It was during the latter part of the 1960s – around 1968 or 1969. There was no mobile phone, no social media. There was the ubiquitous radio that provided news daily. In certain households television was also available.

Despite the absence of social media, people were well-informed about events and people. For example, we were aware that there was a young commissioner in the government of Western State under Governor Adeyinka Adebayo. The young man was known simply as Olunloyo. 

He was said to be a talented mathematician. As commissioner for education, he would visit secondary schools and assess their operations. He would reprimand school principals and teachers who were underperforming. He would give instructions on what should be done to improve the school. He would leave as quickly as he appeared. Sometimes, they said, he would drive his vehicle himself to events.

The rumours and stories were many. We were young and happy to know that there was someone at the top who was acting differently from the usual politicians who went around in obvious luxury. The politicians would be accompanied by lorry loads of supporters. The politicians would dance and make lengthy speeches. Once their visits ended and they left, all their promises would disappear with them. Increasingly, the military officers who had replaced the politicians at the time were looking and acting in the traditional mode of political leaders.

Although he was in the military government, Olunloyo was said to be different. He was radical. He was impatient with the politics, convoy of vehicles, supporters, the dancing and speeches. Well, this was the image that many in my generation had of Olunloyo in the 1960s.

Almost 15 years later, I was face-to-face with Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo one early morning at his home at Oke Ado, Ibadan. 

“Which media organisation are you from?” he asked.

“Me, sir?”

“Yes. You.”

“I am from NAN – News Agency of Nigeria.”

“You don’t have to spell out NAN to me. You think that I don’t know NAN? Ori e o daa. (silly person).” And he laughed. “I like your appearance…smart…tie and nice shirt.”

“Thank you, sir.” I felt good. NAN journalists were required to maintain a smart and formal appearance, conduct themselves in a professional manner, and never accept any form of renumerations or kickbacks from any news source, organization or person. 

Olunloyo was the gubernatorial candidate of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) for Oyo State. I was assigned to cover his and the party’s campaign that was to commence at the time.

The political landscape in 1983 was particularly dynamic. Olunloyo was aiming to unseat the popular incumbent Governor, Bola Ige, known for is eloquence, and a close-ally of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria, the leading opposition party. 

At that time the NPN was led by President Shehu Shagari who held power over federal institutions and security forces which they deployed effectively for the campaign. Conversely, Ige and UPN had a robust party structure in Oyo State, and a long tradition of ruling the state. The state media was effective and highly capable, and firmly under the control of the UPN.

Almost every day, Olunloyo embarked on political campaigns, accompanied with a retinue of vehicles carrying NPN leaders, notably Chief Adisa Akinloye, Chief Richard Akinjide, Chief Lamidi Adedibu, and party cadres. They would travel to towns, villages and small settlements in Oyo State to canvass for votes, visit local leaders and make promises. The reporter’s duty was to file news stories, write feature articles and generally reflect back to the public what happened in the various places.

Olunloyo loved to tell stories. When he was not on the road or campaigning, it was a delight to listen to him. Especially when his party leaders were not in the room, he would lambast every party, including his own. He often recounted tales of corrupt politicians, and how Nigerians were being deprived of their rights, particularly rights to economic development. 

One day, we, the media representatives, were gathered as usual in the spacious living area of Olunloyo’s residence. He was telling us stories about how people wanted the NPN in power. How NPN, his party, would triumph in Oyo, Iwo, Iseyin etc. and how Ibadan people would vote himself as their son. A fellow reporter had his notebook out and was scribbling away, capturing the revealing assertions and claims of Olunloyo.  

Suddenly, without any prior indication, Olunloyo got up from his chair and seized the reporter’s notebook. He tore it to pieces while saying: “Oniko kuko. O ti le ko ikokuko ju. O ri e o da. (You write all kinds of nonsense. You write too much nonsense. Silly.)”

The he sat down and continued his story as if nothing had happened. The reporter continued to cover the NPN campaign throughout the period with no further incident. Olunloyo did not stop either to provide journalists with information about everything that interested him, including his calculations of how Nigeria could have a democratic government in the long run.

On another day, I arrived early at Olunloyo’s house, ahead of my colleagues. It was not unusual. He had just finished breakfast and he offered me tea.

“No, sir. I have already had breakfast.”

“You NAN people… always proper,” he joked.

“Thank you, sir.”

