The Socio-Political Christ

The natural tendency of people is to isolate Jesus Christ as a spiritual phenomenon. However he lived as a human being within a family and society, and in a polity in which there were rulers, governors, judges, the practice of politics and the exercise of political power. Given that Jesus Christ was offered to us as a complete and comprehensive example, there must be socio-political aspects of his life from which we can draw lessons and inspiration even for these contemporary times. Easter offers us an opportunity for reflection on this intricate issue in addition to our celebrations of the death and resurrection of the author of our faith. The first thing that strikes me in the context of this discussion is that the powerful people in his society always tried to destroy Jesus Christ-and this was right from his birth, even before he uttered his first words in ministry! When Herod heard from the three wise men about the birth of someone who was “born King of the Jews”, the Bible records that he was “troubled” and devised a scheme to kill the young messiah and indeed ended up massacring innocent babies in an attempt to truncate the life of Jesus. Why would a King be “troubled” about the birth of a child, except that he immediately understood that the Kingdom foretold would threaten his power base. This opposition from the “powers-that-be” dogged Christ all through his life and indeed led to his crucifixion. What that tells me is that because darkness and light, according to scriptures are irreconcilable, a true Church which is fulfilling its divine mission will always face opposition from the kingdoms of the world. The converse of that may be that any Church which persistently receives the approbation of corrupt kings and powers must ask itself whether it is fulfilling the mission of the father! Another obvious insight from Christ’s life and work was that the focus of his ministry was the “multitude”-or what you may describe in today’s language as the “masses”! He was not unduly focused on the rich and powerful, indeed asserting that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God! He was driven by compassion for the poor, sick, broken-heated, weary, weak and vulnerable-that is why he fed the five thousand; healed the sick; raised the dead; delivered the afflicted; and restored hope to the distraught and helpless. His beatitudes is perhaps his most recognized “mission statement” and it reveals very clearly his “target audience”-“Blessed are the poor in spirit…Blessed are those who mourn…Blessed are the meek…Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are the pure in heart…Blessed are the peacemakers…Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake…” If Jesus Christ lived in Nigeria today, there is no doubt who his focus will be-the 60-70 percent of our people living in poverty; the 25 percent of our people who are unemployed; the millions who can’t afford a good education, decent healthcare and the simple pleasures of life. His friends were the under-privileged-fishermen, artisans, women (in that time, women were a marginalized group), children and young people (“let the little children come unto me; for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven”), despised people like tax collectors, sinners, those delivered of witchcraft (!), even the convicted thief obtained Christ’s friendship right on the crucifixion ground! Jesus famously declared that he came not to those who were upright and therefore not in need of salvation, but to the sick who needed healing. Of course the dominant theme of his life’s work was love, charity, fellowship…for him the great commandment of all was to love God with all our heart, soul and mind…and the second was to love our neighbours as ourselves! Jesus Christ would have been saddened by wars, terrorism, murders, ethnic and religious warfare and all other divisions that arise out of the absence or deficit of love. The parable of the Good Samaritan suggests that even though Christ did not necessarily seek to abolish nationalities and peoples, he envisaged the possibility of universal love and brotherhood and the prospect of peace and reconciliation between “Jews and Gentiles”! Yet as much as Jesus espoused peace and reconciliation, he was also a revolutionary and the powerful people in his time considered him a “troublemaker”! He himself declared, “Do not think I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword”! He drove out the traders and thieves from the temple; he railed against the Pharisees and other “principalities and powers” of his time; he had little patience for the hypocrisy and false piety of the religious people and was loud in his condemnation of the social, political and religious establishment. I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ suddenly emerged in Nigeria today, some of our religious elite will not recognize him and would promptly reach an alliance with the politicians to crucify him a second time! Jesus was a strong leader, though he was not a politician. People voluntarily submitted to him-John the Baptist who could have argued that he came earlier; the twelve disciples who had no apparent reason to follow an unknown carpenter; the 70; his followers; the large multitude; and through the ages to this day, the Church. The life of Jesus Christ illustrates the fact that true leadership is not based on power, wealth, or position, but influence. He taught his disciples that “whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant” establishing the principle of servant leadership. He also re-inforced the concept of rule of law (“I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it”) and instituted the separation of Church and State-“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”.

