MTN Nigeria has publicly apologized to its customers following widespread backlash over a sudden 200% increase in the price of its 15GB digital bundle plan.

The telecommunications giant admitted the adjustment was an error and assured subscribers of better decision-making in the future.

In a statement posted on its official Instagram handle on Thursday, MTN acknowledged the frustration caused by the price hike.

“You dey vex. We know,” the company stated, recognizing the anger among its users. “We know how upsetting it must have been to suddenly wake up to a 200% increase on your favourite digital bundle.”

While the company refrained from offering detailed explanations, it accepted responsibility for the pricing change.

“We could share several reasons, and provide explanations, but omo, all that one na story. We don cast. We get it and admit it. Let’s just say na mistake,” the statement read.

In a bid to mend its relationship with customers, MTN appealed for forgiveness, particularly during the Valentine’s season, emphasizing its appreciation for loyal subscribers.

“In this love season, don’t stay angry with us. Please forgive and forget. You matter die, and we will never stop showing you how much,” the statement continued.

The company concluded by reaffirming its commitment to customer satisfaction. “Let’s continue our relationship. Thank you for your understanding.”

MTN’s apology comes amid growing concerns over rising data costs and telecom services in Nigeria.

The sudden price hike, which raised the cost of a 15GB weekly data plan from N2,000 to N6,000—a 200% increase—caught many internet subscribers off guard and sparked widespread outrage on social media on Wednesday.

The statement, however, did not mention whether the tariff had been reduced.

[Punch]

The Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria, ARCON, has been in the news recently over the N1 million violation fee it slammed on a restaurateur who violated Article 148 (b) of its Act. Reading the umbrage against the regulatory agency from certain quarters, what comes to mind is Chimamanda Adichie’s admonition in her October 7, 2009 TED talk on the danger of a single story.

The single story of a N1 million fine has achieved the primary purpose of leading people to develop prejudiced ideas about ARCON as a government agency that stifles and ultimately ruins businesses, particularly small and medium scale enterprises. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, a N1 million fine is steep but it is a punishment for an infraction that, ironically, demands only a N15,000 compliance levy. So, the steepness of the fine is deliberate – to serve as a deterrent to those who run afoul of the law.

Article 148 (b) of the Act states that any person who sponsors or benefits from an advertisement without proper authorisation from ARCON, including the exposure of unauthorised advertising, is liable for a fine. The Act, which became operational on June 27, 2022, clearly states that notwithstanding the provisions in any other Act, ARCON has the exclusive power “to determine, pronounce upon, administer, monitor and enforce compliance by persons and organisations on matters relating to advertisements, advertising, and marketing communication in Nigeria, whether of a general or specific nature.”

Not only that, the primary goal of the ARCON Act was “to establish a regulatory framework for the Nigerian advertising, advertisement and marketing communications industry and for this purpose to create an effective, impartial and independent regulatory authority; ensure that all advertisement exposed and directed at the Nigerian market is legal, decent, honest, truthful, respectful, and mindful of… Nigerian culture, constitutional tenets and relevant lawful enactments; prepared with high sense of social responsibility, devoid of misinformation or disinformation in advertising and marketing communication; promote and encourage local content whilst entrenching best practices in the advertising industry in Nigeria.”

The law requires that all advert materials are handed in for vetting beforehand, which attracts N15,000 fee — a nominal charge that covers administrative costs associated with reviewing the content. The review serves common good. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, mandates pre-clearance for pharmaceutical advertisements to ensure claims about drugs are scientifically validated. The idea is to deter would-be offenders and by so doing, the system has been credited with preventing the exposure of 45 misleading drug advertisements to the public.

So, the single story which paints the picture of ARCON as an obtuse government agency, asphyxiating small businesses that are already on life support because of harsh economic environment with excessive fees is misleading.

And a regulated advertising space where sanctions are meted out to offenders is not peculiar to Nigeria. For instance, those in breach of advertising regulations in the United Kingdom risk fines as high as £500,000. It is even higher in the U.S. where breaches attract multimillion-dollar fines.

So, while the highly nuanced narrative of a restaurateur being asked to pay within seven days a violation fee of N1 million for posting about her restaurant on Instagram “without the vetting and approval certificate of the Advertising Standards Panel,” may be seductive to the uninitiated, the truth remains that such a narrative does not paint the whole picture. And the idea that the imposition of fine portrays ARCON officials as scavengers trivializes the matter.

If the argument is on the medium of advertisement, well, in this era of digital marketing, advertisement has migrated online. In 2005, Microsoft founder Bill Gates predicted that the Internet would attract $30 billion in advertising revenue annually within the next five years. But he was remarkably off the mark because barely three years thence, internet advertising leapt to $40 billion, and by 2010, it had grown to $80 billion. It was such a seismic shift that according to current market data, the value of online advertising globally in 2024 was projected at nearly $796 billion. This signifies a substantial growth in digital advertising spending, demonstrating the increasing reliance of businesses on online platforms to reach their target audiences. So, it does not matter whether the advertisement is on Tiktok or Instagram.

It will be understandable if the argument is for a reduction in the vetting fee paid by small businesses in advertising promotional materials. But to argue, as some are doing, that there is no need to vet such materials is self-serving because advertising regulation is not just a bureaucratic exercise, it is an essential mechanism for protecting consumers from misleading claims, financial scams, and public health hazards.

