The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • Can CBN save the naira?

    Can CBN save the naira?

    As in 1985-86, Nigeria is again at loggerheads with the international financial institutions. It is under strong and persistent pressure from the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to devalue its national currency. At a recent meeting of the WB/IMF group in Lima, Peru, a senior official of the IMF was reported as urging Nigeria to devalue its currency promptly ‘as a way of adjusting to the reality of the current (global) economic conditions’. These conditions include the sharp decline in the global price of oil, as well as a fall in the price of non-oil/commodities exports. Specifically, the IMF claimed that exchange rate pressures in Nigeria and other oil producers had been considerable since last year. Nigeria’s oil exports and revenues have fallen considerably, while the high demand for foreign exchange in Nigeria has continued to exert considerable pressure on the exchange rate of the naira. In other words, while earnings from oil and non-oil exports have in the past year declined by over 70 per cent, the demand for foreign exchange to finance Nigeria’s huge import bills has not fallen. Because of Nigeria’s high import dependency, there is a supply/demand gap in foreign currencies that is putting pressure on the naira exchange rate. There was also some reference by the WB/IMF to ‘uncertainties in Nigeria’ abroad about the May elections and the policy direction of the new Federal Government regarding urgent policy reforms. These were claimed by the WB/IMF as additional factors that have led to pressures on the naira. Very few will dispute this claim.

    But the CBN Governor has rejected the calls for the devaluation of the naira. As an alternative to a more flexible exchange rate, the CBN has introduced administrative measures that are intended to limit access to foreign exchange, as well as a ban on some 41 listed import items as a way of reducing the demand for foreign exchange. The CBN Governor has vowed to defend the naira at all costs against any devaluation, adding that it was a question of nationalism. Economic nationalism is good and popular, but it has to be based on the prevailing global economic realities. If it has any potential of hurting the economy, then it should be reviewed. The WB/IMF has dismissed the CBN administrative measures aimed at import restriction as detrimental to the Nigerian economy, as both local and private investors see these measures as very detrimental to their economic activities. There is already considerable concern in the Nigerian business circles over these restrictions as they could lead to a loss of industrial productivity and jobs. Instead of these administrative measures, the WB/IMF are urging the Federal Government and the CBN to permit the naira exchange rate to adjust so as to reduce the demand for more foreign exchange, and to help contain the level of imports that is no longer sustainable in the light of the external shock (the decline in oil revenues) to the Nigerian economy. So far, the CBN has ignored these local and foreign pressures to devalue the naira.

    In all these, it appears that, right now, the Federal Government is in support of the position of the CBN that the current exchange rate of the naira should be maintained at all costs. In effect, for now, President Muhammadu Buhari does not appear to be in favour of any further devaluation in the exchange rate of the naira, despite its volatility. This is not surprising. When he was in power from 1984-85 as a military ruler, Buhari firmly rejected similar calls by the WB/IMF on Nigeria to devalue its currency. Then, as a result of a similar global oil shock and recession, Nigeria faced a severe external shock worse than the current one, with severe balance of payments disequilibria, a huge foreign debt, and lack of foreign credit. Nigeria had drifted into economic chaos during the inept Shagari government which lacked the capacity to effectively tackle the underlying structural problems of the Nigerian economy. Tougher economic measures had become urgent and imperative. The nation was on the verge of total economic and financial collapse. Productivity in the manufacturing companies fell sharply, leading to a rise in unemployment, and long food queues. Nigeria resorted to rationing ‘essential commodities’ as a result of severe import restrictions. The military took advantage of the economic chaos and seized power from the Shagari civilian government.

    In response to the severe economic and financial crises, the new Buhari military regime also resorted to import licensing, trade by barter and counter trade. But all these administrative measures failed to address the underlying structural imbalance in the domestic economy. Buhari rejected the advice of the WB/IMF to introduce a structural adjustment programme (SAP), the highlight of which was the devaluation of the naira, to curb imports and promote non-oil exports. Buhari considered the measures being urged on him as impractical and politically inexpedient, as it could lead to an inflationary spiral in food prices, and other vital imports. In Egypt, similar currency devaluations had led to ‘bread riots’ and instability in the Arab world, a situation that could threaten the survival of his new military regime. He considered the WB/IMF prescription for devaluation as an invitation to suicide and so rejected it.

