The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • Nigeria’s growing economic relations with China

    Nigeria’s growing economic relations with China

    President Jonathan has just concluded a five-day official visit to China. The highlight of his visit was the signing of a Chinese loan of $1.5 billion for the development of infrastructure in Nigeria, including the expansion of four airports at Lagos, Kano, Abuja, and Port Harcourt. The official visit was reportedly marked by a lot of conviviality and cordiality on both sides with the large Nigerian official delegation been treated to the fabled Chinese hospitality and excellent cuisine.

    Sino-Nigerian relations have developed rather slowly over the years. It is now gathering some momentum. It was General Gowon who, as military head of state, first paid an official visit to China in 1972 shortly after the Nigerian civil war. When his brutal military regime faced international criticism and isolation General Abacha also decided to go to China for support. This was in the wake of the crackdown in Tiananmen Square in Beijing that led to China’s international isolation as well. In 1997, the Chinese premier, Li Peng, visited Nigeria too to boost China’s renewed interest in Africa, aimed at reversing the decline in China’s trade with Africa. Nigeria’s trade with China actually fell from $57 million in 1980 to only $7 million in 1985, recovering somewhat to $35 million in 1989. Thereafter, Nigeria-China trade grew from $35 million to $97 million in 1993, and reached $327 million by 1997. It is currently estimated at $13 billion.

    President Jonathan’s visit to China is significant as it underlines Nigeria’s growing economic relations with China. From the Nigerian perspective, closer economic ties with China have become imperative. The new Chinese loan of $1.5billion brings to a total of nearly $15 billion China’s investments and loans to Nigeria in recent years, including the $2.5billion investment in the newly refurbished Lagos-Kano rail line. Nigeria’s share of Chinese investment in Africa has increased to over 30 per cent. In 2012, total Chinese investment in Nigeria was $13.3 billion. In contrast total US FDI in Nigeria was $8 billion. To counter the growing economic relations between China and Africa, President Obama announced during his recent hurried visit to Africa an offer of $7 billion infrastructure loan to Africa. Some cynics will consider this offer as too late and too little. Financial commitments by the World Bank and the IMF are far less than Chinese loans to Nigeria. African countries are turning increasingly to China as an alternative source for infrastructure loans badly needed.

    Both countries now realise the importance of economic cooperation between them. China, the most populous country in the world, with the fastest global economic growth in the last three decades, averaging 10 percent annually, has emerged a leading player in the global economy. Its national economy is now bigger than that of Japan, or the EU countries combined. Within a few decades, China has lifted some 300 million of its people from abject poverty, a feat without any precedent in the annals of economic development. Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, with vast reserves of oil and gas, needs China’s financial and technical assistance in the development of its decaying infrastructure. China too needs Nigeria’s oil and gas to fuel its growing industry. In addition, Nigeria is, potentially, the largest market for China’s industrial products in Africa. Nigeria’s imports from China account for over a third of its total trade with West Africa.

    As President Jonathan was reported as saying in Beijing, the increasing exploitation of shale gas and other energy alternatives by the US and other Western states has made the need for the diversification of the Nigerian economy away from oil more urgent. Increasing Chinese oil imports will make up for the slack in oil exports to the US. In 2005, China accounted for 40 per cent of the global demand for oil. Over 30 per cent of China’s oil supply is imported, with the country becoming the world’s second largest consumer of oil after the US. So, closer economic co-operation is in the mutual interest of both countries. But there is a pitfall here which Nigeria has to watch very closely. There is a chronic and growing trade imbalance between the two countries in favour of China. Nigeria should seek to reduce this vast trade imbalance by increasing its non-oil exports to China. China’s exports to Nigeria are currently estimated at $3 billion, while Nigeria’s exports are estimated at only $1 billion, a trade gap of $2 billion. This trade deficit, a concern to Nigerian leaders and its private sector, is being discussed by the Nigeria-China Joint Planning Commission. Nigeria should be wary of being used by China as a dumping ground for cheap Chinese exports, particularly textiles, as this will increase the existing trade imbalance between the two countries in favour of China and lead to more job losses for Nigeria. For instance, in 2006, South Africa imposed two-year import restrictions on some Chinese textiles. In this regard, the Nigerian authorities are beginning to take some limited action against cheap and fake Chinese exports. In 2006, NAFDAC banned pharmaceutical imports from some Chinese and Indian companies.

    China has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world some of which is being invested in Africa where growth prospects are becoming increasingly attractive. Nigeria is eager to diversify its trade relations by reducing its trade dependence on the Western industrial countries. China, with its horde of foreign reserves, is one of the few countries in the world today that can assist Nigeria with its huge financing gap, particularly for infrastructure development, in such critical sectors as roads, the railways, bridges, airports, and public transportation in which Nigeria is hugely deficient. Nigeria will not achieve its huge economic potential unless it modernises its infrastructure. China can offer Nigeria such assistance with loans and investments in the critical sectors of the Nigerian economy. In April 2006, President Obasanjo observed, while addressing the visiting Chinese President, Hu Jintao, in Lagos, that “This 21st century is the century for China to lead the world. And when you are leading the world, we (meaning Nigeria) want to be close behind you.” It was the most effusive compliment to China by a Nigerian leader and demonstrated Nigeria’s eagerness to expand its economic relations with China.

    Until recently, relations between the two countries were tepid and took some time to develop. At its independence in 1960, Nigerian leaders knew very little about Communist China, a remote country, with its turbulent political history and frequent upheavals. Western influence in Nigeria was very strong and the Western media gave Communist China a bad press all over Africa, decrying its lack of respect for human rights and its authoritarian -style of government. Culturally, the Communist style of government had little or no appeal for African leaders. In fact, like many other states in Africa, Nigeria refused to even recognise the existence of China and did not enter into diplomatic relations with her until after the Nigerian civil war in 1970. At the UN Nigeria voted routinely along with the Western powers to deny China admission to the UN. Instead, Taiwan, which the Chinese regard as a ‘renegade’ province of China, was given China’s seat at the UN. China was badly isolated globally. During the years of the Cultural Revolution China turned its back on the rest of the world, including Africa. Before then, during the cold war era, it had tried unsuccessfully to get a foothold in Africa but it encountered strong opposition from the West as well as the Soviet Union with which it had fallen out. Its interests then in Africa were basically strategic and consisted mainly of challenging both Soviet and Western dominance in Africa during the cold war.

    To counter Western influence China encouraged wars of liberation in Africa and was supporting armed anti-colonial struggles in some 24 African countries, including South Africa. China’s main aim was to reduce Africa’s economic dependence on the West by offering long-term low interest loans to Africa and promoting the so-called ‘benevolent trade’ such as by buying up large coffee and tobacco surpluses from Tanzania. By 1976, China was already giving Africa more aid than the Soviet Union. It achieved a major breakthrough in Africa by financing and constructing the Tanzam railway that gave it access and some limited political influence in central Africa. Beijing’s involvement in the African liberation wars paid off when many African governments, including Nigeria, provided critical support on the UN General Assembly resolution admitting China as a member in October, 1971, and replacing Taiwan. Relations between Nigeria and China also began to improve dramatically. China had supported the secessionists during the Nigerian civil war and is believed to have sent Biafra some limited arms through Tanzania. The secessionist leader, Ojukwu, actually wrote Chairman Mao, seeking Chinese assistance ‘in our struggle against Anglo-American imperialism and Soviet revisionism to achieve a socialist revolution in Biafra’ and Africa. But China secured Nigeria’s recognition in October 1971, after which the two states began building modest bilateral ties based on terms of co-operation agreed between them in 1972 during Gowon’s official visit to Beijing.

