The Nation Newspaper

Author: The Nation

  • Ex-FCTA director backs Kefas’ alignment with APC

    Ex-FCTA director backs Kefas’ alignment with APC

    A retired Director with the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), Mukhtar Galadima, has described the alignment of Taraba State Governor, Dr. Agbu Kefas, with the All Progressives Congress (APC) as a move that will bring more projects and dividends of democracy to the state.

    Galadima made the statement at a briefing, where he described Kefas as a smart and dynamic leader who is focused on innovation and development for the people of Taraba State.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s economic test before 2027

    According to him, the governor’s decision to work with the Federal Government demonstrates that he has the interest of the people at heart and is determined to attract more development to the state.

    The former director, who is aspiring to represent Wukari/Ibi Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, said his decision to contest was informed by the lack of participatory democracy in the constituency.

    He noted that elected representatives must carry the people along in governance.

    Galadima lamented that while other states were benefiting from constituency projects, Wukari/Ibi Federal Constituency had been left out.

  • Leadership, power, and the politics of calumny

    Leadership, power, and the politics of calumny

    By Habib Haruna

    In Nigeria’s recent political history, few public office holders have generated as much attention, debate, and controversy as the current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Barrister Nyesom Ezenwo Wike. Whether as governor of Rivers State or as minister in the present administration, Wike has emerged as one of the most visibly active and consequential political figures of his generation, particularly in the areas of infrastructure development, administrative control, and internal security.

    These attributes, taken together, have positioned him as a formidable political force whose influence extends beyond his immediate constituency. Measured against the yardstick of performance—especially infrastructural renewal, urban transformation, and enforcement of governmental authority—Wike’s tenure in public office presents a record that is difficult to dismiss. His approach to leadership reflects a firm grip on the levers of power and a readiness to deploy state authority decisively. Such traits, while applauded by supporters as evidence of strong leadership, have equally made him a target of intense political hostility.

    In Nigeria’s political environment, performance rarely insulates a leader from opposition; rather, it often intensifies resistance, especially when such performance translates into growing political capital.

    It is therefore unsurprising that Minister Wike has, in recent times, been subjected to sustained campaigns of calumny. These attacks, largely orchestrated by political opponents and others unsettled by his rising influence, have sought to recast his leadership narrative from one of achievement to one of controversy. This phenomenon is not unique to Wike. Nigerian political history is replete with examples of high-performing public officials who, by virtue of their success, attracted relentless opposition. Successive Lagos State governors like Bola Tinubu and Raji Fashola, Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Abdullahi Ganduje, former Central Bank governors Charles Soludo and Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and Oby Ezekwesili all illustrate how competence and assertiveness often provoke resistance rather than consensus.

    Ironically, the current wave of hostility directed at Wike has found fertile ground within Nigeria’s social media space—a domain increasingly populated by politically uninformed but highly vocal participants. Social media, while democratizing access to information, has equally become a powerful tool of manipulation in the hands of political actors. Simplistic narratives, stripped of context and nuance, are easily amplified, shaping public opinion in ways that often distort reality. The controversy surrounding Wike’s relationship with the governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara exemplifies this dynamic.

    A sober examination of the Wike–Fubara political relationship is therefore imperative. What is beyond reasonable dispute is that Fubara’s emergence was largely facilitated by Wike. Against formidable odds and entrenched political interests within Rivers State, Wike singlehandedly championed Fubara’s candidacy and navigated the complex political terrain that ultimately produced his victory. At the time, Fubara was widely regarded as a technocrat with limited political visibility, minimal grassroots structure, and virtually no independent political following. His ascension to the governorship was neither inevitable nor self-propelled; it was the result of deliberate political engineering by Wike.

    This context raises profound questions about the prevailing narrative that casts Wike as the villain and Fubara as the victim. How did opposition figures succeed in reframing the story so effectively? More fundamentally, what does this episode reveal about political loyalty, gratitude, and power in Nigeria’s democratic experience? Is it reasonable to assume that a political benefactor suddenly becomes an antagonist within months of an ally assuming office—particularly when that alliance endured for nearly a decade?

    The more plausible interpretation is that power itself often alters political behaviour. History demonstrates that individuals elevated from relative obscurity to positions of immense authority may, upon acquiring power, seek autonomy at all costs—even if it means severing ties with those who facilitated their rise. This is not merely a personal failing; it is a structural feature of Nigerian politics, where loyalty is frequently transactional and short-lived.

    However, the Wike–Fubara saga is ultimately not an end in itself. Rather, it serves as a precursor to a broader and more troubling pattern within Nigeria’s political elite: the deliberate weaponization of misinformation and moral outrage as tools for political rehabilitation. Time and again, political actors who presided over periods of national decline reposition themselves as messiahs once they exit office. Figures who were integral to administrations between 2015 and 2023—an era marked by severe economic contraction, rising insecurity, institutional decay, and disregard for the rule of law—now seek to reinvent themselves as champions of national rescue.