    But in December, 1985, Babangida replaced Buhari as military ruler. Shortly after, he introduced what he called a ‘home grown’ SAP after a long and heated debate in the country, with the overwhelming majority of the Nigerian public rejecting any devaluation of the naira. But courageously, he pushed through the tough economic and financial reforms that the situation called for, including the massive devaluation of the naira. The reforms soon paid off. Imports fell and non-oil exports expanded considerably. Nigeria returned to fiscal balance and balance of payments equilibrium. New foreign credits were extended to Nigeria, the food queues ended and the economy recorded a modest growth. Of course, the global rise in oil prices assisted the process of economic recovery, but the exchange rate adjustment introduced at the time by the Babangida regime and the CBN made this recovery possible. Had he not taken those urgent and necessary monetary and fiscal measures, particularly the devaluation of the naira, Nigeria’s economic crisis would have worsened. Of course, Babangida later abandoned some of these effective economic and financial measures for reasons of political expediency. This soon undermined the modest economic recovery achieved during his regime.

    Right now, we are at a similar crossroads as in 1985-86 when the issue of the adjustment of the exchange rate of the naira evoked very strong negative response from the government and the Nigerian public. Again, the CBN has rejected all calls for a downward adjustment of the naira. But can it really save the naira from further devaluation? Will its administrative measures to restrict imports restore stability in the naira exchange rate? I consider this unlikely. Right now, the official exchange rate of the naira to the US$ is about N200 to 1, while at the parallel market, the exchange rate is N238 to the US dollar. This is a clear indication that the naira is overvalued. One indicator of overvaluation of a currency is the difference between the official nominal exchange rate and the parallel market exchange rate. The parallel exchange rate is probably nearer the net effective exchange rate than the official rate. The rate in the parallel market will drag the official rate down until there is an equilibrium in exchange rate. One possible cause of the probable overvaluation of the naira is the rising inflation rate that now stands at nearly 10 per cent, the result of the expansionary policy of the Federal Government in recent years.  So, the issue of devaluation is not simply a question of nationalism or patriotism. It has more to do with the global recession, the fall in the value of our exports, and the failure caused by our inconsistent and tepid economic reforms over the years to diversify the economic base. Nigeria’s domestic economy is not yet mature. Growth is still fragile as it depends mainly on oil exports. This situation makes it difficult for the Nigerian economy to successfully withstand the external shocks we have now had for a year. Market conditions are not always perfect. They can be easily manipulated by financial speculators. And devaluation is not always the answer to external shocks of the kind now facing Nigeria. But any alternative offered by the financial authorities must be effective, sustainable and credible. Administrative restrictions lack these qualities.

    To save the naira from further devaluation, oil exports and revenues need to rise significantly. The short term prospects for this are not encouraging. Commodities’ prices are also falling, and do not offer Nigeria any real alternatives. Nigeria’s foreign reserves now stand at less than US$30b, enough only for four to six months’ imports. The SWF of US$1b has been depleted by US$700m to meet domestic deficits, leaving a paltry balance of US$300m. Our foreign debt is growing, exports are falling and there is a rising demand for foreign exchange from the manufacturing sector. The volatility of the naira exchange rate is leading to capital flight and a disincentive to both local and foreign investment in the economy. Planning in industry is made more difficult by the volatility in the exchange rate of the naira. Foreign investors will be looking to other countries with financial stability, particularly in respect of exchange rates. In the circumstances, it will be tough for the CBN to maintain the current official exchange rate of the naira.

    Of course, the World Bank and the IMF are sometimes wrong when they urge devaluation on developing countries facing external shocks, irrespective of their respective situation. Some countries need it, while others do not. And the decision to undertake the necessary exchange rate adjustment is not simply a question of patriotism or nationalism. Even China, the second largest and fastest growing economy in the world, has had to devalue its national currency by nearly 30 per cent to boost its exports. The result has been positive. This year, China’s economy will still grow by nearly 7 per cent, while Nigeria’s growth rate will fall from nearly 7 per cent to only 2.5 per cent. Actually the US wanted China to revalue its currency. Instead, it devalued it to promote its exports. Many of the advanced industrial countries have also had to devalue their currencies at one time or the other. In 1966 the British Labour government devalued the pound sterling when it needed to borrow from the World Bank and the IMF. Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Mexico are some of the BRIC countries that have had to devalue their currencies in recent years to cope with external shocks to their economies. Most African countries, including Ghana, Zimbabwe and Tanzania have had to devalue their currencies in the past year. If it devalues Nigeria will not be the only African country to do so. And it is always better to devalue early than later under stronger international pressure and much tougher economic reforms that can lead to social and economic instability in the country.

