theme keeps recurring in subsequent history of the Yoruba?
Reminiscing on the tragedy of Ilorin, Samuel Johnson noted: “Ilorin now passed into the hands of foreigners, the Fulanis, who had been invited as friends and allies”.
In sum, this was the socialisation Badenoch received on Nigeria at the time of her father’s death.
•Postscript: For the attention of American Abroad whose brain power belongs in the category of his idol, Benjamin Osuntokun. Your friend was actually the mischief maker!