    Read Also: NESG projects 5.5 per cent GDP growth for Nigeria

    The irony is profound. Individuals such as former ministers and senior party officials, who wielded immense power and resources for years without delivering commensurate progress, now appeal to Nigerians for renewed trust. This pattern reflects not only political cynicism but also an underestimation of public intelligence.

    While Nigerians remain vulnerable due to economic hardship and information asymmetry, the recycling of failed political actors under the banner of “rescue missions” is increasingly losing credibility.

    Every political narrative, like every drug, has an expiry date. The persistent reliance on recycled slogans, selective amnesia, and manufactured outrage has reached a point of diminishing returns. The Nigerian electorate must begin to interrogate not just the promises of political actors, but their historical records. Those who failed to rescue Nigeria for over two decades cannot plausibly present themselves as its saviours today.

    In conclusion, Nigeria’s democratic future depends on a decisive break from the politics of deception and personality assassination. The nation must resist the temptation to be swayed by emotionally charged but historically hollow narratives. More importantly, Nigerians must demand accountability, competence, and renewal—qualities unlikely to be found among the same political actors who have dominated the system for decades. If meaningful change is to occur, it must be driven by a new generation of leaders unburdened by the failures and contradictions of the past.

    •Haruna is an Abuja-based business development consultant.

  • Africa doesn’t lack capital. It lacks bankable projects

    Africa doesn’t lack capital. It lacks bankable projects

    By Oladele Dele Akinjo

    Nearly a decade ago, I worked on a gas infrastructure transaction that, on paper, had everything going for it. It was strategically important. Demand was identifiable. Long-term contracts were in place. Reputable lenders and development institutions were involved. By most conventional measures, it was considered bankable.

    And yet, the project spent years in debt restructuring.

    • Not because the asset failed.

    • Not because demand disappeared.

    • But because bankability had been assumed rather than deliberately built.

    That experience has stayed with me, because it reflects a broader pattern across Africa’s infrastructure and energy landscape, one that is often misdiagnosed.

    Africa’s infrastructure deficit is frequently framed as a financing problem. From experience, it is not.

    There is significant global and regional capital actively seeking African infrastructure exposure today. From development finance institutions and infrastructure funds to pension capital and local banks. What remains scarce are projects structured to meet the risk, governance, and enforcement thresholds required by long-term capital.

    When projects stall or struggle to reach financial close, the explanation is often attributed to investor appetite or global market conditions. More often, the cause is structural.

    Returning to that gas infrastructure transaction, the weakness only became visible under pressure. The project had signed contracts and identifiable demand. What it lacked was resilience. Cash flows were exposed to delayed payments, extended receivable cycles, and macroeconomic volatility. Risk had been identified, but it remained concentrated at the project level.

    This pattern repeats itself across African infrastructure. Contracts exist, but cash-collection mechanisms are weak. Currency risk is transferred wholesale to projects. Governance frameworks are referenced, but enforcement depends on discretion rather than process.

    Long-term capital does not avoid Africa because of risk. It avoids risk that cannot be modelled, priced, or enforced.

    That transaction also highlighted the limits of commonly used risk-mitigation instruments. Sovereign-linked guarantees and credit enhancements are frequently cited as solutions to bankability challenges. In theory, they are effective. In practice, they are often politically sensitive to enforce.

    When stress emerges, calling on such instruments is viewed less as a contractual remedy and more as a policy failure; one with reputational and systemic implications for the sovereign. As a result, protections that exist on paper are treated as last-resort options that few are willing to exercise.

    Structures that depend on remedies that cannot be realistically enforced are inherently fragile.

    If Africa is serious about scaling infrastructure delivery, the focus must shift from announcements to structure. In practice, bankability is built through a small number of deliberate technical choices.

    First, cash flows must be protected before guarantees are relied upon. Escrow arrangements, letters of credit, revenue trapping, and automatic payment waterfalls should absorb stress early, before sovereign or third-party support is triggered. Guarantees should act as backstops, not substitutes for payment discipline.

    Second, risk allocation must be explicit. Foreign exchange, demand, regulatory, and operational risks should sit with the parties best able to manage them, rather than being vaguely “shared.” Ambiguity may appear collaborative, but it increases uncertainty and raises the cost of capital.

    Third, base-case assumptions must be conservative by design. Debt sustainability should hold under downside scenarios. Upside volumes, future off-takers, or policy improvements should benefit equity, not be required for viability. If a project only works when everything goes right, it is not bankable.

    Fourth, governance must be automatic rather than discretionary. Step-in rights, cure periods, and enforcement triggers should operate by rule, not negotiation. Governance is not about formal structures; it is about execution certainty under stress.