    So, if it decides to devalue the naira, Nigeria will not be an exception as it is simply a matter of adjusting to external shocks. If we do not devalue now, then we will have to take additional economic and financial reform measures, as tough as those of the Babangida years. These will still have to include the devaluation of the naira. Such reforms will have to include a review of the existing oil subsidy which cannot be sustained financially for much longer. Major reforms will also have to be undertaken in our oil sector to eliminate the vast corruption and oil theft there. The cost of government will have to be cut considerably. As long as the reform measures are socially fair and transparent, they will be accepted by the Nigerian public. Smuggling of imports into Nigeria through our porous land and sea borders will make nonsense of the present strategy of import controls. Unless there is a significant recovery soon in our oil exports and revenues, I believe that Nigeria will be forced to devalue its currency, the naira, before too long. In fact, by the second half of next year the dollar exchange rate could be as high as N300. An early and modest devaluation of the naira will be in the overall economic interest of our country.

  • How really bad is public corruption in Nigeria?

    How really bad is public corruption in Nigeria?

    This article by me on public corruption in our country was first published in this column sometime in March 2014. President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was then in power. But he was swept out of power in May by the electorate in reaction to the vast corruption in his government. President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the presidential election because the electorate were fed up with the corruption-infested PDP Federal Government. He has vowed to tackle this festering problem that has brought our country to its knees. We must hold him to his promise to save our nation from descending into utter chaos and deeper mass poverty.

      The article is being published again, unedited, to remind the new APC Federal Government of its promise to the nation to wipe out public corruption in our country. President Buhari must start with the NNPC, the publicly-owned corporate behemoth that has sapped the energy of the country, with its unbridled and extensive corruption. In fact, I think the country will be better off if the NNPC is scrapped altogether. We do not need it. The recent arrest of the former Petroleum Minister, Mrs. Diezani Alison- Madueke, in London, for money laundering shows the enormity of the challenge in the oil sector. The funds allegedly laundered, over US$20 billion, or N4tr, are about the size of the annual budget of the Federal Government. Lose money and lose financial controls in the NNPC made this vast financial sleuth possible. The NNPC is a massive conduit tap, the main source of public corruption in our country. It is so big that it cannot be successfully reformed. I am convinced that, before too long, it will be laid to rest by a future government.

    There is growing and justified local and international concern about public corruption in Nigeria. But how deep is corruption in the country? Most Nigerians, including public officials, who are at the centre of corruption in the country, know it is pervasive and that, to a large extent, it is directly responsible for poor service delivery and mass poverty in Nigeria. Public corruption polarises the state and constrains economic growth. But President Jonathan pretends it is not all that bad. While addressing the Nigerian community recently in far away Namibia, he said media reports about corruption in Nigeria were exaggerated, and that his government was tackling it. The Nigerian community in Namibia will not believe him. It has easy access to the Internet and is well informed. Most of our nationals President Jonathan met in Namibia left Nigeria in the first place to escape the crushing poverty at home, brought about by mass corruption in Nigeria. In fact, President Jonathan’s rebuttal of the full extent of public corruption in Nigeria was in direct response to the damning comments by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the week before, about widespread corruption in Nigeria.

    The Nigerian public too will find President Jonathan’s denial of the full extent of corruption in Nigeria bemusing, if not downright irritating. Internationally, Nigeria is notorious for its massive corruption. The global anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, has, in its annual reports, consistently ranked Nigeria among the lowest in the global country league of transparency. It is estimated by respected financial experts that corruption accounts for over 40 per cent of public expenditure in Nigeria. Vital public projects cannot be completed because of official corruption. All branches of the government are hugely corrupt. Of three high court judges recently sacked, one, a female, owned over 20 properties and other assets. If it were not for its vast oil resources, very few foreign investors will seek to do business in Nigeria where, because of public corruption, the cost of doing business is one of the highest in the world. As Mr. Yakubu, head of the NNPC, confirmed last week, even the international oil majors, the biggest investors in Nigeria, are getting less enthusiastic about making further investments in the Nigerian oil sector. They see Angola, which is less corrupt, as a better investment destination than Nigeria.

