I was in the United Kingdom on an unduly short (!) vacation with my two older kids when on Thursday “breaking news” on BBC started reporting that Michael Jackson (MJ) had been rushed to hospital; that he was unconscious at the time; that CPR had been administered on him. We immediately became glued to the TV until the website TMZ reported he was dead. I was at first inclined to wish this away as a false alarm-another MJ stunt, but deep down I feared that no credible media would take such chances with so big a story. The BBC was of course more conservative-reporting the TMZ report, then mentioning that MJ’s sister Latoya had been seen running into the UCLA Medical Centre in Los Angeles (where he was rushed to) in tears. It was when the BBC reported that the Los Angeles Times, a mainstream news media based right on the scene had also reported on its website that MJ was dead that I knew MJ was probably gone!
Most people in my generation and those above and below ours cannot be indifferent to Michael’s demise. MJ was not my first musical icon. For some reason, my first remembrance of a music star was Sir Victor Uwaifo and his “guitar boy” song. The second was James Brown. My family had our own in-house James Brown, my elder brother Bolaji who many later knew as “Simple”-today a New York resident. His affinity for James Brown endured through university and beyond! When we were young, he won many dancing competitions mimicking James Brown and he wore a JB hairstyle through his youth. After Uwaifo and James Brown, I went through many other “heros”-Sunny Ade and Ebenezer Obey, Bob Marley, Diana Ross, Barry White, George Benson and a stream of rhythm and blues singers. But through it all MJ was there, first as the handsome, sweet-looking, lead singer of the Jackson Five and The Jacksons and then simply Michael Jackson!
He was a musical genius, an extra-ordinary dancer and probably the greatest performer in this age. He was James Brown, The Beatles and Elvis Presley rolled into one, truly as he became known, The King of Pop. The lyrical quality of his songs was exceptional and his musical videos were truly imaginative, even if as we later saw he began to drift into horror and the unusual. And even when he sang blues, the melody and soul was mind-lifting. The number of his hits is just unbelievable whether as part of the Jacksons (I want you back; blame it on the boogie, etc) or particularly after he went solo (Don’t stop till you get enough; The girl is mine; Rock with you; Billie Jean; Beat it; Thriller; Wanna be starting something; Bad; The way you make me feel; etc). According to a review I read in the UK Independent, MJ had 13 number 1 singles, 750 million worldwide record sales (leading the Guinness Book of Records to declare him “the most successful entertainer of all time”) and three hundred million pounds estimated total career earnings. His thriller album sold 65 million copies worldwide and is clearly the most successful music album ever. MJ had already sold 750,000 tickets for his 50 comeback concerts in London which he declared the “final curtain call” a concert the world alas would never witness!
Michael Jackson’s “Off the Wall” album in 1979 coincided with (or perhaps played a part in provoking) the period my generation began to “rock”. Off the Wall and Lord Kitchener’s (was that the right spelling?) “Sugar Bum Bum” were songs I remember as sign points of our generation’s “disco” era as it used to be called, except that Lord Kitchener and the others disappeared and MJ stayed behind to entertain our children as well three decades later! The Independent described “Off the Wall” as “a masterwork of funk, pop, disco and even jazz, drawing on all areas of Quincy Jones’ vast experience as a jazz and R & B producer/arranger”.
But then like all stars, Michael had his problems. He had never been allowed a normal childhood forced to grow up on stage and in TV cameras. He was a little child who perhaps would have given up all the fame and wealth in return for the pleasures of childhood and youth which we all take for granted. In a way, he was the victim of an unfeeling world, which took away his childhood and then called him “Wacko Jacko” as the limits of his socialisation became obvious. Like many who achieve wealth, fame or power, he stood no chance against sycophants and manipulators who changed and then destroyed him. And then MJ was a Black American superstar at a time when beauty was defined in white American terms-a fair skin, a thin nose and a slim and slender body. MJ had achieved the remarkable distinction of fusing white pop music and black soul and his music appealed across races. Soon MJ would want to look like his white audiences and then followed the plastic surgery, skin grafts and nose adjustments turning the beautiful Michael Jackson into something that resembled a scarecrow! Fortunately future black stars will not have such complexes-Barack and Michelle Obama, Tiger Woods, Lewis Hamilton, Oprah Winfrey and Will Smith among others haven proven that black is truly beautiful. And then the allegations of child molestation, the quickly arranged marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, the court cases and the financial problems reminding us all that when success does not have a spiritual compass, it becomes destruction.
But these are not what the world will remember Michael Jackson for. He will be remembered as the musical genius, a legendary performer and entertainer, a super star who delivered excellent music to the world from the 1960s to the 2000s and the source of some of the best dances and videos ever seen. Our great grand children and many future generations will listen to Michael’s music.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Doing Business in Nigeria
The “Doing Business” Survey provides objective measures of business regulations and enforcement in 181 countries/economies across the world. The 2009 report released by the World Bank Group in May shows that the global top ten in terms of overall ease of doing business were Singapore; New Zealand; USA; Hong Kong; Denmark; UK; Ireland; Canada; Australia; and Norway-no surprises there, even though it brings home the complete domination of modern civilisation by Western and East Asian nations. Other regions-Eastern Europe, South America, South Asia, Middle East and of courses Africa continue to lag behind the rest of the world. But then there are those whose response will be that American democracy is over two hundred years old as if we must repeat and re-learn the two centuries of American trial and error over again before we develop. The fact that the leading nation in this survey, Singapore was behind Nigeria in 1965 should shame those who continue to argue in favour of national mediocrity!
Given that we have decided to stop comparing ourselves with the developing world in terms of infrastructure, standard of living, quality of elections, levels of corruption and other developmental indices, I thought perhaps it was pointless comparing Nigeria with developed nations (we’ve even given up on comparing ourselves with North African nations-Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Libya etc!). Better to focus on the sub-Saharan region to see how we rate in comparison with the rest of our peers in the lowliest region in the world. Well the result in order of performance-Mauritius, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, Seychelles, Swaziland, Uganda, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Nigeria was twelfth in sub-Saharan Africa and 118th globally. By comparison, Mauritius was first in the region and 24th globally; South Africa-second and thirty-second; Botswana third and thirty-eighth; Namibia fourth and fifty-first; Kenya eighth and eighty-second; Ghana sixth and eighty-seventh; Zambia seventh and hundredth; Seychelles eighth and 104th; Swaziland ninth and 108th; Uganda tenth and 111th; and Ethiopia eleventh in sub-Saharan Africa and 116th in the world.