    Predictably, the growing economic relations between China and Africa have caused some concerns in the Western countries, particularly in the US. In 2005, during a Congressional hearing in Washington, the chairman of the Africa sub-committee warned that ‘China is playing an increasingly influential role in Africa, and that the Chinese intend to aid and abet African dictators, gain a stranglehold on precious African natural resources, and undo much of the progress that has been made on democracy and governance in the last 15 years’. There were complaints from the US as well when a satellite launch deal was signed in 2005 by Nigeria and the China Great Wall Industry Corporation. But Africa needs to develop rapidly and, if necessary, will engage other powers to achieve its economic and technological goals. Africa cannot remain the economic preserve of the Western powers alone. It must diversify its economic relations in line with the process of economic globalisation. It is not China that is responsible for dictatorships in Africa, but the Western powers that, for long, supported African dictators, and refused to support liberation wars in Africa. There is no real danger of the Chinese exporting Communism to Africa. The Soviets did not succeed in doing so. If they tried, it is less likely that the Chinese would succeed where the Soviets failed.

    The Chinese have no interest in exporting their Communist ideology to Africa. Like Africa, China was, for centuries, the victim of invasion and colonialism by the Western countries. It has no colonial past or imperialist ambitions in Africa that can stand in the way of increasing economic co-operation between the two. China has no military bases in Africa or anywhere else outside its own territory. It is unlikely to use force to advance its economic interests in Africa What China wants, like any other foreign power, is access to Africa’s huge natural resources, particularly its oil, and new markets for its industrial products. Africa is more mature now and should ignore unjustified foreign concerns about its new economic relations with China. In its economic engagement with China, it should, collectively, be able to protect its own economic interests.

  • Diplomatic row over proposed UK visa bond

    Diplomatic row over proposed UK visa bond

    The usually cordial and long standing bilateral relations between Nigeria and the UK are being sorely tested by recent press reports that the British Conservative government is planning to introduce a UK visa bond of £3,000 for first time Nigerian visitors to the UK. Nigeria is one of the six countries being targeted by the proposed visa bond. The other countries include Ghana, Bangladesh, India, Kenya, and Pakistan, all Commonwealth countries. It is believed that this new visa policy could be introduced as early as in November. The countries being targeted by this new measure were caught by surprise as they were not consulted about the visa changes contemplated by the British government.

    Nigeria’s official response to the proposal was predictably swift with the Foreign Minister, Ambassador Gbenga Ashiru summoning the British High Commissioner to the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Abuja to strongly convey to the UK government Nigeria’s displeasure and concerns about the visa measures proposed. He urged Britain to reconsider the new visa changes and left the British envoy in no doubt that the visa measures were wholly unacceptable as they were plainly discriminatory.

    At their meeting, the British High Commissioner was reported as saying that only first time visa applicants would be affected by the proposal, still being worked out, and that the number of such applicants is really insignificant. He added that of 180,000 visa applications from Nigeria last year, some 125,000 were approved. But he did not disclose how many of this number of approved applicants were first time applicants, or how many of them had infringed British immigration laws. The number of Nigerian visitors who break British immigration laws cannot be so large and significant as to justify the new British visa policy. Most Nigerians who go to the UK are law abiding. It is morally wrong for the UK to seek to paint all would be first time Nigerian visitors to the UK with the same brush because of the sins of a few. Many of these applicants are students who, for historical and linguistic reasons find Britain more attractive than other foreign countries. The UK should clarify the situation by disclosing figures of Nigerian visitors that have broken British immigration laws.

    The British authorities are seeking to justify the visa review on both economic and security grounds. But the motivation is largely political as the proposed visa measures have strong electoral appeal in Britain. In 1966, when Enoch Powell, a right wing Conservative Party leader, warned that unless immigration from black Commonwealth countries was curbed, there would be ‘rivers of blood’ in the UK he was roundly condemned by the leaders of the two major political parties for his racist bigotry. Today, Britain is less racially tolerant. All three major political parties, including Labour, will support the proposed measures for electoral reasons. The British economy is under strain. It has been slowing down for years. But this trend can hardly be blamed on foreign emigration to Britain. There is no evidence to support this view. France and Italy, both of which traditionally have also had a larger number of immigrants, have stronger economies than Britain. Neither is contemplating the visa measures being considered by Britain. The down turn in the British economy cannot be justifiably blamed on foreign immigration. The reasons are largely domestic. That is where the solution lies. As a matter of fact, foreign immigrants to Britain have had a positive impact on the British economy, by holding down wages and, thereby, keeping inflationary pressures in Britain low. Without them wages in the UK will sky rocket.

    The current British Conservative government has rightly embarked on savage cuts in public expenditure to reduce Britain’s huge budget deficit, the real reason for the economic downturn in Britain. The cuts are having a significant impact on jobs and public service delivery. This negative trend has made the Conservative government rather unpopular in Britain. There are security considerations involved as well in this new visa policy. The countries targeted in the fresh visa proposal are considered the major sources of terrorist attacks in Britain. Only a few weeks ago two British citizens of Nigerian ancestry were named in the killing of a British policeman. They are both currently facing trial for the murder. But the two suspects were born and bred in Britain, not in Nigeria. It was in Britain that they were indoctrinated by Islamic extremist groups. The truth is that there are more British born would be terrorists in Britain than those seeking entry into Britain from countries such as Nigeria.

    The British visa review proposal is a knee jerk reaction to both the economic and security challenges facing Britain and other Western countries. It will not on its own solve Britain’s economic or security problems. What is needed to meet this particular challenge is a global and not unilateral response to a problem that is festering globally. The UN could provide a forum where this visa problem can be discussed and debated with a view to working out a framework based on a global consensus. Otherwise, there is a strong danger that the world could run into a global visa quagmire. This could undermine the much touted globalisation of the world’s economy as every country shuts down its borders to foreign immigrants. This is a real danger that the UK government should not ignore.

    The Nigerian authorities are right to convey to the British authorities their concerns about this proposed discriminatory visa policy. While it is conceded that Britain has the right to determine its immigration policy, this new measure targeted at some Commonwealth countries will damage the cordial relations hitherto existing between Britain and Nigeria. It will also weaken Commonwealth ties, already fragile for historical reasons. Britain is no longer a major world power. It has for decades now been on the retreat from its global and old imperial responsibilities. In fact, it is less nostalgic now about the historic ties of the Commonwealth than its partners. But it is still the leader of the Commonwealth of which its Queen is the head. This status imposes certain moral and political responsibilities on Britain which she now seems to have abandoned in recent years.

    True, Britain’s major political and economic interests are now centred mainly in Europe. Her economic relations with the Third World have declined somewhat. But that is where Britain should be seeking to strengthen its economic ties. Can Britain really ignore her long standing friendship and economic ties with the new Commonwealth countries? Can she afford to weaken her ties with these countries, including India, which have vast economic potentials? Such countries will be right in coming to the conclusion that Britain no longer cares about her Commonwealth ties and has effectively turned her back on the Commonwealth. They too will be justified in looking elsewhere for their major economic partners. Many of them are already doing so to the detriment of Britain’s economic ties with the Third World countries from the Commonwealth.

    As far as Nigeria is concerned, there is no point in the federal government seeking retaliation against Britain over this visa matter. This is hardly a viable option for Nigeria. Britain is not South Africa. We too should put our economic house in order. Many of our youths have no jobs. They seek emigration abroad to escape poverty at home. Yes, we have every right to be angry about the new visa policy, but our bilateral relations with Britain are so wide and comprehensive that this little matter should not be allowed to lead to any major diplomatic row between the two countries. This diplomatic wrangling is better resolved through diplomatic channels. There is no reason for instance why Nigeria should not undertake to be the channel for the visa bond being planned by the UK. At independence and for decades afterwards, Nigerians traveling abroad for the first time were legally obliged to post a repatriation deposit with the Nigerian immigration authorities. This requirement can be reactivated to meet the concerns of the British authorities.