Then he asked me if I thought that he would be the next governor of Oyo State. I was already familiar with Olunloyo. He did not appreciate pretext or flattery. I gave it to him straight, and told him what I heard around town and my own perspective. 

“I do not see yet how you will win this election, sir,” I concluded

“Really?” he queried further.

“This is how I see it,” I held on to my position.

He gazed at me longer than he normally did, and then he said: “Bunmi, listen carefully. There has never been a free and fair election in Nigeria. Go and check the records, go through history. Do the analysis of campaigns, voting, returns and everything involved. This election will not be different.”

I nodded respectfully. I did not quite understand what he meant at the time. In some of our previous conversations, Olunloyo would say things that left me puzzled anyways.

At the end of voting in that election, Olunloyo was victorious and assumed office as governor of Oyo State. He served from October 1983 to December 1983 when General Muhammadu Buhari took over Nigeria in a military coup. 

When Olunloyo was declared governor, I was no longer in Ibadan to ask him the question – what made his calculations work as he had predicted?

May his lively, brilliant and vibrant soul rest in peace.

Makinwa is the CEO of AUNIQUEI Communication for Leadership.

If the essence of government is the security of life and properties of citizens, President Tinubu must take responsibility for last week’s massacre of over 65 innocent Nigerians in Bokkos, Plateau State. This is not just because the buck stops at his desk or even because of what former vice president, Atiku Abubakar described as: “The failure of Bola Tinubu’s security architecture which has now become an endemic nationwide phenomenon …” Nigerians are proud of their military’s heroic battle with insurgents in the last two years compared to preceding eight years of daily harvest of death when Buhari from commander in chief became ‘mourner in chief’. As a mark of their faith in the military, survivors of last week dastardly act who spoke to the press have nothing but praises for the military’s heroic confrontation with the marauders.

But the buck stops at the president table because of the choices he made. President Tinubu understands the historical antecedent of the quest for self-actualization by different Nigerian groups especially the Ijaw of south-south and the people of the Middle Belt region that at different times after independence embarked on insurrection that had to be suppressed by the Nigerian military. He is aware of the confiscation and sharing of Hausa land among Uthman Dan Fodio’s 12 Fulani kinsmen and one Hausa appointed as emirs following Uthman Dan Fodio Jihad of 1803-1808; the decision to hold on to the land despite the 1903 Frederick Lugard’s “the power once exercised by the defeated caliphate had reverted to the British” after sacking of Sokoto Sunni Muslim and Herbert Macaulay’s 1908 successful campaign against the Hausa Land Ordinance. The president understands the quest for distributive justice without which a nation decays.

President Tinubu, more than anyone else, understands the issues at stake because he spent 20 years preparing for his job. That was the source of his confidence when on the eve of the 2023 election, he declared without restraint ‘emi l’okan’ (it is my turn). 

And if there was anything he forgot, Nigerian stakeholders especially the leaders of ethnic nationalities, the real owners of Nigeria, the Afenifere, Ohaneze, MDF etc. were on hand to remind him that  Nigeria needs “a restructured Nigeria with constituent parts having power over law and order, education and public information; a restructured Nigeria where there is freedom and justice for all; a restructured Nigeria that protects the right of indigenes as enshrined in the UN charter;  a restructured Nigeria that puts an end to an orgy of killing of helpless women and children at night in the Middle Belt region by unidentified herdsmen”.

The president also had the privilege of hosting the ‘Patriots’, a group of credible Nigerian stakeholders led by Pa Emeka Anyaoku, the former Commonwealth Secretary General.

The president while not disagreeing with these Nigerian patriots who want the best for our nation said he would like to first pursue his economic agenda to bring prosperity to all Nigerians. But many have warned that it would amount to putting the cart before the horse since our problem is politics and not economics. Prosperity for all, will not resolve the national question neither will it eliminate peoples’ desires to have control over their lives, their culture and education of their children.

If short-sighted opponents of federal arrangement that have often benefited from our tragedy cannot see how the social system ended centuries of intertribal wars in Europe, it cannot be lost on them how nations like Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Netherlands that currently top the list of the ‘happiest nations in the world’ only yesterday took control of their lives after negotiating peaceful federal arrangement.