Nigeria Vision 26: 2013

Nigeria’s “Vision 2020” goal was to become one of the top twenty global economies by output measured by gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. For some time now, it hasn’t seemed as if Nigeria would achieve that seemingly audacious objective given that we lost some time to a period of economic inertia under Yar’adua and then entered the 2011 elections cycle before policy settled down a bit under the substantive Jonathan presidency. Well now, the recent GDP rebasing exercise means that by mere statistical adjustments and better measurement of our economic activity, Nigeria has become the 26th largest economy in the world and biggest African economy by 2013, and may now be on course to our Vision 2020 target considering our GDP growth rate post-rebasing averaging 6.4%. GDP rebasing does not imply any increase in national income and productivity. Indeed GDP contrary to lay men perceptions is not a measurement of income, but of economic output and production within an economy. GDP rebasing doesn’t alter our current poor performance in terms of poverty, unemployment and inequality. If a family was poor before the rebasing, it remains poor; the fellow who did not have a job, remains without one; and our wide inequality between the rich (indeed very rich) and the poor persists. In short GDP rebasing doesn’t change the material conditions of individuals, homes and firms within the economy. What the rebasing however does is to give us a more accurate picture of the current state of our economy. It presents a more credible and contemporary report of the state of sectors and overall activity within the economy. Indeed Nigeria’s GDP rebasing clarifies some previously unresolved incongruities in our economy-for instance why the large global telecommunications companies and sector analysts under-estimated the potential depth and size of the sector pre-digital mobile license auction in 2001or why per capita GDP appeared somewhat larger than previously thought. I do not see why Nigeria’s GDP re-basing should attract any controversy. It is a commonsense measure consistent with global best practice that simply updates our assumptions and templates for measuring our level of economic output. Continuing to use a base year of 1990 to quantify output in Nigeria contrary to global convention of rebasing at least every five years would have been irresponsible and incompetent. On the other hand, no one earns any plaudits for merely re-basing GDP just like no one receives commendations for using a time piece that correctly tells the time! I also do not see why anyone should politicize the exercise, positively or negatively. We simply now know the reality about the size of our economy, which is a good thing. Having said that, there are potential benefits from the GDP rebasing generally and in the particular context of Nigeria-we would now have better economic data for policy analysis and planning. The size and global ranking of Nigeria’s GDP means we acquire increased strategic stakes within the context of the global economy, for instance the case for Nigeria being a BRINCS (Brazil, Russia, India, NIGERIA, China, South Africa) economy is probably compelling in the light of us becoming a $510billion economy. The fact that there is more accurate information about sectors and output is good for potential investors, and I mean both international and domestic investors. Financial markets would probably take more interest in the Nigerian economy given our new GDP figures and there are benefits of size (and strategic stakes) in the real politick of global economics, finance and diplomacy. Note however that I said “potential” benefits-GDP rebasing on its own will not deliver these benefits; we will have to position policy and the investment climate to realize these benefits. Investors may take more interest in our economy as a result of GDP rebasing, but they may yet defer investment if the appropriate reforms to improve competitiveness and the investment climate are not implemented. So other factors remain relevant-infrastructure, purchasing power, ports and customs procedures, corruption, labour markets, judicial system, securing title to property and obtaining building approvals, human capital, security etc. Most importantly the skeptical and cynical response to GDP rebasing by ordinary Nigerians sends a powerful signal to policy makers and the economic elite about the dangers of unemployment, poverty and inequality-large segments of our population simply do not consider themselves stakeholders in our economy. I hope their cynicism does not evolve into anger and deep disgruntlement (it probably has already) and mutate into revolutionary fervor! There are substantive insights and implications from the revised GDP figures-the services sector (financial services, ICT, trade, accommodation and food services etc.) now accounts for over 52% of output; with industry contributing 25% and agriculture down to 22%. The new data suggests that the level of manufacturing output was previously under-counted and is now 7% of GDP while we are not surprised that telecommunications is 8.7%. The data suggests a higher level of economic diversification than under the now obsolete GDP series with many more sectors coming into relevance. The figures illustrate how dismal our tax collection is (tax/GDP of 12%) and that our capital markets remain relatively shallow (NSE market capitalization is stated as 15.5% of GDP). On the other hand, debt sustainability ratios have improved significantly. The most important insight from the new GDP figures is that even though our GDP is 26th largest globally, per capita GDP places us No. 121.