    Fifth, project preparation must be treated as a capital discipline. Technical, legal, and commercial risks should be resolved before financing is pursued, not retrofitted during distress. Weak preparation cannot be corrected with better term sheets.

    Read Also: AfDB okays $3.9m to electrify homesin Nigeria, others

    Finally, local capital must be structurally integrated. Projects are more resilient when domestic institutional capital and blended-currency structures are embedded from the outset. This reduces foreign-exchange fragility and improves long-term durability.

    Africa does not lack infrastructure opportunities, and it does not lack demand. It also does not lack capital. What it lacks, consistently, are structures that align cash flows, risk allocation, governance, and enforcement in a way long-term capital can trust and defend.

    For project sponsors, this means investing more discipline upstream before financing is pursued, and resisting the temptation to push unmanageable risks down to the project level.

    For policymakers, it means recognising that guarantees without credible enforcement mechanisms weaken bankability rather than strengthen it.

    For development institutions, it means treating project preparation not as ancillary support, but as a core investment function.

    Bankability is not a label applied at financial close. It is the outcome of deliberate technical choices made much earlier. Until those choices improve, Africa’s infrastructure challenge will remain less about funding, and more about structure.

    •Akinjo, an expert in investment banking writes from Lagos.

  • Unlocking Nigeria’s gas potential

    Unlocking Nigeria’s gas potential

    Sir: The unveiling of the Gas Master Plan (GMP) 2026 by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPCL) marks a significant milestone in Nigeria’s long-standing effort to transform its vast natural gas resources into a foundation for industrial development, energy security, and sustainable economic growth. The launch held in Abuja under the framework of Nigeria’s gas-centric energy transition strategy signals a shift from mere policy outlines to implementation-anchored execution across the gas value chain.

    At the heart of the plan is the bold ambition to raise national gas production to 10 billion cubic feet per day by 2027, with a further target of 12 billion cubic feet per day by 2030, supported by projected new investments of over $60 billion across the oil and gas sector. These targets are grounded in Nigeria’s possession of some 210 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves, with even greater potential, positioning the country as one of the most consequential hydrocarbon basins on the African continent.

    Government and industry officials have rightly described the GMP 2026 as a strategic inflection point — one that moves beyond policy articulation to practical execution, commercial viability, and sector-wide coordination. It is a deliberate attempt to weave gas infrastructure expansion into Nigeria’s broader development narrative, one that embraces power generation, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), mini-LNG, and downstream industrial off-takers as critical components of national growth.

    This re-energised focus on gas comes at a time when the world’s energy landscape is rapidly evolving, with global markets placing a premium on cleaner, more efficient fuels. Gas, often touted as a transitional energy source, offers Nigeria a pathway to reduce gas flaring, strengthen domestic energy supply, and integrate its economy more deeply into regional and international energy markets. Current plans to accelerate infrastructure such as the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano (AKK) pipeline and other transmission networks are expected to unlock domestic utilisation while anchoring Nigeria’s potential export capacity in the years ahead.

    Read Also: ‘Clear regulations key to Nigeria-European investment’

    Yet, a plan of such ambition also demands sober reflection on execution, governance, and inclusivity. Historical bottlenecks in gas infrastructure, weak implementation frameworks, and regulatory uncertainties have often stymied earlier iterations of Nigeria’s energy plans. The GMP 2026 must therefore transcend rhetoric to deliver measurable results from tangible improvements in electricity supply and industrial power to job creation and improved economic participation across regions.

    Bold targets require equally bold commitment to accountability, transparency, and institutional coordination if they are to inspire both local confidence and international investor interest.

    Moreover, while gas is framed as a bridge in the energy transition, it cannot be divorced from broader considerations of climate responsibility. Nigeria’s economic strategy must balance the immediate benefits of gas exploitation with long-term commitments to cleaner, sustainable energy ecosystems. Pursuing partnerships that incorporate renewable energy initiatives and emission-reduction strategies will amplify the plan’s impact and align Nigeria’s energy goals with global climate priorities.

    Ultimately, the Gas Master Plan 2026 could be transformative but its success hinges not just on lofty targets, but on disciplined execution, structural reforms, and a shared national commitment to leveraging resources for inclusive growth. As Nigeria seeks to establish itself as a major gas hub and energy security anchor in Africa, the pathway from vision to reality must be paved with strategic clarity, institutional rigour, and unwavering focus on the wellbeing of citizens who stand to benefit most from a renewed energy economy.

    •Felix Oladeji, Lagos.

  • Catastrophic miscalculation

    Catastrophic miscalculation

    Sir: Nigeria’s troubled tryst with nationhood has seen it all in more than 60 years of false dawns, cruel stops and starts, broken dreams, and shattered hopes. Indeed, it is to the eternal credit of the country and a testament to its resilience that it is still standing, somehow managing to hold things together.