Tragically, today as it was in 1951/52, we are still being haunted by the national question. It was the resistance of Yoruba to attempt by newly emergent Igbo leaders of Lagos urban immigrants to take over the west in the name of democracy, the newly imported god that earned the Yoruba the bastion of tribalism in Nigeria and fraudulently promoted by otherwise enlightened Igbo intellectuals including Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian ‘sun’ (apologies to Saro Wiwa).

From 1999, leading Igbo politicians and intellectuals including Kalu Uzor Kalu and Obiageli Ezekwesili sold the idea of ‘citizenship’ as answer to the national question even when it was obvious to the Yoruba whose First Eepublic leading NCNC leader, TOS Benson, could not secure a plot of land from Governor Sam Mbakwe to erect a building to bury his Igbo first wife and who today knows it will be an impossible task to get a market stall in Onitsha market.

In 2023, some Igbo elements in Lagos openly canvassed for Lagos governor of Delta origin on account of their population and business investments in Lagos. In fact, Peter Obi who left Anambra like a war-ravaged state after two terms as governor attempted to impose an untested candidate on Lagos. The natural reaction from Yoruba discriminatory voters, who unlike the Igbo don’t exhibit herd behaviour while voting, was to mobilise for their performing Yoruba son. With propaganda and manipulation of the social media, some Yoruba were labelled anti-democrats with their names presented for sanctions to the US administration and the UN which incidentally has clause in its charter for the protection of indigenous groups.

Those who truly love our country know that adopting any variant of federal arrangement we operated in the first republic will allow state governors take control of their states, provide security through state and community policing, defend their states against mindless killers described by ex-governors Masari  and El Rufai as ‘disgruntled immigrant Fulani herdsmen’, and of course have death sentence clause in their state statutes to take care of importers of killer fake drugs devastating our urban centres.

There are other reasons why the president must take responsibility for the Bokkos massacre. The president’s policy since assuming office has been about appeasement of elements responsible for mindless killing of Nigerians as against pursuit of justice for victims. Mindless killings have therefore continued because criminals hardly get sanctioned for their heinous crimes.

As Garba Shehu, President Buhari’s senior media adviser puts it in his July 21, 2020 statement ‘the problem in Southern Kaduna is an evil combination of politically-motivated banditry, revenge killings and mutual violence by criminal gangs acting on ethnic and religious grounds’. Echoing this point was Sa’ad Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto, who at a meeting of the Northern Traditional Rulers Council (NTRC) and Northern States Governors’ Forum (NSGF) insisted that violence has continued to thrive in northern Nigeria and Middle Belt because ‘no one is punished for the criminal doings they commit’.

Wole Soyinka, in one of his messages to Buhari while in office had also said: “Crimes against our humanity have been committed, and restitution must be made. Nothing less will restore confidence in government, and reassure the people of its integrity, its commitment to equity in internal relationships and the rightful custodianship of ancient resources”.

To many of us the governed who do not know the challenges of government, the least the president could have done upon assumption of power, was to return those forcefully uprooted from their ancestral land back to their homes , if necessary, protected by our soldiers instead of being abandoned in IDP camps.

Since no one is above the law , the Emir of Kano Sanusi Lamido Sanusi who openly encouraged herdsmen in Benue to disobey Benue State anti-open grazing laws, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, which encouraged his mostly foreign Fulani herdsmen to reject modern grazing methods while insisting that open grazing is part of Fulani culture, its Secretary- General, Saleh Al- Hassan  who haughtily insists herders can graze in Nigeria since herders ‘do not recognize international boundaries’; Bala Mohammed, Bauchi State governor  and Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation who publicly promoted the invasion of reserved forests in the south by armed immigrants Fulani herdsmen should have been questioned in the interest of justice.

And finally, with the near unanimity of all the 36 states on state and community policing, Nigerians don’t believe the president needed two years to appease the hegemonic power in the north that see state and local policing as threat to their stranglehold on power.

Political enemies of the president insist if he could mobilise the National Assembly in 24 hours to support his Rivers State Emergency declaration, he must take full responsibility for the Bokkos massacre which they believe could have been averted with state and community policing.

A peek into Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, European, Japanese, and Korean media platforms reveals palpable angst, driven by strong expressions of nationalistic passion against the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his administration. Citizens of these countries are expressing indignation due to the ongoing trade war—especially regarding the 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from 180 countries and, in some cases, additional tariffs of up to 54% on imported vehicles and other goods into the US from around 60 nations.