Poverty and the Flow of Capital (2)

I have emphasized the critical role of capital as a factor of production, productivity, wealth creation and poverty reduction and stressed drawing on Hernando de Soto’s writings on “dead capital” in “The Mystery of Capital”, the negative implications of sub-optimal deployment and circulation of capital which is endemic in poor and under-developed economies. In particular in the case of Nigeria, I identified four “sectors” and one socio-cultural “force” which militate against the effective flow of capital within our economy and which in my view, are significant contributors to the phenomena of poverty, unemployment and inequality in our society. These “sectors” are government/politics-prevalent corrupt and rent-seeking nature of our polity ensures that public resources are diverted to whoever succeeds in “capturing” power thus marginalizing the poor and powerless; banks/financial system-receive deposits from rich, middle-class, average, and poor customers, but by-and-large lend only to large corporations and the (very) rich thus denying SMEs (not to mention micro enterprises) capital for building their businesses; crony capitalists/oligopolistic and monopolistic firms-charge higher prices than are economically justifiable, offer less-efficient products and services than would obtain in competitive markets and based on their alliance with or incorporation in the first group (government/politics-their initial and often sustaining profits are typically from economic rents transferred from the public sector) are beneficiaries of a prebendal, possibly fascist or even feudal political economy; and large religious organisations-receive voluntary or induced “taxes” from their members (and increasingly from government/politicians as well!) and not being established or structured to act in economically efficient manners, often spend huge resources in ways that erode the productivity of capital for instance by building inordinately large auditoria, buying fleets of expensive cars or acquiring private jets costing millions of dollars, while shirking the critical role they could play redressing social ills. The socio-cultural factor in my hypothesis are destructive aspects of culture and lifestyles that prevent capital accumulation-frittering away resources on marriages (introduction, engagement, “wine-carrying”, “alaga-ijoko”, wedding, reception, thanksgiving etc.!!!), funerals, child naming, chieftaincy, birthday and other celebrations; deploying scarce capital towards death rather than life and enterprise (a professor friend once wondered why in our society, if an unemployed young graduate asked family members to contribute N250,000 towards a business idea, he was unlikely to get any response, but double that amount would surface within days if the young man’s father were to drop dead!); investing huge resources in expensive cars and dormant houses while sometimes failing to pay children’s school fees or maintaining aged parents; our inclination to discourage local production in favour of everything foreign thus exporting not just capital, but jobs…!!! The list of our capital and (domestic) productivity destroying patterns of behavior may be in-exhaustible!!! You will notice that in all these, no one has necessarily set out to do anything sinister or evil to society-everyone is simply acting in their own selfish interest or according to “culture and tradition”. Politicians seek power and privilege; banks lend to the safest and most profitable segments of the market; businesses try to maximize profits; faith institutions seek as much donations as possible, the faithful try to live by the injunctions of their faith; and our people are caught in a culture more suited to traditional pre-metropolitan societies while living in 21st century internet age economies! What we lack are visionary leaders who can transform culture and society like Lee Kuan Yew did to Singaporean society substituting an ethos of excellence and productivity for old Confucian fatalism and docility; and institutions that can moderate behavior in manners defined by an enlightened sense of common good. I have already hinted at what I think the solutions should be. Government should define as its primary responsibility the protection of the poor and helpless rather than the rich and powerful, who in any event are well-placed to protect themselves. We need a fundamental paradigm shift in politics and government that places the welfare of ordinary people at the centre of policy. Economic success would in such a paradigm be measured in terms of human development, poverty reduction, life expectancy, quality of public education and not just growth in gross domestic product and our politics and government must become more egalitarian and less-prebendal! I