    Nigeria’s shaky foundations were laid with the amalgamation of 1914. If independence was supposed to consolidate those faulty foundations, the quick fire coups that followed in 1966 before snowballing into the cataclysmic Nigerian civil war of 1967-70 put paid to those hopes. The country has struggled to recover ever since, with the deep wounds inflicted during the civil war showing a significant capacity to fester.

    Today, Nigeria faces significant challenges to achieving national unity and cohesion. Ethnic and religious divisions instigated by historical differences and disagreements remain sharp.

    In 2023, against significant odds, Bola Ahmed Tinubu who campaigned on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the race to become Nigeria’s president. If the challenges that greeted his emergence were considered significant, events since have put those challenges in their shadows.

    Sometime last year, reports emerged that about thirteen military officers were taken into detention following a failed coup attempt against the government. While the Defence Headquarters confirmed the news, it was reluctant to release their names pending the conclusion of preliminary investigations. With the recent conclusion of investigations, the Defence Headquarters has since released the names confirming that there is a case made out against the military officers.

    Until the recent surge of coups in a handful of West African countries that border Nigeria, it was unthinkable that a military coup could be contemplated in Nigeria. This was largely because Nigeria had gone down that path before and discovered that as inviting as that path was in the despair of heedlessly chaotic civilian rule, nothing ever lay there but the death of democracy and the disorienting darkness it dips a country into.

    Read Also: Nigeria hands over African Energy Bank to promoters

    Nigeria’s leadership crisis is decades old. It is not even about the current administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. In fact, of all those who have led Nigeria recently, the former Lagos State governor is showing the greatest promise. Many have led Nigeria and have failed, including many who came in military camouflage, suspended the constitution, dictated decrees, and ruled with iron fists only to leave the soul of Nigeria broken, its spirit crushed, and its coffers empty.

    As for those for whom discontent and disappointment with the current administration have congealed into nostalgia for the days of military rule, let the fact that nothing good that can go the distance ever comes out of military rule serve as a warning to them. Democracy is too delicate for calloused and often corrupt military fingers. For all its flaws, especially in a country that so often lacks direction and decisiveness, democracy remains the best bet and the surest promise.

    There can be no sympathy for military officers who took their eyes off Nigeria’s steep security challenges to plan a doomed coup. They must be made to dance to the drumbeats of the law, and their apologists must be left in no doubt that Africa’s biggest democracy has no desire whatsoever to return to the treacherously dark days of military rule.

    •Kene Obiezu, keneobiezu@gmail.com

  • Emerging world order and Africa’s lessons from the Trump era

    Emerging world order and Africa’s lessons from the Trump era

    By Oumarou Sanou

    The post–Cold War international order was never perfect, but it rested on an implicit bargain: economic integration, shared security frameworks, and a rules-based multilateral system that, however asymmetrical, offered predictability. Today, that fragile system is cracking. What we are witnessing is not merely a shift in global power centres; it is a contest for the very architecture that governs the relations between the powerful and the weak.

    In Davos earlier this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a speech that resonated far beyond Canadian audiences. He warned that the world is experiencing “a rupture, not a transition” in the international order—a rupture driven by great power rivalry, coercive economic instruments, and the abandonment of long-standing norms that underpinned international cooperation. Carney’s admonition was clear: “If we are not at the table, we are on the menu.”

    Carney’s words are particularly relevant in light of the behaviour of the United States under President Donald Trump. Whether it was threats of acquisition or control over Greenland, aggressive tariff wars, or overt economic coercion against traditional allies like Canada, Trump’s actions revealed a willingness to privilege raw national interests over collective stability and legal norms.

    Trump’s repeated threats to Greenland—suggesting the United States might pursue control of the territory and even floating military options—were not only alarming in themselves but illustrative of a broader willingness to subordinate sovereignty to strategic ambition. When such rhetoric comes from a self-described champion of “America First,” it sends a sobering message: might still make right in the world, even among countries that claim to champion democracy and the rule of law.

    Meanwhile, revelations that officials from Washington held private meetings with Alberta separatist activists in Canada stirred fears of foreign interference in a neighbour’s internal affairs. Critics in Ottawa denounced these contacts as a breach of Canadian sovereignty. Such actions, whether driven by geopolitical opportunism or domestic political theatre, further illustrate the weakening of mutual respect that once characterised Western alliances.

    Yet it is not only Western allies who have felt the tremors of this shifting order. Trump’s use of tariffs as negotiation tools—far beyond strategic trade leverage, extending toward punitive measures against Canada, Mexico, and other trading partners—underscored a willingness to weaponise economic integration itself. The result: fractured alliances, defensive economic posturing in Europe and Asia, and a deterioration of trust that had anchored global cooperation for decades.

    For Africa, these developments are not abstract. They serve as both a warning and a lesson.