The tariffs took effect on April 2, a date President Trump has dubbed Liberation Day—drawing a parallel to July 4, 1776, when the original 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain after a brutal war.

In line with America’s foundational respect for freedom of speech and association, it’s remarkable—and indeed ironic—that, unlike other nations whose media are responding with patriotic fervor, the American media have not rallied behind their president. Instead of pushing back against foreign hostility, the highly vibrant US media have joined the global chorus in criticizing President Trump’s “America First” policies. In some quarters, they are even vilifying or outright demonizing their own president.

Such is the potency of free speech in the United States—a feature perhaps best captured by the concept of American Exceptionalism.

Despite a tumbling stock market and widespread protests fueled by fears of inflation and an impending recession—as predicted by anti-Trump politicians—President Trump appears unperturbed by the tumultuous effects his tariff policies are having on US trading partners. In fact, he has threatened to raise tariffs even further if Canada and European countries attempt to collude against the US. Although this has yet to happen, China—arguably the hardest hit—has retaliated with a 34% tariff on US imports.

In my view, these developments are reshaping the global trade ecosystem. As countries seek alternative trade partners to avoid the constraints of trading with the US on Trump’s terms, they may carve out entirely new trade pathways. Thus, the net effect of President Trump’s sweeping tariff hikes—targeting both allies and rivals—can be likened to the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory, the leading explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe, posits that the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense singularity about 13 billion years ago. According to its proponents, this singularity expanded rapidly, cooling and giving rise to subatomic particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies. The universe, they say, is still expanding—accelerated by the mysterious force known as dark energy.

President Trump’s “bang” can be seen through a similar lens: an explosive policy shift—rooted in an unconventional America First ideology—that has disrupted all previous global trade arrangements. Like a singularity, his approach is transforming the established order, replacing it with an untested but highly consequential framework. Though unproven in the modern era, it already appears to be generating seismic changes across the global economy.

Trump is leveraging tariffs as a strategy to boost job creation and repatriate manufacturing to the US. He also views them as a tool to generate revenue to reduce the national budget deficit, which stands at a staggering $36 trillion and continues to grow.

Given the global upheaval triggered by this astronomical tariff increase, it is difficult to find a better metaphor for Trump’s trade policy than the Big Bang. The ripple effects are so powerful that fear has gripped not only North and South American neighbors, but also Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and Africans—on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The only country that might remain untouched or unaffected by the far-reaching Trump effect is one operating in complete autarky—such as the reclusive regime of Kim Jong Un in North Korea.

While the Big Bang theory provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of the universe, many unanswered questions remain—such as what caused the universe to begin expanding in the first place, and what is the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.
Similarly, what explains President Trump’s determination to upend the old world order remains an enigma to his opponents. At this point, not even his staunchest devotees can convincingly argue that his motives are purely patriotic, driven by the Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology with the primary aim of correcting trade imbalances and closing the deficit gap that has led to a massive budget shortfall.

Of course, as is typical in opposition politics, Trump’s high tariffs and efforts to reduce the size of the US government—driven by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the world’s richest man—are being framed as a gambit to cut taxes for billionaires. That narrative seems to have resonated, as Americans have taken to the streets in protest, in ways that suggest resistance to what former President Joe Biden described as an “oligarchic regime,” citing the number of billionaires in Trump’s cabinet.

The reality, however, is that Trump’s “bang” is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It affects different countries and regions in different ways.

Starting with Africa, where aid is critically needed to manage persistent social and public health challenges like HIV/AIDS, the suspension of USAID funding by President Trump is deeply concerning. USAID has been a vital source of funding for health and humanitarian initiatives, and its absence poses a significant threat. This is especially so because many African leaders have practically abdicated their responsibilities in this area, relying heavily on donor countries—led by the US—to provide for their citizens.

With USAID funding now cut off, many African countries are left scrambling to fill the gap. In Nigeria, the government has made an extra-budgetary provision of $200 million for healthcare services, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has injected almost $200 million into the foreign exchange (FX) market to help cushion the volatility and uncertainty resulting from the tariff hikes.

In Europe, the 25% tariff imposed on vehicles and alcoholic beverages—particularly from France and Scotland—poses a massive economic challenge. Many European economies are either already in recession or teetering on the brink. Even more alarming is the US threat to withdraw from its heavy financial commitment to NATO, coupled with demands that member nations pay up their dues. This creates a sense of vulnerability, especially as fears rise that Vladimir Putin may turn his attention to another European country after Ukraine.