    The fact is that, on a daily basis, Nigerians are made to live with horrendous massive corruption in all facets of their lives, ranging from the corrupt police, the pensions scam, to the petty and corrupt local and state government officials. Issuance of official licences, permits, approvals for land and property development require the payment of bribes to public officials. Houses and markets built by the state for the poor are corruptly snatched from them and sold to the rich. President Jonathan cannot pretend not to know this. The Grandmaster of this cesspool of corruption is the Federal Government, the biggest spender and controller of the largest financial resources in the country. It is at the centre that corruption takes place on a scale that cannot even be imagined by the Nigerian public. Public corruption in Nigeria was rife before President Jonathan came to power. But it has since grown worse during his tenure as President. It is now systemic, and the President appears unwilling, or unable, for reasons of political expediency, to tackle it effectively. Recently, the Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was reported as saying that Nigeria’s vast oil resources had become a curse to the nation. She was badly misunderstood and sharply criticised for her comments. But she was right. If we did not have so much oil, we would be compelled to manage our resources better, like other African countries, such as Botswana that are not so richly endowed with natural resources. Nigeria would be less corrupt. The truth is that our oil wealth has fuelled corruption in the country. It has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. It has polarised our nation.

    A few days after President Jonathan downplayed the extent of corruption in Nigeria, there was a stampede in Abuja and other cities in Nigeria over recruitment by the Immigration Services. Nineteen people died in the stampede. But as it turned out, the recruitment exercise was unauthorised by the Board of the Immigration Services. The candidates, over 700, 000 of them, were made to pay N5,000 each as so-called ‘processing fees’ for 4,000 jobs that did not exist or, if they existed, had already been filled by the same authorities that advertised those jobs, and stood to make N3.5 billion, or more, from the fatal recruitment exercise. The collection of N5, 000 as ‘processing fees’ by a consulting firm was plainly illegal and fraudulent. Application for recruitment into the civil service is free. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Alhaji Abba Moro, who masterminded the massive and fatal fraud of which he would have been a beneficiary, was aware of this. But he has neither resigned as minister, nor has he been fired by President Jonathan. He was not even remorseful over the loss of 19 innocent lives during the Immigration recruitment exercise, which he blamed on the victims. How callous can Nigerian officials be? It is the impunity with which public officials are treated that accounts for their brazen corruption.

    As I write this, the riddle over the missing $20 billion oil revenue, which is more than the annual budgets of most African countries, remains unresolved, with both the Federal Ministry of Finance and the NNPC blaming each other and trying desperately to cover up the massive financial leakage and fraud involved. It will probably be swept under the carpet by the authorities in the end, after a perfunctory and inconclusive investigation. Instead of fully probing the allegation the whistleblower, Lamido Sanusi, the loquacious former Governor of the CBN, has been effectively fired by the President. Sanusi has since claimed that the charge of ‘financial recklessness and mismanagement’ made against him by the Financial Reporting Council regarding the intervention funds was baseless, as the President himself had often requested for such interventions by the CBN and had approved them. The President has not denied this and was aware of it as far back as March last year when he first received the FRCN report indicting the Governor of the CBN for ‘financial recklessness’. He waited nearly a whole year before acting on such a scathing report about the sleuth and sleaze in the CBN. Some of the so-called beneficiaries of the intervention funds, a veritable source of massive corruption, have denied receiving from the CBN the funds allegedly donated to them. So, the CBN, the major financial institution in the country, the so-called ‘bank of last resort’, has proved to be a major source of corruption as well. In effect, all major public institutions in Nigeria, including the major financial institutions, are corrupt. The fact of the matter is that very few, if any, public institutions and agencies in Nigeria can stand a vigorous audit of their financial operations. Many of them have not been audited for years.