Nigeria is behind Ghana in West Africa and if the report is believed it is easier to do business in Ethiopia, Uganda and Swaziland than in Nigeria! Nigeria’s global rating declined four places from 114 in 2008 to 118 in 2009, while many African nations reported improvements. How did we earn this rating? A review of the breakdown of our scores and ratings reveals some not-too-surprising explanations. We recorded reasonably acceptable ratings on six criteria-employing workers, investor protection, getting credit, enforcing contracts, starting a business and closing a business coming 27th, 53rd, 84th, 90th, 91st and 91st globally in these areas. These ratings are consistent with the experience of businesses. You can easily get labour and since labour protection is weak, you can easily dispense with them. Unemployment is very high and even though there are issues with employee skill levels and productivity, the labour pool is very large.
Nigeria does not have a history of expropriating private investors’ assets, but it is possible that our ratings in this respect may deteriorate as we begin to seek to change oil sector contracts, cancel concluded privatisation transactions, cancel 2.3GHz spectrum auctions validly carried out by the NCC etc. The financial sectors’ increased capacity meant that it was reasonably easy for large businesses to access credit. Even then small and medium enterprises still have difficulty securing credit and the banks have recently become tighter with loans in the wake of the margin loan crisis. The rating of 90th in enforcing contracts is perhaps generous considering the length of time commercial litigation consumes but the ratings with starting and closing a business reflect the improved services at the Corporate Affairs Commission and Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission.
The areas in which we did very poorly will not surprise anyone-paying taxes (120), cross-border trade (144), construction permits (151) and registering property (176). The problem of multiplicity of taxes, rates and charges by federal, state and municipal authorities and arbitrary imposition of new charges at every whim is a major problem for businesses. The rating for cross-border trade reflects the continuing problems with the ports, customs, foreign currency procurement and borders and the severe logistics constraints that Nigerian businesses have to contend with. The last two poor ratings are also consistent with expectations. It is easier (and cheaper) for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a business to register interest in land and obtain construction approvals from town planning authorities. In terms of registering landed property, there are only five countries in the world worse than Nigeria!
No Nigerian business person will argue with any of these ratings which are obtained on the basis of surveys of businesses operating in each rated economy or country. If we want to attain the objectives of Vision 2020 clearly we have to do better. If we must be one of the top twenty economies in the world, is it not reasonable that we seek to be in the top twenty in terms of the ease of doing business amongst global economies? We need private capital in power, transport systems and infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, health and educational facilities, tourism and services (financial, ICT, logistics etc) and other sectors if we are to grow this economy at the desired speed. We can’t get that private capital if businesses believe our business environment is mostly hostile to business.
Given that we have decided to stop comparing ourselves with the developing world in terms of infrastructure, standard of living, quality of elections, levels of corruption and other developmental indices, I thought perhaps it was pointless comparing Nigeria with developed nations (we’ve even given up on comparing ourselves with North African nations-Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Libya etc!). Better to focus on the sub-Saharan region to see how we rate in comparison with the rest of our peers in the lowliest region in the world. Well the result in order of performance-Mauritius, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, Seychelles, Swaziland, Uganda, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Nigeria was twelfth in sub-Saharan Africa and 118th globally. By comparison, Mauritius was first in the region and 24th globally; South Africa-second and thirty-second; Botswana third and thirty-eighth; Namibia fourth and fifty-first; Kenya eighth and eighty-second; Ghana sixth and eighty-seventh; Zambia seventh and hundredth; Seychelles eighth and 104th; Swaziland ninth and 108th; Uganda tenth and 111th; and Ethiopia eleventh in sub-Saharan Africa and 116th in the world.
Nigeria is behind Ghana in West Africa and if the report is believed it is easier to do business in Ethiopia, Uganda and Swaziland than in Nigeria! Nigeria’s global rating declined four places from 114 in 2008 to 118 in 2009, while many African nations reported improvements. How did we earn this rating? A review of the breakdown of our scores and ratings reveals some not-too-surprising explanations. We recorded reasonably acceptable ratings on six criteria-employing workers, investor protection, getting credit, enforcing contracts, starting a business and closing a business coming 27th, 53rd, 84th, 90th, 91st and 91st globally in these areas. These ratings are consistent with the experience of businesses. You can easily get labour and since labour protection is weak, you can easily dispense with them. Unemployment is very high and even though there are issues with employee skill levels and productivity, the labour pool is very large.
Nigeria does not have a history of expropriating private investors’ assets, but it is possible that our ratings in this respect may deteriorate as we begin to seek to change oil sector contracts, cancel concluded privatisation transactions, cancel 2.3GHz spectrum auctions validly carried out by the NCC etc. The financial sectors’ increased capacity meant that it was reasonably easy for large businesses to access credit. Even then small and medium enterprises still have difficulty securing credit and the banks have recently become tighter with loans in the wake of the margin loan crisis. The rating of 90th in enforcing contracts is perhaps generous considering the length of time commercial litigation consumes but the ratings with starting and closing a business reflect the improved services at the Corporate Affairs Commission and Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission.
The areas in which we did very poorly will not surprise anyone-paying taxes (120), cross-border trade (144), construction permits (151) and registering property (176). The problem of multiplicity of taxes, rates and charges by federal, state and municipal authorities and arbitrary imposition of new charges at every whim is a major problem for businesses. The rating for cross-border trade reflects the continuing problems with the ports, customs, foreign currency procurement and borders and the severe logistics constraints that Nigerian businesses have to contend with. The last two poor ratings are also consistent with expectations. It is easier (and cheaper) for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a business to register interest in land and obtain construction approvals from town planning authorities. In terms of registering landed property, there are only five countries in the world worse than Nigeria!
No Nigerian business person will argue with any of these ratings which are obtained on the basis of surveys of businesses operating in each rated economy or country. If we want to attain the objectives of Vision 2020 clearly we have to do better. If we must be one of the top twenty economies in the world, is it not reasonable that we seek to be in the top twenty in terms of the ease of doing business amongst global economies? We need private capital in power, transport systems and infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, health and educational facilities, tourism and services (financial, ICT, logistics etc) and other sectors if we are to grow this economy at the desired speed. We can’t get that private capital if businesses believe our business environment is mostly hostile to business.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Memo to Lamido Sanusi
Dear SLS,
Congratulations on your appointment as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. As an economist, the headship of your nation’s Central Bank is the zenith of your profession as it is every banker’s ultimate dream. But you’re not unused to lofty positions and you should I’m sure be able to keep your feet on the ground. You will need to. Putting aside the poor politics around your appointment, I believe you are a good person for the job. You have a background in economics; you understand the Nigerian (and Global) financial services industry (importantly your bias towards risk management is very relevant in these climes!); you have an interest and focus on economic growth and substantive development especially poverty alleviation; and you are a person of courage and integrity. Plus you have a social conscience. I think these are the most important qualifications for the job.