From my perspective, the European Union’s support for Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine is less about altruism and more about self-interest—the first rule of nature. This is evidenced by the show of unity by European leaders around Zelensky after he was snubbed at the White House by President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. This strategic interest is also why Europe is now planning to set up a joint European military force as an alternative to NATO—an initiative already underway. But given the current economic strain on European economies, is the formation of a standing European force feaseable?

Regarding the high tariffs, Europe appears to have adopted a measured response, likely in line with the counsel of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Hence it seems to have adopted a studied approach.

The Arab world is also not left out. President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra means that the US will reduce its dependence on oil imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. Instead of preserving strategic oil reserves, the US will now focus on domestic drilling. Trump’s rationale appears to be that if fossil fuels are eventually being phased out due to the rise of Electric Vehicles (EVs), then it makes sense to exploit the existing oil reserves before combustion-engine vehicles become obsolete.

In any case, Trump has never embraced climate change in the way it is currently framed. The world is alarmed that he has once again pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, after former President Biden had rejoined during his administration. With oil prices crashing due to the tariff shock, an OPEC strategy meeting may soon be on the horizon.

China, currently celebrated as the world’s foremost manufacturing hub and the second-largest economy, has borne the brunt of Trump’s trade war. The 54% tariff imposed on goods ranging from vehicles to washing machines has essentially locked China out of the US market. These items were previously taxed at 10–25%, but after Trump’s April 2 Rose Garden announcement, the tariff soared to 54%. In response, China has imposed a 34% tariff on US exports. That has excerbated the chaos already wracking the global economy in the past couple of days.

The rationale behind these tariffs, according to Trump, is to bring manufacturing back to the US from Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe, where it had migrated due to what he deems as unfair trade practices. His strategy is designed to reverse this trend.

By understanding how President Trump’s influence is shaping events across Western, Asian, Middle Eastern (Arab), and African regions, we can better grasp the phenomenon—The Trump Effect—that I am likening to the Big Bang. Hopefully, this will encourage a more balanced perspective and lead to negotiations rather than a tit-for-tat trade war.

One irrefutable fact is that Trump is rewriting the global trade rulebook, and he is doing so by squelching globalization—a phenomenon that began between the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Placing this into historical context, the Silk Road and the Industrial Revolution—which began in Great Britain following the invention of the steam engine and the mechanical loom—kickstarted global trade by enabling mass production for markets beyond local demand.

In the modern era, global trade received a significant boost from the establishment of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, in Davos, Switzerland. Since then, global trade has been guided by the Davos Manifesto, which champions ethical entrepreneurship, responsible governance, and the neutral ideals of Swiss diplomacy—underpinning the spirit of globalization. A formal charter for this vision was adopted in 1973 and renewed in 2020.

History shows that global trade thrives when protected—and falters when it is not. For instance, trade in silk and spices between China and Rome during the first century BC flourished when protected by powerful empires. Once those empires declined, so did the trade routes and their prosperity.

Now, as President Trump—the leader of the current global hegemon—takes a protectionist stance, it is consistent with his past. He has long used tariffs as a tool for economic leverage. Even back in 1988, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Trump,then a real estate mogul criticized China for what he saw as exploitation of the US economy.

Trump is not alone in this. A resurfaced video from 1996 shows Nancy Pelosi, then a Congresswoman from California, opposing a bill that would give China a special trade status. She argued against tariff exemptions for Chinese products—effectively advocating for the same policy Trump now champions.

In summary, the use of tariffs as a strategic tool in global trade has bipartisan roots in the US. What has changed is the scale and audacity of the Trump administration’s approach, which has sent shockwaves across the global economic landscape—earning it the moniker of a Big Bang moment in trade history.

So, Trump is literally echoing Pelosi’s sentiments with his current introduction of high tariffs. The only difference is that the tariff hike is not limited to China but has been extended to roughly 180 countries, with an estimated 60 nations significantly affected.

Even more interestingly, reports suggest that as recently as 2019, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was also on record proposing the use of tariffs as a defense against unfair trade practices—an argument now forming the basis of Trump’s ongoing global tariff war, which has placed the world on edge.