    First, the era of assuming predictable behaviour from great powers—whether the United States, Europe, or others—is over. If a democracy like the US can threaten tariffs or territorial ambitions without significant institutional pushback, what then for African states facing far more powerful neighbours or external influences? Africa must understand that in a multipolar scramble, goodwill will not protect it. Sovereignty must be backed by strategy and diversified partnerships.

    Secondly, the Trump era illustrates the limits of aligning too closely with any one power. African nations have long faced pressure to choose between Western influence and alternative models—whether from Russia, China, or other actors. What Africa needs, as Carney suggested for middle powers, is “cooperation without subordination”: strategic alignment that preserves autonomy rather than replacing one patron with another.

    This is where many pseudo-pan-African narratives fall short. They paint Africa’s choices as binary—either anti-Western or pro-Russian/Chinese. Such framing is simplistic and dangerous. Africa’s challenge is not to replace one hegemon with another, but to craft an independent strategy rooted in its own developmental priorities, not the geopolitical interests of outsiders.

    Africa also faces internal vulnerabilities that external actors can exploit. Just as the alleged Trump administration’s interactions with Canadian separatists raised fears of meddling in domestic cohesion, many African states grapple with separatist movements, ethnic tensions, and governance deficits. These internal fractures could be manipulated by external powers seeking influence–be it the US, Russia, China, EU and the others. Nigeria’s own experience with separatist agitation, for example, could invite unwelcome foreign interest if not managed within a strong governance framework.

    Read Also: AfDB okays $3.9m to electrify homesin Nigeria, others

    The Trump era also underscores the importance of resilience in global institutions. Carney’s critique of the “rules-based order” highlighted how powerful states can weaken norms and leverage economic integration as coercion rather than cooperation. For Africa, which relies on international norms for trade, security, and diplomacy, this erosion is dangerous. It means engaging not only in bilateral relationships but also strengthening regional architecture—from the African Union to ECOWAS and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)—to buffer external shocks and present collective leverage.

    Moreover, Africa must invest in economic self-reliance and intra-continental cooperation. Reliance on distant powers for security, investment, or economic growth leaves African states vulnerable to external shocks and policy whims. Strengthening intra-African trade, harmonising regulations, and building joint capacities in critical sectors can provide a foundation from which African states negotiate rather than capitulate.

    Finally, the African diplomatic corps must be modernised. Africa needs representation that not only attends global summits but actively shapes narratives and defends African interests. Just as Western powers deploy elaborate strategic communication and lobbying capabilities, African states must professionalise their diplomatic engagements to protect sovereignty and influence outcomes.

    The emerging world order is marked by competition, not cooperation. This reality will not change simply by wishing it so. Africa’s response must be pragmatic, strategic, and rooted in its own interests—not in reaction to external pressures but in pursuit of its own vision of prosperity, stability, and sovereign self-determination.

    •Sanou is a social critic, Pan-African observer and researcher focusing on governance, security, and political transitions in the Sahel. Contact: sanououmarou386@gmail.com

  • Nigeria’s economic test before 2027

    Nigeria’s economic test before 2027

    By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

    Against the pessimism that dominated late 2025, the Naira has emerged as an unexpected bright spot. Closing the week at approximately N1,391/$1 on the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEM), the currency has sustained a rally that leaves it more than 10% stronger than its opening level in 2025. This is not a speculative blip. It is the visible consequence of structural corrections long overdue.

    Two forces explain this recovery. First, improved FX inflows—especially from non-oil exports—have strengthened supply. Second, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s disciplined withdrawal of excess Naira liquidity has punctured speculative demand. Most importantly, the long-distorted gap between the official and parallel FX markets has effectively vanished, now trading within a 2% margin. For investors, this convergence signals credible price discovery and renewed confidence.

    Yet markets alone do not determine the political and social economy. Nigerians experience both the cost and the benefits of these reforms directly—and that is where perception becomes decisive.

    The Tinubu administration faces three interlinked challenges.

    The first is physical insecurity, which continues to disrupt agriculture, commerce, schooling, and family life across large parts of the country. No macro-economic gain will be felt where farmers cannot farm, traders cannot travel safely, or communities live in fear.

    The second is translation—the conversion of macroeconomic stabilization into tangible, everyday benefits. Nigerians hear that indicators are improving, yet high prices, tight credit, and fragile incomes persist.

    The third, and most politically consequential, is communication. Economic reform that is not clearly explained feels punitive; reform that is not empathetically communicated feels indifferent. In an election year, that perception can harden quickly.

    The opposition has filled this communication vacuum with a simple narrative: things are harder, money is scarce, prices are rising, Nigerians are unsafe—and the government is to blame. That message resonates because citizens are living through the pain of adjustment.

    What is missing is an honest alternative. Fuel subsidy restoration is fiscally unsustainable and legally constrained by the Petroleum Industry Act. A return to multi-tier exchange rates would revive arbitrage, scare away foreign capital, and undo the fragile FX stability now emerging. The opposition’s silence on alternative solutions does not make it unattractive to the electorate as a viable alternative nor does it neutralize hardship—and hardship shapes perception.