Globally, regulatory frameworks exist to ensure that advertisements uphold truth, transparency, and consumer safety, and no country leaves advertising unregulated because right advertising frameworks are foundational to consumer trust, market stability, and economic growth.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, enforces stringent guidelines on truth-in-advertising, and has been protecting consumers for over 100 years. For instance, in 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, fined Kim Kardashian $1.26 million for promoting a crypto currency token on Instagram without going through the statutory processes and disclosing that she was paid $250,000 for the endorsement.

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority, ASA, employs a hybrid regulatory model. While broadcast advertisements undergo pre-exposure vetting, digital and print ads are monitored post-publication, with penalties for violations. The ASA’s “CAP Code” requires all advertisments to be “legal, decent, honest, and truthful,” with fines reaching £500,000 for repeat offenders. Such regulations also abound in Europe. The idea is to protect the public from the unethical machinations of unscrupulous businessmen driven solely by quest for profit maximization.

Nigeria cannot be an exception. The need for a regulated advertising space cannot be overemphasized, taking into cognizance the country’s delicate socio-cultural and even economic sensitivities.

In a country where debilitating primordial sentiments, particularly of the religious hue, is an ever-present ticking bomb, the 2022 Sterling Bank Easter advert, which drew an insane comparison between Jesus rising from the grave and the in-oven rising of “Agege Bread” nearly set the country ablaze. Similarly, the 2024 Federal Inland Revenue Services, FIRS, advert – Christ Paid for Sins, Not Taxes – was another thoughtless advertising gimmick. Last December, a banner displayed at the gate of the Lekki Central Mosque in Lagos, with the inscription, “Jesus Christ is not God. He is a Prophet and Messenger of God!” almost set the State ablaze.

Granted, ARCON doused the sectarian fire these unhinged adverts provoked before it could gain traction and snowball into national crisis, but even at that, that was only because Christians were at the receiving end. Imagine what would have happened if the joke was on Muslims.

But all that could have been avoided if the materials were sent to ARCON for vetting as required by law. Such adverts wouldn’t have seen the light of the day. Viewed from this prism, advert regulation is a national security imperative which should not be trifled with.

Is the ARCON Act perfect? Not exactly. Which means that it could be tinkered with if need be without sacrificing its essence on the altar of the unbridled petulance of an entitled few. But to suggest as some people are doing that it should be discarded wholesale is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water. That will serve no useful purpose. What needs to be done is a more robust stakeholders’ engagement and to ensure that it does not become a tool for vendetta – business, political or otherwise.

The National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, has condemned the Canadian government for its decision to deny visas to Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Christopher Musa, and other senior military officials.

The officials were due to attend an event in Canada honouring war veterans, but only a portion of the delegation was granted visas, leading to strong reactions from Nigerian authorities.

Ribadu and Musa spoke on Thursday at the inaugural annual lecture of the Alumni Association of the National Institute for Security Studies (AANISS) in Abuja.

The event, attended by security experts and government officials, focused on national security challenges and international cooperation.

Addressing the visa denial, Ribadu expressed frustration, describing it as disrespectful, while Musa emphasised the need for Nigeria to assert itself on the global stage and not be taken for granted.

Musa recounted the experience, noting that he and his team had been invited to the veterans’ event but faced an unexpected setback when some members of the delegation were denied entry. He described the situation as disappointing but saw it as a reminder for Nigeria to strengthen its independence and resilience.

He stated, “Every disappointment is a blessing. Yesterday, I was meant to be in Canada for an event to honour our veterans, those who were injured during battles, and we were supposed to be there.

“We were invited with our team. Half of us have gone, and half have been denied. It’s very disappointing.

“It’s a clear reminder that the country must stand on its own, stand strong as a nation, and should no longer be taken for granted.”

Ribadu, in his remarks, reinforced the importance of making Nigeria self-sufficient, citing the incident as further motivation to work towards national progress.

He commended Musa for his leadership in tackling security challenges, stressing the need for continued collaboration among security agencies.

The NSA said, “Thank you for having the courage to say Canada denied you visas. They can go to hell.

“Even though it’s painful and disrespectful, we are peaceful and strong, and I agree with you that it is time to fix our country.

“Yet, this is another reason we must work hard to make Nigeria thrive. I commend you for providing purposeful leadership in the fight against insecurity.”

The visa denial raises questions about Canada’s stance on Nigerian military officials and its broader diplomatic relationship with Nigeria. While the specific reasons for the refusal remain unclear, the incident has highlighted the bureaucratic and political hurdles Nigerian officials face in international engagements.

[Vanguard]

It is that time of the year again — Valentine’s Day, a celebration of love and romance! While a classic dinner date is a popular choice, why stick to the usual when you can make the day even more special?  

This year, break away from routine and explore new, exciting ways to celebrate with your partner.

Whether you are in the mood for adventure, relaxation, or a touch of creativity, these unique date ideas will help you create unforgettable memories and make your Valentine’s truly special.

• Beach picnic date

Nigeria has some of the most beautiful beaches, making them the perfect setting for a romantic Valentine’s Day.

So, skip the usual restaurant date and have a romantic picnic at a beach like Elegushi, Tarkwa Bay, or Oniru.

For a budget-friendly yet memorable experience, pack a picnic basket filled with homemade meals, snacks, and refreshing drinks. However, some beaches have restrictions on bringing in outside food, so be sure to confirm the rules beforehand.

You could also bring along your favorite games, a Bluetooth speaker for soft music, and a comfortable mat to lounge on. Enjoy deep conversations, playful moments, and breathtaking sunsets with your partner as the sound of the waves sets the mood.