    Nigeria loses about 20 per cent of its oil production and exports to massive oil bunkering and theft. President Jonathan is fully aware of this, but he appears unwilling or helpless in tackling the problem in spite of the massive loss of revenue involved. The NNPC is known to be a cesspool of massive corruption, but the President is under some inexplicable constraint that makes it difficult for him to tackle the problem headlong. It is as if he is simply overwhelmed by the vast scale of public corruption in the country. How about the Abacha loot, the allegations regarding the private jet of the Minister of  Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison- Madueke, and the prevarications in sacking the former Minister of Aviation, Ms Oduah? How about the fraud and scam discovered in the oil subsidy in which companies that did not even import oil received in 2012 subsidies, unbudgeted for, totalling N1.3 tr. from the Federal Government, or the NNPC? How about the issue of unresolved discrepancies in the funds of the SURE-P which the government has simply swept under the carpet? These are only a few of the reported scams that President Jonathan has refused to tackle expeditiously. In the circumstances, how can he be taken seriously, either here, or abroad, when he says media reports on corruption in Nigeria are exaggerated and that he is fighting it? Where is the evidence that he is doing so, when he has been hesitant to move against public officials facing charges of corruption? Instead, the President has become increasingly hostile to public criticism, threatening that governors of states that criticise him on corruption should not expect federal projects in their states. But he is president of the whole country.

    Now there is talk in official circles of removing the so-called oil subsidy. The Federal Government says it is not sustainable. But the high cost of imported refined oil is also due to the massive fraud in the oil sector. Public resistance to the proposed removal of the oil subsidy is justified in the circumstances. But whatever one’s reservations might be about the oil subsidy, it is better to remove it, once and for all, as it has for long, been another veritable source of massive corruption in the country.  It was not the public that was benefiting from the oil subsidy, but the fraudulent oil importers, and the fat cats in the Ministry of Finance and the NNPC. Let us close this window of massive fraud and scam in the Nigerian oil sector.

    So, Mr. President, public corruption is alive and well in Nigeria. It is, in fact, becoming increasingly acceptable socially. Denial by the President of this fact, known locally and internationally, will not do him or our country any good at all, as it will dent both the image and credibility of our President and the entire country.

  • Proposals for reduction of diplomatic missions

    Proposals for reduction of diplomatic missions

    One of the main challenges facing President Muhammadu Buhari is the urgent need to reduce the overall cost of public administration in the country. This has soared over the years. There is a national consensus that the bureaucracy at all levels of government has become too large and that a reduction in its size and cost has become imperative. The current sharp decline in oil revenues, which have fallen this year alone by over 60 per cent, leaves the governments of the federation with no choice but to begin to think seriously about how these much needed cuts in the cost of public administration can be achieved. President Buhari is well aware of this challenge and has alluded to it publicly several times. But he has not yet taken any practical or concrete steps to address this lingering problem. It is a difficult and painful task, which requires great care and circumspection, particularly at a time of mass unemployment.

    However, there were recent media reports that while being briefed by the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Ministry, Ambassador Lulu, President Buhari expressed his concern about the large number of Nigeria’s diplomatic missions abroad, and the huge number of its overall diplomatic workers.  Ambassador Lulu told the press that the President informed him that he intended doing something to reduce the number of our foreign missions. It is also possible that the overall staffing of the Foreign Ministry itself will form part of the review being proposed.

    There is no doubt that the number of Nigerian diplomatic missions abroad has increased significantly in recent years. At independence in 1960, Nigeria had less than a dozen diplomatic missions, mainly in Africa and Western Europe. In 1964, when I entered the diplomatic service, this had increased to about 30, in response to the need to have diplomatic representation in the newly independent African countries. By 1976 the number of our diplomatic missions had increased to 65. The civil war had ended and the need was felt for more missions to be opened abroad. From 1970 to 1976, over 100 new Foreign Service Officers (FSO) were recruited to staff both the expanded Foreign Ministry and the new diplomatic missions abroad. There was also a surge in oil revenues that made the increase in the number of missions and diplomatic workers possible and sustainable.

    Today, we have 119 diplomatic missions abroad and it is becoming increasingly clear that in our present dire financial situation, it is going to be difficult to sustain such a large number of diplomatic missions and workers. In 1964, the overall cost of our total diplomatic establishment, at home and abroad, was only 33 million pounds sterling. Since then, the cost of running both the MFA and our diplomatic missions has continued to rise inexorably. According to an official document issued by the MFA in 2012, by 2006, the total MFA budget appropriation was N25.2b, of which over N20.2b, or 81 per cent, was spent on running our foreign missions. In 2011, budget appropriation for the MFA had increased to over N40b, with our foreign missions still accounting for over 81 per cent of the overall cost. This is where the major operating cost of the MFA is incurred. Average personnel cost of the MFA is less than N4b. Huge as these figures may appear to be, they account for an average of only one per cent of the total federal budget. In fact, it was only in 2007 that budgetary allocations to the Foreign Service reached 1.34 per cent of the budget of the Federal Government.