would advocate a self-regulatory policy by banks and other financial institutions that undertakes to channel as a minimum whatever percentage of their deposits is sourced from MSMEs back into credits to such enterprises while eliminating prohibitive transaction charges against small or retail customers. As I mentioned in the earlier instalment, we need a robust competition and anti-trust law and policy regime to roll-back the emergence of oligopolies and monopolies across economic sectors and ensure that our markets are fair and competitive. Religious institutions will continue to receive funding from adherents. But those responsible for appropriating those resources must become socially sensitive and economically savvy, and this is consistent with their duty to God and man, as they are indeed trustees of societies’ “talents” and must manage them in a manner that makes economic sense and is socially responsible. I will like to see religious organisations setting up microfinance banks, venture capital and private equity funds, technical and skill acquisition centres, industrial parks, technology-incubation centres, universities of science and technology, polytechnics, schools and hospitals such that they become agents of social justice, economic productivity, equality, opportunity and egalitarianism rather than allies of a corrupt, uncaring and oppressive state.

Poverty and the Flow of Capital

My recent three-part series, “Why Nigerians are Poor” was an attempt to distill my thoughts on poverty, unemployment and inequality over the past several years for the benefit of policy makers and the general public. I continue today with a focus on another aspect of Nigerian poverty-our sub-optimal deployment of capital and how it perpetuates endemic poverty in our society. Hernando de Soto in his seminal book, “The Mystery of Capital” emphasized the central role that capital plays in economic productivity and development noting that “great classical economists such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx believed that capital was the engine that powered the market economy…the principal part of the economic whole” quoting Smith to the effect that “capital was to be the magic that would enhance productivity and create surplus value”. He argued that “the lifeblood of capitalism is not the internet or fast-food franchises. It is capital. Only capital provides the means to support specialization and the production and exchange of assets in the expanded markets. It is capital that is the source of increasing productivity and therefore the wealth of nations”. De Soto worried about “dead capital”-“assets that cannot be used to their fullest” i.e. capital that is not optimally active and productive and estimated that about $9.3trillion (as at 2000) dead capital lay in real estate held but not backed by legal title owned by the poor in third world (Nigeria included) and former communist economies. Other manifestations of dead capital cited by him include agricultural crops not backed by deeds and businesses not supported by incorporation and limited liability. As I reflected on de Soto’s concerns over the years, I have recognized that Nigeria has a worse problem with capital than he conceived in his book! We have four socio-economic “sectors” which capture capital and prevent its optimum deployment to generate economic productivity, create wealth and alleviate poverty. These are government and politics; banks and the financial system; crony capitalists/monopolies and oligopolies; and religious institutions. There is a fifth “force” which destroys capital and that is our culture and lifestyle. I will examine each of these in turn. Government in Nigeria is not primarily a system of offering social services to the citizenry, especially the poor. It does not by-and-large provide security for the common man; and it fails to prevent breach of its laws, especially by the rich, strong and powerful. In short, Nigeria’s governments do not perform, at least not successfully the critical functions for which governments and thus politics were established. Instead politics is essentially a vehicle for seeking capture of state resources which are obtained primarily from extractive resources. It is not a co-incidence that the richest Nigerians are present, past or “present-continuous” office holders and their friends, agents and associates. Nigeria’s corruption is offensive not just because it denies the public services and infrastructure, but because it subverts the flow of capital, putting enormous resources in the hands of a few, who then hide those resources in physical,monetary or other assets within or outside the country, turning resources which should have generated wealth for all into essentially “dead capital”!!! The Banks lend money of