• Paint and sip date

If you and your partner are artistic, a paint and sip date is a fun and romantic way to celebrate the day.

Rather than the regular dinner, spend the day exploring your creativity while sipping your favourite drinks. Several studios and lounges now offer paint and sip experiences, providing all the necessary materials, from canvases to brushes and paints.

For a more intimate experience, you can recreate this date at home. Set up a cozy painting station, grab some wine or juice, and follow an online tutorial together. It’s not about creating a masterpiece but about sharing laughter, bonding, and making lasting memories.

• Arcade date

Relive your childhood fun by trying out different games in an arcade.

The arcade offer several games, from car racing and basketball hoops to dance machines and VR experiences. The thrill of competing and cheering each other on is a good memory to have.

You can also set friendly wagers — whoever loses buys dessert!

• Staycation date

With Valentine’s Day falling on a Friday, it’s the perfect excuse to turn a romantic date into a weekend-long getaway without leaving your city or spending too much.

A staycation allows you and your partner to escape the usual routine, relax, reconnect and create new memories in a new environment without the hassle of long-distance travel.

• Spa and wellness date

Valentine’s Day is the perfect time to relax and unwind with your partner, and a spa and wellness date offers just that.

Instead of the usual dinner outing, treat yourselves to couples’ spa experience, where you can enjoy variety of sessions including massages, facials, in a calm and intimate setting.

For a budget-friendly option, you can create a Do It Yourselves (DIY) spa night at home with scented candles, essential oils, and relaxing music.

Run a warm bath, give each other massages, and enjoy your favourite drinks.

• Museum date

You can as well explore Nigeria’s history and art by visiting cultural centres and museum for a mix of adventure and culture.

[YheCable]

The worst possible outcome of the 2023 presidential election would have been an Atiku Abubakar victory. That would have established such a bad and dangerous precedent, causing serious damage to Nigeria’s unity and worsening the country’s already problematic management of diversity.

Atiku ran for the PDP presidential ticket on the basis that only a northern candidate could win. It was not a subtle campaign but a full-throated one, in which Atiku and Aminu Tambuwal, as well as their associates such as Raymond Dokpesi, went on national TV to cite controversial population dynamics as the reason only a northerner could win the presidency.

The naiveté displayed by these men, who ordinarily should be considered seasoned political strategists because of the positions and offices they had occupied, was outstanding. It was a clear misreading of the Nigerian political system, or even worse, an exhibition of ignorance of the country’s political behaviour and demographics. But, apparently, the desperation to win the PDP’s presidential ticket and check the ambitious and cash-flushed Wike clouded their judgment, making them push a line of reasoning that was not only wrong but clearly against their own long-term interest.

This ‘only a northerner can win’ campaign was so steep that it also impacted the rival APC. I was a strategist for the campaign of a southern presidential aspirant in the APC, and one of our notable challenges was the growing narrative that only a person from the north could win the general election, especially if the PDP elected a northern Presidential candidate.

The argument seemed silly and easily dismissible considering Nigeria’s plural demographics, voting behaviour, and the presidential election results since 1999. But even in casual conversations, one could tell that the narrative was gaining ground, and soon there was chatter of a plot in the Villa to ensure that a northerner emerged as the APC presidential candidate, to make it an all-north final—Atiku in the PDP and the northerner to emerge in the APC.

I wrote an article at that time to repudiate this argument and to call out Atiku for his myopia. My point was that the framers of the 1999 constitution made it impossible for anyone to emerge as President without substantial investments and support from the other regions. That is why regional parties in the mould of Obafemi Awolowo’s UPN and Nnamdi Azikiwe’s NPP have not succeeded in the 4th Republic. To be a successful presidential candidate, one needs a broad coalition straddling both the North and South.

I noted that such an insular mindset made Muhammadu Buhari a serial loser of presidential elections until he formed an extensive coalition of leading northern and southern politicians. I also pointed out that southern candidates, Goodluck Jonathan and Olusegun Obasanjo, had won the presidency handily in the past through such political alliances. In any case, I argued, assuming Atiku was right that the population of the north gave it such a superior advantage that political parties were compelled to field only northerners to ensure victory, did it mean that northerners would rule Nigeria in perpetuity?

Of course, the results of the 2023 presidential election confirmed my arguments and put a lie to this line of reasoning. Atiku’s PDP, expectedly, performed poorly in the South, losing its strongholds of the South-South and South-East to Peter Obi’s LP. Even in the North, he only won nine out of a possible 19 states, which was insufficient to put him ahead in the presidential race. But imagine he had come out on top despite his alienating campaign against southern demographics. That would have disrupted the gentleman’s arrangement for power to move from one zone to another and validated the argument that political parties don’t have to broaden their outlook to win.

As the opposition rallies towards the 2027 elections, it is necessary to draw attention to the PDP’s error of 2023. The narrow messaging of Atiku, Tambuwal and co cost the party its southern support base, making it impossible for the PDP to win. The emerging coalition must therefore be wary of the inclination of some politicians to mask personal ambition as the group’s own and thereby foist an image on it that is narrow, alienating and limiting.

That was the PDP’s fatal undoing in 2023, diminishing from a national party with a support base sufficiently spread across the country to Atiku’s personal electioneering vehicle that pandered to a limited demographic. The drivers of the new coalition must therefore insist that it remains broad-based, drawing strength from its plurality and diversity, like the APC did in 2013 when it was formed. Anything short of that would be Nunc Dimittis, a funeral for a stillborn, rather than the building of a people-owned political party capable of rescuing the country.