As for the politics, I do not blame you for that. I am sure you understand that in an ethnically diverse nation as ours and given our history, concerns will be raised about the apparent trend towards northern control of all important economic and indeed cabinet positions. Please mention whenever you have the opportunity to your bosses that Nigeria cannot afford a relapse into ethnic and sectional tensions. Please encourage the President and your friends and kinsmen to relax. Nigeria will be there forever (we believe) and we all need to be more sensitive to our ethnic diversity. That in any event is what our constitution and the rule of law demands. Nevertheless I would prefer that appointments to important technical regulatory positions should be offered on merit so while the complaints are valid with regard to political offices, we may be flexible when it comes to purely technocratic positions.
You will face three immediate short-term challenges as you settle into the Central Bank. First is the task of articulating and consolidating a sound policy framework for foreign currency and reserves management. We have had recent turbulence in this area after several years of calm due partly to the global financial crisis, but also due to gaps in policy and governance and lack of clarity about our macroeconomic direction. You are fortunate that oil prices appear to be rebounding but you can’t afford to be complacent. Carefully calibrate your actions towards returning to a market-regime for exchange rates without compromising the need for decent reserve levels. Secondly (and linked with the first point) you will have to help restore confidence in Nigeria’s macroeconomic direction which have been eroded by recent instability and policy zig-zags emanating from government and the bank. Do not send mixed signals regarding our pursuit of a private-sector led development strategy although with strong regulation and competition. Thirdly, you will have to resolve concerns around financial sector soundness and health including asset quality, provisioning, risk management, transparency and professional ethics. I recommend you push the industry towards prompt resolution of these issues especially now that the macroeconomic outlook appears to be softening somewhat.
But the substantive challenges you face are even more significant-reducing interest rates and enhancing access to credit for SMEs and retail customers; bringing inflation down to single-digits in the first instance, and below 5% in the medium to long term; achieving sustainable economic growth and development, poverty reduction and diversification of Nigerian export and revenue base; resolving the structure of financial sector regulation and creating integrated regulation across Nigerian Financial Services; and achieving the objectives of the Financial Sector Strategy (FSS) 2020 especially the establishment of the African Central Bank in Abuja and creating an International Financial Centre in Lagos.
These are important challenges and they are critical to our achievement of the Vision 2020 dream. We cannot grow a productive economy on 25-30 per cent effective interest rates for industry and limited or no access to credit for small and medium enterprises and retail customers. To achieve lower interest rates, we need lower inflation. I think we need to go beyond the low target of single-digit inflation to less than 5 per cent inflation. I recognise the trade-off with economic growth, but then you will have to be flexible between means and goals. We need to deal with our social issues-education, health, poverty, public transportation, rural development and social security. I am happy you alluded to these human development indices in your Senate confirmation hearings. Please do whatever you can to use economic policy to drive the improvement of the standard of living of our people.
How will financial services be regulated in Nigeria? Will we continue the present fragmented regulatory system? How will we achieve “consolidated supervision” as you put it? Will we create new institutions or try a middle-of-the-road approach? You will have to answer this question. My personal preference is for a UK-style Financial Services Authority, but I recognise these times call for careful reflection. There are no easy and tried answers as the western financial crisis reminds us. Finally you will have to move Nigeria towards achievement of the aims of FSS 2020. Will Lagos be an international financial centre during your tenure? Will a fully-functional African Central Bank operate out of Abuja? Will West African achieve monetary union? You will have to see to the realisation of these dreams.
As you battle these challenges, I wish you well and pray you have the wisdom and strength to succeed.
Congratulations on your appointment as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. As an economist, the headship of your nation’s Central Bank is the zenith of your profession as it is every banker’s ultimate dream. But you’re not unused to lofty positions and you should I’m sure be able to keep your feet on the ground. You will need to. Putting aside the poor politics around your appointment, I believe you are a good person for the job. You have a background in economics; you understand the Nigerian (and Global) financial services industry (importantly your bias towards risk management is very relevant in these climes!); you have an interest and focus on economic growth and substantive development especially poverty alleviation; and you are a person of courage and integrity. Plus you have a social conscience. I think these are the most important qualifications for the job.
As for the politics, I do not blame you for that. I am sure you understand that in an ethnically diverse nation as ours and given our history, concerns will be raised about the apparent trend towards northern control of all important economic and indeed cabinet positions. Please mention whenever you have the opportunity to your bosses that Nigeria cannot afford a relapse into ethnic and sectional tensions. Please encourage the President and your friends and kinsmen to relax. Nigeria will be there forever (we believe) and we all need to be more sensitive to our ethnic diversity. That in any event is what our constitution and the rule of law demands. Nevertheless I would prefer that appointments to important technical regulatory positions should be offered on merit so while the complaints are valid with regard to political offices, we may be flexible when it comes to purely technocratic positions.
You will face three immediate short-term challenges as you settle into the Central Bank. First is the task of articulating and consolidating a sound policy framework for foreign currency and reserves management. We have had recent turbulence in this area after several years of calm due partly to the global financial crisis, but also due to gaps in policy and governance and lack of clarity about our macroeconomic direction. You are fortunate that oil prices appear to be rebounding but you can’t afford to be complacent. Carefully calibrate your actions towards returning to a market-regime for exchange rates without compromising the need for decent reserve levels. Secondly (and linked with the first point) you will have to help restore confidence in Nigeria’s macroeconomic direction which have been eroded by recent instability and policy zig-zags emanating from government and the bank. Do not send mixed signals regarding our pursuit of a private-sector led development strategy although with strong regulation and competition. Thirdly, you will have to resolve concerns around financial sector soundness and health including asset quality, provisioning, risk management, transparency and professional ethics. I recommend you push the industry towards prompt resolution of these issues especially now that the macroeconomic outlook appears to be softening somewhat.
But the substantive challenges you face are even more significant-reducing interest rates and enhancing access to credit for SMEs and retail customers; bringing inflation down to single-digits in the first instance, and below 5% in the medium to long term; achieving sustainable economic growth and development, poverty reduction and diversification of Nigerian export and revenue base; resolving the structure of financial sector regulation and creating integrated regulation across Nigerian Financial Services; and achieving the objectives of the Financial Sector Strategy (FSS) 2020 especially the establishment of the African Central Bank in Abuja and creating an International Financial Centre in Lagos.