    Two issues arise from this analysis. First, is the state spending more on its foreign representation than other public agencies? Relative to other agencies of the Federal Government, can we really say that the cost of running the Foreign Service, with its enormous global responsibilities, is too much. It is by no means clear that is the case, except that most of the cost incurred in running the Foreign Service and our diplomatic missions abroad is in foreign currencies. It is this that leads the public and the government to demand a reduction in appropriations to the MFA.  For example, defence and national security take an average of 10 per cent of the budget annually, education about seven  per cent, home administration over 12 per cent. So in real and comparative terms, the overall cost to the nation of its Foreign Service is not as high as it seems. The second issue regarding costs is where the cuts, if necessary, are to be made. Is it in the cost of personnel or the number and size of our diplomatic missions abroad? I raise these questions because previous efforts to cut the cost of running the Foreign Service have on the whole focused on the senior staff of the MFA rather than on the large number of our foreign missions, which account for over 80 per cent of the overall cost of running the Foreign Service. As a matter of fact, in 1976 and 1984 when there were purges in the Foreign Service, more diplomatic missions were opened after. This showed that the purges were political and not motivated by any demonstrable need for cost reduction. Only a few years ago, a new diplomatic mission was opened in Juba, South Sudan, and our embassies in Caracas, Belgrade, the Vatican and Prague, which had been previously closed, were all reopened. Even the MFA complained officially about these inconsistencies in the manner our missions are opened, only to be closed later for lack of funding.

    The fact of the matter, often ignored by the government and the public, is that some of Nigeria’s diplomatic missions were opened to accommodate failed politicians and hacks who demand diplomatic postings as compensation from the government. Of Nigeria’s 119 diplomatic missions, about 60 have non-career ambassadors. But only a handful can be said to have what it takes to be a good ambassador. Many of them go abroad to serve themselves and not the nation. A few years ago when I visited Argentina and called on our embassy in Buenos Aires, I met a junior staff there who told me the Ambassador had been absent from his post for over three months. Again when I served in Ankara, Turkey, in 1975, with concurrent accreditation to Iran, I could not understand the reason for having our diplomatic mission in Ankara at the time. Subsequently, I learnt that the two missions were opened to accommodate Brigadier Kurubo. When I went to Teheran, I discovered that Kurubo was not even known in the Foreign Ministry. Our Mission in Teheran was being run by a junior attaché who had not been paid for six months. I duly recommended that one of the two embassies be closed as our residual interest there in those days did not warrant us opening full-fledged embassies there. In fact, I requested a posting back to Lagos after only a year in Ankara.

    Many critics of our foreign representation have pointed out to the lack of resources in running our missions abroad. This is, in fact, the critical issue. For lack of funds most of our missions cannot be run properly and professionally. The Foreign Service is costly and cannot be run on shoe strings as is the case now. For instance, the total MFA budget in 2009 was only US$306 million. South Africa’s budget was US $702 million. In 2010, while Nigeria’s Foreign Service budget fell to $232 million, South Africa’s was US$634. In 2012, our MFA budget was only US$317 million that of South Africa was US$720 million. Yet, South Africa’s GDP is only a third of Nigeria’s. As acknowledged by the MFA publication of 2012, ‘Our diplomatic missions continue to suffer needless and painful embarrassments arising from  disconnection of utility services, ejection of staff from rented apartments, ejection of children from schools for failure to pay school fees and arrears of salaries of the diplomatic and other staff’. In 1989, after verification, the Federal Government settled an accumulated debt of $100 in our diplomatic missions. In 2005, a similar exercise took place with the missions being bailed out again.