    Diplomatic rows between Nigeria and Britain are not new. It is a road we have travelled several times before in our bilateral relations with Britain over the years. Examples of this include the row over the Anglo-Nigerian defence pact in 1962, differences with Britain in the period of our civil war, and the face off over Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). But we were able to resolve these disputes through diplomatic engagements. There is no reason why this method of resolving our disputes should not be adopted in the present row. The situation calls for the utmost restraint on both sides.

  • Will democracy in Nigeria hold?

    Will democracy in Nigeria hold?

    General elections are not due in Nigeria until 2015, two years from now, and they are eagerly awaited with mixed expectations, even some concerns that they will not be free and fair. If they are not free and fair, the results will gravely impair Nigeria’s fledgling democracy, re-enacted after many fits and falls only since 1999. That was the year the Nigerian military withdrew from power after the longest period of military rule in Nigeria.

    Two weeks ago, Nigeria officially marked “Democracy Day” on May 29, the day in 1999 that President Obasanjo was sworn in by the departing military junta. But the South Western states where the ACN is in power marked the event on June 12, instead, the date in 1993 in which Chief MKO Abiola won the general elections, later annulled by the military government. The dispute over the right date is not really important. What is important is the peaceful transition from military to civilian democratic rule in Nigeria. It was a protracted and often violent struggle for power between the military and civil society during which many pro-democracy leaders suffered terribly in the hands of the military, with many being forced into exile in very difficult circumstances. After all this, the question now is whether our new democracy will survive after all the sacrifices made to remove the military from power. What then are the prospects?

    Despite current strains and stress in the political environment, I believe the future prospects for the survival of democracy in Nigeria are quite good, definitely better than ever before. First, it is unlikely that the military will seek to return to power again. But this is not simply because military rule in Nigeria stands discredited. The fact is that the conditions that made military rule possible have ceased to exist. The most important of these was the lack of consensus among the political class in support of civilian democratic rule. Some politicians, in their bid for power at different levels, actually courted and supported military rule in Nigeria. They were a powerful minority that clandestinely encouraged military intervention in Nigerian politics in the expectation that they will profit from it. The situation today is vastly different. The politicians have built up a consensus in support of civilian democratic rule in Nigeria that the military will have considerable difficulty in breaking.

    Secondly, there is increasing dislike of military rule in Africa and the rest of the world. Most African countries are now under democratic rule, fully backed by the African Union, and the international community. In fact, this development is a global phenomemon as more and more states are moving away from authoritarian rule to majority rule. In fact, today, only Cuba and China, for historical reasons, are still under one party Communist rule. But even in those two countries, considerable political and economic liberalisation has taken place. Despite a lot of strains the successor states of the former Soviet Union are now practicing variants of democracy. So, democracy is an idea whose time may be said to have come.

    The third reason why I think democracy will survive in Nigeria is that despite ethnic divisions, the people of Nigeria are broadly in support of a democratic way of life with all the benefits it can confer on the people. The Nigerian public is now more politically aware and is extremely unlikely to support any form of undemocratic rule. The political consequences of the “Arab Spring”, still sweeping the Arab world and the Middle East, are a sufficient deterrent to any form of maximum rule all over the world, including Nigeria. Due to growing economic prosperity, the middle class is beginning to emerge in Nigeria again after decades of reverses it suffered under military rule. Middle class values will make any form of absolute rule difficult in Nigeria. The Press which has always been in the forefront of the struggle against military rule will not easily give up its newly won freedom. The Press is far freer today than ever before. It will be difficult for any government in Nigeria to seek a confrontation with the Nigerian media today. Most of it is privately owned and politically independent to some extent.

    However, it has to be admitted that our democracy is facing severe strains at the moment from several sources. First, there is the pervading sense of insecurity in the nation from Boko Haram and other violent extremist religious and ethnic groups. Nigeria is still largely a weak state where, despite its best efforts, the government is unable to secure the lives and properties of its people. These violent extremist groups do have the potential of undermining democracy in Nigeria. As more and more centrifugal forces are unleashed on the nation, this will threaten its democracy and even corporate existence as a nation. The only way to counter this possible scenario is for the governments, at all levels, to create better economic conditions in the country.

    It must be admitted that there is a lot of political alienation in the country today, and that this could easily undermine our march to a full-fledged democratic society. Many graduates cannot find jobs and are increasingly being alienated from the society. Service delivery in the country is generally poor and it is affecting economic activities. At the moment, the poor energy delivery is hurting many businesses. Increasingly, people have to rely on their own resources to provide services that the state is expected to provide. Even the poor now struggle to send their children to private schools, including Universities, and hospitals because of the virtual collapse of state run institutions and services. This trend is not healthy for a commitment to a democratic way of life. Social and economic injustice tends to undermine a commitment to democracy as the rewards and benefits of such commitment are not so evident.

    The Nigerian economy may be growing but so are economic inequalities. These internal contradictions have to be vigorously tackled by the state to create conditions conducive to the flourishing of a democratic way of life in our country. Many of the Western powers are apprehensive about the future of democracy in Nigeria. In fact, many western intelligence agencies fear the country will simply crumble. Some fear the crunch will come in the 2015 general elections. But Nigeria will survive if the elections are free and fair and if the electoral commission shows a determination to run a free and fair election. It should stop its current prevarications over the registration of the APC, the new opposition party that is seeking to challenge the ruling party, the PDP, in the 2015 general elections. The political space must be opened up by INEC to ensure transparency in the elections. As the current disputes in the PDP have shown the political parties lack internal democracy, a basic condition for democratic rule in the country.

  • State of the economy

    State of the economy

    After nearly 30 years of economic reform and financial orthodoxy, the economy is growing. But a new economic strategy is now needed to create more jobs.

    The Minister of Finance, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, is upbeat about the state of the economy. In her report last week on the economy she reeled out figures showing that the economy is doing quite well. Current growth rate is 6.5%, the highest in recent years. Inflation is down to 9.5%, the lowest for nearly 30 years. Foreign reserves have increased significantly to nearly US$48 billion. There is greater stability in the exchange rate though the naira is gradually weakening against the US dollar. Non-oil exports are doing quite well. Earnings from this sector have increased to 30% of total export earnings, up from 10% for decades. Despite the grave security situation in the country, FDI has recorded its highest growth in recent years. The economic fundamentals appear quite strong and impressive. The economic reform programme and a large dose of financial orthodoxy in recent years have paid off. Altogether, there is macroeconomic stability and this should prime the economy for faster and higher growth in the short to medium term. All the multilateral financial institutions, including the WB and the IMF, have endorsed the favourable reports on the state and efficient management of the economy. And all this was achieved during a global recession and its negative consequences for the world’s economy. It has ravaged many of the rich and industrialised countries.

    But there is a flip side to these impressive economic figures that the Finance Minister is upbeat about. First, the impressive economic growth rate has not translated into more jobs for the vast number of the unemployed graduates from our tertiary institutions. The unemployment rate is still far too high for an economy that appears to be growing. The lag between economic growth and job creation has taken far too long. Second, there is very little evidence of the trickle down effect on incomes and the improvement in the general quality of life that economic growth should bring about. Average per capita income may have improved slightly, but the existing income inequality is widening. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The nation is economically and socially increasingly polarised. In fact, very few people believe these impressive economic figures when all they see around them is seemingly greater poverty. Poverty levels in our country remain unacceptably high with devastating social consequences for our nation. This remains the Achilles heel of the economy. Average income levels remain lower than in many other African countries. There are still far too many unemployed youths in the country to justify the optimism of the Finance Minister on economic strategy and management. New jobs will come from more local and foreign investments in the economy.