These are important challenges and they are critical to our achievement of the Vision 2020 dream. We cannot grow a productive economy on 25-30 per cent effective interest rates for industry and limited or no access to credit for small and medium enterprises and retail customers. To achieve lower interest rates, we need lower inflation. I think we need to go beyond the low target of single-digit inflation to less than 5 per cent inflation. I recognise the trade-off with economic growth, but then you will have to be flexible between means and goals. We need to deal with our social issues-education, health, poverty, public transportation, rural development and social security. I am happy you alluded to these human development indices in your Senate confirmation hearings. Please do whatever you can to use economic policy to drive the improvement of the standard of living of our people.
How will financial services be regulated in Nigeria? Will we continue the present fragmented regulatory system? How will we achieve “consolidated supervision” as you put it? Will we create new institutions or try a middle-of-the-road approach? You will have to answer this question. My personal preference is for a UK-style Financial Services Authority, but I recognise these times call for careful reflection. There are no easy and tried answers as the western financial crisis reminds us. Finally you will have to move Nigeria towards achievement of the aims of FSS 2020. Will Lagos be an international financial centre during your tenure? Will a fully-functional African Central Bank operate out of Abuja? Will West African achieve monetary union? You will have to see to the realisation of these dreams.
As you battle these challenges, I wish you well and pray you have the wisdom and strength to succeed.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Deepening our Democracy
Nigeria has enjoyed its longest unbroken span of democracy since independence. Given our history, it is a good milestone. But given the degenerating quality of our “democracy” since 1999, it is not yet “Uhuru”. In January 1966, our first attempt at democratic practice collapsed in the wake of the Nzeogwu coup and the military stepped into governance until Obasanjo led them back to the barracks in 1979. Just over four years later they were back on the last day of 1983, with then Brigadier General Sani Abacha announcing that the soldiers were back and General Buhari taking office again as military Head of State. Buhari was succeeded by Babangida and briefly Shonekan before Abacha took power in November 1993.
Abacha thoroughly terrorised Nigerians and helped to remove any remaining tolerance for military rule that was left in Nigerians. I recall writing an article which was published in “The Guardian” in the last days of Abacha which implicitly echoed the frustration I, along with virtually all Nigerians felt at the economic drift, political crisis and international isolation into which the Abacha regime had plunged Nigeria. I was surprised at the number of people who called to warn me, “If Abacha or Al-Mustapha catches you!” It was a big relief when on June 8 1998 Abacha died and Nigeria got a chance to get back on a sensible path.
I indeed believe that democracy is inherently better than military rule. No matter how defective democracy is, if it is sustained over time, the chances are that democratic institutions are strengthened and eventually a better polity emerges. India is an example of this hypothesis. Indian democracy is very flawed. It has many of the elements of our own imperfect democracy-violence, corruption, criminal infiltration into political leadership, party barons who hijack the system etc. Yet unlike Pakistan (and Nigeria) which has alternated between democratic rule and military interventions, India has sustained its democracy and in the process has strengthened itself to the point where today India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies. The comparison with Pakistan which is virtually a failed state, and Nigeria which is a failing state can not be more stark!
However the fact that we are better off sustaining democratic rule rather than relapsing into military rule, fascism, totalitarianism, feudalism or any other unrepresentative form of government must not obscure the fact that in ten years of so-called democracy, we have actually become less and less democratic. As many commentators have correctly put it, while we undoubtedly have civilian rule, it is not clear that what we presently have can be properly called a democracy! Democracy implies supremacy of the will of the people. It rests on free and fair elections at regular intervals. In a democracy, the elected are accountable to the electors and government exists for the welfare of the people. In Nigeria, all of these notions are becoming more and more remote from our practice of democracy.
It seems like we have the physical structures (the body) or the letters of democracy-a parliament, regular elections, civilian government officials, a constitution etc, but we have lost its spirit. The spirit of democracy is typified by respect for the rule of law and the constitution, faith in the ballot box and integrity of the electoral system, sovereignty of the people and government exists to advance the good of the people. Today the behaviour of our political class more closely resembles that of unelected colonial officers who have been selected by an imperial authority to rule over a conquered people. Our elections are of little or no consequence. The winners are predetermined through means that have no bearing with the will of the people, and elected politicians appear merely to tolerate the unwanted intrusions of their constituents rather than holding themselves accountable to them. The people have lost their sovereignty to a buccaneer political class.
Our only saving grace has been the judiciary which retains some elements of independence; the media which has not been completely suppressed or compromised; and parts of civil society which has not given up on the ideals of a true democracy. So the political class now has untrammelled power over the people who can only look on while the “dividends of democracy” are by and large monopolised by a few. The political class will not willingly abdicate this power and the privileges that they have now gotten used to. So the people of Nigeria will have to reclaim their sovereignty from those who have hijacked it. They will have to return to citizen activism. They will have to join political parties or civil society organisations. They must write “letters to the editor”, op-ed pieces or newspaper columns and insist that their voices must be heard.
They will have to organise protest marches and peaceful demonstrations. They must write letters to their legislators and follow up with more vigorous actions if no response is received. Nigerians will have to insist that elected and appointed office holders account to them for their performance in office. They must insist on recovering their lost sovereignty.
Abacha thoroughly terrorised Nigerians and helped to remove any remaining tolerance for military rule that was left in Nigerians. I recall writing an article which was published in “The Guardian” in the last days of Abacha which implicitly echoed the frustration I, along with virtually all Nigerians felt at the economic drift, political crisis and international isolation into which the Abacha regime had plunged Nigeria. I was surprised at the number of people who called to warn me, “If Abacha or Al-Mustapha catches you!” It was a big relief when on June 8 1998 Abacha died and Nigeria got a chance to get back on a sensible path.
I indeed believe that democracy is inherently better than military rule. No matter how defective democracy is, if it is sustained over time, the chances are that democratic institutions are strengthened and eventually a better polity emerges. India is an example of this hypothesis. Indian democracy is very flawed. It has many of the elements of our own imperfect democracy-violence, corruption, criminal infiltration into political leadership, party barons who hijack the system etc. Yet unlike Pakistan (and Nigeria) which has alternated between democratic rule and military interventions, India has sustained its democracy and in the process has strengthened itself to the point where today India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies. The comparison with Pakistan which is virtually a failed state, and Nigeria which is a failing state can not be more stark!