    A stronger naira, a tighter economy

    Nigeria’s $46.1 billion external reserve position, now at a multi-year high, gives the Central Bank genuine capacity to defend the Naira without reverting to trade bans or capital controls that previously strangled enterprise. Yet, this stability has a cost. In its determination to tame inflation, the financial system has swung toward extreme caution. Commercial banks parked over N33 trillion in the Standing Deposit Facility in January alone. Currency stability has improved—but credit circulation remains constrained.

    This creates a paradox: macro-stability without micro-access. Medium, Small, and Micro Enterprises (MSMEs)—responsible for roughly 40% of GDP—remain largely excluded from affordable financing. Stability that does not reach producers, traders, and employers risks becoming politically hollow.

    Markets are optimistic—voters are cautious

    Nigeria’s stock exchange market ended the last week of January with a N45 billion increase in market capitalization, led by industrial goods and Tier-1 banks. Consumer goods stocks remain subdued, weighed down by high borrowing costs and weak household demand.

    International observers are taking note. Nigeria is now projected to rank among the top contributors to global real GDP growth in 2026, alongside economies such as Indonesia and Brazil. These signals strengthen investor confidence—but they do not substitute for domestic legitimacy. Elections are not won on IMF projections.

    Read Also: ‘Clear regulations key to Nigeria-European investment’

    Beyond stability: The institutional imperative

    Recent economic analyses have rightly observed that Nigeria has moved from emergency crisis management into a phase of stabilization. While broadly accurate, this assessment understates the urgency of converting macro-economic stability into tangible relief and institutional trust.

    Stability is not a destination—it is a narrow corridor. Linger too long, and public patience erodes; move too fast, and inflation resurges. The real challenge is not merely affordability; it is perceived fairness and credible governance. Nigerians are asking harder questions than price indices reveal:

    • Is the burden shared fairly?

    • Are institutions reforming, or merely enforcing pain?

    • Will today’s sacrifice translate into dignity tomorrow?

    Affordability without fairness still feels unjust. Growth without credibility still feels exclusionary.

    The agenda before October 1

    First, security must be treated as economic infrastructure. Every secured farm, road, and school reduces costs and safeguards livelihoods. Security spending should be explicitly linked to household welfare outcomes.

    Second, fiscal policy must now lead. Interest rates cannot build roads, ports, or power plants. Infrastructure is Nigeria’s most potent anti-inflation and pro-employment lever.

    Third, idle capital must be deliberately mobilized. Targeted credit guarantees, risk-sharing mechanisms, and sector-specific financing can unlock MSME productivity without reigniting speculative pressure.

    Finally, communication must become an institutional function of governance. Nigerians need clear timelines, measurable benchmarks, and plain explanations—what was unavoidable, what has been achieved, and what relief is realistically ahead. Not slogans. Not silence.

    The political test ahead

    The Tinubu administration has corrected distortions that nearly broke Nigeria’s economy. The Naira’s recovery, FX convergence, reserve accumulation, and renewed investor confidence are real and consequential. But politics is not audited in reserve statements. It is lived in markets, classrooms, farms, and homes.

    Between now and October 1, the task is unmistakable: Convert stability into shared relief, reform into reassurance, and data into dignity.

    In politics, perception rivals truth.

    But truth that is felt still wins.

    •Prof Shilgba writes via <shilgba@gmail.com>

  • Soludo’s blow on Monday’s sit-at-home

    Soludo’s blow on Monday’s sit-at-home

    Sir: The reopening of the Onitsha Main Market on a Monday, for the first time in about five years, marks a significant and symbolic moment for Anambra State. Beyond the excitement it generated among traders and residents, the development represents a decisive step in the right toward reopening the state’s economy and strengthening its revenue base after years of disruption caused by the sit-at-home phenomenon.

    This bold move was championed by the Anambra State governor, Charles Chukwuma Soludo, following the closure of the market for one week. The action was taken as a response to the persistent failure of traders and business owners to open their shops on Mondays over the years, a trend that had gradually crippled commercial activities and weakened confidence in public safety.

    Despite threats and warnings issued by some non-state actors, urging traders to stay away from the market, the call was largely ignored. Traders defied fear and opened for business, drawing admiration from many within and outside the state. Their courage sent a strong message that economic survival and collective progress must not be held hostage by intimidation.

    Sustaining this progress is critical. Over the years, the sit-at-home order has severely affected businesses, academic activities, healthcare access, and daily movement of people. Many traders stayed home not out of agreement, but out of fear of attacks. Ending this cycle requires consistency, courage, and clear leadership from the government.