    Job creation should remain the top priority of a sound rate structure with the huge arbitrage between savings and borrowing does not encourage lending for productive investments. The two rates will need to be better realigned to reduce the gap between them. The current interest rate structure is a disincentive to local investment in the economy.

    What is responsible for this slack in job creation despite the impressive economic growth rate and macroeconomic stability? Why do we have such a vast number of unemployed youths when the economy seems to be growing so impressively?Apart from the existing massive public corruption which constrains growth, the obvious reason is that current private sector investments are directed more towards capital intensive rather than labour intensive projects. In addition to an imperfect market the domestic economy has to contend with a wasteful and imperfect government as well. Of course, it would be wrong and counterproductive for the government to intervene directly in this regard by forcing private sector investors to invest more in labour intensive projects. This will turn them away. But this objective can be realised in two ways. First, the government can improve on the existing incentive structure by granting investments in labour intensive projects, such as agriculture, better incentives, including better access to loans. Labour is quite cheap and readily available in Nigeria. The future economic growth and prosperity of the nation depend on our ability to take advantage of these comparatively low labour costs particularly in manufacturing. This will make our domestic economy more competitive globally. This was how the NICS, such as China, India, South Korea, and Brazil achieved their impressive economic growth rates. Nigeria should learn from these countries’ hugely successful economic strategies by concentrating more on labour intensive projects for job creation and exports. The vagaries of the oil market make this strategy imperative. Already oil incomes are falling.

    Second, in view of huge resource constraints, public sector expenditure should focus more on sectors that have a direct impact on employment. Here, I am thinking of our woeful social and physical infrastructure which calls for massive investment. There is some ongoing attempt to reduce the budget deficits by cutting public expenditure. There is no objection to this as persistent budget deficits will impact negatively on inflation and this could undermine stability in the macro economy and future economic growth rate.

    But a dash of Keynesian economics through a modestly expansionary budget will, if appropriately utilised and directed towards the more productive sectors of the domestic economy, create more jobs and an even higher economic growth rate in the domestic economy. The financial orthodoxy, which we have practiced in our economic management for some decades now, with good effect, should be reviewed now and a new growth and exported oriented strategy involving higher public expenditure, particularly on the physical infrastructure, should be introduced. The economy will grow even faster and more jobs will be created if we invest more in developing public transportation, the roads, electricity, public housing, the ports, and other public utilities. But plans to start another national airline should be abandoned. It is wasteful. At the micro level it is this strategy of massive public construction that the Lagos State Government under Governor Fashola has pursued with astonishing success in terms of job creation. There is no reason why this strategy cannot be replicated by the Federal Government. A lot of financial resources are needed to upgrade these infrastructures. Some of these can be done through public-private-participation (PPP) to reduce the pressure on public spending. Whatever the attractions of a fiscal balance might be, it is vastly more important to keep the domestic economy running at an optimal level so as to create more jobs and overall prosperity in the nation.

    Despite our healthy foreign reserves, the Federal Government is resorting increasingly to foreign borrowing to finance infrastructure. The current debt stock is over US$15billion. At the same time it has created a US1billion SWF for foreign lending ostensibly to cushion the negative impact of a possible future decline in our oil income. But it hardly makes any economic sense for us to borrow abroad at a rate higher than what our SWF can earn in terms of interest rates. Why should we create a SWF when there is a crying and desperate need for more investments at home to modernise our woeful infrastructure? There is no reason why some of our healthy foreign reserves cannot be spent now in upgrading our infrastructure.

    The opposition parties are right in criticising the PDP Federal Government for the various contradictions in its economic strategy, particularly over the lack of job creation and the consequent deepening of mass poverty in our nation. But they should go beyond that and develop a credible alternative economic strategy that will remove some of the major constraints on job creation in the economy. At the moment it does not seem that the various opposition parties have alternative and coherent economic strategies that they can turn into an electoral advantage over the ruling PDP federal government. The failure of the Federal Government to create more jobs and the woeful infrastructure should be the central issues in the campaign for the 2015 elections.

  • Boko Haram: Jonathan finally decides

    Boko Haram: Jonathan finally decides

    At long last, President Jonathan has decided to take the bull by the horn. Last week, he declared a state of emergency in Yobe, Adamawa, and Bornu, the three states in north eastern Nigeria in which the insurgents have been most active in recent weeks. The declaration by the President of a state of emergency in those three states was prompted by the vicious and bloody Boko Haram attack on Baga in which over 200 people were reported killed. Fearing a possible backlash from the North President Jonathan had until now been reluctant to accept the advice of his security agencies that a bolder and more decisive military action was now needed. The president had to act swiftly and decisively. He was away in South Africa. He immediately cancelled his planned visit to Namibia and returned home. Finally, the President abandoned all pretences that the insurgents could be prevailed upon to lay down their arms by treating them with kid gloves. It was always clear that more determined and sustained military action against the insurgency was imperative and urgent.

    The fact of the matter is that since it first emerged in 2009 Boko Haram has developed into a sophisticated, better organised; well-armed, and well financed insurgency that poses a grave threat to the security and future of this country. It has both external and internal links and support, and it seeks nothing less than the overthrow of the government and social order in this country. But its support in the country, including the North, is really limited. Whatever goodwill it once had has since been lost by its wanton and bloody attacks on innocent civilians. Nigeria is a multi-religious state that guarantees to its citizens freedom of worship. But the aim of Boko Haram is to Islamise Nigeria by force of arms. This is not acceptable and should be resisted firmly and squarely. It could lead to a religious war and the break up of the country.

    Until now, President Jonathan had been severely criticised for his tepid approach to the violent and dangerous insurgency. His critics say he should have acted promptly long before now by taking stronger military action against the insurgents. That criticism is justified. Now that he has acted by declaring a state of emergency in the Northeast, he deserves the nation’s full support.

    This should not be made a partisan affair. There is a consensus in the nation in favour of stronger military action against the insurgents. The measures taken by the President against the insurgents have the support of the entire country, including Northern leaders all of whom are sick and tired of the Boko Haram carnage in Northern Nigeria. Many of them are targets of the insurgents and now live in fear. As I write this article the Northern Governors are reportedly planning a meeting this week to review the state of emergency declared in the three states in the North. If they seek the return of peace to the region, then they must all support the stronger military measures being introduced by the President. Equally, the National Assembly must pass the necessary enabling bill in support of the declaration of a state of emergency in the three Northern states.

    The state of emergency does not in any legal or constitutional sense affect the position or legitimacy of the governors. Their states have not been taken over by the Federal Government. They remain governors and will continue to perform their functions as governors. State security was never their responsibility but that of the Federal Government. This is a constitutional anomaly that will need to be addressed in future by the creation of state police. The states should have some responsibility for their own security. But for now the Federal Government is fully in charge of security throughout the country. The only real limitation on the governors is the limited curfew imposed on the three states. The governors may not like this, but it is necessary for the restoration of public order and peace in their states. The people of the states need peace to pursue their normal daily activities. The insurgency has crippled economic activities in most parts of the North. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that all the citizens of our country enjoy peace and security to pursue their legitimate economic activities.

    There are, of course, internal and external legitimate concerns about the manner in which the security forces carry out their military operations in the three states. Specifically, there is concern that the military operations against the insurgents should comply with the appropriate rules of engagement. This is absolutely necessary if the people of the three states concerned are not to be alienated. The military have to defend themselves. They should be well equipped for this. Far too many of them are being killed by the insurgents. The military must avoid the situation in which military operations to protect the people from the insurgents lead to heavy civilian casualties and their alienation. Even in the state of emergency human rights must continue to be fully respected by the military. The military need to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of the three states. Already, the US and other Western embassies in Nigeria have expressed some concerns about this. The military must not resort to a scorched earth military strategy leading to massive civilian casualties. The military objective is to destroy Boko Haram and not the people, the victims of Boko Haram attacks.