course and in theory circulate capital-the problem is who or what they lend to! They lend to government in form of treasury bills to fund government operations (recall what happens to government resources discussed above); and to big corporations, multi-millionaires and billionaires, shutting out small and medium enterprises from the asset side of the financial sector even though their deposits are a significant component of the liability side. With this cycle of exclusion, it is not at all a mystery that Nigeria has created billionaires in units and poverty in hundreds of millions!!! This defective structure of capital (mis)allocation is compounded by our practice of crony capitalism! Our most successful businesses are in reality an extension of the phenomenon of state capture earlier highlighted. Crony capitalism (which tends to result in the creation of monopolies and oligopolies) is not based on economic competitiveness, but transfers of economic rents from government to its cronies in the private sector. The poor then suffer a “double-whammy”-publicly-owned resources are cornered by a few entrenching their poverty; and the emerging uncompetitive market structures mean they pay more for goods and services! The solution is to enact a robust competition law and policy regime!!! Finally much as I am reluctant to say this, the economic reality is that big religious institutions secure huge financial and other assets (in effect taxes on their members) which are often deployed in ways that erode economic productivity and therefore entrench poverty and deprivation. I understand of course that people must fulfill the financial obligations of their faith, but it is important that religious leaders are socially sensitive in deploying such accumulated capital. What is wrong for instance if such groups request their chapters to set up universities, polytechnics, secondary and primary schools, hospitals, hospices, technical and skills acquisition schools etc. in large numbers such that the social value of their activities offsets the economic cost of sequestered capital! Finally we have destructive aspects of culture that destroy capital formation-excessive amounts spent on weddings, funerals and other celebrations, even by the poor; the tendency to consume foreign-made items whether food, football clubs, holidays, clothes, education, medical treatment, furniture, wine and spirits, and shoes! A huge amount of capital would be released for wealth creation and economic productivity if we reform many aspects of our lifestyles!!! Opeyemi Agbaje

Nigeria: 1914-2014

There is no dispute about the facts of Nigeria’s progeny and birth. The country was created by Britain through Lord Frederick Lugard, and his mistress Lady Flora Shaw who christened it after River Niger. The British had secured imperial control over Northern and Southern Nigeria by a combination of force, fraud or deception-any contract entered into by parties in the manner the British obtained their colonial possessions in Nigeria would easily be nullified in any English courts for undue influence, lack of consensus ad idem, misrepresentation, fraud and/or coercion! When the British decided on the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914, they did not consult the kingdoms, tribes,empires and peoples contained therein for consent or approval-simply proclaiming it, much like a slave owner could donate, lend or otherwise deal with his human possessions. And there is no doubt that in reaching the decision, the interest of the natives was not a factor-the sole consideration was British colonial administrative and budgetary convenience. The British colonial office sought to balance the finances of the Northern Protectorate which was in debit, with the surpluses from the Southern Colony and Protectorate so that recourse to home treasury could be obviated. There was also some element of mischief, cynicism and cant-the Southern “lady of means” was being married off to the lesswell-off Northern bachelor in the hope that they would live happily ever after! It didn’t matter that the bride was unaware of the purpose and terms of the forced marriage and was allowed noopinionthereon! This is not to say that there were no relationships pre-dating colonialism or amalgamation between the peoples inhabiting the “geographical expression” called “Nigeria”-there is evidence of significant trade and cultural interaction for instance, between Yorubas and Northern Hausa, Fulani, Nupe, Kanuri and Ebira peoples. Islam, which had taken root in communities in Western and Central/Northern Nigeria was alsoa point of contact between those regions, and the advent of Christianity meant a further widening of the basis of relationships across Southern and Middle-belt/Northern Nigeria. The borders of pre-colonial