    Read Also: AfDB okays $3.9m to electrify homesin Nigeria, others

    Beyond reopening markets, Governor Soludo must ensure the provision of watertight security, not only in and around major markets every Monday, but across the entire state. A visible and effective security presence will further boost the confidence of traders, business owners, workers, and residents to go about their legitimate activities without fear.

    As confidence grows, economic activities will naturally rebound. Increased commercial operations will improve internally generated revenue, create jobs, and restore Anambra’s reputation as a major commercial hub in the Southeast. Security and economic revival must go hand in hand for the gains to be lasting.

    This initiative should also serve as a model for other southeast governors. A coordinated regional effort to end the sit-at-home practice will ensure that the entire region reopens for normal business activities every Monday, reducing losses and restoring social stability across states.

    Finally, non-state actors must come to terms with the reality that the people of the southeast are tired of disruption and economic hardship. The path forward lies in peace and dialogue, not coercion and fear. Enough of the sit-at-home on Mondays; the region must move forward.

    •Tochukwu Jimo Obi, Obosi Anambra state.

  • Dubious advocacy

    Dubious advocacy

    Sachet alcohol lobby prioritises profit over public health

    Distillers joined forces with food and beverages industry workers last week to resist the ban by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and  Control (NAFDAC) on alcohol in sachets and PET bottles less than 200ml in size. NAFDAC commenced enforcement of the ban on January 21, this year, after a five-year grace period allowed producers to phase out those packagings.

    Distillers and Blenders Association of Nigeria (DIBAN) led a civil society coalition,  including the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and workers from various food and beverages firms, to stage a protest at the Lagos office of NAFDAC, arguing that the decision to ban small size container alcohol would cripple  investments and lead to job losses. They urged NAFDAC to reconsider its ban in the interest of the economy and local investors.

    The protesters, who converged on the regulatory agency’s office as early as 8:30a.m., held aloft placards with various inscriptions as they warned of unsavoury consequence of the ban on Nigerians whose means of livelihood is connected with the sector. Some of the inscriptions on their placards read: ‘Local manufacturers deserve protection, not frustration’, ‘Stop destroying local manufacturers’, ‘N2trillion investment deserves protection’, ‘5.5million Nigerians cannot be pushed to the streets’ and ‘Renewed Hope Agenda must work for all Nigerians’.

    Association of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees (AFBTE) Senior Staff Association is a union affiliated with TUC. Its Executive Secretary, Solomon Adebosin, told journalists that the protest was necessitated by NAFDAC’s decision to enforce the ban despite an advice by the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation that all measures related to the policy be suspended pending the outcome of further consultations and final directive.

    A week earlier, NAFDAC announced that it had begun enforcement of the ban on the production and sale of the products across the country.

    “At this period of our economy, throwing over five million people out of their jobs and putting at least  N3 trillion investment at risk will not augur well for our country. We appreciate our President for his various proactive measures to strengthen the economy. Killing local investments and throwing people out of jobs will definitely frustrate his commitment to boost the economy,” Adebosin said.

    He argued that the ban on sachet alcohol seemed targeted at indigenous producers, as they are the most affected by this policy. “Unfortunately, this will have multiple negative effects on the economy as all the people engaged in the value chain of sales and production would be affected.” he stated.

    Other lobbyists for retention of alcohol in sachets and mini PET bottles plied similar narratives. Among them, a representative of a civil society coalition claiming to protect consumer rights, Declan Ihekaire, who argued that the ban would worsen economic hardship because millions of Nigerians are employed across the value chain of sachet alcohol production, distribution, and sales. He accused government of using regulatory agencies to impose policies that disadvantage low-income earners, saying: “Millions of Nigerians have decided to go low-key by consuming those products because of their income level. It’s not everybody that is rich enough to afford… big drinks. So when you now say we shouldn’t take such a drink, it’s as good as saying don’t take sachet water but only take bottled water.”

    The lobbyists argued that regulatory action should focus on moderation and enforcement rather than product prohibition. They even canvassed sachet and small-size PET bottles as being in themselves supportive of moderate consumption, “because when you just have it in bits, you take it and then you are okay; you are not compelled to take more than is necessary.”

    They advised control of access to the products rather than a ban on the product lines. Adebosin, for instance, urged NAFDAC and other relevant authorities to explore alternative regulatory measures such as stricter age enforcement, improved labelling, controlled distribution channels and sustained public education, rather than an outright ban.

    Read Also: Nigerian artists’ Grammy losses due to lack of US involvement – DJ Big N

    But NAFDAC’s enforcement of the ban is a culmination of many years of back-and-forth between the agency and the alcohol industry over implementation. The industry operators had, in December 2018, signed an agreement with the Ministry of Health and NAFDAC to phase out the controversial product lines by January 31, 2024. At the expiration of the deadline, a further extension was given to enable members adequately prepare for the ban.