However the fact that we are better off sustaining democratic rule rather than relapsing into military rule, fascism, totalitarianism, feudalism or any other unrepresentative form of government must not obscure the fact that in ten years of so-called democracy, we have actually become less and less democratic. As many commentators have correctly put it, while we undoubtedly have civilian rule, it is not clear that what we presently have can be properly called a democracy! Democracy implies supremacy of the will of the people. It rests on free and fair elections at regular intervals. In a democracy, the elected are accountable to the electors and government exists for the welfare of the people. In Nigeria, all of these notions are becoming more and more remote from our practice of democracy.
It seems like we have the physical structures (the body) or the letters of democracy-a parliament, regular elections, civilian government officials, a constitution etc, but we have lost its spirit. The spirit of democracy is typified by respect for the rule of law and the constitution, faith in the ballot box and integrity of the electoral system, sovereignty of the people and government exists to advance the good of the people. Today the behaviour of our political class more closely resembles that of unelected colonial officers who have been selected by an imperial authority to rule over a conquered people. Our elections are of little or no consequence. The winners are predetermined through means that have no bearing with the will of the people, and elected politicians appear merely to tolerate the unwanted intrusions of their constituents rather than holding themselves accountable to them. The people have lost their sovereignty to a buccaneer political class.
Our only saving grace has been the judiciary which retains some elements of independence; the media which has not been completely suppressed or compromised; and parts of civil society which has not given up on the ideals of a true democracy. So the political class now has untrammelled power over the people who can only look on while the “dividends of democracy” are by and large monopolised by a few. The political class will not willingly abdicate this power and the privileges that they have now gotten used to. So the people of Nigeria will have to reclaim their sovereignty from those who have hijacked it. They will have to return to citizen activism. They will have to join political parties or civil society organisations. They must write “letters to the editor”, op-ed pieces or newspaper columns and insist that their voices must be heard.
They will have to organise protest marches and peaceful demonstrations. They must write letters to their legislators and follow up with more vigorous actions if no response is received. Nigerians will have to insist that elected and appointed office holders account to them for their performance in office. They must insist on recovering their lost sovereignty.
War in the Niger-Delta
Last year I wrote “The Trouble In The Niger-Delta” in which I argued basically that a “three-track strategy” consisting of a “sincere and constructive discussion and engagement between all stakeholders (federal, state and local governments, community and civic associations, oil companies, NDDC, youth groups, media, donor agencies, etc) to achieve consensus on the region’s development”; a “massive and immediate infrastructural investment in the region-roads and bridges, railways, hospitals, urban renewal and new cities development, primary and secondary education, micro-finance institutions, as well as skills acquisition and youth and vocational centres” and “the third track-military and intelligence capacity building and strict and decisive law enforcement and security action” would be required to solve the problems in the region.
Essentially there are legitimate grievances in the Niger-Delta which had been identified as far back as the Willinks Commission Report of 1957. These have manifested in different forms-the insurrection of Isaac Adaka Boro during the first republic, the agitation for the creation of the COR (Calabar, Ogoja, Rivers) state; the Ogoni Campaign led by Ken Saro Wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People; the large presence of Niger-Delta indigenes in the Orkar Coup in 1990; grumblings over environmental degradation and development which led to creation of OMPADEC and NDDC; the resource control argument etc. Unfortunately since the advent of the current republic, these legitimate grievances have become subsumed within a movement that manifests more as criminality, political violence, oil theft, kidnapping for ransom and general lawlessness, and has detracted from the genuine complaints of the Niger-Delta people.
This derailment was traceable to the visionless political leaders in the region beginning from the run up to the 1999 elections and afterwards who deployed the strong arm tactics of the militant groups to secure their “election” into office and who afterwards paid them hefty sums of money to maintain their loyalty. Alternatively these leaders looked the other way while their erstwhile henchmen took over territory, engaged in kidnapping or oil “bunkering” or other forms of criminal extortion and brigandage, thus discrediting the campaign for development in the region. The large scale corruption within the political class meant that the governors and legislators had no moral authority to restrain this descent to criminality. It also meant that the region’s call for “resource control” and a higher derivation rang hollow in the ears of other Nigerians.
To be fair, the lack of visionary leadership since 1999, and corruption and loss of moral authority was not restricted to the Niger-Delta-it was a pan-Nigerian problem. Northern leaders for instance could equally be asked why in spite of their near-total control of state power since independence; the region has the highest poverty and illiteracy rate in Nigeria. In the East, men had largely abandoned education for trading and in Yoruba land the office where Awolowo once sat is now occupied by Alao-Akala! In short the leadership failure in the Niger-Delta is replicated across the Nigerian State so none of us is justified in casting the first stone. But the consequences were going to be worse in the Niger-Delta which alone had the right to feel that Nigeria was maintained by resources extracted from their region while they lived with the environmental and social consequences.
In the earlier article referred to above, my point was that only simultaneous attention to the fundamental causes-underdevelopment, dialogue around our federalism-as well as dealing with crime and law enforcement could provide a sustainable long term solution to the problem in the region. In effect with the current military operations, the Nigerian state has chosen a military solution by and large. The government’s initial actions of creation of a Niger-Delta Ministry, the Niger-Delta Technical Committee and the offer of amnesty all suggested an intent to proceed with such a multiple approach but the government has evidently shown more commitment to the pacification of the region, rather than the other approaches.
The leadership of the Niger-Delta, particularly the Ijaw ethnic group, must now recognise that they have committed significant strategic errors. It could not have been in their interest to precipitate a military confrontation with the Nigerian state; they allowed the actions of the “militants” to alienate many domestic and international observers; and like Sadaam Hussein continued to threaten a “mother of all wars” which has now provided an alibi for military action. The type of intellectual and political militancy required was almost completely absent in effect ceding the leadership of the Niger-Delta “struggle” to miscreants and gangsters whose motives were largely commercial. It is time for them to re-evaluate their strategy.
The Nigerian state will also need to evaluate its own strategy. Military action will end the criminality (at least for a season) but if the political undercurrents and development of the region are not attended to, the next blow-up may even be worse as we have seen from history. Beyond the Niger-Delta, there are issues from other regions-Sharia, fiscal federalism, MASSOB, federal character-all of which suggest that a honest debate about the structure of our federalism is still necessary.