empires had spread such that indigenes had encountered each other-Oyo as far as Dahomey, Benin and Ilorin; Fulani/Sokoto Caliphate as far as Northern Yorubaland, Kanuri’s to the east, and Tivs and other central Nigerian tribes had successfully resisted the Fulani Jihad; and the impact of Benin had been felt in Lagos. Yet while empires were in flux, Nigeria’s indigenous people remained independent of each other and never agreed to be joined or subjugated to any other ethnic groups. The British eventually stumbled through different constitutional arrangements into a barely tolerable option-a federal constitution comprising three regions, North, West and East, leading to another problem-the composition of the regions amounted to defacto internal colonialism of large ethnic minorities. The Western region contained Edo, Urhobo, Isoko, Ndokwa, Asaba and Itsekiri minorities later to become Mid-West with majority Yorubas; the North contained Benue-Plateau, Southern Kaduna and Kanuri ethnic minorities,religious minorities in Borno/Adamawa who were mainly Christian and animist,Yorubas in the old Ilorin and Kabba provinces; while Eastern Igbos dominated Niger-Delta and Calabar/Ogoja/Rivers minorities including large ethnicities like Ijaws/Kalabari andIbibios. The British were aware of these problems, but chose to paper over them and defer the issue till independence. The British also bestowed a defective federation in which the Northern region was credited with population figures larger than the two other regions combined, resulting in a Northern-dominated federal parliament and a presumption to domination of the emerging nation, which has remained a source of tension and instability in Nigeria till date! As a postgraduate constitutional law student in 1988, I wrote a paper on “Colonial Legacies in Commonwealth Africa” with Nigeria and Sierra-Leone as case studies-it was a shocking eye-opener of British gerrymandering designed to endow population figures, power structures, ruling political elite, regional disparities and other constitutional elements aimed at deciding the future of the new nations. Those legacies have by-and-large proved to be destabilizing to the prospects of these nations, as Nigeria so tragically illustrates. Thus Nigeria’s post-independence journey has been one of riots, crises over census figures, constitutional disagreements, coups and counter-coups, military rule, pogroms and civil disturbances, civil war, corruption, debt peonage, religious riots, post-election violence, regional, ethnic and religious politics, poverty, unemployment and now terrorism. I would argue that these can easily be traced to Nigeria’s faulty foundations! The national conference which opens this week, offers an opportunity to repair our faulty beginnings and construct a better, fairer, truer union. Only people of less-than-sound mental status will persist in the same behavior after one hundred years even though those actions have yielded only “sorrow, tears and blood”! I have no doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with a structure and system that has produced 100 million people living in poverty; tens of millions who are unemployedand under-employed; about 50 million illiterates; massive infrastructural under-development in spite of spending (and stealing) over $600billion oil proceeds; where “Boko Haram” and “Fulani Herdsmen” kill hundreds of people, including children virtually every week; and where the nation’s immigration agency superintends the death of tens of young citizens seeking jobs due to corruption and incompetence. We can seize the opportunity of the national conference to correct Nigeria’s foundations or this article may turn out to be in remembrance of Lord Lugard’s“mistake” or unfolding monumental tragedy!!! Opeyemi Agbaje

Security and Technology

In this column I have often reviewed several aspects of the failure of security policy and law and order in Nigeria, and one of the depressing aspects of our current security architecture and management system has been the absolutely outdated methods we have adopted especially in policing. Walk into any Nigerian police station and the first thing you notice is the absence of any equipment or implements that may be considered technologically advanced. There are no computers, scanners, no Wi-Fi or internet modems…there are no air conditioners even! Thank God for the mobile telecommunications revolution, all police officers today invariably have a personal mobile phone on them which facilitates their official work very significantly, but the authorities have done very little or nothing to leverage technology in policing on a systemic basis. If you ask for and peruse statement forms in our police stations, you would realize that they were probably designed more than