X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, has agreed to settle a lawsuit from President Donald Trump over censorship allegations following the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

Forbes reported the settlement fee as $10 million.

After the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, X, then known as Twitter, permanently suspended his @realDonaldTrump account, while Meta banned him from Facebook and Instagram for two years.

Trump sued the platforms for being unfairly censored.

X is the second major social media platform to mend the legal fracture with Trump.

Last month, Trump signed a settlement agreement to end Meta’s lawsuit.

Meta is reported to pay roughly $25 million – of which $22 million would go toward a fund for Trump’s presidential library.

Since Trump won the election, tech leaders have worked to score points with the US president whom they were previously vocal against during his first term.

At the time, Musk had described Trump as “unfit” to run the United States, however, the tech billionaire now leads a new federal agency –under the US president — dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The world’s richest man also played a significant role in Trump’s campaign leading to him winning the presidential election.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive officer (CEO), did not endorse Trump in the leadup to the election but Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Musk and Zuckerberg were among several tech billionaires present during Trump’s inauguration last month.

[TheCable]

Many years ago, when my son was completing paperwork for a job with the Lagos State government, he was required to fill out a form that included his State of Origin. He paused.

It had been marked a compulsory field, and he wanted to know if not filling it would affect his chances. I said it would. He replied that he wouldn’t fill it, even if it meant losing the job. It didn’t make sense to him that his chances might come down solely not to his competence, merit, or the fact that he was born in Lagos, where he has resided all his life – but to the state where he is from.

He didn’t fill it and didn’t get the job, though I cannot remember if there were other reasons. Nigeria is the only country I know where a citizen or resident is compulsorily required to fill out their state of origin and local government and provide details of their forbears to the fourth and fifth generation as a basis for getting a job or contract.

In the beginning

It’s mainly a public sector thing – the sector that has been our blessing and bane. In its original form, “state representation,” apart from being a core unit of the federation, was also supposed to be a form of affirmative action. It was supposed to be a tool to encourage fair representation and protection, especially for ethnic minorities. The colonial government laid the foundation with the Sir Henry Willink Commission in 1957 to examine the agitation of minorities on the eve of Nigeria’s independence.

But like all good things politicians touch, they have managed to debase it. It’s convenient to argue that it was not politicians but the military that started it. States have been created five times since former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon created 12 from the four regions in 1967 to weaken Biafra.

But Gowon did it at the behest of politicians, as has every other military leader after him, including military President Ibrahim Babangida, who loved it so much he did it twice.

Growing obsession

Nigeria has since grown from 12 to 36 states. Former Head of State General Sani Abacha delivered the last set of sextuplets of states in 1996. Yet, the urge for more has not only become a national pastime. It is perhaps the next single biggest obsession of politicians after “budget padding”, a practice that permits lawmakers to inflate the annual appropriation bill to gratify themselves.

All 10 National Assemblies since 1999 have never failed to mention and pursue the creation of more states. Committees on state creation have travelled the country at substantial public expense, selling new states as the snake oil to “marginalised” communities.

At the end of such jamborees, including the collection of tonnes of memos that only feed the public a false hope, the politicians leave expectant communities high and dry until the following memo collection by a new set of politicians who lie to themselves that state creation is the medicine for social injustice. Not exactly true.

Not a joking matter

State creation is a serious business. For example, the request for a new state in Nigeria must be supported by at least two-thirds of the representatives from the area, from the councils to the state and National Assembly.

That’s the first step. After that, it must undergo a referendum that must be ratified by a simple majority of all the states in the federation and by a simple majority of members of the National Assembly. Military governments in the country created states without much resistance because of their unitary command and control structure. Even at that, deadly disputes among splintered states lingered and still linger on for years.

The assets-sharing dispute between Kano and Jigawa States lasted 18 years, while the boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom continues after 38 years, with many lives lost. The Oyo-Osun post-state creation clashes rank high on the violent dispute ladder, stoking agitation for the creation of the New Oyo State. The case between Bauchi and Plateau remained a low-intensity dispute that later morphed into ethnoreligious clashes.

States abroad

It’s not for nothing that none of the world’s most prominent federations, such as India, the US, Canada, or Brazil, has created a new state in the last 50 years. This is not because of a lack of demand or because these countries have no ethnic minorities who feel endangered. Instead, they are evolving ways of managing their diversity that reduce the salience of statism as a basis for social justice, such as prioritising merit and competence.  

Agitation for more states remains a recurring problem in Nigeria because politicians have managed to frame it as perhaps the most viable route to development – the channel connecting neglected communities to Abuja’s drunken sailors.

Many governors have praised state creation not necessarily for the opportunities they have created from the exercise by looking inwards but because of their access to Abuja’s monthly pie. For being a state, however miserably governed, Nigerian states are entitled to 26.72 percent of the monthly revenue from the federation account, which can run into billions of naira. Among politicians, the lust for a share of this pie or monthly allocation is at the heart of the relentless demand for new states.

Making it 67?

The House of Representatives’ bill to create 31 additional states to bring the number to 67 is a joke. As far as demands for new states go, the most rigorous effort in the last 20 years was in 2014, when President Goodluck Jonathan’s government set up the National Conference to discuss mainly structural issues facing the country.

The conference recommended 18 additional states to bring the number to 54. The main arguments were the arbitrariness in previous exercises by the military. In the case of the South East, the point was made that the region has remained maliciously underserved in political representation, making it look like a continuation of Nigeria’s Civil War by other means.