    Despite the dire situation and his stronger military action, President Jonathan must continue to seek peace and an end to the insurgency through dialogue and consultations. Boko Haram has spurned all peace efforts but the Federal Government should not abandon its efforts in this regard. The strategy should continue to be a combination of stick and carrots. Peace will not be achieved overnight. This is going to be a protracted struggle until Boko Haram is finally defeated. The insurgents must and should not prevail. If they do, then that could be the end of Nigeria. Almost certainly, the nation will break up as the other religious and ethnic groups will take up arms to defend themselves.

    Book Haram is the inevitable product of the long period of neglect of the people of the Northern region by their own leaders. It has been spurned by widespread ignorance, poverty, and religious fanaticism. The whole region needs a combination of a political and economic programme that should aim at eliminating past social and economic injustice. Military action alone, though necessary in present circumstances, will not solve the problem of the insurgency. Direct and tangible action should be taken by the Federal Government in concert with the Northern states governors and leaders to tackle the deep seated social and economic grievances more prevalent in the North. Mass education and better job opportunities will reduce whatever attractions Boko Haram may have for the people of the region. The fact of the matter is that the governments at various levels of the country have failed woefully in tackling the mass poverty in our nation. This is breeding ground for malcontents and the source of the increasing violence in the country.

     

  • Amaechi’s political prognosis on Nigerians

    Amaechi’s political prognosis on Nigerians

    A  few weeks ago, the Governor of Rivers State, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi, was reported by some newspapers as saying that the objective social and economic conditions in Nigeria called for a change, but that Nigerians were too timid to bring about such a change by directly challenging their leaders. Coming from such a highly placed public official, a state governor, his comments must be regarded as surprising and strange. He did not specifically call for a violent change, but came quite close to it. Many will be disposed to consider his comments as hypocritical, self-serving, and a gratuitous insult to his people, the same people who, through years of personal sacrifice, brought him to power after decades of military rule in Nigeria. The same views regarding possible future violent political change in Nigeria had been expressed earlier on by the respected Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Kukah, who was reported as saying that a violent change was not possible in Nigeria. Well, the Catholic Church has not been known to be in support of violent change, except when it serves its interest. In general, it has always been in support of the Establishment.

    The conclusions reached by the two prominent figures raised some eye brows in both official and unofficial circles. This paper actually wrote an editorial in support of Governor Amaechi’s comments that Nigerians were too timid to force a change in the country. But I think Governor Amaechi missed the point by his explicit dismissal of Nigerians as being too timid to organise themselves in revolt against the authorities. There is no basis for his comments. A revolution occurs only when the objective conditions warrant it. That is not yet the case in Nigeria. There are far too many cultural constraints that would make a violent change difficult. The nation and its people are too badly divided.

    Now, I have never met Governor Amaechi, but my impression of him, drawn from his frequent press comments, is that of a youthful, energetic, and thoughtful leader eager for a change in the country, precisely what the nation is in dire need of. He may be having some political problems in his state and with his party, the PDP. But one must share his concerns about the lack of progress in the appalling social and economic conditions of the poor in Nigeria. Obviously his observation about Nigerians being a timid lot, though erroneous, came from the heart and one must respect him for his concerns.

    However, there is no historical basis for Governor Amaechi’s conclusion that Nigerians are too timid to force a change in the country. They will do so if the objective conditions exist. But that is not quite the case now. Both before and after Nigeria’s independence, the Nigerian public, particularly the poor, played a crucial role in Nigeria’s political history, challenging the authorities whenever there is a compelling reason to do so. And it is only the people who can make that judgment, not their leaders inciting them to do so. They will only resort to a rebellion if they are united about it and consider it to be in their interest to do so. It is unlikely that they can be goaded into it.

    Nigeria’s political history shows that, at various times, the Nigerian people were in open rebellion against British colonial rule in Nigeria and their own post independence governments, both civilian and military. Examples of this include the violent protests at the coal mines in Enugu, the riots in Abeokuta, led by Mrs. Ransome Kuti, over the introduction of direct taxation, and the 1946 Labour strike in Lagos that virtually paralysed the colonial government. The Nigerian people participated fully in the independence movement under the leadership of the various political parties and organisations. It was the support of the masses that made Nigeria’s independence from British colonial rule possible. Without their active support the struggle against foreign domination would have been more difficult.

    After independence and at crucial moments the Nigerian people took their destiny into their hands by challenging the excesses of both civilian and military rule in Nigeria. One may recall the Agbekoya resistance movement in the Old Western Region against the unpopular Akintola government foisted on the people by the Balewa federal government. The Agbekoya movement made the state ungovernable and virtually paralysed the unpopular Akintola government. During the long period of military rule, determined resistance from the people made our military rulers very uncomfortable. They knew they did not enjoy the support of the people. More recently, under civilian rule, the federal authorities had to back down on the issue of fuel subsidy, following mass protests and demonstrations in Lagos and some other state capitals. Had the Jonathan PDP not given way on this issue it would have faced the danger of an open insurrection. So, time and again, the Nigerian masses have shown great courage in challenging the establishment where they are forced into doing so by being pushed to the wall.

    However, it should be admitted that in the context of Nigeria’s tribal politics, it can be quite difficult to mobilise the people for the purpose of challenging the authorities and forcing a change in the country. For this to happen, two things are necessary. First, there must be shared values among the various Nigerian tribes on governance and the limits of government. This is not the case now. The massive public corruption in Nigeria, the source of much public irritation, has been tribalised and cannot, therefore, be addressed squarely by mobilising the people against it. Corrupt public officials often get away with it because they know they can count on the support of their own people. Though a potent force, corruption is unlikely to be the source of violent change in Nigeria.

    The second condition for forcing a change is that this must be led by a cohesive and detribalised middle class among which there are also shared values. Again, this is not the case in Nigeria. The economic reform programme of the late 80s set the emerging middle class in Nigeria back by several decades. Their incomes and status fell dramatically to the extent that, today, there are really only two classes in Nigeria, the rich and the poor. It worsened the social and economic conditions of the poor, even endangering their very existence. For them, their survival is the first order. After all, the poor cling even more tenaciously to life than the rich and will not put themselves in harm’s way by resorting to violence, the outcome of which is by no means certain. In the event of a violent revolution, the poor will suffer even more than the rich.

    No one can be absolutely certain that a violent change will not occur in Nigeria in the light of the appalling social and economic conditions in which the vast majority of its various peoples live. In the last few years, Nigeria’s economic growth rate has been impressive, showing an annual average of 7 per cent. But there has been very little trickle down effect of this significant growth in its GDP. The economic conditions of the people have worsened. This is why it is imperative for the various authorities in Nigeria to take necessary economic measures to avert it. We already have in various parts of the country kidnappings, assassinations, violent crimes and insurrections, such as those of Boko Haram, MEND, MASSOB, and others, that openly challenge the legitimacy and moral authority of the government and the viability of the nation. Cumulatively, all these may lead to violent protests and mass demonstrations that can spiral easily into a mass revolt.

    But no one can predict with any degree of certainty when this dire security situation might lead to a direct revolution, as most revolutions are triggered off rather suddenly and at a time least expected. In fact, in most cases revolutions occur just when the economic conditions of the people, begin to show some improvement; hardly ever before. The ‘Arab Spring’ that is currently sweeping through the Arab world is sufficient confirmation of this. It was when economic conditions began to improve in most of the Arab countries that the people went into a rebellion against their governments.