Essentially there are legitimate grievances in the Niger-Delta which had been identified as far back as the Willinks Commission Report of 1957. These have manifested in different forms-the insurrection of Isaac Adaka Boro during the first republic, the agitation for the creation of the COR (Calabar, Ogoja, Rivers) state; the Ogoni Campaign led by Ken Saro Wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People; the large presence of Niger-Delta indigenes in the Orkar Coup in 1990; grumblings over environmental degradation and development which led to creation of OMPADEC and NDDC; the resource control argument etc. Unfortunately since the advent of the current republic, these legitimate grievances have become subsumed within a movement that manifests more as criminality, political violence, oil theft, kidnapping for ransom and general lawlessness, and has detracted from the genuine complaints of the Niger-Delta people.
This derailment was traceable to the visionless political leaders in the region beginning from the run up to the 1999 elections and afterwards who deployed the strong arm tactics of the militant groups to secure their “election” into office and who afterwards paid them hefty sums of money to maintain their loyalty. Alternatively these leaders looked the other way while their erstwhile henchmen took over territory, engaged in kidnapping or oil “bunkering” or other forms of criminal extortion and brigandage, thus discrediting the campaign for development in the region. The large scale corruption within the political class meant that the governors and legislators had no moral authority to restrain this descent to criminality. It also meant that the region’s call for “resource control” and a higher derivation rang hollow in the ears of other Nigerians.
To be fair, the lack of visionary leadership since 1999, and corruption and loss of moral authority was not restricted to the Niger-Delta-it was a pan-Nigerian problem. Northern leaders for instance could equally be asked why in spite of their near-total control of state power since independence; the region has the highest poverty and illiteracy rate in Nigeria. In the East, men had largely abandoned education for trading and in Yoruba land the office where Awolowo once sat is now occupied by Alao-Akala! In short the leadership failure in the Niger-Delta is replicated across the Nigerian State so none of us is justified in casting the first stone. But the consequences were going to be worse in the Niger-Delta which alone had the right to feel that Nigeria was maintained by resources extracted from their region while they lived with the environmental and social consequences.
In the earlier article referred to above, my point was that only simultaneous attention to the fundamental causes-underdevelopment, dialogue around our federalism-as well as dealing with crime and law enforcement could provide a sustainable long term solution to the problem in the region. In effect with the current military operations, the Nigerian state has chosen a military solution by and large. The government’s initial actions of creation of a Niger-Delta Ministry, the Niger-Delta Technical Committee and the offer of amnesty all suggested an intent to proceed with such a multiple approach but the government has evidently shown more commitment to the pacification of the region, rather than the other approaches.
The leadership of the Niger-Delta, particularly the Ijaw ethnic group, must now recognise that they have committed significant strategic errors. It could not have been in their interest to precipitate a military confrontation with the Nigerian state; they allowed the actions of the “militants” to alienate many domestic and international observers; and like Sadaam Hussein continued to threaten a “mother of all wars” which has now provided an alibi for military action. The type of intellectual and political militancy required was almost completely absent in effect ceding the leadership of the Niger-Delta “struggle” to miscreants and gangsters whose motives were largely commercial. It is time for them to re-evaluate their strategy.
The Nigerian state will also need to evaluate its own strategy. Military action will end the criminality (at least for a season) but if the political undercurrents and development of the region are not attended to, the next blow-up may even be worse as we have seen from history. Beyond the Niger-Delta, there are issues from other regions-Sharia, fiscal federalism, MASSOB, federal character-all of which suggest that a honest debate about the structure of our federalism is still necessary.
Rural Embezzlement Agency
What exactly should we call this agency supposedly responsible for connecting electricity to Nigeria’s rural areas, but which it turns out was just an official front for stealing public money, whose “real economic agenda” was to provide permanent poverty alleviation for bureaucrats, contractors and sundry senior legislators?
Apparently the Managing Director of the so-called Rural Electrification Agency, one Mr Sam Gekpe, the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Power Ministry, Dr Abdulahi Aliyu, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Power, Senator Nicholas Ugbane, three “powerful” members of the House of Representatives-“Honourable” Ndudi Elumelu, chairman of the House Power committee (does anyone remember the show of righteous indignation that this gentleman put up over the $16billion purportedly spent on power by the Obasanjo regime), his deputy “Honourable” Muhammed Jibo, and the chairman of the House Committee on Rural (under)Development, “Honourable” (did anyone suggest to these “Honourables” that what they were doing amounted to dishonourable conduct?) Paulinus Igwe, as well as some other officials-Simon Nanle, Kayode Orekoya, Abdulsamad Garba Jahun and Mr Kayode Oyedeji (and one contractor, Emeka Ohaghena) simply got together sometime in December 2008 and shared N6.2billion in respect of what the newspapers called “phoney contracts”.
Now this people had the responsibility one way or the other for bringing development to Nigeria’s rural dwellers. As my wife asked as she read the report, “Where were the rural dwellers in all of this?” Do we now know what happens to all the millions, billions and trillions that we continually appropriate every year? Now remember that this is not a freak occurrence. Last time, it was the Health ministry-Minister, Minister of State, Permanent Secretary, Directors, and the Senate and House Health Committee chairpersons (the legislators were merely performing their constitutional ‘oversight’ over all activities of the executive, including looting the government purse!) who got together and shared N300million as Christmas gifts.
Earlier similar sharing of budget appropriations consumed the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Mrs Patricia Etteh, former Senate President, Adolphus Wabara, Senate and House Committee chairs of Education and a Vice Chancellor. Earlier in the Obasanjo tenure, it was a Minister of Internal Affairs, His Permanent Secretary and other officials who simply shared national ID card project monies. Already there is talk about another impending prosecution of virtually the entire leadership of the Universal Basic Education Commission over another N850million contract scam. Does anyone understand why it has been impossible for the public sector to deliver power and other services to Nigerians? Do we now know why NITEL, Nigeria Airways, National Fertiliser Company, Aluminium Smelter Company, Nigerian National Supply Company, Ajaokuta Steel, Nigerian National Shipping Line, NEPA, etc all failed woefully to deliver on their mandates while their former heads are now millionaires and billionaires? Does anyone understand why Nigeria will never develop if we remain ambivalent towards corruption?
Now notice that the list of accused persons fully reflects Nigeria’s federal character! All our geopolitical zones are well represented. The accused persons, if the allegations are correct, did not quarrel over zoning, rotation or party affiliation. No one complained of marginalisation. They did not fight on behalf of their states of origins, ethnic groups, tribes or communities. Though their tribes and tongues differ, in brotherhood they stole! And shared! There was no discussion of their religious differences also. Their names suggest they were self-proclaimed Christians and Moslems-Nicholas, Samuel, Muhammed, Abdulahi Aliyu, Paulinus, Simon, Garba, and Lawrence. They did not remember Sharia as they shared the money. No one reminded the others of the Biblical commandment-“Thou shall not steal”.