A fundamental difference between the conference’s recommendation and others before and after it is the suggestion for six equipotent zones (with the same number of states), which would form the basis of the federating units with the centre. The conference further recommended that each zone could create more states if it deemed desirable and could finance it.

An unlikely adventure

There was no final agreement. “My experience at the conference,” Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, one of the members representing the South West, wrote in a paper in 2017, “suggests that it is highly unlikely that the establishment of zonal governments now or in the near future can be achieved through voluntary, peaceful negotiations.”

It’s even more unlikely now that the Federal Government is almost broke and only four of the 36 existing states are solvent. A 2023 report by the public sector transparency watchdog, BudgIT, said 32 states relied on Federal Allocation for at least 55 percent of their monthly revenue.

What matters

Are politicians genuinely interested in social justice, inclusiveness and development for their communities? They must look beyond the random creation of new states, quotas, privileges and other forms of affirmative action, often a disincentive to merit, resourcefulness and innovation.

States are not in short supply, yet because of primordial greed, the campaign for more will not abate until each of Nigeria’s 350 ethnic nationalities has one. Politicians know the difference between greed and necessity but will not dare to make the right choice. They earn a living by feeding their communities false hope.

The Managing Director of the Financial Derivatives Company Limited (FDC), Mr. Bismarck Rewane, likened Nigeria to a morgue of abandoned projects last week. He could not have been more apt. “Easy to start and easier to kill,” was Rewane’s way of describing the way public policies and mega projects are initiated in Nigeria before they are then abandoned. He said the novel idea of highway concessioning has become a nightmare that stalls “N11.54 trillion in private investment” in the country. Instructively, Rewane’s intervention came on the same day ‘LEADERSHIP’ newspaper published a report on how infrastructural projects worth hundreds of billions of naira have been abandoned by past and current governors in no fewer than 29 of the 36 states.

While interested readers can access the report, (https://leadership.ng/29-states-abandon-270-multi-billion-naira-projects/), the issue of abandoned projects and the implications for the future of our country is one I have addressed on this page several times. My last intervention, ‘Squandermania Nigeria Unlimited’ on 15th September 2022, followed a report credited to then Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director-General, Bashir Jamoh, that years after taking delivery of a floating dock constructed with the whooping sum of N50 billion (about N500 billion by today’s exchange rate), it had not been put to use due to bureaucratic bottlenecks. “Now, as we are talking, I am just coming back from Abuja to get the consent and agreement of the people that will give us the location where we can place the floating dock. Up till now, we have not got a location,” Jamoh lamented. “And then, the other thing is that it has been there since 2018, nobody has worked on it, started it or tested it.”

Considering what I discovered yesterday about that scandalous floating dock affair, I want to excerpt from the column before making my concluding point:

============================================================== 

Dry docking is a term used when the ship is brought to dry land for submerged sections to be repaired, cleaned or inspected. There are only three functioning shipyards in Nigeria where minimal repairs of cabotage vessels of 500 tonnes are carried out. Two of these—Starzs Shipyard and Niger Benue Shipyard—are privately owned. The other, Nigerdock Limited, was originally 100 per cent owned by the federal government but was privatized following the demise of the Nigerian National Shipping Line (NNSL). That story is already well-documented.  

At its peak, Nigerdock had 29 vessels. Today, Nigeria’s flag administration is essentially dead and we no longer have a single ocean-going vessel. Our shipyards can barely repair cabotage vessels, forcing international shipping companies to other smaller African countries in order to retain their safety classification and insurance, as specified by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In fact, we currently depend on Ghana, Senegal, South Africa etc. to dry-dock all ocean-going vessels doing business in Nigerian waters. That explains why it’s almost criminal that a prime asset (measuring 125 metres by 35 metres, with three in-built cranes, transformers, and a number of ancillary facilities) meant to fill that gap could be allowed to waste for years. Now marooned at a Naval Dockyard, the floating dry Dock was envisioned to, and has capacity for, employing hundreds of Nigerians. It would also have served as a hub to train students in our Maritime tertiary institutions. 

For those who may not be conversant with maritime matters, ships are required to dry dock at least twice every five years to retain their seaworthiness. With an average of 5,000 ships calling on our ports annually, in addition to 400 active coastal vessels and several fishing trawlers, it is estimated that Nigeria could save up to N350 billion annually (more than a trillion Naira in today’s value) while also earning millions of dollars in the process. The maritime sector, like the oil and gas industry, holds considerable prospects for the development of our economy. But it is also being grossly mismanaged. Meanwhile, it costs more than $1million to tow vessels out of Nigeria for repairs when the cost of dry-docking itself (for which the floating dry dock was conceived) is approximately $400,000. This is a compelling story of lost opportunity, not to mention the cost of doing business in Nigeria. Of course, it is not surprising that we have ended up in this situation because those who conceive and execute projects in our country are usually more concerned about transactional details that benefit them than the more important consideration of public good.  