Experts familiar with the history and current application of tariffs reveal that about $400 billion worth of U.S. products were tariffed during Trump’s first term. In his current second term, projections suggest that up to $1 trillion worth of goods may fall under U.S. trade tariffs.

According to estimates by economists, approximately $3.3 billion worth of imports arrive in the U.S. annually.

President Trump is convinced that his high-tariff regime will generate more wealth for the United States through increased domestic production, which would, in turn, boost employment for working-class Americans. Another key objective is to create fairness in trade between the U.S. and its trading partners, whom Trump has accused of benefiting unfairly at America’s expense.

Ultimately, President Trump aims to use the proceeds from these high tariffs to help close the $36 trillion budget deficit currently facing the world’s largest and most powerful economy.

In light of this, Mr. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, believes that high tariffs have the potential to generate over $6 trillion for the U.S. in the short term.

In all of this, my main concern and interest ly in how Africa can benefit from the reimagining of the global socioeconomic ecosystem, as President Trump upends the old world order.

With a 14% tariff now imposed by the U.S. on Nigerian goods and 10% across most of the 54 nations continent , Nigeria’s exports to the U.S.—valued at between $5–$6 billion (with oil and gas making up over 90% and non-oil/gas exports accounting for less than 10%)—are under threat.

Even among non-oil/gas exports, the bulk comprises raw materials such as urea/fertilizer, ammonia, flower plants, and cashew nuts, which make up about 8%.

It is disappointing that value-added or processed exports from Nigeria to the U.S. are so minuscule—just 2%.

Despite this low figure, the imposition of a 14% tariff on Nigerian goods—despite the trade balance favoring the U.S.—should serve as a wake-up call for Nigeria, and indeed all of Africa, to begin adding value to their exports. If non-oil exports, facing a 10% tariff, are to be competitive in the U.S. market, they must move up the value chain.

The dominance of raw materials in Nigeria’s exports reflects the country’s continuing role as a supplier of raw materials to the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia. Among the six continents, only South America and the Arab world have yet to fully exploit Africa as a raw material source and dumping ground for finished products. So, for too long Africa has remained the weeping child as it has held the wrong end of the stick and it must make strategic and intentional efforts to change the negative narrative.
What the Trump tariffs spells in my mind is deglobalization as economic trade and investments between countries go on decline. But the global tariff war is also an opportunity for the continent to reposition herself on the global stage by taking a collective stance on how African countries can trade amongst themselves who to trade with in global south or west and even Asia based on her terms not the Berlin, Germany type of framework and agreement when she was not at the table when her resources were being shared as war spoils amongst Europeans who transformed from African slave traders into colonialists exploiting the resources of the continent.
Although, stocks have been crashing worldwide since the hike in tariffs by Trump it may be recalled that stock prices also rose sharply upon the innauguration of Trump on 20th January and has fallen therafter. Similarly, the stocks that have tanked globally in the past few days may rise again once clarity is achieved. With barely 100 days into his four (4) years tenure those projecting that President Trump and the Republican party may be punished by the electorate during mid -term elections that comes up 100 days shy of two (2) years, may be too hasty in their judgement.
That is because in politics a lot could still happen in the lifespan of Trump’s administration which is still 100 days shy of the 730 days(two years ) tenure to change course if the reciprocal high tariffs imposition on trading partners does not pan out well with high inflation wrecking the economy or unemployement rising astronomically to the point that US economy stagnates or goes into recession as being predicted by those against Trump’s unorthodox policies.
In the event that the unique approach defies the logic of economists, Trump may turnout to be the a hero of the new world order.

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

Speaking ex tempore can be quite challenging especially when the issue you are raising is quite germane, and you might not be able to speak to its nuances on the spur of the moment. Thus, when Professor Antonia Simbine, the Director General of the National Institute for Social and Economic Research (NISER), visited my office as the Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) most recently, the cumulation of our discussion veered, not surprisingly, towards policy architecture, local research outputs and Nigeria’s productivity profile.

When I, therefore, made the argument that there is a crucial disconnect between local research outputs and Nigeria’s policy space—that “our experts’ output (are) gradually (becoming) irrelevant and consigned to publications and for individual promotion and professional development and not as input into the public policy making process”—I was not attempting to generate a soundbite that would generate notoriety.