    The lobby also misses the point of the public health factor involved in availability of sachet alcohol. NAFDAC Director-General, Professor Mojisola Adeyeye, said the products were being banned mainly because they were being consumed by young school children as they could easily be concealed.

    In an interview on national television, she explained: “AFBTE, the association of food and beverage group, and DIBAN, the distillers’ association, went to the ministry of health in 2018 to complain that we’re planning to ban the use or stop registration of alcohol in sachets, and we had several meetings. At the end of it all, there was a document that was generated, and an agreement that was signed by AFBTE and DIBAN that we should consider that they have machinery and people in the industry producing these alcoholic beverages in sachets and less than 200ml bottles, that we should give them time.”

    According to her, the producers signed an agreement for a five-year phase-out in 2018, that by the end of January 2024, they would not produce sachet alcohol again, and that they should have slowly phased out the product lines during the given time.

    Adeyeye said the Federal Ministry of Trade and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) were co-signers of the agreement, and that NAFDAC was just implementing the agreement, not that it wants businesses to fail. Asked why NAFDAC seeks to take out alcoholic beverages in sachets, she said: “Children in primary schools and secondary schools are drinking alcohol in sachets or less than 200ml pet bottles. Beer has four to eight percent alcohol. The alcohol content in this sachet is 30 percent – six to seven times the amount of alcohol in beer. We did not ban alcohol in bigger containers, we are not against trade. We are banning alcohol as implementing agency under ministry of health in conjunction with ministry of trade. We are banning alcohol in sachets and pet bottles less than 200ml because these packages can be easily concealed.”

    Speaking on dangers of the products in question, the NAFDAC boss said: “It is harmful because it can be easily concealed. You can imagine your child, a primary school child, concealing the sachet in his pocket. I was talking with a principal two days ago, and she said that they normally seize those sachet packages with alcohol inside them from children, that sometimes, a child may consume up to seven during the day, during school hours.” Commercial transporters are also known to abuse sachet alcohol, such that they constitute danger to other road users.

    According to Adeyeye, it has been documented by international agencies that children who start drinking alcohol at a young age will very likely abuse substances, and that alcohol can cause over two hundred types of diseases. “We gave five-year notice. If an association did not disseminate that information to the groups in their association, then that’s a problem. We gave five-year notice: please phase these out because our children will have liver cirrhosis, because our children, by the time they get to twenty-something, they may be having cancers. Which one do we want? We want children to die, or we want money?”

    We totally align with the case made by the NAFDAC D-G, because the lobbyists now protesting the ban implementation had all the time in the world to rework their machinery in line with approved packaging, and away from the packaging that is hazardous to public health. The arguments they have plied for their lobby amount to scare mongering and emotional blackmailing. You do not allow dangerous items like guns to freely circulate simply because producers of those items could be thrown out of business, do you?

    We urge NAFDAC to stay course in placing public health above profit motives and not be fazed by scaremongers.

  • Olaopa makes Oyo honours’ list

    Olaopa makes Oyo honours’ list

    •FCSC chair pledges more excellent service

    The Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC), Prof. Tunji Olaopa, has promised to offer more excellent service to the public.

    Olaopa spoke yesterday when the Oyo State government gave him the state’s Merit Award.

    In a letter conveying his nomination as a recipient of the award to mark the golden jubilee of the state’s creation, the government said he was being honoured for his “selfless service to the growth and development of Oyo State and for ably representing the state on the world stage”.

    In his acceptance of the award, which was conferred at an event hosted by Governor Seyi Makinde at the Government House, Agodi, Ibadan, Olaopa acknowledged what he called the subtext of the recognition of his modest accomplishments.

    These, the FCSC chairman said, were meant to keep up his “unfailing efforts in pushing the boundaries of institutional and governance reforms that will connect, for example, the Oyo State public administration system to the larger federal system in terms of delivering the dividends of democratic development that the citizens of Oyo State need so badly, to make life better for them”.

    On behalf of himself, the Afijio and Awe community and the Olaopa family, the FCSC chairman expressed appreciation to “our leader, the indefatigable Governor Seyi Makinde” and his team for considering him worthy of the recognition.

    Read Also: AfDB okays $3.9m to electrify homesin Nigeria, others

    Expressing his determination to be of more service to the state and be a source of inspiration for its development, Olaopa offered what he called a “solemn promise to you, dear Excellency, that I will not stop working to keep pushing Oyo State ahead in the frontier of excellence”.

    The FCSC chairman said he had every reason to be proud of his origin as an indigene of Oyo State.

    He said: “No matter what one has gone on to achieve in life, one has every reason to be proud to have come from Oyo State for many reasons.”

    Listing his reasons for showing gratitude for the award, the former Federal Permanent Secretary and professor of Public Administration noted that Oyo State “is a land of historical legacies, cultural heritage, and sociopolitical dynamics that stand it out as a formidable context of development in the whole of the Southwest Nigeria”.