From my investigation, this story began on 23rd October 2013 under President Goodluck Jonathan when the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved the contract for the “Construction of Ship Building Facility and Dockyard: Maritime Equipment and Structures, Ancillary Buildings and Electro-Mechanical Works and Facilities (Package 1) at Okerenkoko, Delta State for the sum of N40,243,702,763.38.” The contract period was 36 months effective from the date of receiving the first payment of 15 per cent mobilisation which translated to N6,036,555,414.49. “The balance payment shall be based upon the following modes: 65 per cent of the total contract sum shall be paid by irrevocable confirmed Letters of Credit (LC) to enable your Company import heavy duty equipment required for the project which includes Water Treatment Pipes; Powerhouse and Services; Travel Lift; Landing Modular Jetties; Modular Floating Dock and Cradle Set; and Quay Crane…”   

If we consider that the exchange rate in 2013 was N159 to a dollar, it is easy to understand the current value of this project, especially as it was paid in dollars. I have no idea why the contract exceeded its timeframe by more than a year or the rationale for increasing the cost by 25 percent. But on 29th May 2018, the company wrote to notify NIMASA that “following successful inspections by Manufacturer (Damen Shipyards), Lloyds officials, Debaj Engineering Company ltd (NIMASA consultants), the Modular Floating Dock (MFDd NIMASA, IMO 9785639) is heading to Lagos, Nigeria as per the communicated program of works and our previous notification letter.”   

After highlighting other technical details, the company then listed pending operational matters: “We kindly request NIMASA to notify the concern (sic) authorities regarding the arrival of OSPREY and the offloading of MFDd NIMASA in Lagos. We kindly request a resolution of the subject of location including access to the proposed site in Apapa, Lagos in order to proceed with civil and mechanical works for the mooring of the Floating Dock. Also be reminded that the existing old and faulty NPA floating dock should be moved/relocated in order to allow mooring of the new NIMASA Modular Floating dock; Registration of the Nigeria Flag for MFDd NIMASA, IMO 9785639; Obtaining waiver of custom duties for the modular floating dock and Obtaining Insurance for the floating dock.”   

The Floating Dock arrived in Nigeria in 2018, but what should be earning us revenue has become another huge burden. When we eventually decide to put it to use, we may also be talking of turn around maintenance running into billions of Naira. In fact, the Association of Marine Engineers and Surveyors (AMES) raised the alarm last year (2021) that the dry Dock had been removed from the Lloyd’s Registers Class because it could not be surveyed for three years. This raises several pertinent questions. Why did the federal government embark on such an expensive and highly technical project without a firm decision on where the Dry Dock would berth? Should NIMASA, a regulatory agency, take on the role of operator which the purchase of the floating Dry Dock implies? Why do public officials continue to promote ideas doomed to fail and, in this instance, not backed by the enabling law? And how are we sure we have not already created another monument to waste? Like Ajaokuta, most of the software in the computer-driven floating dock may have become obsolete according to some experts. 

The only rational explanation I can find online on this sordid affair was one provided by a former NIMASA Executive Director, Operations, Rotimi Fashakin (now of blessed memory). He told reporters in Lagos that berthing the dock at the permanent site of the Nigerian Maritime University, Okerenkoko, as was originally conceptualized, could not be done due to insecurity. “Initially when the floating dock was acquired, the design was for it to berth in Delta State. But even at that time, there were a lot of reports advising to the contrary”, explained Fashakin who added that the contract preceded the Buhari administration. “A dock is supposed to serve the shipping community as a commercial facility, but which company or vessel would be bold enough to travel to Delta State given the insecurity? When the dock landed in Nigeria, there were various state governments that requested for it, all these are on record. When it came in, we thought of many ideas, but this is a government asset and not something you can just give to an operator. NIMASA is a regulator and not an operator, so giving the dock to an operator also needs to go through the bureaucracy of government.”   

The fact that a regulator was trying to play in the same league with operators should have been clear to NIMASA before initiating the idea. But like most government contracts, we pay first and think later. The more information one obtains on this matter, and I have spoken to many stakeholders, the more despondent you become about our country – even if some of us refuse to give up hope. The greater concern is that this is not an isolated problem. Our national landscape is strewn with projects that were not well-conceived and have become liabilities after hundreds of billions of Naira had been invested in them.

In 2015, the then Chartered Institute of Project Management of Nigeria (CIPMN) president, Victoria Okoronkwo, estimated abandoned projects in Nigeria at N12 trillion. If we use the exchange rate at the time these projects were conceived and expenditures incurred, we should have an idea of the billions of dollars we are throwing away. Listing the projects by geopolitical zone, Okoronkwo said the South-east has 15,000; Southwest, 10,000; Southsouth, 11,000; Northwest, 6,000; Northcentral, 7,000: North-east, 5,000 and Abuja, 2,000. I have no doubt that hundreds of others have been added to the list since then…

ENDNOTE:

More than two years after that column, the NIMASA Managing Director who succeeded Jamoh is still talking about how they will put the drydock to use. “The initial plan for the floating dock was not the right one. We are going to put the Modular Floating Dock to very good use so that once it’s in operation; it will benefit the economy, seafarers, and NIMASA itself,” Dayo Mobereola said last August. “We need to place the modular floating dock in an appropriate location. It is just a matter of time; we will soon get that done.”

From my findings in recent days, even though the expensive drydock has been moved to Nigerdock, it is still idle almost seven years after it arrived in Nigeria! This extraordinary level of waste and mismanagement of scarce resources speaks volumes about the lack of accountability in a country that has now been appropriately dubbed a ‘morgue of abandoned projects.’

Enough said!

The question of whether former U.S. President Donald Trump, or any American leader, should reconsider U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding to Africa is a pressing one. This is not because Africa does not need financial aid, but rather because much of the aid intended for development and poverty alleviation ends up in the pockets of corrupt leaders and their cronies. The cycle of looting has become an institutionalized plague, depriving millions of Africans of the much-needed benefits that such funding is meant to provide. If USAID funding is being squandered through corruption, then the question arises: Should the U.S. continue providing financial assistance to Africa under such conditions?