     

     

  • Planned amnesty for Boko Haram

    Planned amnesty for Boko Haram

    If all goes well, President Goodluck Jonathan will shortly grant the Boko Haram insurgents a general amnesty. That is the gist of press speculation on the insurgents in recent weeks. The federal authorities have neither denied nor confirmed these press reports. The Federal Government was even reported as setting up a technical committee to work out the legal modalities for the planned amnesty, and that it expected that within weeks an agreement on amnesty could be reached with the Boko Haram insurgents. But there are still some hurdles to clear before any amnesty can be granted the insurgents. President Jonathan will need to be satisfied that this is not a hoax, and that the insurgents are serious this time about laying down their arms after nearly ten years of a bloody insurgency that has led to heavy civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict

    It should not come as a surprise that the Federal Government is considering a general amnesty for the insurgents. Such a possibility was never ruled out in the first place by President Jonathan. The Federal Government had always made it clear that it was ready to engage the Boko Haram leaders in a dialogue to end the bloody violence in some parts of the North that has claimed hundreds of lives. Some contacts were in fact made last year with the leaders of the sect, but these preliminary talks to end the conflict were abruptly cut off by the insurgents which may have broken into factions. If, collectively, they are now willing to embrace dialogue with the federal authorities and stop the bloody conflict, then there is a compelling need for the Federal Government to seriously consider this alternative to a military option that has simply not worked. Though battered and mostly on the run, the insurgents have stood their ground and have continued to maim and kill innocent civilians, including women and children in the North. Most of these casualties are Christians who are increasingly being prevented from going to their churches.

    A broad consensus in support of a possible peaceful option to the lingering conflict through dialogue between the insurgents and the federal authorities has been building up ever since the Sultan of Sokoto, the leader of the Moslem community in Nigeria, called on the Federal Government to consider a general amnesty for the insurgents. Virtually all Northern leaders, including the Northern Governors’ Forum and the Arewa Consultative Assembly, have joined the Sultan in calling for a general amnesty for the insurgents. It is believed that the National Security Adviser recently advised President Jonathan that a military solution to the conflict is no longer feasible. The insurgency has hurt the North very badly. It has more or less paralysed economic activities in the major commercial centres of Kano and Kaduna. No new investments can be expected in the North for some time on account of the ongoing conflict there. Northern leaders acknowledge this and want an end to the bloody conflict. There is also some concern among Southern leaders about the insurgency. Recently, the leader of the ACN, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, lent his voice in support of the call for a general amnesty for the insurgents if they agree to lay down their arms.

    For the Christian community in Nigeria, the call for amnesty must be painful as the majority of victims of the Boko Haram terror are Christians for whom the state is not able to provide any security. The state is supposed to protect religious freedom, the right to practice one’s religion freely. But that is no longer the case in most parts of the North where churches are frequently attacked by Boko Haram insurgents. Majority of Christians in the country will find it difficult to understand or accept the planned amnesty for the insurgents. But some Christian leaders, including the head of the Catholic Church in Nigeria, Cardinal Onayeikan, say they are willing to support the planned amnesty under suitable conditions. The President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Oritsejafor, has expressed some reservations about the planned amnesty, insisting that the insurgents who have unleashed such terror and death on Christians in the North should not go unpunished. His views more accurately reflect the anger and dismay felt by the Christian community in Nigeria about the violence in the North targeted largely at Christians. These people do not understand or accept the immunity for the insurgents implied in the planned amnesty.

    The fact of the matter which President Jonathan has to consider is that the military option adopted to tackle the insurgency has simply not worked. The insurgency is getting stronger and better organised. It has free access to funds and weapons, and its adherents are becoming increasingly fanatical and unbending. If the security forces were winning the war, an amnesty for the insurgents would be uncalled for. Despite their brave and best efforts, the security agencies have had little or no success in tackling the terror being unleashed in Northern Nigeria by the insurgents. There is some evidence that these insurgents are getting substantial assistance, including funds and weapons, from Al Qaeda, among other foreign collaborators. They have some local support as well.

    Altogether, it is a conflict that our security forces cannot win as the enemy is evasive and illusive. It is difficult to defeat an invisible enemy that is constantly on the move. There must be a lot of frustration in our security forces that they are unable to really defeat the insurgents. But we cannot allow the carnage to continue without seeking an alternative to the use of force as a means of solving the problem. This is the cruel dilemma that President Jonathan has to face.

    In taking a decision whether or not to engage the insurgents President Jonathan will be guided by the thought of what effect an amnesty will have on his electoral chances in 2015. He needs the support of the North if he is going to get the PDP nomination and win the presidential elections. Even without the problem of Boko Haram he is by no means certain that he can clear the hurdle of northern opposition to his re-election in 2015. This is why an amnesty, being demanded by Northern leaders, is of critical importance to the political equation and President Jonathan’s bid for re-election in 2015. The problem is that the talks with Boko Haram may break down and scuttle the whole idea of an amnesty. Boko Haram has become factional and there is no guarantee that, collectively, it will agree to lay down its arms and end the conflict in the North. An amnesty for the group should not be granted unless there is reasonable assurance that it will bring the conflict to an end. Northern and Christian leaders must be brought into the dialogue with Boko Haram. Northern leaders should be made to provide reasonable guarantees that Boko Haram will honour the terms of the amnesty. The leaders of Boko Haram must be identified and should be made to offer guarantees that the insurgency by Boko Haram will not be resumed after the amnesty.

    On the part of the victims of the Boko Haram violence, it is necessary that they be offered some form of compensation by the state for its failure to offer them any protection. It is the least the state can do to show its concern and sympathy for the victims of the mindless violence being inflicted on the country. But the medium to long term solution to the religious violence in the North is for the state and federal governments to invest more in the enlightenment and education of the youths in Northern Nigeria. They must be given skills that will enable them to be gainfully employed.

  • Aftermath of the 1914 Amalgamation

    Aftermath of the 1914 Amalgamation

    Lord Lugard arrived in Lagos in 1912 as the first Governor General of the British colony of Nigeria. He introduced the so-called amalgamation of the colonial territory in 1914, and left the country finally in 1918. In effect, he had only four years to give effect to the amalgamation and introduce a central administration which was claimed to be the central objective of the amalgamation. He failed dismally in this respect. He had limited time for the task. But he also had some preconceived and erroneous ideas about how the ethnically diverse people of the territory were to be ruled. This undermined the basic objective of his administration.

    First, he did very little to bring the territory under a single central administration. The territory continued to be governed separately as the colony of Lagos, and the Northern and Southern Protectorates. There was no serious attempt to bring the huge territory under a single central administration. Lugard did not have the financial and human resources he needed for this purpose. In addition, the First World War that started in 1914 diverted attention from British colonies in Africa. And then in 1939, another world war broke out. It was not until after the Second World War that Britain began to turn its attention to its African colonies, particularly Nigeria, the largest. From amalgamation in 1914 until 1946, there was no political or administrative interaction among the various peoples of Nigeria. The three colonial territories continued to be governed separately as if they were three countries. It was only in 1946, under the Richards’ Constitution, that a feeble attempt was made to bring representatives of the various administrative units together at an assembly in Lagos.

    But then the new Constitution also created regional councils for the three provinces in colonial Nigeria. Richards justified his regionalism on the ground that the North wanted little or nothing to do with the South. So no Northern members were elected to sit in the Legislative Council in Lagos. This moved Margery Perham, the Oxford don and friend of Lord Lugard, to complain that ‘British colonial officials had become more northern than the northerners, fostering the local sense of difference, even of superiority towards the South’. The Lagos meeting was a disaster and broke up with all sides protesting British administrative style in Nigeria. It was at this meeting that the Northern leader, Ahmadu Bello, protested that ‘the mistake of 1914 has come to light”. His sentiments regarding the amalgamation were shared by his Southern colleagues, including the Lagos educated elite, once dismissed contemptuously by Lugard as ‘the trousered natives’. In those 32 years after amalgamation the various territories had diverged a lot making any form of political unity more difficult.