five decades ago! Happily some of this may be changing. I had an opportunity in January to visit the ultra-modern Lagos State Command and Control Centre at Alausa, Ikeja and was glad that finally the Nigerian security establishment, starting as usual from Lagos, is beginning to understand the imperative of technology in modern security architecture. The Centre is an effort by the Lagos State Government, in conjunction with the police and other security agencies operating in the state, to adopt technologies and practices already in use in modern global megacities in policing and security management. It is a world-class security infrastructure including an expansive video wall with twenty-seven screens integrated with analytics software and linked with a vast network of solar-powered CCTV cameras installed across the state. Of course for these infrastructures to “talk” there is a communication backbone including transmission base stations, radio and fibre links and other components as well as back-up power. This initiative is a good example of sensible federal-state collaboration to enhance public welfare-one thousand cameras were procured and installed in Lagos by the federal government while the state administration has complemented these with hundreds of additional cameras. The state government is also reportedly in the process of deploying many more video cameras to ensure pervasive coverage of the state. The Command and Control Centre is of course the “brain” of the system-there is no use buying and installing cameras if you do not include the requisite communication links, analytics and video screens as well as trained and motivated personnel who are able to leverage the information so obtained for preemptive or detective policing and enforcement. It is also an example of excellent public-private partnership-the seed donation of N150million provided by telecommunications giant, MTN years back gave the Lagos State Government the impetus to deploy further resources towards constructing the control center. There is additional critical private sector input-the Call Centre which is integral to the Command and Control Centre’s operations is managed by a visionary and dynamic private sector institution. That Call Centre is in itself part of the strategic leverage of technology and communications towards bolstering security in Lagos State. Calls to the state’s emergency numbers-767 and 112 are received in the computerized Call Centre, from where they are transmitted to the relevant security or emergency management agencies for immediate follow-up action-all such agencies are physically represented in the same location for effective coordination and integration. Thus with the investments made by the Lagos State Government, what you now have is an integrated system including a call centre, an emergency telephone response system, video conferencing facilities (which enable coordination of multiple agencies and personnel-police, military, security and intelligence, traffic management, emergency agencies, civil defense, fire and accident/ambulance services etc.) and video surveillance system all enhancing public safety and crime prevention and detection in the state. There are other basic elements of this integrated strategy-the Lagos State Security Trust Fund (LSSTF) which enables the state bridge the chronic funding shortfall of the security agencies by the federal government leveraging state and private sector resources; the initiative towards registering citizens and residents in the state; improvement in street signage and house numbering which are still works-in-progress; and the 767 and 112 emergency numbers I mentioned earlier. There has been significant positive impact from these investments though I am not inclined to discuss details so as not to compromise the work of the security agencies. What is clear from the limited brief I received was that several crimes have already been detected leveraging the resources in this system. It is of course not yet uhuru! With these investments, Lagos now has one camera to every 10 square metres while New York and London have between 200 to 450 cameras over the equivalent territory, so clearly additional cameras are required-it would be useful if private institutions and residents, including estate associations procure CCTVs in their proprietary zones to complement public investments; personnel is critical-educated, trained and well-motivated policemen and other security officers who can think through the information provided and act appropriately and proactively; there remains a need to enhance quality analytics to process the images received in the command centre and spot unusual activity; and we must invest in intelligence to complement the technology leverage secured from the investments made.

