Nigeria Goes On Trial

MANY things we consider obstacles to Nigeria’s growth – and most likely more – would be confirmed when Nigeria undergoes the peer review, a programme of the New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD, aimed at helping African countries to assess themselves.

Peer review that was initiated in 2000 has many advantages, the major one being that African leaders would open various facets of their country for others to appraise. It is not important whether a country scores high marks or not.

What is important is how a country uses the result. Countries that are submitting themselves to review are undergoing an audit of their operations – a sweeping check that covers everything from governance to the media.


We commend the initiators of the peer review system and ask Nigerian institutions to submit fully to the audit. There have been many speculations about the Nigerian condition, something that has forlornly been dubbed the Nigerian factor. The peer review should be able to tell us how different Nigeria is from other countries, and why it is working inefficiently.


Nigeria is battling with power supply, bad roads, housing, unemployment, poor security, corruption, inflated contracts, civil strives, injustices, barely managed health systems, electoral malpractices, abuse of office, an educational system that produces illiterates and other common complaints.

The point remains that no serious study has done a wholesome appraisal of these situations at the same time and unveil the linkages that are discarded in attempts to tackle the challenges.


On their part, Nigerian governments must be ready to implement the outcome of this review. It should not be treated like the copious reports of many earlier efforts to improve the country, which always managed to find their way to the shelves, where they are forgotten.


The peer review is not meant to reveal the ineffectiveness of governance in Nigeria, that is common knowledge. The critical issue would be why this well known situation cannot be changed.


We implore the peer review team to be thorough in its assessment. It should not allow itself to be swayed by sentiments about the size of Nigeria and her importance to Africa and to the world. If anything, these sentiments should dictate a higher fervour of thoroughness in saving the giant of Africa from itself, and the consequences that her failure naturally imposes on the world.


Nigeria’s importance should be the chief reason for ensuring that it is back to the path of progress it treaded at independence. The pounding negligence and unforgiving profligacy that various administrations have visited on the affairs of the country have left her bereft of any meaningful progress, notwithstanding the billions of Dollars she earns from crude oil.


If the peer review is able to sensitise Nigerians to the failing state that is theirs, if it gets the leadership to initiate actions to stave off an impeding disaster for Nigerians – with damning global consequences – it would have become the redeeming factor Nigerians fervently seek.