    It is up to the government to determine how many diplomatic missions our country should have. A preponderant number of these diplomatic missions are in Africa, our primary area of strategic and political interest. It will be difficult to close any of them. The number and size of our diplomatic missions should reflect the government’s foreign policy objectives and strategies. Nigeria’s global responsibilities and obligations have continued to increase. Yet, in our present challenging financial situation, with oil revenue falling steadily, and the  GDP growth rate projected to decline this year to roughly 2.5 per cent, it is obvious that something concrete and urgent must be done to reduce the cost of governance. As far as MFA is concerned, it is now inevitable, though regrettable, that the number of our foreign missions should be reduced. But it is going to be a difficult exercise. We have over 125 foreign diplomatic missions in Abuja. Exchange of embassies and ambassadors is reciprocal. Foreign countries from which we withdraw our embassies will not take kindly to it. They will almost certainly retaliate by closing their own diplomatic missions too.

  • The tragedy in Syria

    The tragedy in Syria

    The tragedy of the civil war and horror in Syria has continued unabated. Last week, the picture of a three-year-old Syrian boy, found dead and lying face down on a Turkish beach, went viral. It was shocking and heartbreaking. His father had been trying to take his family out of Syria in a dinghy boat to Greece, en route hopefully to Canada to seek a better future for them there. It was his third attempt to flee Syria. The family had applied for a Canadian visa and was hoping to join a relation there from Greece. But no Canadian visas were granted them. Desperate, the family decided to leave Syria at all costs. The venture ended in a complete disaster as the overcrowded dinghy in which they were sailing to Greece sank. The three-year-old toddler was buried last Friday in Syria from which he and his family had fled. Also reported dead along with the little boy were his mother and older brother aged five.

    Tears welled in my eyes as I watched the horrifying tragedy on CNN, the American global news network. I could not bear to continue watching this incredible horror and switched my TV off the whole day. I am still saddened by the image of that innocent little boy lying face down dead with his clothes and shoes on. His body had been washed off by the sea ending on the beach. That image will be etched in my memory for ever. It highlighted with greater poignancy the tragedy of the civil war in Syria and its human sufferings. It should stir the conscience of the world to do something concrete to end the civil war in Syria. Even the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, was moved to angrily and bitterly denounce this inhumanity to man caused by the civil war in Syria. It reminds one of the Nazi concentration camps in Germany and Poland during World War II in which millions of Jews were gassed to death and the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

    But that horror was only the latest in the long drama and tragedy of the civil war that has been going on in Syria for over four years, with no end in sight. Syrian families are being torn apart daily with millions of Syrians seeking refuge and safety abroad. There are now millions of Syrian refugees in the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, imposing a crushing burden on these countries. Most of these refugees are children and the aged. The children can no longer go to school. The conditions in which they live in these countries that have offered them a refuge are pitiable and almost indescribable. In most cases they have no water or food in their makeshift refugee camps. Many have taken to begging on the streets for alms.

    We have seen on TV in recent weeks how these Syrian and other migrants have tried desperately and unsuccessfully to cross over to Western Europe after a long and difficult trek for days from Syria. In most cases they have met in varying degrees with hostility and opposition from the European countries. Italy has been supportive, while France and Germany have shown some understanding of the plight of these Syrian and other migrants. Britain is less compromising and has continued to shut its doors to these desperate and hopeless migrants. Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK was reported as saying that, accepting migrants into Europe was not the solution and that the origins of the crisis lay in Syria and other countries from which the migrants are fleeing. While the EU countries laud the increasing global economic integration from which they profit, they are less willing to accept the idea of a global cultural integration, which is ultimately inevitable as it is a component of the global economic integration. They should show more compassion and do more to offer these migrants and refugees some hope of a better future

    It may be true that it is the Arab spring and the collapse of many states in the Arab world, particularly in Syria, that is directly responsible for these mass migrations from the Arab world. But the Western powers cannot totally absolve themselves from some blame over the continuing crises in the Arab world. It started with the Anglo American invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Sadam Hussein, its President, from power. The excuse given then was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the end this claim proved to be due to false intelligence information. The ouster of Sadam Hussein from power in Iraq removed a stabilizing force and a source of stability in the region, which sparked of a revolution of some sorts in the Arab world. The Americans could not quite hold the place. It was too costly and wisely President Obama decided to pull out American troops from Iraq, as he did from Afghanistan. The attempt of the Western powers to create client states in the Arab world failed and it is the consequences of this failure that we are now seeing in the Arab world, including the migrations to Europe. Deplorable as the ISIS insurgency is, it has to be understood in the context of the rejection by the Arab world of western domination and influence in the region for over a century. It is a deliberate and irreversible revolt against foreign cultural and religious influences in the Arab world.