I am certain that if you check, all our major Christian denominations were fully represented-Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal, African Church, etc. There was no quarrel over any Islamic sectarian differences either. Some may even have been worshippers of traditional religions. None of that upset the bond of solidarity which filthy lucre fostered between the conspirators-in-theft! The “Christians” will have paid their tithes and the “Moslems” done the required zakat! The traditional religionists will have done “etutu”. That done in their estimation, God would have been successfully settled and their road to heaven cleared of all obstacles. The fate of rural dwellers who might have died due to lack of medical care as a result of absence of electricity, or the numerous children who could have been denied education, or the village artisans who may have escaped poverty if only they had power to work with, or the many other destinies destroyed and hopes shattered was too remote for them to factor into the calculation.
Is President Yar’adua finally launching a true war on corruption? Will the trials proceed to a logical conclusion or will the cases terminate after the accused persons are granted bail? When the accused persons’ Emirs, Obas and Obis as well as their community leaders and powerful friends begin to launch appeals for a “soft landing”, will the system insist that justice must be done? Is this a one-off attack or a sustained assault on the cancer that is destroying Nigeria’s journey to becoming one of the top twenty economies in the world? Will the battle proceed irrespective of who the next culprit is? We can only wait and see.
Apparently the Managing Director of the so-called Rural Electrification Agency, one Mr Sam Gekpe, the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Power Ministry, Dr Abdulahi Aliyu, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Power, Senator Nicholas Ugbane, three “powerful” members of the House of Representatives-“Honourable” Ndudi Elumelu, chairman of the House Power committee (does anyone remember the show of righteous indignation that this gentleman put up over the $16billion purportedly spent on power by the Obasanjo regime), his deputy “Honourable” Muhammed Jibo, and the chairman of the House Committee on Rural (under)Development, “Honourable” (did anyone suggest to these “Honourables” that what they were doing amounted to dishonourable conduct?) Paulinus Igwe, as well as some other officials-Simon Nanle, Kayode Orekoya, Abdulsamad Garba Jahun and Mr Kayode Oyedeji (and one contractor, Emeka Ohaghena) simply got together sometime in December 2008 and shared N6.2billion in respect of what the newspapers called “phoney contracts”.
Now this people had the responsibility one way or the other for bringing development to Nigeria’s rural dwellers. As my wife asked as she read the report, “Where were the rural dwellers in all of this?” Do we now know what happens to all the millions, billions and trillions that we continually appropriate every year? Now remember that this is not a freak occurrence. Last time, it was the Health ministry-Minister, Minister of State, Permanent Secretary, Directors, and the Senate and House Health Committee chairpersons (the legislators were merely performing their constitutional ‘oversight’ over all activities of the executive, including looting the government purse!) who got together and shared N300million as Christmas gifts.
Earlier similar sharing of budget appropriations consumed the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Mrs Patricia Etteh, former Senate President, Adolphus Wabara, Senate and House Committee chairs of Education and a Vice Chancellor. Earlier in the Obasanjo tenure, it was a Minister of Internal Affairs, His Permanent Secretary and other officials who simply shared national ID card project monies. Already there is talk about another impending prosecution of virtually the entire leadership of the Universal Basic Education Commission over another N850million contract scam. Does anyone understand why it has been impossible for the public sector to deliver power and other services to Nigerians? Do we now know why NITEL, Nigeria Airways, National Fertiliser Company, Aluminium Smelter Company, Nigerian National Supply Company, Ajaokuta Steel, Nigerian National Shipping Line, NEPA, etc all failed woefully to deliver on their mandates while their former heads are now millionaires and billionaires? Does anyone understand why Nigeria will never develop if we remain ambivalent towards corruption?
Now notice that the list of accused persons fully reflects Nigeria’s federal character! All our geopolitical zones are well represented. The accused persons, if the allegations are correct, did not quarrel over zoning, rotation or party affiliation. No one complained of marginalisation. They did not fight on behalf of their states of origins, ethnic groups, tribes or communities. Though their tribes and tongues differ, in brotherhood they stole! And shared! There was no discussion of their religious differences also. Their names suggest they were self-proclaimed Christians and Moslems-Nicholas, Samuel, Muhammed, Abdulahi Aliyu, Paulinus, Simon, Garba, and Lawrence. They did not remember Sharia as they shared the money. No one reminded the others of the Biblical commandment-“Thou shall not steal”.
I am certain that if you check, all our major Christian denominations were fully represented-Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal, African Church, etc. There was no quarrel over any Islamic sectarian differences either. Some may even have been worshippers of traditional religions. None of that upset the bond of solidarity which filthy lucre fostered between the conspirators-in-theft! The “Christians” will have paid their tithes and the “Moslems” done the required zakat! The traditional religionists will have done “etutu”. That done in their estimation, God would have been successfully settled and their road to heaven cleared of all obstacles. The fate of rural dwellers who might have died due to lack of medical care as a result of absence of electricity, or the numerous children who could have been denied education, or the village artisans who may have escaped poverty if only they had power to work with, or the many other destinies destroyed and hopes shattered was too remote for them to factor into the calculation.
Is President Yar’adua finally launching a true war on corruption? Will the trials proceed to a logical conclusion or will the cases terminate after the accused persons are granted bail? When the accused persons’ Emirs, Obas and Obis as well as their community leaders and powerful friends begin to launch appeals for a “soft landing”, will the system insist that justice must be done? Is this a one-off attack or a sustained assault on the cancer that is destroying Nigeria’s journey to becoming one of the top twenty economies in the world? Will the battle proceed irrespective of who the next culprit is? We can only wait and see.
Yar'adua's Mid-Term Review Part 2
There are some parts of the President’s report card that are mildly encouraging-he realises that the economy has to grow by double digits over a decade and beyond for Vision 2020 to be realisable; he says government has settled on an economic model-free enterprise with adequate regulation and identified the enablers that will facilitate economic growth, consistent with the seven-point agenda; the government is devoting budget resources to critical infrastructure as well as involving the private sector in transport concessioning-this columnist’s key concern about the absence of transparency in the Lagos-Ibadan expressway concession will not be repeated in future based on the provisions of the Procurement legislation, the President promises.