    Secondly, Lugard had extended to the entire territory his obnoxious system of indirect rule, which was strongly opposed in the Southern Protectorate. The situation he met in the North was considerably different from that which he had left in 1906 as Governor of the Northern Protectorate. Under the decentralising influence of his successors in the North, the British Residents had become autocratic within their semi-autonomous Emirates. There had grown in Whitehall a mistaken feeling that the classical pattern of native administration in Africa had been discovered; a sort of magic formula outlining an organic relationship between indirect rule and semi-feudal African political institutions. But the circumstances associated with the foundation of the Southern Protectorate and its problems were far different from those of the North. The South had been penetrated gradually, not by conquest as in the North, but by treaties, most of which were actually obtained under duress and false promises. With its proximity to the coast, the South had for long been subjected to Western influences. Even before the acquisition of Lagos in 1861, there were already educated natives there. Christian missionary schools had been established in the South for well over fifty years before amalgamation. Southern Moslems had free access to these missionary schools. The CMS Grammar School, Nigeria’s oldest secondary grammar school, had been founded in 1859 by the Anglican missionaries. The products of this missionary education disliked the extension of indirect rule to the South. There was no unifying religion in the South, such as Islam, which could transcend tribal loyalties. The powers of the Chiefs and Obas in the South differed profoundly from those of their Northern counterparts. In certain cases, particularly in the Southeast, society was lacking in a strong, highly centralised political organisation. As Lugard saw it, in this respect, ‘the first step is to find a man of influence as Chief, and then group under him as many villages or districts as possible”. This is the origin of the ‘warrant chiefs’ in the Southeast. It was to prove an administrative disaster, the consequences of which are still with us today.

    Lugard considered the Yoruba Obas as overlords of centrally organised Kingdoms like the Northern Emirates, ideally suitable for his indirect rule system. Furthermore, since indirect rule had developed in the North among the despotic Emirs, he concluded that a powerful chief was indispensable to the system. There was thus a tendency to create chiefs when they could not be found, or to exalt them where they did not seem sufficiently powerful. In effect Lugard and some of his successors as Governors General committed the folly of seeking to make, as it were, a crown or a king at the top and then try to find something underneath on which it might appropriately be placed. This was a monumental error as it was to lead to semi-autocratic rule and lack of accountability by post-colonial governments in Nigeria. For instance, Abeokuta had in 1893 established a semi-independent state by treaty with the British. Lugard was opposed to this. Determined to remove this anomaly, Lugard took advantage of disturbances in 1914 over direct taxation in Egbaland to abrogate the 1893 treaty with the Alake who had requested for British colonial troops. In the East, the introduction of direct taxation under the system of indirect rule led to a rebellion which Lugard put down brutally with the death of some 500 protesters.

    Before British colonialism in Nigeria, neither the Obas nor the Emirs enjoyed such autocratic powers as they did later under British colonial rule. There were checks and balances in both before colonial rule, after which they were elevated to the status of semi-gods. Of course, colonial rule was itself autocratic. It was not based on checks and balances. The essence of indirect rule, through the Emirs and Obas, was that loyalty to a tribal chief must be given unhindered and be free from outside interference. This practice led to the creation of feudal monarchies that actually had no place in pre-colonial Nigeria. This was what our current political leaders inherited, and it explains their lack of commitment to the rule of law and public accountability. In effect, the 1914 amalgamation in Nigeria destroyed an indigenous political and administrative system that was far more democratic and accountable, and replaced it with a colonial system of government that was wholly undemocratic and lacked any kind of accountability. It laid the foundation for autocratic government in Nigeria, virtually without any checks and balances in the system. While in traditional society there were means of checking and curbing abuses by the Emirs and Obas, indirect rule tended to encourage illiterate, conservative, and often autocratic Emirs and Obas. One critic of the system observed that ‘the Emirs today are maintained by British bayonets, so that there are men holding these positions who would not last one week once these bayonets were to cease’ Dr. Miller, the noted Christian missionary in Zaria, condemned British colonial rule in Nigeria for its failure to use the system of indirect rule as an instrument of progress in the North. Lord Lugard’s administration was hostile to the Christian missions and schools in the North for fear that their ‘revolutionary’ ideas might create a body of opinion to challenge British colonial rule and the authority of the Emirs. This is the source of the existing wide gap in education between the North and the South in Nigeria with profound political and economic implications for the country. Boko Haram is a direct consequence of this lapse.

    In the long run, the question we should ask is where amalgamation and the consequent system of indirect rule were supposed to lead. Lord Lugard and British colonial rule in Nigeria gave little or no thought to this question. As a means of leading the people of Nigeria to self-rule, the system was a total failure. Feudal chieftaincies created by the system were not compatible with a modern progressive state. In her study of British colonial rule in Nigeria, titled ‘The Colonial Reckoning”, Dame Margery Perham, the distinguished colonial historian and Oxford don, came to the conclusion that British colonial rule did some good in Nigeria, but that it did some harm too, not least of which was its failure to adequately prepare Nigeria for future development as a united, democratic and progressive modern state. This is why I think we should mark the 1914 amalgamation and not spend a whole year celebrating it. It was, at best, a partial success. The indirect rule system that followed amalgamation remains the major source of ethnic and tribal politics in Nigeria today.

  • Lord Lugard and the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria

    Lord Lugard and the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria

    The period between 1900 -12 was one in which the two halves of the protectorate, inheriting fundamentally different forms of administration and underlying political and social structures, diverged radically in administrative and political styles.

    The administrative structures in Nigeria before amalgamation were really diverse. It was as if Britain was really creating two different countries. When Lugard returned to Nigeria as Governor General in 1912 and introduced the amalgamation in 1914, largely for financial reasons, the content of the amalgamation was profoundly influenced by Lugard’s previous experience in Northern Nigeria and his disdainful attitudes towards Southern Nigeria. In effect, there was little or no amalgamation, for Lugard simply superimposed on the colony the existing structures in Northern Nigeria, particularly the obnoxious system of indirect rule. Lugard made no serious effort to bring Northern and Southern Nigeria under a uniform and central administration. For most of the time, he governed the colonial territory from the North in an administrative system that was so evidently incongruous.

    From his Political Memoranda, his Amalgamation Reports, and his numerous writings on the new colony, it is doubtful that Lugard, or most of his successors in the colony, really did think of Nigeria’s future in terms of a single political entity. Lugard’s successor as Governor General, Hugh Clifford, had warned in 1919 that ‘the coordination of all administrative work should be directed from a single centre’. His successor, Richard Palmer, disagreed with this view, and instead averred that Nigeria ‘was a mere geographical expression, the European label attached to three divergent though contiguous chunks of Africa’. British colonial policy in Africa was vastly different from the French colonial policy of assimilation that envisioned its colonies as possible French states in future. Lugard and most of his administrative successors in Nigeria did not have such a vision for Nigeria.

    The amalgamation, now being celebrated by the Federal Government, was certainly very unpopular in both Northern and Southern Nigeria at the time, and was vigorously opposed by the educated Lagos elite. In the North, the powerful emirates were opposed to it, as it was feared that a centralised administrative system would weaken their authority, which in fact depended on British rule, while in the South it was feared that it would lead to the introduction of the unpopular system of indirect rule and the curtailment of the few political rights that the Lagos-based educated elite enjoyed under the legislative council system. Sir Arthur Richards, another Governor General, while reviewing the 1923 Clifford Constitution had stated that his main objective was to promote the unity of Nigeria. But through his creation of regional councils in the three provinces into which Nigeria was divided, he reinforced the already existing trend towards regionalism in Nigeria. Richards justified his new Constitution for Nigeria on the ground that Northern Nigeria wanted little or nothing to do with the South. This view was subsequently echoed in the 1940s by both Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu Bello, who stated quite clearly that they both regarded Nigeria as a mere geographical expression, and not a united country. In fact, Sir Ahmadu Bello complained publicly later that ‘the mistake of 1914 (meaning the amalgamation) has come to light’. It was as a compromise that a federal system was introduced as best suited to Nigerian conditions.