The Sanusi Affair

The night before Sanusi Lamido Sanusi was fired, I received calls from highly-placed persons enquiring if there was any credence to information that Zenith Bank CEO, Godwin Emefiele was about to be named CBN Governor. The next morning as I headed to my Lagos Island office, I got a thunderbolt from a finance commissioner asking if I had heard breaking news of SLS’s suspension. Minutes later I got a call from CNBC Africa confirming Sanusi’s suspension (and designation of erstwhile Deputy Governor in charge of monetary policy, Dr Sarah Alade as interim Governor) and inviting me to their studios for a 12noon interview on the issue. And then all “hell” almost literally broke loose-a call from a conglomerate CEO and a quick mini-strategy session on developments; numerous calls and texts from domestic media and business leaders seeking perspectives; emails and a phone interview with BBC journalists; calls from ordinary Nigerians requesting insight and analysis-as I said on the CNBC interview which was to include Bismarck Rewane and a Citibank economist on phone from Johannesburg, the news was a bombshell! My basic take on the events surrounding Sanusi’s suspension have not changed from the summary I presented on CNBC Africa and on STV later same night and next morning-I had been aware for several weeks of the possibility of the suspension, but I hoped that both sides would find the maturity to allow the controversial departing governor’s tenure elapse given the short time left and the risks involved in a precipitate removal; indeed I was aware of queries to Sanusi over the CBN’s 2012 accounts over nine months earlier in May 2013 and hints from informed sources back then of his imminent sack, but I felt that since President Jonathan had so delayed action until Sanusi’s tenure was virtually exhausted, it no longer made much sense to take action on the matter; this was especially so as the presidency appeared to have allowed itself to be out-maneuvered by SLS and his strategists since any attempt to remove him would now be interpreted in public consciousness (locally and internationally) as a reaction to Sanusi’s “whistle-blowing” over the missing $50bn, $12bn, $10.8bn or $20bn that he alleged was missing at the NNPC! In the event, Sanusi probably gave the president no alternative but to remove him from office irrespective of costs and risks-the loss of presidential authority that may have resulted from a CBN governor in effect becoming an alternative government and totally disrespecting the office of president would have been a terrible precedent. The timelines confirm without doubt that weighty queries on the finances and management of the Central Bank were raised long before Sanusi’s “counter” allegations of fraud at the NNPC; it is probable, indeed likely that Sanusi having secured a breather leveraging Kano and Sokoto Fulani Emirate influence over a president desperate to secure important political IOUs towards 2015, then deployed his own ploy to immunize himself from the president’s inclinations. But as I have always insisted, whatever Sanusi’s motives in beaming the searchlight on NNPC finances, there is a reason he chose that organization-it has historically been the slush fund of Nigeria’s presidency and there is no reason to think that the Jonathan/Diezani Allison-Maduekwe management has departed from history-some suggestions indeed are that things may be much worse! My view therefore is that this is a case in which the grasses i.e. the Nigerian people have to focus, not on taking sides but on benefitting from this fight between the two elephants-the presidency and the suspended CBN governor! In my view the allegations against both sides are weighty and tangible and the Nigerian people must insist on both set of allegations being investigated, illuminated and clarified in a definitive manner and our objective must be to secure better transparency and accountability at both the CBN and NNPC thereby. We have always been aware of the opacity and excessive presidential and ministerial discretion in relation to the management of the oil sector, and I have personally being troubled by the absolute absence of restraints on the powers of the CBN governor especially under Sanusi. As I have said in media interviews on the matter, I do not support an unaccountable CBN Governor who refuses to be guided by the nation’s laws (such as the Banking and Other Financial Institutions Act and National Procurement Commission Act) and who is free to spend and donate billions of Naira for whatever purposes he deems fit based only on the approval of a board of which he is Chairman and Chief Executive!!! It would be interesting to see who some of the beneficiaries of the contracts and expenditure at the CBN (such as on business promotion) are!!! Our other goal must be to preserve the independence and autonomy of the CBN, irrespective of Sanusi’s fate. That autonomy can only be sustained if we appoint the right personalities to the CBN and if subsequent governors avoid politicizing their office and acting in a manner inconsistent with the traditions of the very sensitive office in the countries from which we copied CBN autonomy. In the circumstances in which Sanusi left the CBN it was important to re-assure the markets, as Sarah Alade’s appointment did, that the CBN would henceforth be managed in a professional manner and that monetary policy management would not change drastically or be subsumed to presidential decision-making. I believe the Senate confirmation process is designed to test nominees against the criteria of autonomy, independency and professional management of monetary policy. Opeyemi Agbaje