The President even recognises that attracting private capital into infrastructure will release resources for education, health and other social spending; the basic intent of the petroleum sector reforms is sensible-to make the NNPC a competitive national oil company, and to restructure the oil joint ventures into incorporated joint venture companies and so remove their dependence on the treasury for funding operations; generally a strategy seems to be in place for many aspects of transportation-roads, rail, aviation, inland waterways etc. The problem is that in almost every case, all you have are statements of intent, mid-way into a four year tenor! The test really is whether the regime will display enough political will and administrative acumen to see through its plans and commitments.
In several areas, the portents are not encouraging. I have already spoken about power, where it now seems clear that absence of political will (based perhaps on narrow geo-political reservations rather than economic considerations) have prevented the government from proceeding on a private sector led power strategy that is both compelling in its rationale and is also the law of the land as encompassed in the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005. In the Niger-Delta, you also see a similar absence of political will to make the required investments in the region to communicate to the people seriousness to address the region’s infrastructural needs- the pitiable allocation to the new Niger-Delta ministry compared with stupendous allocations to Abuja belie any commitment to developing the region.
The regime’s words are hardly aligned with its deeds regarding electoral reform as well! In spite of President Yar’adua’s stated commitment to electoral reforms, none of the elections held since he became President has been better than those conducted in 2007-in Adamawa, Kogi, Cross River and most recently the shame and violence visited on the people of Ekiti. These divergences between promises and actions further detract from the legitimacy and credibility of government.
The regime has developed a commendable legislative agenda. The proposed land reforms are a critical step in liberating the housing and mortgage sectors and making it easier for Nigerians to acquire and transfer title to land. The basic premises of the Petroleum Industry re-organisation bill make sense as well, even though the government has not engaged adequately with industry stakeholders and does not appear to have factored their inputs into the draft legislation. At the end of the day, if industry investors are unhappy with any law that emerges, the whole exercise would have been in vain. The government has also sent seven electoral reform bills to the National Assembly. But then there has been little or no legislative advocacy to push these legislations through Parliament.
If the government does not aggressively push its legislative proposals, of course opponents will stall them until the end of this legislative cycle-which is sooner than one may imagine as the campaign season and constituency activities increasingly engage the time of the legislators. The proposed downstream petroleum sector deregulation does not require legislation, but even that is stuck in the wheels of executive inertia, leaving Nigerians to contend with a return to debilitating fuel queues and petrol black markets. And while the President touts a commitment to free enterprise, his actions on the privatisation front do not match its claims. As one columnist puts it, the regime has appointed a self-acclaimed “novice” to oversee the privatisation process and from the gentleman’s early actions and pronouncements, it appears his mandate is to confuse rather than progress things.
The President appears to be drifting into an inclination to micro-manage and getting bogged down in operational details; there is no evidence of radical thinking and a comprehensive strategy in agriculture, (which is critical for food security, a key part of the seven-point agenda and job creation)-the recently launched big farmers’ scheme is like building the house from the roof! The priority should be providing land for millions of unemployed youths in smallholder farming schemes; and the worst part of the interview was when the President discussed Nasir El-Rufai, Nuhu Ribadu and his ex-governor friends. The “surrender” on the MDGs is also regrettable. On the whole, the chef appears now to have finalised some recipe, but he is still in the kitchen, dinner is yet to be served and the household is hungry! Unfortunately the taste of the pudding can only be in the eating!!!
The President even recognises that attracting private capital into infrastructure will release resources for education, health and other social spending; the basic intent of the petroleum sector reforms is sensible-to make the NNPC a competitive national oil company, and to restructure the oil joint ventures into incorporated joint venture companies and so remove their dependence on the treasury for funding operations; generally a strategy seems to be in place for many aspects of transportation-roads, rail, aviation, inland waterways etc. The problem is that in almost every case, all you have are statements of intent, mid-way into a four year tenor! The test really is whether the regime will display enough political will and administrative acumen to see through its plans and commitments.
In several areas, the portents are not encouraging. I have already spoken about power, where it now seems clear that absence of political will (based perhaps on narrow geo-political reservations rather than economic considerations) have prevented the government from proceeding on a private sector led power strategy that is both compelling in its rationale and is also the law of the land as encompassed in the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005. In the Niger-Delta, you also see a similar absence of political will to make the required investments in the region to communicate to the people seriousness to address the region’s infrastructural needs- the pitiable allocation to the new Niger-Delta ministry compared with stupendous allocations to Abuja belie any commitment to developing the region.
The regime’s words are hardly aligned with its deeds regarding electoral reform as well! In spite of President Yar’adua’s stated commitment to electoral reforms, none of the elections held since he became President has been better than those conducted in 2007-in Adamawa, Kogi, Cross River and most recently the shame and violence visited on the people of Ekiti. These divergences between promises and actions further detract from the legitimacy and credibility of government.
The regime has developed a commendable legislative agenda. The proposed land reforms are a critical step in liberating the housing and mortgage sectors and making it easier for Nigerians to acquire and transfer title to land. The basic premises of the Petroleum Industry re-organisation bill make sense as well, even though the government has not engaged adequately with industry stakeholders and does not appear to have factored their inputs into the draft legislation. At the end of the day, if industry investors are unhappy with any law that emerges, the whole exercise would have been in vain. The government has also sent seven electoral reform bills to the National Assembly. But then there has been little or no legislative advocacy to push these legislations through Parliament.
If the government does not aggressively push its legislative proposals, of course opponents will stall them until the end of this legislative cycle-which is sooner than one may imagine as the campaign season and constituency activities increasingly engage the time of the legislators. The proposed downstream petroleum sector deregulation does not require legislation, but even that is stuck in the wheels of executive inertia, leaving Nigerians to contend with a return to debilitating fuel queues and petrol black markets. And while the President touts a commitment to free enterprise, his actions on the privatisation front do not match its claims. As one columnist puts it, the regime has appointed a self-acclaimed “novice” to oversee the privatisation process and from the gentleman’s early actions and pronouncements, it appears his mandate is to confuse rather than progress things.
The President appears to be drifting into an inclination to micro-manage and getting bogged down in operational details; there is no evidence of radical thinking and a comprehensive strategy in agriculture, (which is critical for food security, a key part of the seven-point agenda and job creation)-the recently launched big farmers’ scheme is like building the house from the roof! The priority should be providing land for millions of unemployed youths in smallholder farming schemes; and the worst part of the interview was when the President discussed Nasir El-Rufai, Nuhu Ribadu and his ex-governor friends. The “surrender” on the MDGs is also regrettable. On the whole, the chef appears now to have finalised some recipe, but he is still in the kitchen, dinner is yet to be served and the household is hungry! Unfortunately the taste of the pudding can only be in the eating!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)