    The amalgamation created modern Nigeria, but it was not without some strains as it forced the various ethnic groups of Nigeria into a single political unit. It was like trying to force a political union among France, Germany, and Britain. Belgium is a good example of a country in which two separate and distinct nationalities have been lumped together with predictable results, similar to the situation in Nigeria. In fact, it was only in Nigeria that the British colonialists used the word ‘amalgamation’. This term was never applied to any of their other colonies in Africa, or elsewhere. Whatever we may consider to be the merits of amalgamation, it is not an event for us to celebrate. It is demeaning. We should merely mark it as a major event in Nigeria’s political development. I know of no other former British colony that has celebrated its acquisition in this manner. The idea has no precedence in Africa. It was British colonial genius that produced Nigeria. But they will not be celebrating it for obvious reasons. In fact, if they tried to celebrate the occasion, we should object to it as demeaning to us. Our African brothers will certainly consider the planned celebration rather strange. As a nation, we have worked hard and tirelessly to keep this nation united. But we should not celebrate an event in our colonial history of which we should not be proud.

    Of course, the amalgamation was a historic event in Nigeria and cannot be forgotten completely. The intention here is not to completely denigrate British rule in Nigeria as it did the country some good. It introduced western education in the South and a system of justice that was fair on the whole. But it is my well considered view that we should merely mark the amalgamation with seminars, and not celebrate it as if the idea was that of our people and leaders.

    It is a pity that Nigerian and African history are no longer being seriously taught in our schools and Universities. If they were, we would certainly take a different view of this plan to celebrate this episode of our history. Professor Tamuno, the chairman of the planning committee of the celebration, is a historian of note, and a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibadan. He understands fully the point being made here. It would be better for him to advise the government that, instead of the planned elaborate celebrations, we should merely mark the event by holding seminars and lectures all over the country. This would be far cheaper, more relevant, and more meaningful. What we need is a sober reflection on what amalgamation really meant to Nigeria. I intend to discuss this in my next series of articles in this paper.

  • Lord Lugard and the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria

    Lord Lugard and the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria

    The Federal Government has announced that it will celebrate the centenary of Nigeria’s ‘Amalgamation’ on January 1, 1914 by Lord Lugard, then the newly appointed and first British Governor-General of colonial Nigeria. The elaborate celebrations which started a week ago with a glittering state banquet at Abuja are intended to last a whole year and will include, among other projects, the development of a brand ‘new city’ in Abuja. The National Assembly does not appear keen on supporting the projects proposed and is not keen on providing funds for the celebrations. There is also very little public enthusiasm about the entire programme. The celebrations will cost a lot of money and, to address public concern about the huge costs involved, running into billions of naira, the Federal Government has assured the nation that all the expenses involved in the celebrations will be borne by the private sector. But investments of this nature by the private sector do not come without a price in the form of huge contracts that are usually abandoned. Somehow, the private sector will find a way of recouping such a bad investment as the one being proposed.

    Now, there is no doubt about the historic importance of the 1914 amalgamation in Nigeria’s history. It was the first time that the British colonial administration in Nigeria tried to bring the culturally diverse people of Nigeria together under one central colonial administration. Without the amalgamation Nigeria would not have developed or emerged as one country. Instead, we would now have two, or possibly three, different countries. But the manner in which these celebrations take place is equally important. The question is why should we, as a nation be seen to be celebrating the 1914 so-called ‘amalgamation’ of Nigeria by the British colonial power? The Federal Government argues that Nigeria is not a historical accident and, having existed for nearly 100 years as a country, merits celebration. It is important that we get Nigeria’s colonial history right. If we do, it will be obvious to us that we should not be celebrating such a dubious event in our colonial history, as the ‘amalgamation’ was the direct product of British imperialism in West Africa.

    To suggest, or argue, as the federal authorities did, that Nigeria is not a historical accident, but a pre-ordained entity is a distortion of Nigeria’s history. Nothing can be further from the truth. This claim should not go unchallenged, or else we will be creating a false and terrible legacy. Before British colonialism in Nigeria, several kingdoms such as the Oyo Empire, the Fulani Emirates, and the Benin Kingdom already existed in Nigeria, and might have evolved over time as nation states. It was British imperialism that eventually destroyed these empires. Before its independence from British colonial rule in 1960, Nigeria did not exist even as a distinct state, recognised by other foreign states. It was only recognised as a mere British colony, a British dependency that, for all practical purposes, did not have any state identity at all. It was simply part of British West Africa, the Southern part of which was for a while governed by British colonial representatives from the old Gold Coast. Its acquisition by Britain as a colonial territory was actually accidental. It was the direct consequence of Anglo-French rivalry for trade and free markets in Africa.

    Britain was not really looking at the time for new colonies, or territories in West Africa, but for trade and free markets. In 1861, the British acquired Lagos as a colony after gun boat diplomacy (state terrorism). But in 1865, the report of a parliamentary select committee of the British House of Commons had advised against any further acquisition of colonial territory in West Africa. The old Gold Coast (now Ghana) and Sierra Leone had already been acquired as British colonies. This report was accepted by the British government and dampened imperialist impulses for a while. But by 1885, the informal sway exercised by British merchants in the delta area, which led to Jaja of Opobo being exiled from the delta area by the British Consul, had been formalised at the 1885 Berlin Congress that simply divided Africa as spheres of influence of Britain, and the other European powers in Africa.

    The Africans were neither present at the Berlin Congress nor even consulted about the manner their territories were divided among the European powers. It was a shameful episode in the history of human civilisation, of which even the European colonisers cannot really be proud. It was just as bad as its precursor, the slave trade. Northern Nigeria was simply handed over as the Niger Coast Protectorate to the Royal Niger Company, a British chartered trading company operating in Nigeria, in much the same way as large parts of British India were handed over to the British East India Company. In 1885, the British had proclaimed a Southern Protectorate in Southern Nigeria after the conclusion of fraudulent and unequal treaties with the Obas there. In 1900, the two protectorates of Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria, as well as the colony of Lagos, were separate entities. As at that point, there were three separate British dependencies in the territory that was later named as Nigeria, by Flora Shaw, the wife of Lord Lugard, and colonial editor of the London Times, with extensive connections in Whitehall.

    Sir Frederick (later Lord) Lugard was to play a key role in Nigeria’s subsequent colonial history. He had originally being brought to Northern Nigeria in 1895 from Uganda for military campaigns by George Goldie of the chartered Royal Niger Company and was the man who conquered Northern Nigeria militarily. Sokoto, the seat of the caliphate, was the last Northern territory conquered by the British in 1903. His military campaign in Northern Nigeria included his famous march to Borgu and the race to Nikki which formed the basis of British claims to Northern Nigeria. It was as a result of his successful military campaign in the North that on January 1, 1900, he was appointed the first British High Commissioner for Northern Nigeria, after the administration of the area by the Royal Niger Company had been brought to an end and a British protectorate formally established there. This was some 15 years after a separate and distinct British protectorate had been established in Southern Nigeria.

    Even then, Britain had no definite plans for the future of its new colony. There was no real debate in the British House of Commons about what to do with its new colony as there was no real enthusiasm among leading British politicians for acquiring new colonies. The emphasis in the British colonial office was on keeping to the barest minimum the cost of administering this vast territory. There was little long range planning in Britain for the future of its new colony. In the event, Nigeria was at first left and ruled in three distinct parts, later reduced to two units, Northern and Southern Nigeria, and in 1912 placed under Sir (later Lord) Lugard as its first British Governor General of colonial Nigeria.

    •To be continued