On the contrary, I was simply alluding to a national reality that requires more analysis to unravel its critical nuances. My statement to the press only provides a partial picture of what is really wrong with the policy-research nexus in Nigeria. This contribution is simply a modest attempt to build on my statement as a measure of recognition of the significance of the subject matter.

A significant dimension of my institutional reform concerns has always been the policy-research nexus that could be energised by the town-gown. The policy-research linkage refers to the relationship between policy makers and the academia that strengthen strategic policy intelligence and the need for critical problem-solving in governance.

My policy-engaged research advocacy derived from the belief that Nigeria’s development planning and management has a lot to benefit from a reinvented town and gown symbiotic relationship. This belief has a historical basis in the immediate post-independence period when Nigeria was struggling to put together a development structure that will serve as the basis for good and democratic governance.

This instigated a community of practice that brought academics and scholars into key conversations around the academic and administrative implications of policy designs. The consequence was the development of significant action research hub that stimulate policy intelligence for the government and its policy-making capacities.

This community of practice is what brought the likes of the late Profs. Ojetunji Aboyade and Akinlawon Mabogunje, and Dr Pius Okigbo, into critical policy conversation with Simeon Adebo, Allison Ayida, Ahmed Joda, and the public administration/public service structure into policy-research-industry complementary relationship that government regularly drew upon for its development thinking.

From what we now regard as the golden age of public administration in Nigeria to the present struggle to make sense of democratic governance, a lot has gone wrong both with the policy-making architecture, Nigeria’s higher education dynamics and the significance of research and development (R&D) as the fulcrum for enabling action research and ultimately the policy-research nexus.

There is one obvious culprit that undermine the framework that enables policymakers and researchers/academics collaborate to facilitate policy-research linkage that deploys the trans-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of public policy research to ground development planning and good governance.

This culprit is the government’s anti-intellectual posture along the line which takes researchers, think tanks and research institutes as interlopers and non-significant actors in the policy process rather than as critical partners and stakeholders. This is a charge that should not be taken lightly. It is one that has been borne out by my entire professional trajectory as a public servant with a significant interest in studying the intellectual basis of public administration in Nigeria, and its interface with academia and other intellectual resources available to the government in terms of its policymaking function and service delivery requirements.

My intellectual and professional tutelage under Aboyade and Mabogunje, for example, also further accentuated how the public service could be rabidly reactionary against every attempt at facilitating collaboration with the academia and research dynamics.

This is despite the cogent evidence of the role of the town and gown in molding the successes of the Adebo-Udoji up to the era of the Gowon’s super-permanent secretaries in public administration—a situation that got to a height during the IBB era and still subsisted under the Abacha administration with the National Economic Intelligence Committee (NEIC), headed by the late Prof. Sam Aluko. Unfortunately, the commencement of Nigeria’s democratic experiment in 1999 has failed to undermine this anti-intellectual posture and ignite this policy-research collaboration.

There are several consequences deducible from this posture. The first is that the many research institutes, think tanks and tertiary institutions have no visible influence on Nigeria’s policy articulation in ways that qualitatively transform the policy intelligence of government.

A recent study carried out on Nigeria’s sixty-six research institutes paints a very dismal picture of systemic, operational and structural challenges that undermine the contributions that these institutes could make to policymaking. The same can be said for the over two hundred and fifty public and private universities in Nigeria.

This state of affair leads to the second implication of the government’s anti-intellectualism: the failure to ground the framework and protocols of their policymaking practices on economic and statistical rationalities. This implies that successive Nigeria governments plan economic and developmental processes without the benefits of statistical analyses and scenario intelligence that the action and empirical researches of the research institutes, think tanks and tertiary institutions could have provided. This was the crux of Prof. Wolfgang Stolper’s stricture regarding his development experience in Nigeria between 1962 and 1968.

In his book, Planning without Facts: Lessons in Resource Allocation from Nigeria’s Development (1966), Stolper decries the situation where the government articulated development plans within framework of a weak data and statistical culture that could make the development process an evidence-based practice.

Development therefore becomes an arbitrary process of depending on a series of short-run decisions and planning that limits the extent of scientific prediction. This paucity of statistical and data parameters is one of the most singular reasons why the trajectory of Nigeria’s development planning, from the first NDP (1962 to 1968) to the 1992-1994 rolling plan, has impacted good governance for Nigerians. 
To be continued tomorrow.

Prof. Olaopa is chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission.