Telecoms’ Good News

Telecommunications investment in Nigeria since 2001 has hit an $18 billion mark. In 1999 total investment in the industry was a paltry $50 million. The growth by all standards, is good news for a country that is almost incapacitated by epileptic socio-economic infrastructure.
Chief Executive Officer of the National Communications Commiss-ion, Ernest Ndukwe, disclosed the figure at the just-concluded International Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in Geneva, Switzerland. He attributed the investments flow to the deregulation policy of governments and a predictive regulatory environment.
The telecommunications industry in Nigeria also has the twin credit of being the most functional socio-economic infrastructure in the country and perhaps the most successful case of liberalisation in the country. The aviation industry, which has been badly affected by the global financial meltdown, was another successful case.
At the risk of sounding like a PR consultant for the industry, we are compelled to count some of the achievements of the industry to make a point.
The telecoms investment figure comprises about $12 billion in foreign direct investment and the balance made up of investments from within the country. Clearly, following the liberalization of the telecommunications industry by government in 1999, and the subsequent auction of the mobile licenses in year 2001, the telecommunications industry in Nigeria has witnessed tremendous growth.
From teledensity figures of 0.4 lines per 100 inhabitants recorded in year 2000, by October 2008, Nigeria had recorded teledensity figures of 42 lines per 100 inhabitants, and an active subscriber base of nearly 59 million lines. All the states in Nigeria are covered by both voice and data services through the GSM and the CDMA technologies.
Indeed, experts say Nigeria's telecommunications sector is the fastest and largest growing in Africa, with a total of 68 million telephone lines, from just some few hundreds of thousands eight years ago.
The advantages of this growth trend are too many to be listed here, but they include increased range and quality of services available to citizens; the creation of direct and indirect employment opportunities for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled citizens; additional revenue for government through spectrum and numbering fees, import duties, VAT, etc,; improved service penetration to a larger and growing number in under-served and un-served urban, semi-urban and rural areas; technological development in the country; and the lowering of costs of acquiring and using the services.
With these achievements of the industry it is hard to explain the inability or reluctance of government to replicate the model in other ailing sectors such as the railways and electricity.
The beauty of successes such as this is that they become models and a motivation to continue to do the right things to grow the economy. They become models to be replicated in other sectors.
We are not unaware of the case for government's monopoly over the so-called national heritage but beyond facilitating government patronage and corruption, they have not served the country well.
We see another example in the telecoms industry. While local and foreign telecoms companies are blossoming, NITEL continues to be a sore thumb in the industry. And we believe that the reason is not unconnected with hidden interests that have made its transparent privatisation difficult.
NITEL's worth has depreciated considerably since Government broke its monopoly in 2001 and tried to sell it to an operator. Today, Nitel's infrastructure is in disrepair, and its fixed lines have fallen to less than 100,000, while MTEL subscribers have dropped to a few thousands. That is despite its status as a national carrier.
In spite of the weaknesses of private business models revealed in the global economic meltdown, we believe that government's role in business is the provision of an enabling environment and effective regulation. Nothing more. It is time for government to open other sectors of the economy to competition, as it did in 2001 the telecoms sector.
We believe that there are even more benefits to be derived from the telecoms industry as it grows. The challenge is for the regulators to address the weaknesses of the existing services in the industry such as the quality of GSM calls and internet services. Some of the services are appalling indeed. At this age of the industry, quality of service and affordability could be better, and should never be compromised

Nigeria and UN Security Council seat

On October 15, 2009, Nigeria was elected to a non-permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nations with 186 votes. Four other countries, Gabon, Brazil, Bosnia and Lebanon were elected to similar positions. Unlike previous Security Council elections, there were no contested seats this year. As a result, the five countries nominated by regional groups won an easy election, following voting by the 192-member General Assembly. In the case of Nigeria, the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) supported her candidacy.

According to the rules of the United Nations, 15 member countries constitute the membership of the Security Council. Collectively, they are to ensure peace and security among nations. Of this number, five permanent members made up of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France exercise veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions. The remaining 10 are elected for two-year terms only with half retiring every year. Nigeria will assume its position on January 1, 2010.

Ever since the announcement there has been jubilation in official circles almost as if Nigeria has won an undeserved trophy. Foreign Minister, Ojo Maduekwe, has been beating his chest in triumph. Never short of slogans, he has coined a new phrase - Preventive Diplomacy - as his concept of Nigeria's new role at the United Nations. We join him as he rejoices. But Nigeria's triumph is not altogether unexpected. The charter relating to the election of non-permanent members into the Security Council provides that in the first instance, such members must have a track record of contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security for mankind.

Nigeria has eminently fulfilled this condition being second only to India in the contribution of troops in support of UN efforts in achieving global peace and security. Nigeria pioneered and sustains ECOWAS. Nigeria had served three tenures as non-permanent member on the Council between 1966/1967, 1978/1979 and 1994/1995. It currently chairs the UN Second Committee, which deals with economic and financial matters, and the UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. In more ways than one, therefore, Nigeria fully qualifies to be a member of the Security Council. But the position comes with a lot of responsibility for which Nigeria must be prepared.

Former Foreign Affairs Minister and current United Nations Under-Secretary General Prof. Ibrahim Gambari who should know what the position entails says Security Council membership requires 24-hour concentration; that meetings are called at short notice and that literally there is no time to 'stand and stare'. He says the challenge now is for Nigeria to have an effective representation of Africa's interests as well as promoting Nigeria's own national interests. We agree entirely with him. Our presence at the Security Council at this time should lay a foundation for the country's bid for permanent representation in a reformed and expanded United Nations. The office of Nigeria's Permanent Representative to the UN should be adequately supported with financial, administrative and personnel resources to enable it discharge the added responsibility.

It is noteworthy that on the eve of this victory, Amnesty International has called on Nigeria to strengthen its national human rights record and demonstrate the country's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. What Amnesty International is saying, in other words, is that good foreign policy must be anchored on strong domestic policy. Nigeria cannot be presiding over the peace and security of the world when at home it is unable to hold free and fair elections or fight corruption or send our children to school.

The country cannot be at the pinnacle of the world with so much poverty among its people. Right now, Nigeria's economy is stagnating, its banks are in distress. There are bad roads everywhere and not enough employment opportunities for the people. Important industries are relocating away from the country. The cost of refined petroleum products is escalating but the government has refused to build new refineries. These and a whole lot more are things Nigeria should be addressing which its leaders choose to neglect. We shall earn the respect of the United Nations when we respect ourselves by keeping our house in order.

Bankers and the times

LONG before the Sanusi era, banking used to be one of the most sought-after professions in Nigeria. Some may argue that it probably still is. The reason for the former may not be far-fetched. The average graduate fresh from the compulsory one-year national youth service scheme dreams of landing a job in a bank. You cannot really blame them because no other sector gave young people such opportunities and rewarded them highly like the banks did. The banks have been at the forefront of reducing youth unemployment in Nigeria long before the telecommunications sector bullishly berthed on the scene. But still, not even the telecommunications sector, or the Oil and Gas sector could match the recruitment strength of the banks who were always in need of marketing staff, men and women who were quite ready to climb any mountain in their quest for deposit mobilisation.

The increased demand for fresh talent may also be as a result of the high job mobility in the sector, and the post-consolidation expansion strategy that many of the banks embarked on. Some of the banks claimed that they had to spread their branch network to access the under-banked population, but for many others, the glistening gigantic buildings they were erecting across major city centres may just be nothing else but vanity projects, erected to achieve the "My bank is bigger than yours" philosophy of many of the banks. In the end, this contributed to the financial recklessness that plagued the sector as many of such branches were actually loss making. Because bank branches are structured as cost and profit centres, the huge cost of running these branches meant that most branch managers always struggled to declare profits as every profit made is almost immediately swallowed by running costs.

The banks exploited the 'big bank' image in their marketing communications materials, just before the bubble burst, you could hardly see any bank ad that does not declare such a bank as the biggest bank in Nigeria, each claim backed by one or many of the awards that the bank had received from different awarding organisations locally and from abroad.

Now that Sanusi is wielding the big stick, how sad to see yesterday's banking big boys and girls looking towards the sky for some indication of what tomorrow holds. On a regular basis in the dailies, speculations are rife about looming mass sack in the banking halls. Some banks have already started the process of disengaging their surplus staff using different performance indices to determine who stays and who goes. Sadly, some of the great shinning stars of banking, the super marketing staff are also affected.

Why? Deposits have since dried up, depositors confidence very low and the huge deposits they were able to attract in the good old days have since disappeared through the back door into the uncertain risky terrain of insider 'carry go' loans and executive financial recklessness. What a reward, and what a way to pay bank staff back for their sacrifices in helping to build the affected banks through an aggressive regime of marketing and deposit mobilisation. Not even a golden handshake to say the least, but a short cold note to visit HR - a most dreaded memo in the sector currently.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt here by all. Back in the good old days, while the going was good, bankers cruised around town in brand new Prado SUVs, Toyota and Honda salon cars. Lady bankers dressed to attract deposits in designer wardrobes to die for, with matching accessories, oversized hand bags and shoes with hills that can injure. The men strutted around town dressed like GQ fashion models; they burnt cash in the best restaurants and night clubs with their wives and girlfriends in tow. Life was good. During this time, savings took a back seat, everybody was living for the moment, many were neck deep in all kinds of loans; margin, mortgage, auto, furniture, education, holidays etc. In retrospect, perhaps a moderate lifestyle may have helped cushion the impending job loss for some.

Are we all going to learn our lessons? Will banking go back to the conservative profession that it should be? Will bankers who survive the chop be able to take show out of the banking business? Only time will tell. And for the new kids on the block, the newly appointed MDs and EDs, this is hoping that they will not go down the widely travelled road. No more $10,000 suits, away with the long Mercedes G Wagon convoys, afterall, we are all now witnessing what happens to people that mess with other people's money. I am not forgetting the unrealistic targets that have driven many female bankers to corporate prostitution. Will all these change now?

There must be things we can learn from banks operating in Europe and America from where we imported the concept of banking. Unlike what obtains in our clime, banks are run as institutions and the banks go on to outlive the founders; people working in traditional high street banks have no business worrying about what the MD will do or say any day he or she has a bad day. They simply go to work, put in an honest hardworking shift and go back home to their families. Unlike the boiler pressure room situation obtainable in Nigerian banks, a situation that has created a lot of in-fighting, 'bad belleism' and favouritism which has pitched many a bank staff against another as they seek to impress the Ogas.

I wish I can find better advice for bankers who may be affected one way or the other in the current right sizing drive except to say that one should now learn to cut his or her coat according to one's clothes, as against one's size as my neighbour Ngozi, a female banker will say. There is no longer any such thing as job for life, not in banking or in any other sector, globalisation has changed all that. Especially in this global financial meltdown and Sanusi era where recent events have shown that it is no longer business as usual. Life will never be the same again; for the bankers, the bank owners and their customers.

The truth about China-Africa relations

I FEEL duty bound to pen this piece as a rejoinder to Olufemi Oyedele's letter titled 'Who is afraid of China?' (The Guardian, October 8, 2009). Oyedele lives in London and coincidentally, I was on a research tour of England at the time he wrote, gathering materials on an aspect of my research on China's diplomacy bordering on Western responses to China's ascendancy in global affairs. Oyedele's views, I must say, were typically Western. He cautioned Nigeria not to grant China's prayer for a $50 billion oil deal on grounds of the former's poor industrial record, penchant for underpayment, corruption, human rights abuses etc - a jumble of things that have little or no bearing on business transactions. Or, how does China's human rights record affect the pricing of oil blocks?

I don't know who Oyedele works for, but I got curious when he remarked thus concerning China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) bid for Nigerian oil blocks: 'They are proponents of 'cheap labour' and may not match the pay of other employers like Chevron, Texaco and Agip in the same sector'. He forgot to add Shell and Total to the list of super-paying Western oil companies!

While I will never say China cannot improve on its international economic relations, I will unhesitatingly declare that it presents a golden opportunity for developing nations of Africa to secure a fairer deal in global political economy, which never served their interests while Western hegemony held sway. There is so much propaganda being churned out in the Western world to scare Third world countries from doing business with China simply because they realise they are losing influence and grips on global affairs to China. The media and academia of the West are awash with news reports and books that are nothing short of propaganda materials. As a matter of fact, the frenzy with which Western universities are setting up centres and special programmes on China is phenomenal. Far-sighted people that they are, they want to understand how to cope with the great challenge China presents to their system and well-being. Some Nigerian academics make money by consulting for Western inquirers on diverse aspects of Chinese penetration of Africa.

To illustrate the Western media-academia anti-China propaganda, Adam Blenford opens a November 26, 2007, report, tongue-in-cheek, on the BBC website as follows: 'In almost every corner of Africa there is something that interests China'. TimesOnline in its October 13, 2009 issue laments: 'There is now barely a country on the continent (Africa) that does not have a sizeable Chinese presence'. If you talk of books, you will find Western titles like these: Mark Leonard's 'What does China think?', James Kynge's 'China Shakes the World: the Rise of a Hungry Nation', Frank Ching's 'China: The Truth About its Human Rights Record', Alexandria Harney's 'The China Price: The True Cost of Chinese Competitive Advantage'. The list is endless and more are at the press in a frenzy.

The grouses of the West against China are basically economic. The West is suffering a complex economic siege from China. They are the preachers of free trade but by the time China opened up to the global market from its socialist cocoon, signing WTO's agreements etc, it in no time began to beat them at their own game. The forms the siege is taking can be condensed into three. One, China is causing business closures in the West by offering high quality, cheaper consumer goods ranging from toys to garments to Western consumers. Two, unemployment is not helped by the growing recourse by Western businesses to relocate to China to take advantage of cheaper overheads. Many so-called Western products we buy in stores in London, Paris, New York, Amsterdam etc are now only Western in name, courtesy of the trend called outsourcing. Factories physically get uprooted and got shipped to China. China has earned the sobriquet: 'Factory of the World.' And, only in the second week of this October, America's General Motors sold its Hummer Jeep brand to a Chinese firm, Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Equipment Corporation.

Three, China is also taking over the overseas markets over which the West used to enjoy a structural monopoly. These include African countries. But, unlike the West, that more or less enforced draconian reforms on Africa in the throes of economic crisis without any tangible support critical to recovery, China's in-roads in Africa come with support in the form of funds with no strings attached and investments in critical infrastructure. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda - a model African leader - spoke the truth in a recent October 12 Reuters report. To quote him, "Our resources have been exploited and served others. Western companies have soiled Africa to a large extent and still do...The Chinese bring Africa what it needs: investment and money for governments and companies. China invests in infrastructure, builds streets." When you view the $50 billion oil deal China is offering Nigeria, which Oyedele is kicking against, ask what the status quo is with the oil blocks the so-called Western oil majors want to keep. Which is more beneficial to Nigeria? CNOOC's offer or the oil majors'? The lawmakers in Abuja handling the new petroleum bill are living witnesses to the extent the 'oil majors' are going to frustrate its contents which are meant to stop their abuses and promote our interests.

To be sure, China is not a charity organisation. It is in the global market to improve the lot of its economy and its citizens. Much, then, as it offers Africa a better deal compared to the West, the onus is on African countries to develop strategies to relate with it beneficially. To achieve this, China deserves our study. Unfortunately, there is no funding for such locally, except researchers turn to Western agencies (Ford, MacArthur Foundations etc) for grants! In my case, I rely on my own resources. But how many can? What may pass for Nigeria's policy towards China, from what I have seen, is poor. For example, in a Joint Commission document undergoing implementation process, Nigeria is calling on China to diversify its interest in oil and include the prospecting of our 'abundant mineral resources'. This is quite stupid as that precisely aligns with China's interests. However, from my exploration of China, from Beijing to Shanghai, Anhui to Guangzhou, China has much better things to offer us if we only but ask and insist.

For example, instead of taking the billions of dollars China so easily offers from its over $2 trillion foreign reserves for infrastructure, we can insist on China developing our infrastructure on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. Chinese giant infrastructure companies, in their hundreds if not thousands, need to be kept busy and the gargantuan foreign reserves have to be invested here and there to minimise the risk of a dollar slump, among others. I was at a negotiation in May 2007 involving Nigerian government officials and a Chinese power company for the building of a hydropower facility. The company's president, without any request from the Nigerian side, said his country was willing to bankroll the project, which ran into hundreds of millions of dollars. A permanent secretary promptly declined without consultation. 'Nigeria will fund it', he said. It sounds patriotic on the face of it, coming on the heels of our exit from debt peonage to the Creditors' Clubs, but it was my candid view that it would have been better to ask whether the company would be willing to execute the project on a BOT basis. Till this day, the project is on hold; and similar examples abound. With no funding, the company has gone back home. We can also create a platform for the private sector to engage in joint ventures with Chinese companies in critical sectors like power generation, agro-industry, road and rail construction etc. China is no doubt a true friend of Africa. We only need to leverage the Chinese on our own terms.

The 1959 Federal Election: aftermath and lessons

THIS article aims to conclude that "federal character" is both desirable and inevitable in the context of our nation. However, the article itself is an attempt to revisit the 1959 federal election as a platform to arriving at that conclusion. The historical 1959 federal election, 50 years ago, took Nigeria from colonial rule to independence in 1960. Its aftermath still provides useful lessons, even for the distant future.

One significant element in the 1959 election was the participation of key regional politicians, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, erstwhile premiers of the Eastern and Western regions respectively. What attracted them to the election was the prospect that either of them could become the "first prime minister" of independent Nigeria.

The other member of Nigeria's historical triumvirate, Sir Ahmadu Bello, preferred to continue in his position as premier of the Northern Region. His "able lieutenant", Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, led their political party at the federal level of governance. Tafawa Balewa became Prime Minister in 1957 and had the singular distinction of being the only one to have held that position in the history of Nigeria. The parliamentary system was terminated for good in January 1966 and was subsequently replaced with the presidential alternative.

In an era when political party support revolved mainly around ethnic or regional loyalties, the odds were heavily stacked against the aspirations of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe. The North had 50 per cent electoral representation at the expense of the Southern regions, the Eastern and the Western. Significantly, Azikiwe's National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroon (NCNC) and Awolowo's Action Group (AG) were bitter rivals in the South, both relying on alliances with minor northern political parties such as the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) respectively. The North was eminently controlled by the ethnocentric Northern People's Congress (NPC) whose leader was Sir Ahmadu Bello.

In Nigeria's peculiar situation, no political party was realistically placed to form the government, thereby compelling a coalition of convenience between political parties. Both the AG and NCNC contemplated forming the government with the support of their northern allies but this did not materialise in spite of Chief Awolowo's willingness to concede the primemistership to his older rival, Dr. Azikiwe. Sir Ahmadu Bello threatened to take the North out of the federation if the proposed arrangement between the NCNC and AG was effected. However, considering the bitter rivalry between the two political parties, it would have been one hell of a coalition government! In the end, a coalition of mutual convenience was consummated between the NPC and NCNC/NEPU alliance. The NEPU was the radical party opposed to the NPC's conservatism in the North.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the opposition which constituted mainly the AG and the UMBC, the latter agitated for a separate Middle-Best region out of the North. Customary intolerance for competition and competing ideas meant that opposition coming from Awolowo and the Action Group was considered to be the opposition of the Yoruba to the federal government. Consequently, any attempt to curtail the influence of the Action Group was directed against its ethnic stronghold. There was an attempt to redraw the Western regional boundary by merging a part of it with the north, and the creation of the Mid-Western Region in 1964, popular though it was, had punitive intentions. The more disturbing agitations for state creation in the North and East, principally by the peoples of the Middle Belt and Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers respectively, were gleefully ignored by the NPC/NCNC conspiracy.

By 1962 the ruling coalition government had succeeded in infiltrating the ranks of the otherwise disciplined Action Group. Of course the break up of the party can be explained by diverse reasons but the more relevant explanation has been the ideological one. There were elements within the party which urged the leadership to abandon its ideology of "democratic socialism" and team up with the ruling coalition in the interests of the Yoruba. The subsequent intra-party disagreements arising from this position sparked off a domino effect of conflicts that culminated in a bloody civil war between 1967 and 1970. The census crisis of 1962/63, the disputed federal election of 1964 and the rigged election in the Western Region in 1965, were the most outstanding conflicts that killed off Nigeria's First Republic in 1966.

Our experience of the acrimonious politics briefly reviewed above makes one wonder why some are still nostalgic about the parliamentary system of government. The great Sir Arthur Lewis in his book, Politics in West Africa, concluded that the adversarial politics of "government" and "opposition" was unsuitable for a divided nation like Nigeria. The great Nigerian scholar, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun expressed support for the "Lewisian" consociational viewpoint in one of his books and, of course, this writer shares their view of a "grand coalition" as the better option.

The presidential system with divisions of power between the three arms of government (executive, legislative and judicial) appears to be more inclusive than the parliamentary alternative. Recent governments, just like their predecessors, may have under-performed but the relationship between members of the political classes would appear to have been more courteous and tamed than it once was. The politicians of today rarely come into the open to insult other ethnic groupings and that, in this writer's view, is a positive development.

The fact remains that nations differ in their complexities. The United States of America, for instance, may be as heterogeneous as Nigeria but the truth of the matter is that the former's ethnicity is "dispersed" while that of the latter is "compartmentalised". The idea of a rotational presidency makes great sense in Nigeria and federal character in political appointments can only be rubbished by those with little understanding of the scale and nature of rivalry between peoples of different backgrounds. "Rotational thieving", a writer of opinion once screamed. The fact that Nigerian politicians excel in stealing public money would not mean that ideas that help unity can no longer be discussed. The Swiss presidency rotates annually, yet Switzerland is not ranked among the most corrupt nations of the world! There may indeed be some whose understanding of "rotational presidency" exists only at the cynical level!

Rotational presidency, federal character or ethnic balancing, help unity in Nigeria. What constitutes our differences, ethnicity in particular, will not disappear no matter how hard we wish it away. R V Denenberg's book Understanding American Politics (1984) is quite a useful contribution which one warmly recommends to readers. Here is one revealing extract from the book and it concludes this essay - "... In this 'melting pot' the peoples of the world were to be 'Americanised', amalgamated into a new national alloy.

But out of the crucible came an unexpected product. 'As the groups were transformed by influence in American society, stripped of their original attributes, they were created as something new, but still as identifiable groups'. Politically these Irish Americans, Italian Americans and Polish Americans behave as interest groups, measuring their power and well-being against that of others. In the large cities where the 'ethnics' are concentrated, a political party usually finds it prudent to recognise this heterogeneity by running a 'balanced ticket'; an Italian for mayor, a Pole for the City Council President and Irishman for Comptroller".

The 1959 Federal Election: aftermath and lessons

THIS article aims to conclude that "federal character" is both desirable and inevitable in the context of our nation. However, the article itself is an attempt to revisit the 1959 federal election as a platform to arriving at that conclusion. The historical 1959 federal election, 50 years ago, took Nigeria from colonial rule to independence in 1960. Its aftermath still provides useful lessons, even for the distant future.

One significant element in the 1959 election was the participation of key regional politicians, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, erstwhile premiers of the Eastern and Western regions respectively. What attracted them to the election was the prospect that either of them could become the "first prime minister" of independent Nigeria.

The other member of Nigeria's historical triumvirate, Sir Ahmadu Bello, preferred to continue in his position as premier of the Northern Region. His "able lieutenant", Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, led their political party at the federal level of governance. Tafawa Balewa became Prime Minister in 1957 and had the singular distinction of being the only one to have held that position in the history of Nigeria. The parliamentary system was terminated for good in January 1966 and was subsequently replaced with the presidential alternative.

In an era when political party support revolved mainly around ethnic or regional loyalties, the odds were heavily stacked against the aspirations of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe. The North had 50 per cent electoral representation at the expense of the Southern regions, the Eastern and the Western. Significantly, Azikiwe's National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroon (NCNC) and Awolowo's Action Group (AG) were bitter rivals in the South, both relying on alliances with minor northern political parties such as the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) respectively. The North was eminently controlled by the ethnocentric Northern People's Congress (NPC) whose leader was Sir Ahmadu Bello.

In Nigeria's peculiar situation, no political party was realistically placed to form the government, thereby compelling a coalition of convenience between political parties. Both the AG and NCNC contemplated forming the government with the support of their northern allies but this did not materialise in spite of Chief Awolowo's willingness to concede the primemistership to his older rival, Dr. Azikiwe. Sir Ahmadu Bello threatened to take the North out of the federation if the proposed arrangement between the NCNC and AG was effected. However, considering the bitter rivalry between the two political parties, it would have been one hell of a coalition government! In the end, a coalition of mutual convenience was consummated between the NPC and NCNC/NEPU alliance. The NEPU was the radical party opposed to the NPC's conservatism in the North.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the opposition which constituted mainly the AG and the UMBC, the latter agitated for a separate Middle-Best region out of the North. Customary intolerance for competition and competing ideas meant that opposition coming from Awolowo and the Action Group was considered to be the opposition of the Yoruba to the federal government. Consequently, any attempt to curtail the influence of the Action Group was directed against its ethnic stronghold. There was an attempt to redraw the Western regional boundary by merging a part of it with the north, and the creation of the Mid-Western Region in 1964, popular though it was, had punitive intentions. The more disturbing agitations for state creation in the North and East, principally by the peoples of the Middle Belt and Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers respectively, were gleefully ignored by the NPC/NCNC conspiracy.

By 1962 the ruling coalition government had succeeded in infiltrating the ranks of the otherwise disciplined Action Group. Of course the break up of the party can be explained by diverse reasons but the more relevant explanation has been the ideological one. There were elements within the party which urged the leadership to abandon its ideology of "democratic socialism" and team up with the ruling coalition in the interests of the Yoruba. The subsequent intra-party disagreements arising from this position sparked off a domino effect of conflicts that culminated in a bloody civil war between 1967 and 1970. The census crisis of 1962/63, the disputed federal election of 1964 and the rigged election in the Western Region in 1965, were the most outstanding conflicts that killed off Nigeria's First Republic in 1966.

Our experience of the acrimonious politics briefly reviewed above makes one wonder why some are still nostalgic about the parliamentary system of government. The great Sir Arthur Lewis in his book, Politics in West Africa, concluded that the adversarial politics of "government" and "opposition" was unsuitable for a divided nation like Nigeria. The great Nigerian scholar, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun expressed support for the "Lewisian" consociational viewpoint in one of his books and, of course, this writer shares their view of a "grand coalition" as the better option.

The presidential system with divisions of power between the three arms of government (executive, legislative and judicial) appears to be more inclusive than the parliamentary alternative. Recent governments, just like their predecessors, may have under-performed but the relationship between members of the political classes would appear to have been more courteous and tamed than it once was. The politicians of today rarely come into the open to insult other ethnic groupings and that, in this writer's view, is a positive development.

The fact remains that nations differ in their complexities. The United States of America, for instance, may be as heterogeneous as Nigeria but the truth of the matter is that the former's ethnicity is "dispersed" while that of the latter is "compartmentalised". The idea of a rotational presidency makes great sense in Nigeria and federal character in political appointments can only be rubbished by those with little understanding of the scale and nature of rivalry between peoples of different backgrounds. "Rotational thieving", a writer of opinion once screamed. The fact that Nigerian politicians excel in stealing public money would not mean that ideas that help unity can no longer be discussed. The Swiss presidency rotates annually, yet Switzerland is not ranked among the most corrupt nations of the world! There may indeed be some whose understanding of "rotational presidency" exists only at the cynical level!

Rotational presidency, federal character or ethnic balancing, help unity in Nigeria. What constitutes our differences, ethnicity in particular, will not disappear no matter how hard we wish it away. R V Denenberg's book Understanding American Politics (1984) is quite a useful contribution which one warmly recommends to readers. Here is one revealing extract from the book and it concludes this essay - "... In this 'melting pot' the peoples of the world were to be 'Americanised', amalgamated into a new national alloy.

But out of the crucible came an unexpected product. 'As the groups were transformed by influence in American society, stripped of their original attributes, they were created as something new, but still as identifiable groups'. Politically these Irish Americans, Italian Americans and Polish Americans behave as interest groups, measuring their power and well-being against that of others. In the large cities where the 'ethnics' are concentrated, a political party usually finds it prudent to recognise this heterogeneity by running a 'balanced ticket'; an Italian for mayor, a Pole for the City Council President and Irishman for Comptroller".

Immunity for Legislators?

The move by the House of Representatives to amend the legislators’ Powers and Privileges Act is apparently a pursuit of self-interest taken to a ridiculous level. This will, no doubt, further dent the public image of the lawmakers – unless the bill is thrown out soon.
The very argument of its sponsor, Honourable Henry Dickson, Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, has veritably weakened the proposition. According to him, the “sensitive” nature of legislative duties renders legislators vulnerable, hence the need to protect them from “indiscriminate” arrests that might be masterminded by their political foes, especially as the 2011 general election approaches. He also thinks that members of legislative houses should be protected against “frivolous” charges to enhance their performance.
It is remarkable, however, that this attempt at securing immunity for the legislators has received opposition even from the lower chamber itself. Honourable Ita Enang reacted pointedly: “The bill seeks to create a class of people above the law but we should know that we are bound by the Constitution and any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.”
That admonition is timely. In the first place, in granting immunity to the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, the framers of the Constitution took into consideration the consequences of some litigants holding those officers, who are the heads of their respective governments, to ransom. But because of the abuses that have so far been recorded in the polity by some of the beneficiaries, even the rare privilege is being contested at the court of public opinion. The clamour to jettison this political right is not restricted to Nigeria. Not long ago, the constitutional court in Italy removed it from Prime Minister Silvio Belusconi who is enmeshed in scandals. The message is clear: Since all men are equal, they should be treated equally before the law, no matter the position they occupy in life.
Our legislators should, therefore, move with the times rather than take retrogressive steps. Perhaps they should be reminded that there are many other jobs in the country that are even more prone to dangers – only that their practitioners are not in the position to make self-preserving, discriminatory laws. Already, the National Assembly (NASS) and many state assemblies have, through exerting disproportionate energies on matters relating to their own welfare, inflicted themselves with a poor public perception – of underachievement. But they need not continue along this ignoble path. Instead, as they enter into the second half of their tenure, they should seek to justify their respective mandates by passing people-oriented laws rather than engaging in misplaced acts of self-preservation.
Nigerian legislators seem to be driven by self interest and preservation. This is hardly a good public perception of elected representatives who are supposed to work for the general interest of those they claim to represent in government.
Our legislators should concentrate on their core responsibilities of law making and oversight functions. Bills like Freedom of Information (FoI), electoral reform, and the Petroleum Industry Bill are begging for urgent attention. These instruments are vital to the deepening of our hard-won but fragile democracy. As for holding the executive arm of government accountable for approved programmes and projects, proofs of failure are not in short supply throughout the federation. With a largely comatose infrastructure and grossly inadequate social security, the citizenry is becoming disillusioned. This ought to bother the honourable legislators.
True greatness, after all, lies in genuine service to others, in this case, those the lawmakers claim to represent, and not in obvious self-defensive plots.

Immunity for Legislators?

The move by the House of Representatives to amend the legislators’ Powers and Privileges Act is apparently a pursuit of self-interest taken to a ridiculous level. This will, no doubt, further dent the public image of the lawmakers – unless the bill is thrown out soon.
The very argument of its sponsor, Honourable Henry Dickson, Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, has veritably weakened the proposition. According to him, the “sensitive” nature of legislative duties renders legislators vulnerable, hence the need to protect them from “indiscriminate” arrests that might be masterminded by their political foes, especially as the 2011 general election approaches. He also thinks that members of legislative houses should be protected against “frivolous” charges to enhance their performance.
It is remarkable, however, that this attempt at securing immunity for the legislators has received opposition even from the lower chamber itself. Honourable Ita Enang reacted pointedly: “The bill seeks to create a class of people above the law but we should know that we are bound by the Constitution and any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.”
That admonition is timely. In the first place, in granting immunity to the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, the framers of the Constitution took into consideration the consequences of some litigants holding those officers, who are the heads of their respective governments, to ransom. But because of the abuses that have so far been recorded in the polity by some of the beneficiaries, even the rare privilege is being contested at the court of public opinion. The clamour to jettison this political right is not restricted to Nigeria. Not long ago, the constitutional court in Italy removed it from Prime Minister Silvio Belusconi who is enmeshed in scandals. The message is clear: Since all men are equal, they should be treated equally before the law, no matter the position they occupy in life.
Our legislators should, therefore, move with the times rather than take retrogressive steps. Perhaps they should be reminded that there are many other jobs in the country that are even more prone to dangers – only that their practitioners are not in the position to make self-preserving, discriminatory laws. Already, the National Assembly (NASS) and many state assemblies have, through exerting disproportionate energies on matters relating to their own welfare, inflicted themselves with a poor public perception – of underachievement. But they need not continue along this ignoble path. Instead, as they enter into the second half of their tenure, they should seek to justify their respective mandates by passing people-oriented laws rather than engaging in misplaced acts of self-preservation.
Nigerian legislators seem to be driven by self interest and preservation. This is hardly a good public perception of elected representatives who are supposed to work for the general interest of those they claim to represent in government.
Our legislators should concentrate on their core responsibilities of law making and oversight functions. Bills like Freedom of Information (FoI), electoral reform, and the Petroleum Industry Bill are begging for urgent attention. These instruments are vital to the deepening of our hard-won but fragile democracy. As for holding the executive arm of government accountable for approved programmes and projects, proofs of failure are not in short supply throughout the federation. With a largely comatose infrastructure and grossly inadequate social security, the citizenry is becoming disillusioned. This ought to bother the honourable legislators.
True greatness, after all, lies in genuine service to others, in this case, those the lawmakers claim to represent, and not in obvious self-defensive plots.

MEND, 'Jomo Gbomo' and amnesty

IN the ongoing struggle for the 'liberation' of the Niger Delta region, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has two vocal representatives who have over the years been at the vanguard of the campaign. I refer in particular to "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte", two names that have dominated press reports on the Niger Delta conflict. Although they are regularly quoted by journalists, doubts remain whether "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" actually exist or whether the names are pseudonyms devised by the hierarchy of MEND to match the government's public information crusade.

In his press releases, often quoted mostly verbatim by lousy journalists, "Jomo Gbomo" cuts the image of an uncompromising, incorrigible, indestructible and invisible face of MEND. His language is tough, brusque, provocative and hard-nosed. He portrays MEND as an underground movement driven by the philosophy of "no defeat, no surrender".

In a letter published in The Guardian of Monday, 19 October 2009, and entitled "Jomo Gbomo and the programme amnesty," Ayo Olorunfemi expressed worry that "... after going through the list of the repentant warlords, one name was conspicuously missing and that is the name of the mouth-piece of the struggle, Jomo Gbomo. What is the significance of the amnesty without him? What would become of the hope for eternal peace in the region without him? Why pondering over those questions, I stumbled on an interview granted by Boyloaf, an ex-militant and he emphatically said Jomo Gbomo is a ghost, fictitious, imaginative and non-existent."

Whether "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" exist or whether they are mere phantoms in the arsenal of MEND's radical campaign, credit must be given to "Jomo Gbomo" for his or her unwavering commitment to MEND's motto, for his or her passionate determination to transform the Niger Delta region, and for his or her untiring efficiency in churning out retaliatory rhetoric about how MEND plans to assail and humiliate federal forces patrolling the streets and swamps of the Niger Delta.

In terms of effectiveness in propaganda, "Jomo Gbomo" ranks next to the legendary Iraqi Information Minister - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf - who, during the last days of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, kept telling western television audiences that there were no coalition forces inside Iraq and that those who managed to get into Iraq were already "committing suicide", even as U.S. forces encircled Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities.

The difference between Al-Sahhaf and "Jomo Gbomo" is that while Al-Sahhaf appeared regularly and physically on television and whereas he conducted open press conferences, "Jomo Gbomo" (if the person actually exists) chose to remain faceless and to utilise the Internet and e-mail technologies to draw the world's attention to the problems and injustices that confront the Niger Delta people.

New technologies such as e-mail and the Internet now serve as a forum through which marginalised groups and minorities such as the Niger Delta activists tell their stories and communicate their problems to the rest of the world. There are possibly two reasons why "Jomo Gbomo" uses the Internet and e-mail to communicate with journalists who cover the Niger Delta conflict. One: The technologies are highly valuable means of communication - they are convenient and they can be used from any location without compromising the identity of the user. The second reason has to do with self-preservation or personal security.

If Niger Delta activists must maintain their invincibility, it is imperative that they must rely on the technologies that guarantee them anonymity and safety. These guarantees are embedded in Internet and e-mail technologies, which explain why "Jomo Gbomo" uses the technologies for regular press releases. It is in these contexts that Internet and e-mail technologies serve as tools for the economic, social and political emancipation of marginalised groups (such as the Niger Delta people) in their struggle for self-determination.

As MEND celebrates the amnesty deal, and as President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua engages in endless photo opportunities with Niger Delta activists who have enthusiastically snapped up the government's official pardon, only a few people seem to be asking questions about where "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" stand on the amnesty issue. Have they accepted the amnesty offer? If they have accepted the deal, do they plan to travel to Abuja to take photos with Yar'Adua?

These questions are relevant because "Jomo Gbomo", as the official amplifier of MEND's voice, cannot sound conciliatory in one press release and issue threats in another press statement. The inconsistencies are not a good sign that MEND has genuinely accepted the amnesty. The key question is: Has "Jomo Gbomo" (if it is not a pseudonym) accepted the amnesty as Henry Okah and other leaders of MEND have done?

Yar'Adua and his men must be worried that nothing has been heard about the official position of "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte". However, one good feature of the amnesty is that it has effectively unmasked the identities of some of the principal leaders of the disparate groups that operate in the creeks and waterways of the Niger Delta. Prior to the amnesty deal, the public had no way of knowing what the activists looked like. The public is now able to match the names they see in news reports against the faces of the men who signed up for the amnesty. The names include Henry Okah, the leader of MEND, Ebikalowei Victor Ben (also known as "Boyloaf"), Government Ekpemupolo (otherwise known as "Tompolo"), Ateke Tom, leader of the Niger Delta Strike Force, Farrah Dagogo (who calls himself the "overall field commander of MEND"), Burster Rhymes, etc.

In a speech to mark his formal acceptance of the amnesty nearly two weeks ago, Tompolo told journalists: "I and my people accept the offer of amnesty." He also pledged "to work with Mr. President to achieve the dreams of this country". In his response, Yar'Adua said: "I thank Tompolo and all members of his immediate team for accepting this unconditional offer of amnesty. Tonight belongs to you Tompolo. By signing this amnesty, you have demonstrated that the interest of the Niger Delta is better served through peace."

Yar'Adua and his senior security officials must be smiling that they have successfully pulled off the amnesty deal by offering incentives which the leaders of the various groups could hardly resist. Although it is too early to judge the success of the amnesty, at the moment it should be seen as a brilliant idea, a masterstroke on how to apply domestic diplomatic pressure to end a potentially destabilising conflict. But, I must emphasise, it is still too early to judge Yar'Adua's amnesty offer.

In a press statement released soon after Yar'Adua met with MEND leader Henry Okah, "Jomo Gbomo" said that MEND would turn its attention to corrupt governors once this phase of the campaign was concluded. This is indeed the right way to go. Part of the reason why the Niger Delta has been neglected for many years must be traced to high levels of corruption among political leaders in the region. Questions must be asked about what previous governors did with the federal funds they received for the development of their states.

While the argument must be made that previous federal administrations never considered the Niger Delta as a region that deserved special attention, the state governments must also be asked to account for whatever amount they received from the federal government. If the federal government neglected the Niger Delta region, so too did the governors of the states who received some money but failed to use the money to make a difference in the lives of the people in the region.

It would be a good idea for MEND and other organisations to hold the state governments to account. There is no point turning the streets into a shootout zone through mindless kidnapping of ordinary citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with the underdevelopment of the Niger Delta. Going after corrupt governors and former governors, including corrupt senior public officials would signal a significant shift in the way MEND agitates for fairness and justice in the region.

It is important for MEND to demonstrate that it understands the difference between responsible agitation for the development of the Niger Delta and careless activism that punishes everyone. If MEND wants to earn public respect and recognition, it must not punish those for whom it is fighting.

The proposed deregulation of petrol price

FOR the better part of 20 years, the economics of the petroleum pump price has held Nigerians in a riveting contest. Military governments and elected governments have struggled to rationalise the socio-economics of petroleum pump price for the Nigerian people. On at least eight occasions in the past decade, the dynamics of the increased pump price has been the touch-stone for popular nationwide strike action by Nigeria's organised Labour unions contending with Federal Government on behalf of the masses.

Government has now decided to fully deregulate the price of petrol, (PMK), having already allowed the price of diesel and kerosene to find its open market price. According to the spokespersons, this would be the culmination of the deregulation of the downstream oil sector. The kernel of the issue remains fairly unchanged, namely that Government in its benevolence has subsidised the pump price for petroleum products and is no longer in a position to do so. In 2008, this country spent N650 billion on petroleum products subsidy. It would therefore allow the effective market-determined price to flow through to consumers and the expectant rational behaviour of the Nigerian consumer to come to play in the orthodox matrix of market demand and supply.

Deregulation as a doctrine is well acknowledged in a number of instances in our country today and Nigerians are at home with the vagaries created by deregulating a number of basic living sectors - epileptic electricity supplies, incontinent water supply, the progress of telecommunication, monetisation of public sector emoluments etc. In other words, the shedding of a benevolence toga by the Governments of Nigeria is up and running.

However, we assert that to let the pump price of PMK float independent of Government's influence or more certainly, public finance subsidies, is a most intractable option. First, this Government is neither prepared to complete the pre-deregulation assurances nor are Nigerians on the strength of extant track record, confident that there is a bulwark for the challenges of deregulating the most pervasive factor in socio-economic determinants of Nigeria. There are a number of examples to buttress the lack of serious capacity to do things right.

Why is Nigeria almost completely dependent on the importation of refined petroleum products for the entire economy when we have both human and material resources, and have had the time, to remedy the existing plants? Nigeria is the sixth largest exporter of crude oil and is the only member of OPEC in this ugly situation.

In 1999, the pump price of petrol was N17 and the incoming civilian government made a series of pledges about the refineries and distribution. Today, this is not the case and at a nominal price of N65 per litre of petrol in only a few cities, Nigerians are in the dark about the investments in refineries and are anxiously aware that the gigantic conspiracies in the import of products will not go away with deregulation. Where is that regulator with credibility and muscle to protect Nigerians and guard against anti-trust behaviours?

As a key component of creating an efficient deregulated market, Nigerians expect that the actual and contrived bottlenecks at our ports which are a huge source of demurrage charges and fraudulent practices would be dismantled in a brisk manner. This is not the case.

Another example of shoddiness is in the manner of informing Nigerians. It has begun in a cloak and dagger framework: bad cop, good cop. One, not quite recognisable, was ferrying the bad news, while another, in a role properly due to another functionary, cancels the first announcement of November 1 as commencement date. The so-called senior official of the NNPC has been countermanded by the Minister of Labour. It is instructive that it is the Minister of Labour, and not Ministers of Information or Petroleum who denied Government's decision on a commencement date.

Perhaps this is so as it is very likely he will be required to engage Labour Unions who have declared their readiness to keep dates at the barricades. It is however another atrocious example of a dysfunctional communication practice within this Federal Government that it could not synchronise a critical policy decision and its implementation details on a decision, which we are persuaded, will save Nigeria N650 billion annually, but is also well known to be an unfortunate tinderbox to the social fabric of the country.

Further, another matter that beggars belief in the imminent deregulation includes the fact that Government intends to continue with the concept of equalisation of prices across Nigeria. It cannot be proper to contradict this policy so blatantly. As deregulation has no half-way house, pump prices will be dictated by costs of importation or preferably local refining plus added cost of pipeline or truck deliveries to locations. By that fact, uniform prices cannot be the norm. We therefore counsel that this is an opportunity to erase fully any concept that would lead to suspicious subsidy, outright leakage of public funds and mischievous collaboration against the people of Nigeria.

The final obvious example of unpreparedness is the timing and economic environment. In a milieu of severe stress and shock in the finance sector infecting the entire credit and banking chain, it is difficult to locate the salvation point for the stupendous hike in transport fares, consumer costs and production prices that the deregulation of petrol will generate. The public dilemma is quite clear: that distance from supply point cannot be subsidised by tax payers, and also that efficiency and competition will not germinate overnight to check inordinate supplier-greed.

We accept the inevitability of the end of subsidy howsoever defined on petroleum products. But perhaps, far more germane is the stoppage of payments to freeloaders, rent seekers and unintended beneficiaries from the public purse. It behoves this Government to take another look at the Petroleum Trust Fund model and other examples across OPEC countries to convince Nigerians that the trade off for the so-called subsidy is applied in robust and transparent initiatives that convey to Nigerians respect and improved infrastructure, create jobs and implement conscientious governance. This matter may indeed turn out to be actually a test for the purpose of Government - to convince the people and stand measured by pledges.

The indications of the policy thrust for deregulating PMK and its anticipated performance grids are lamentably opaque, and far from these. The first task should be a revival of the country's refineries

The proposed deregulation of petrol price

FOR the better part of 20 years, the economics of the petroleum pump price has held Nigerians in a riveting contest. Military governments and elected governments have struggled to rationalise the socio-economics of petroleum pump price for the Nigerian people. On at least eight occasions in the past decade, the dynamics of the increased pump price has been the touch-stone for popular nationwide strike action by Nigeria's organised Labour unions contending with Federal Government on behalf of the masses.

Government has now decided to fully deregulate the price of petrol, (PMK), having already allowed the price of diesel and kerosene to find its open market price. According to the spokespersons, this would be the culmination of the deregulation of the downstream oil sector. The kernel of the issue remains fairly unchanged, namely that Government in its benevolence has subsidised the pump price for petroleum products and is no longer in a position to do so. In 2008, this country spent N650 billion on petroleum products subsidy. It would therefore allow the effective market-determined price to flow through to consumers and the expectant rational behaviour of the Nigerian consumer to come to play in the orthodox matrix of market demand and supply.

Deregulation as a doctrine is well acknowledged in a number of instances in our country today and Nigerians are at home with the vagaries created by deregulating a number of basic living sectors - epileptic electricity supplies, incontinent water supply, the progress of telecommunication, monetisation of public sector emoluments etc. In other words, the shedding of a benevolence toga by the Governments of Nigeria is up and running.

However, we assert that to let the pump price of PMK float independent of Government's influence or more certainly, public finance subsidies, is a most intractable option. First, this Government is neither prepared to complete the pre-deregulation assurances nor are Nigerians on the strength of extant track record, confident that there is a bulwark for the challenges of deregulating the most pervasive factor in socio-economic determinants of Nigeria. There are a number of examples to buttress the lack of serious capacity to do things right.

Why is Nigeria almost completely dependent on the importation of refined petroleum products for the entire economy when we have both human and material resources, and have had the time, to remedy the existing plants? Nigeria is the sixth largest exporter of crude oil and is the only member of OPEC in this ugly situation.

In 1999, the pump price of petrol was N17 and the incoming civilian government made a series of pledges about the refineries and distribution. Today, this is not the case and at a nominal price of N65 per litre of petrol in only a few cities, Nigerians are in the dark about the investments in refineries and are anxiously aware that the gigantic conspiracies in the import of products will not go away with deregulation. Where is that regulator with credibility and muscle to protect Nigerians and guard against anti-trust behaviours?

As a key component of creating an efficient deregulated market, Nigerians expect that the actual and contrived bottlenecks at our ports which are a huge source of demurrage charges and fraudulent practices would be dismantled in a brisk manner. This is not the case.

Another example of shoddiness is in the manner of informing Nigerians. It has begun in a cloak and dagger framework: bad cop, good cop. One, not quite recognisable, was ferrying the bad news, while another, in a role properly due to another functionary, cancels the first announcement of November 1 as commencement date. The so-called senior official of the NNPC has been countermanded by the Minister of Labour. It is instructive that it is the Minister of Labour, and not Ministers of Information or Petroleum who denied Government's decision on a commencement date.

Perhaps this is so as it is very likely he will be required to engage Labour Unions who have declared their readiness to keep dates at the barricades. It is however another atrocious example of a dysfunctional communication practice within this Federal Government that it could not synchronise a critical policy decision and its implementation details on a decision, which we are persuaded, will save Nigeria N650 billion annually, but is also well known to be an unfortunate tinderbox to the social fabric of the country.

Further, another matter that beggars belief in the imminent deregulation includes the fact that Government intends to continue with the concept of equalisation of prices across Nigeria. It cannot be proper to contradict this policy so blatantly. As deregulation has no half-way house, pump prices will be dictated by costs of importation or preferably local refining plus added cost of pipeline or truck deliveries to locations. By that fact, uniform prices cannot be the norm. We therefore counsel that this is an opportunity to erase fully any concept that would lead to suspicious subsidy, outright leakage of public funds and mischievous collaboration against the people of Nigeria.

The final obvious example of unpreparedness is the timing and economic environment. In a milieu of severe stress and shock in the finance sector infecting the entire credit and banking chain, it is difficult to locate the salvation point for the stupendous hike in transport fares, consumer costs and production prices that the deregulation of petrol will generate. The public dilemma is quite clear: that distance from supply point cannot be subsidised by tax payers, and also that efficiency and competition will not germinate overnight to check inordinate supplier-greed.

We accept the inevitability of the end of subsidy howsoever defined on petroleum products. But perhaps, far more germane is the stoppage of payments to freeloaders, rent seekers and unintended beneficiaries from the public purse. It behoves this Government to take another look at the Petroleum Trust Fund model and other examples across OPEC countries to convince Nigerians that the trade off for the so-called subsidy is applied in robust and transparent initiatives that convey to Nigerians respect and improved infrastructure, create jobs and implement conscientious governance. This matter may indeed turn out to be actually a test for the purpose of Government - to convince the people and stand measured by pledges.

The indications of the policy thrust for deregulating PMK and its anticipated performance grids are lamentably opaque, and far from these. The first task should be a revival of the country's refineries

Mouthing new post-amnesty levels

“The devil can cite scriptures for his purpose”…William Shakespeare

Dear President Yar’Adua,
William Shakespeare is acclaimed, by many, to be the greatest writer of all time, and one can hardly dispute that after enjoying quite a few of his plays and sonnets. Few know, however, of the many personal demons that tormented this great man.

Few knew of his compulsive_obsessive dispositions in the areas of wine, women and drink; let alone that he died from gluttony…literally from overeating!
But what no one can dispute is that Shakespeare was a master at reducing fundamental truths to succinctly stated simplicities.

One of such eternal simplicities is encapsulated in the one_liner quoted above, namely, that “The devil can cite scriptures for his purpose”. This is a referral to the devil’s botched attempt to tempt our Lord Jesus Christ by spinning scripture at Him; but it is still relevant in so many contemporary contexts.

Adolf Hitler’s Germany, for example, learnt this the hard way, when master propagandist Joseph Goebbels (extrapolating from this Shakespearean axiom) unleashed “The Big Lie” paradigm on a highly susceptible people.

According to Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. But the lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

We thank God that Hitler’s ostensibly democratic [he was duly “elected”, like yourself, Your Excellency] and common good seeking [Hitler sincerely believed that his madly murderous schemes were good!], but truly evil fascist, regime is now history; but mankind is ever alert that the madness of The Third Reich be never replicated even to the slightest degree anywhere in the world.

That is why good governance in the 21st Century must be hinged on true democracy and transparency.Which brings us to where we are today in Nigeria, with democracy murdered courtesy of Professor Maurice Ewu’s Non-Independent National Electoral Commission and your administration’s struggles with legitimacy and transparency.

Even you, Mr. President, have repeatedly admitted that you attained power through a flawed electoral process (in itself, the basest form of fundamental corruption)…which is why you have deemed it necessary to start a process (even if merely salutary) of electoral reforms. But this is not our concern today, for the nation has resigned itself to your being Nigerian President….at least, till 2011.

What very few Nigerians have been able to accommodate, however, is your knack for mouthing platitudes such as the need to enthrone “the rule of law” and “good governance” [based on how you were tailored by the El-Rufais et al] without being compliant with the full-disclosure elements of commensurately mandatory transparency.

So, for example, we have had your administration loudly declaring “love” for the people of the Niger Delta: offering “armed militants” a dictated amnesty and telling all Niger Deltans to exhibit a submissive “perseverance, patience and hardwork” …without revealing what positive plans you have for the region?! All their demands for justice, and that you let them know your post-amnesty programme, have met with an insufferably condescending slowness of action to date.

You have not even deemed it auspicious to publish the long_overdue White Paper on the Report of the Technical Committee on the Niger Delta, which Your Eminence set up (as a favour?!) at the instance of the region’s people; notwithstanding the ongoing clamour [from militants, elders, youths, communities alike] that you do so immediately, in the interest of sustainable peace, as that would give the best idea of your time-bound plans for justice and development to come to the region!

However, you have no qualms or hesitation to fast_track the announcement and implementation of other policies and progammes inimical to the long_oppressed and beleaguered people of the region…such as vilely ordering a genocidal action against the innocent Izon aged, women and children of Gbaramatu kingdom; and the commencing of the further opening up of the north by making it gain direct access to the sea, via the dredging of the River Niger….[sans any credible Environmental Impact Assessments, and against the vociferous objections of the Niger Deltans who may have their communities washed away during the irresponsible dredging exercise!!!]

Before some hothead starts accusing this author of stirring up an anti-northern or unpatriotic hornets’ nest, we must remember that our national interest has so far been subsumed in our ethnic interests [despite the many recent claims by the vocal Arewa Consultative Forum to the contrary!]. All the Niger Deltans are demanding is justice, equity and respect within this contraption called Nigeria.

Contraption? Yes, let it be remembered, that it was the northern leader, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, who in his wisdom opined that “Many [Nigerians] deceive themselves by thinking that Nigeria is one….particularly some of the press people…..This is wrong. I am sorry to say that this presence of unity is artificial…..

The Southern tribes who are now pouring into the North in ever increasing numbers and are more or less domiciled there do not mix with the Northern people….and we in the North look upon them as invaders.”

Whilst we all welcome peace in the Niger Delta [and by extension in Nigeria], Mr. President, let the truth be known: Peace without justice is an anachronism…it is equivalent to a Goebbellian Big Lie.

Those hawks misleading you into thinking that a graveyard peace is the same as the desired sustainable peace are merely singing for their dinner by citing “scriptures to suit their purpose.” Shalom

The Nigerian Constitution: Amendment or conference?

OF all the constitutions that Nigerians and Nigeria had operated, none has been so severally stricture as the 1999 constitution presumably because of its military background. Some see it as an imposition by the military to ensure the unity of the country through a powerful and wealthy central government in a federal environment.

Nigerians who acquired Independence in 1960 were under the mistaken impression or grand illusion that they were running a federal system of government where each of the three regions had specific roles on Education, Health and General Administration and welfare of its people adequately provided for and securely protected by the constitution –The supreme law of the land.

The grand illusion was however shattered by the direct intervention of the federal government in the Action Group crisis which resulted in the breakdown of law and order in the Western Region. That apparent partiality of the federal government in the 1960s brought in its wake disputed elections, destruction of lives and properties and eventually, the disastrous but unnecessary civil war and the incursion of the military in administration.

With all its virtues, the 1979 constitution did not consider the attitude of Nigerians and the political naivety of Nigerians when it presented the presidential system of government for the country. Typically, Nigerian politicians messed up, enthroned tribalism, encouraged sycophancy and embraced political jobbery and corruption.

The 4-years tenure of the 1979 constitution showed vividly that the presidential system was costly and required matured flexibility which Nigerian politicians lacked. The failure of the 1979 constitutional experiment brought the return of the military adventurers into civil administration of the country.

Some of them brought order and discipline; some assaulted the Naira and crashed it while others saved our resources in foreign countries without our knowledge and consent. At the end of the military rule, the country was kept united but poor. The command tone ,’with immediate effect’ was in vogue but without any positive motion.

At the threshold of the 1999 Constitution, the centre (Federal Government) had become very strong ;states and local government councils had appeared in many shapes and forms, with neither homogeneity or wealth to survive and serve the citizens.

To lawmen, the 1999 Constitution , made by the military was designed to sustain military errors in governance , i.e. strong centre with weak states and weaker local governments; distorted federal fiscal system and gradual abandonment of welfare concepts.

The operation of the 1999 Constitution has shown clearly its limitations in many areas. Since the enthronement of Democracy more than a decade ago, the country has witnessed the growth of the “federal might” . An example is the operation of the concept of “stick first, ‘carrot later’ approach in the Niger Delta.

The federal government still takes more than fifty (50) percent of the country’s revenue; it is the only investor (on behalf of the country) in the oil and gas industry and distributes money realized to the other tiers of government as prescribed by the Constitution.

The experience under the operation of the 1999 Constitution confirmed the impression in political circles that the court and not the voter is the arbiter in any political contest. It has also enshrined the supremacy of political parties against individuals in the country. Only party members could contest elections in all tiers of government.

Thus, the supremacy of the party is complete and the removal of a non-performing ruling party is more than an herculean task. A more sinister aspect of experience under the present dispensation is the lack of security of lives and properties. While armed robbers confront security agencies in broad daylight, assassins and kidnappers operate freely day and night.

Political killings are becoming more fashionable while mere dissents are being visited with vengeance. It has become almost impossible to separate personal from political differences in a system where ‘everything goes’ in an atmosphere of recriminations and abuses.

It is a fact that a constitution cannot provide for everything or provide answers to all problems when the attitude of the people are fixated on wrong premises and remained unchanged. However, it is not too late to re-examine the present 1999 constitution in the light of obvious deficiencies which could not be appropriately or properly tackled by the Senate and the House of Representatives because of political partisanship and ethnic chauvinism.

These matters noted below should be suitable for a National Conference:
1. Power Problem and its effects on National Economy.
2.Parliamentary/Presidential system of government
3.Power of Federal Government in a federation
4.Many poor states or six viable zones
5. Federal/State police Authorities
6.Security of life & properties
7.Final solution to Niger Delta Development
8. Electoral Reforms

Nigeria’s latest global ranking

The latest ranking of Nigeria’s economy as the 99th in the world by the world Economic Forum, a Geneva-based organisation, does not bode well for our country. Nigeria was among the 133 countries assessed in the Global Competitiveness Report for the period 2009-2010.

The ranking is based on a poll of over 13,000 business leaders and a collection of key indices of each country’s economy. The outcome of the ranking, which is a yearly exercise, shows Nigeria five places down the scale. Last year, Nigeria’s economy was ranked 94th in the world. This implies that the key indices necessary for economic development are deteriorating rather than improving. The recent economic meltdown is said to have taken its toll on many countries, and Nigeria may have been hard hit by the aftershock of the global economic turbulence.

But the World Economic Forum in its report noted that Nigeria’s reversal of fortunes was deepened by a combination of factors which include weak institutional frameworks, security concern, high level of corruption especially in key government institutions, and by public officials and wasteful spending. For instance, in the area of weak institutions, Nigeria was ranked 102nd, insecurity (117th), corruption (122nd) and wasteful spending (120th).

Also, the worst area in the ranking was at the primary education level which was ranked 132nd out of the 133 countries that were surveyed. Besides, Nigeria’s state of infrastructure was described as appalling by the report. It was ranked 127th.

However, the consolation is that Nigeria’s macroeconomic environment received a somewhat favourable rating. It was ranked 20th. This is on the basis of what the report called Nigeria’s “high national savings rate” and “low national debt.” Also, our market size was rated very highly at 42nd in the world. This, the WEF report explains, provides opportunities of economies of scale to companies operating in Nigeria.

Overall, South Africa’s economy came tops in the African continent. Its financial markets were rated five times higher than they were last year. Key institutions are said to be in excellent form.

We are not surprised by the ranking. It confirms our fears, and indeed that of investors, that the Federal Government has done so much talk and less walk in improving our economy. Clearly, in the last one year alone, more energies have been devoted to policy pronouncements and less to concrete action plan that will move the economy out of its present doldrums. Knowledge-based economics seems to be lacking by the handlers of Nigeria’s key sectors. Institutions of government that are supposed to ginger economic growth are not measuring up to expectations. Official corruption still ranks high, infrastructure decay, erratic power supply, bad road network and spate of kidnappings, remain disincentives to investments. The latest turbulence in the capital market may have equally worsened matters.

Indeed, one of the consequences of Nigeria’s latest poor ranking is that it is capable of weakening investors’ confidence since investors make their decisions based on the strength or weakness of every given country’s economy. Such decisions are determined by business environment and efficiency, innovation and regulations, among other critical factors.

Sadly, none of these indices ranks high in investors’ scale of preference. Therefore, we urge government to take this latest global competitiveness ranking as a wake-up call to improve the economy.
Government and its key institutions must strive to establish and maintain international performance benchmarks for the economy if it must get good ratings that can sustain confidence in the country. A poor rating as reflected in the latest ranking by the World Economic Forum will not do our economy any good whatsoever

The N300bn stimulus package

The decision of the National Economic Council (NEC) authorizing the withdrawal of N300 billion (about $2 billion) from the Excess Crude Account to be distributed to the three-tiers of government–the Federal, states and local governments–to buoy the economy is a good one, only if the fund would be used for the stated purposes.

Excess Crude Account is the one into which Nigeria saves oil revenue above a benchmark level as a protection against any fall in world energy prices. NEC, an advisory body comprising the 36 state governors, the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and ministers of Finance, National Planning, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, took the decision last week at the behest of the CBN, which had at its presentation during the meeting painted a grim picture of liquidity problems in the commercial banks due to the ongoing reforms in the banking sector.

As a result of this, President Umaru Yar’Adua reportedly requested that the $2bn be made available to the three-tiers of government to mitigate the negative impact of the liquidity crisis occasioned by the recent economic meltdown and the current credit crunch in the banking sector.

In this direction, the Federation Accounts and Allocation Committee (FAAC) is expected to begin the distribution of the funds to the respective tiers of government, as well as work out the sharing formula. The amount is to be used to pay local contractors, many of whom are owing banks huge sums of money. It is believed that Non-performing loans (NPLs) recorded in some of the troubled banks were partly attributed to debts by contractors. Secondly, the injection of the fund is to be used to execute projects which can create jobs and stimulate the economy.

We heartily welcome NEC’s decision. Indeed, we support every well-thought-out measure that will strengthen our economy. There is no doubt that due to ongoing efforts to sanitize the banking sector and the turbulence which has hit the capital market, resulting in huge losses in the value of stocks, our economy has received a hammering. It, therefore, needs a stimulus package that will propel steady growth.
Beyond that, domestic debt to local contractors is believed to have risen to an all time high of N1.9 trillion. Again, this doesn’t encourage economic growth. Therefore, the N300bn is seen as quick and short term fiscal stimulus that could put the economy back on the path of recovery.

However, as well-intentioned as this stimulus package may appear, our worry is that the fund may end up as political patronage, thereby defeating the lofty objectives. Misapplication and outright misappropriation of fund intended for public good have often been the bane of our society. It has become the occupational disease of our politicians who are notorious for not being good managers of public funds.

The timing of the disbursement of this money is equally suspect. Coming close to election year raises additional worry that the money may be misused by key officials of government, especially at the state and local government levels.
We urge the Federal Government to take a cue from countries such as USA on how to administer fiscal stimulus on critical sectors of the economy.

There is no doubt that the injection of the N300bn will, if well managed, accelerate economic growth. But, growth will be hard to attain if the fund is mismanaged or misappropriated. We had expected government to channel this stimulus package into specific critical areas such as road rehabilitation, housing and energy supplies. All the same, we challenge the three tiers of government, especially the officials who will manage the utilization, to think through the projects they want to execute. Transparency should be the watch-word.

Nigerians have watched with utter helplessness the rate at which public funds are diverted into private pockets. This stimulus package should not be allowed to go the same way.

Before another consolidation of banks

Prior to the present reforms initiated by the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Lamido Sanusi, Nigeria’s banking sector was under a huge blanket of suspicion. Confidence, a key ingredient for stability, was greatly eroded. Even among the operators themselves, unethical and other underhand tactics were employed to discredit one another’s performance.

Despite the 2005 recapitalisation exercise, the financial balance sheets of some of the banks were not as good as the investing public was made to believe. It was, therefore, no surprise when the new CBN governor ordered an audit of the 24 banks. The outcome led to the removal of eight bank chiefs by the apex bank. A total of N620 billion was injected to keep them afloat.

With the audit exercise over, there are signals that CBN may commence another round of bank consolidation. Undoubtedly, lifting our banks from the morass they are currently mired in, requires comprehensive measures that should go beyond recapitalisation. We agree that as long as the banks’ balance sheets remain weighed down by problematic assets, credit growth will remain sluggish.
In this wise, a second round of recapitalisation is not a bad idea. But a fresh consolidation should be just one of the strategies to put our banks in good stead to withstand both domestic and external turbulence. Our worry, however, for any planned recapitalisation is that it could be a ploy by the CBN governor to reduce the number of commercial banks operating in Nigeria to his ideal number of 15, which he indicated on assumption of office.

If that is the reason, the CBN may be working to the answer in the name of consolidation. We hope that is not the real intention. While we support every effort to sanitize the banking sector, the CBN must create a framework that will enable banks emerge either through acquisitions or mergers. In this regard, the apex bank must be thorough and impartial. Any bidding to acquire the ailing banks, either by local or foreign banks, must be seen to be transparent. It must follow all due process.

It is our view that the main problem facing Nigeria’s banking sector is lack of corporate governance, not necessarily capital. For any meaningful reform, the operators must embrace best practices as demanded by the tenets of corporate governance. This entails keeping scrupulously to the ethics of banking. Until now, many banks have been found to cook their financial records, apparently to deceive shareholders and the investing public. Ethics mattered little to many of the bank chiefs. Violations of the rules and regulations were the norm. All of these were part of the portal of fraud that assailed the Nigerian banking sector before the CBN hammer fell on erring bank MD/CEOs.

Therefore, one solution is to ensure that henceforth, the banks and their Chief Executives are ready to play by the rules of proper banking operations. The key to enduring reform rests with enforcement of corporate governance and punishment of offenders. In the past, the CBN and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) which should have kept watchful eyes on the commercial banks appeared rather soft in the area of enforcement of the rules. In some instances, top officials of the two regulatory authorities were accused of compromising themselves by cavorting with MD/CEOs of some banks. Too much familiarity breeds reluctance in enforcing the rules.

We advise that every plan by the apex bank to reform the banking sector must clearly define and determine the scope and next level the industry will aspire to reach. But in all, corporate governance must take pre-eminent position in every strategic plan.

Also, effective control measures that can identify and discipline erring banks staff should be considered. Overall, any fresh round of bank consolidation must go notches higher than the previous one

Vision 20-2020: Rising from ground zero

The Federal Government seems to have at last ended months of much talk and little action, and has released what now appears on paper as a realistic blueprint towards making Nigeria rank among 20 top economies in the world by the year 2020. The Vision 20-2020 document has been unveiled, after nine months of brainstorming by over 100 experts empanelled into groups to draft the vision plan.

In the last ten months alone, the Federal Government inaugurated a plethora of committees to translate the vision into reality. Among these was the Business Support Group (BSG), which was inaugurated in February. The Group was tasked to prepare a realistic framework that will meet government’s objectives in line with its Seven-Point Agenda.

Also, over the past months, other committees empanelled by government include the National Council on Nigerian Economy, and the National Steering Committee on Vision 2020.

We have always insisted that for Vision 2020 to have any realistic chance of succeeding, it must be matched by a corresponding action plan that is achievable, based on all indices that propel economic prosperity and political stability. In this regard, we welcome some of the critical areas stressed in the blueprint. First is that Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) must not be less than $900 billion, and the national per capita income which measures the people’s standard of living should not be less than $4,000 per year by the year 2020.

Besides, the document dutifully identified priority areas that government must address urgently. These include decentralisation of governance and sustainability, electoral reforms, land use/property reforms, public service reforms, national security, human capacity development, as well as critical infrastructure, with particular emphasis on power and transportation. It is also clear from the blueprint that government plans to generate 60,000 megawatts (mw) of electricity in order to make Nigeria among the 20 great countries of the world, by focusing on renewable and sustainable energy sources. Interestingly also, government says it hopes to make the citizens’ per capita income reach $1,700. This is 300 percent higher than the 2005 figure.

These are lofty objectives and targets and we commend the vision. However, we continue to insist that these are achievable targets only if government shows corresponding commitment to meeting them. Visioning is vacuous unless it is matched with political will and sincerity of purpose. Sadly, available facts on ground show pointedly that there is no unflappable commitment to achieving this ambitious programme, which is designed to make us rub shoulders with the top 20 economies of the world. That is why many Nigerians still harbour serious doubts about the workability of Vision 2020. We, therefore, challenge government to rise above this ground zero level and prove critics wrong that, indeed, it has the political will to provide steady power supply which is a major plank upon which all other developing plans can succeed. Less than three months to the deadline of meeting 6,000 megawatts, government is far from generating 50 percent of that target.

It is not enough to make promises, there should be clear time lines on each target.
We believe that the next two years will be critical, because it will be the period of elections. And how successful the polls are will depend largely on a set of factors which include genuine electoral reforms, and systems, institutions and processes anchored on good leadership.

We must not discountenance reforms, which are the bedrock of a sound public service and human capital development. It is regrettable that ten years into our democracy, the country is yet to have a comprehensive public service reform. We, however, believe that the current effort by the Head of Service of the Federation will yield the necessary result, if pursued with diligence. Inasmuch as we have our reservations about the government blueprint towards actualising Vision 2020, all hope is not lost.

We need to see a fundamental change in critical sectors that drive the economy. This is because any realistic vision must say something that clarifies the direction in which a nation intends to go. This can only be achieved through action, not by words alone. If Nigeria must meet the targets encapsulated in the 20-2020 blueprint, now is the time to begin comprehensive reforms in the critical areas that can make the vision possible. Without that, we are merely engaged in a pipe dream, mere chasing after the wind.

Nigeria’s latest global ranking

The latest ranking of Nigeria’s economy as the 99th in the world by the world Economic Forum, a Geneva-based organisation, does not bode well for our country. Nigeria was among the 133 countries assessed in the Global Competitiveness Report for the period 2009-2010.

The ranking is based on a poll of over 13,000 business leaders and a collection of key indices of each country’s economy. The outcome of the ranking, which is a yearly exercise, shows Nigeria five places down the scale. Last year, Nigeria’s economy was ranked 94th in the world. This implies that the key indices necessary for economic development are deteriorating rather than improving. The recent economic meltdown is said to have taken its toll on many countries, and Nigeria may have been hard hit by the aftershock of the global economic turbulence.

But the World Economic Forum in its report noted that Nigeria’s reversal of fortunes was deepened by a combination of factors which include weak institutional frameworks, security concern, high level of corruption especially in key government institutions, and by public officials and wasteful spending. For instance, in the area of weak institutions, Nigeria was ranked 102nd, insecurity (117th), corruption (122nd) and wasteful spending (120th).

Also, the worst area in the ranking was at the primary education level which was ranked 132nd out of the 133 countries that were surveyed. Besides, Nigeria’s state of infrastructure was described as appalling by the report. It was ranked 127th.

However, the consolation is that Nigeria’s macroeconomic environment received a somewhat favourable rating. It was ranked 20th. This is on the basis of what the report called Nigeria’s “high national savings rate” and “low national debt.” Also, our market size was rated very highly at 42nd in the world. This, the WEF report explains, provides opportunities of economies of scale to companies operating in Nigeria.

Overall, South Africa’s economy came tops in the African continent. Its financial markets were rated five times higher than they were last year. Key institutions are said to be in excellent form.

We are not surprised by the ranking. It confirms our fears, and indeed that of investors, that the Federal Government has done so much talk and less walk in improving our economy. Clearly, in the last one year alone, more energies have been devoted to policy pronouncements and less to concrete action plan that will move the economy out of its present doldrums. Knowledge-based economics seems to be lacking by the handlers of Nigeria’s key sectors. Institutions of government that are supposed to ginger economic growth are not measuring up to expectations. Official corruption still ranks high, infrastructure decay, erratic power supply, bad road network and spate of kidnappings, remain disincentives to investments. The latest turbulence in the capital market may have equally worsened matters.

Indeed, one of the consequences of Nigeria’s latest poor ranking is that it is capable of weakening investors’ confidence since investors make their decisions based on the strength or weakness of every given country’s economy. Such decisions are determined by business environment and efficiency, innovation and regulations, among other critical factors.

Sadly, none of these indices ranks high in investors’ scale of preference. Therefore, we urge government to take this latest global competitiveness ranking as a wake-up call to improve the economy.
Government and its key institutions must strive to establish and maintain international performance benchmarks for the economy if it must get good ratings that can sustain confidence in the country. A poor rating as reflected in the latest ranking by the World Economic Forum will not do our economy any good whatsoever.