Without any iota of exaggeration, the USAID Mission is a noble intention thwarted by corruption.  For the sake of clarity, USAID was established with the goal of promoting economic development, democracy, and humanitarian assistance around the world. In Africa, the agency has played a critical role in addressing poverty, healthcare crises, and infrastructural development. From funding malaria and HIV/AIDS prevention programs to providing relief during famines and pandemics, USAID has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for millions.

However, despite these noble intentions, the impact of USAID funding has often been diluted by systemic corruption. Instead of ensuring that these resources reach the people who need them most, corrupt government officials, bureaucrats, and elites siphon off large portions of the funds, enriching themselves while leaving the masses in abject poverty. Transparency International and other anti-corruption watchdogs have repeatedly exposed shocking cases of embezzlement, with some African leaders stashing stolen funds in offshore accounts or investing in luxurious properties abroad.

At this juncture, it is expedient to throw insight into how African leaders squander USAID funds. This is as there are numerous documented instances of aid money being misappropriated or misused by African governments.

For instance, several African countries receive millions of dollars annually from USAID to fight diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. However, reports have shown that funds meant for purchasing medical equipment and drugs are often mismanaged or embezzled, leading to a lack of essential medicines in public hospitals.

In a similar vein, infrastructure projects funded by international aid are frequently over-inflated or never completed. Corrupt officials often award contracts to bogus companies, diverting large sums into personal accounts while leaving roads, hospitals, and schools in decrepit conditions.

In fact, some leaders and their associates set up dubious non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to access foreign aid, only to divert the funds for personal use. These organizations exist merely on paper, while the funds are channeled into private businesses and real estate ventures.

Even when USAID funds are disbursed, they are often distributed through corrupt networks, with money reaching only those with political connections. Many public service projects are executed based on favoritism, rather than need-based assessments.

Given the foregoing insights, it is not an exaggeration to opine that the human cost of corruption in this context is colossal.  This is as the looting of aid funds is not just an economic crime, it is a moral and humanitarian crisis and the effects are dire.

For instance it has resulted to poverty and unemployment. The reason for the foregoing cannot be farfetched as given the development funds being stolen, millions remain trapped in poverty, with little hope for economic empowerment. Worse still, youth unemployment rates continue to soar, creating fertile ground for crime, violence, and migration crises.

In a similar vein, it engenders poor healthcare and education. In fact, the inability to channel funds into the health and education sectors has left many Africans without access to quality medical care or proper schooling. Many hospitals lack basic medical supplies, and classrooms are overcrowded with underpaid teachers struggling to educate future generations.

Also in a similar vein is the political instability the malfeasance leads to. This is as corruption leads to frustration, social unrest, and in some cases, violent uprisings. Citizens who feel betrayed by their governments often turn to protests or even armed conflicts, further destabilizing already fragile states.

Given the foregoing, the question on everyone lips, and asking no one in particular is, “Should the U.S. Withdraw Aid?”

To answer the foregoing question, it is expedient to opine that given these grim realities, it is understandable why Trump and other American policymakers might question the wisdom of continuing USAID funding in Africa. After all, why should American taxpayers’ money be funneled into a system that enriches corrupt elites rather than addressing the actual needs of the people?

Yet, a complete withdrawal of USAID funding could also have catastrophic consequences. Millions rely on this aid for food, healthcare, and emergency relief. Cutting off funding could worsen hunger crises, increase disease outbreaks, and further entrench poverty. Instead of outright discontinuation, a more effective strategy would be to implement stricter monitoring and accountability measures.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is salient to suggest that reforming the aid distribution from USAID is the way forward.

Therefore, to ensure that USAID funds serve their intended purpose, the U.S. government, in collaboration with African institutions, should adopt measures that cut across direct funding to credible NGOs, adoption of stringent accountability mechanism, adoption of empowerment over handouts, collaboration with Civil Society and Whistleblowers and promotion of good governance.

Explanatorily put, rather than routing funds through corrupt governments, USAID should work directly with reputable NGOs and grassroots organizations that have a proven track record of accountability.

In a similar vein, USAID should enhance its auditing systems to track every dollar spent. Any country found to be mismanaging funds should face sanctions, including suspension of aid until reforms are made.

Still in a similar vein, instead of just giving aid, USAID should prioritize economic empowerment programs that create jobs and support local enterprises. Initiatives that provide skills training, entrepreneurship support, and microfinance opportunities can help Africans build self-sustaining economies.

Besides, civil society groups and investigative journalists should be empowered to expose corruption. USAID should establish partnerships with these watchdog organizations to identify and eliminate fraudulent activities.

Again, the U.S. can leverage aid as a tool to push for governance reforms. Only countries that demonstrate progress in fighting corruption and upholding democracy should continue receiving full aid packages.

Without a doubt, the debate over USAID funding in Africa is not about whether Africa needs help, it does. The real question is whether aid can be delivered in a way that ensures it benefits ordinary people rather than enriching corrupt leaders. While Trump and other policymakers may have valid concerns about aid mismanagement, an outright withdrawal of USAID funding would do more harm than good. Instead, a more stringent, accountable, and reform-driven approach must be adopted to curb corruption and ensure that aid fulfills its purpose of improving lives.

Ultimately, the fate of Africa rests in the hands of its leaders. If African governments refuse to tackle corruption, then no amount of foreign aid will be enough to lift the continent out of poverty. African citizens, civil society organizations, and international partners must hold their leaders accountable to ensure that development funds serve their rightful purpose. Only then can the vision of a prosperous Africa become a reality.

In the annals of African Traditional Religion (ATR), traditional doctors, also known as herbalists or native doctors, were once venerated figures. They held a sacred duty as custodians of ancestral knowledge, healers, spiritual guides, and intermediaries between the living and the spirit world. Their roles were clearly defined by culture and tradition, and they operated within the boundaries of morality, integrity, and service to their communities. However, in contemporary times, an increasing number of native doctors have strayed from their noble callings and ventured into crime, bringing dishonor to an institution that once commanded the highest respect. This unfortunate development is what has prompted Anambra State Governor, Professor Charles Soludo, to take decisive action against rogue elements within the traditional medical system.

Rather than criticizing his efforts, Governor Soludo must be commended for this courageous step. Other states where native doctors have been linked to criminal activities should take a cue from his administration’s policies. If our ancestors could rise from their graves, they would undoubtedly express disappointment in how some of their revered spiritual heirs have become harbingers of terror instead of healers of the people.

Without a doubt, traditional doctors are custodians of African spirituality and healing.  Historically, traditional doctors were seen as pillars of African societies. Their primary responsibilities revolved around healing the sick using herbs, roots, and natural remedies. They were also spiritual mediators who provided guidance on matters such as marriage, fertility, protection from evil forces, and resolving disputes through divination and rituals. These spiritualists were deeply respected, often consulted by kings and elders before major decisions were made.

Additionally, native doctors played significant roles in fortifying warriors before battles, blessing farmlands to ensure bountiful harvests, and preserving cultural heritage through oral traditions. Their practices were guided by ethical principles passed down through generations. Unlike modern fraudulent practices, their work was rooted in the genuine service of humanity, often regulated by traditional councils and spiritual oversight bodies.

Regrettably, many of today’s so-called traditional doctors have abandoned their original roles. Some have resorted to heinous crimes, including human rituals, kidnapping, fraud, and other nefarious activities. There have been numerous reports of shrines doubling as criminal hideouts where victims are slaughtered in the name of money rituals. Innocent individuals have fallen prey to deceitful practitioners who exploit people’s desperation by promising them wealth, power, or revenge through dark means.

One of the most alarming trends is the rising cases of human sacrifice and organ harvesting orchestrated by fake native doctors. These crimes have tarnished the reputation of genuine traditional healers and have instilled fear rather than respect in the minds of the people. It is, therefore, not surprising that Governor Soludo has decided to clamp down on these elements that misuse the title of “native doctor” to perpetrate evil.

Without a doubt, Soludo’s action is a step in the right direction. This is as he has in response to the alarming rise of criminal activities linked to some traditional doctors, he has taken decisive steps to rid Anambra State of this menace. His administration has identified and shut down shrines used as criminal hideouts, while individuals linked to ritual killings, fraud, and other illegal activities have been arrested and prosecuted.

Some critics argue that this move is an attack on African traditions, but such claims are unfounded. Soludo’s crackdown is not targeted at genuine herbalists who practice in accordance with traditional ethics but rather at impostors who have turned their trade into a tool for crime. If anything, his actions should be seen as a purification process to restore dignity to the traditional healing profession.

In fact, instead of condemnation, the governor must be encouraged. A government that prioritizes the security of its people and the moral rejuvenation of society deserves support. However, the fight against criminality should not be selective, and no institution, whether traditional, religious, or modern, should be above the law.

The problem of criminal native doctors is not exclusive to Anambra State. Across Nigeria, several cases have been recorded where traditional shrines have served as fronts for criminal activities. From Ogun to Delta, from Kogi to Edo, the involvement of fake native doctors in violent crimes has become a national crisis.

In fact, state governments across Nigeria should take a cue from Soludo’s approach and implement similar measures to sanitize the practice of traditional healing. This includes setting up regulatory bodies that will work with traditional rulers heal operate, while those with criminal intentions are flushed out.

In fact,looking at the issue from the perspective of restoring the honor of traditional healing.  Beyond government intervention, there is an urgent need for cultural and religious leaders to reclaim the lost dignity of traditional medicine. Traditional councils and associations of native doctors must set up stringent ethical codes and ensure strict compliance. Native doctors should be certified by their respective traditional institutions, and anyone found engaging in illegal activities should be disowned and handed over to the authorities.

Moreover, the public must also be educated about the dangers of patronizing fraudulent spiritualists. Many people, driven by greed or desperation, seek the services of criminal native doctors, thereby encouraging their illegal activities. The awareness that true traditional healing does not involve human sacrifice, blood rituals, or illegal means should be emphasized in schools, religious institutions, and media platforms.

Governor Soludo’s crackdown on criminal native doctors is a necessary and commendable step in the fight against crime in Anambra State. The infiltration of criminal elements into the traditional healing sector has severely damaged its reputation, making this action long overdue. Our ancestors who upheld the sanctity of traditional medicine would be dismayed to see how some of their supposed successors have turned into criminals.

Rather than opposing Soludo’s move, other state governments must follow suit to rid Nigeria of this disturbing trend. Traditional councils, community leaders, and law enforcement agencies must work together to ensure that the traditional healing profession regains its lost honor. Only through such collective efforts can we preserve our heritage while ensuring the safety and well-being of our people.

Without mincing words, it is not a misnomer to opine that it is time to cleanse the land and return traditional healing to its rightful place of honor.