    We now have a bizarre and paradoxical situation, a convergence of interests that has led to a western military coalition joining President Assad of Syria to fight ISIS in the region, with Saudi Arabia also joining in the fray. Iran, the long time friend of Assad of Syria and the bitter enemy of America and Saudi Arabia, also finds itself joining the US-led military coalition to fight the ISIS in what is now looking increasingly to the US like a military quagmire with no end in sight. The use of force and foreign intervention will not end the conflict in Syria. There must be a resort to high level diplomacy by the major powers and President Assad of Syria.

    To end the Syrian crisis and bring the civil war there to an end, it is imperative to stop foreign meddling in the affairs of the Arab World. Whatever foreign powers may perceive as their national interests in the region, these will not be achieved by open intervention in the internal affairs of these countries. The emergence of ISIS is just the symptom of a much deeper malaise, the open and inevitable rebellion against foreign cultural influences and the presence of foreign military forces in the Arab world. African leaders should learn from the Syrian experience and guard their countries’ independence  more jealously.

    As for the migrants’ crisis the EU countries should, on humanitarian grounds, be persuaded to accept more refugees from Syria and other parts of the Arab world. The UN should play a greater role in this regard. Since World War II and the gassing of Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany, the world has become a global village. We can no longer hide or pretend to be unaware of the plight of these migrants, or abandon our moral responsibilities to them.

  • On the Abuja Centenary Legacy City Project

    On the Abuja Centenary Legacy City Project

    It is the season of daily media reports about shocking frauds, financial scams and massive corruption in Nigeria, uncovered since the change of government in May. Last week, the public was jolted by a claim from a Mr. Cairo Ojougboh, a little known public figure, though the former chairman of the Nigerian (Free) Export Processing Zone Authority (NEPZA), that due process was not followed by the Centenary City PLC in acquiring a large chunk of land for developing its proposed Legacy Centenary City project in Abuja.

    Specifically, he named the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Pius Anyim, as being behind the project and claimed that he had abused his office as the SGF in improperly securing the land for the project, as well as in getting the approval of the authorities of the FCT (Federal Capital Territory) for the entire project estimated to cost over US$18 billion. In response, the sponsors of the project claimed that it is a PPP project, and that it is being funded by contributions from 15 developers from the USA, the UAE, and some Nigerians. So far, none of the shareholders has been publicly named or identified either by Mr. Ojougboh, or the Centenary City PLC.

     I was, at first, quite sceptical of Mr. Ojougboh’s allegations against Senator Anyim on this matter. I just could not believe it is possible, even with our famed public corruption that such a heist as the Legacy City Project could be pulled off by a public officer, no matter how powerful he is. But now, I have just read an advertorial placed on page 44 of this paper on Monday, August 24, by the management of Centenary City PLC, the sponsors of the so-called Abuja City Centenary Legacy Project. It was their first public attempt to fully refute any allegations of wrongdoing by either the Centenary City PLC, or by Senator Anyim, as claimed by Mr. Ojougboh over the project. I should say I was almost persuaded by the strong case made in its own defence and of the project by the management of the Centenary City PLC. Their defence basically is that this is a public and private sector project, that due process was followed in acquiring the land from the FCT, that no public funds were involved in any way in the project, and that it was in the public interest. But, even if these claims by the sponsors are true, there are a lot of ethical and moral issues raised by the manner in which the project was conceived. These moral issues are quite disturbing and require further reflections on the whole matter.

     Is it morally justified that such a large chunk of valuable land in Abuja, the nation’s capital, should have been handed over, for whatever reasons, to so-called private developers? Can this be validly held to be in the national interest? Is this not a case, again, of the rich, whether Nigerians, or foreigners, grabbing potentially valuable land from the poor for the benefit of the rich, a regrettable and disturbing trend that is growing in our country, and that should be of public concern?

     I had, last year, written extensively in my column in this paper criticising the idea of an elaborate celebration of the centenary, an event in Nigeria’s history that is best forgotten. If the Federal Government decided, despite strong and widespread public criticism, on marking the centenary of Lugard’s amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914, why was the idea of the so-called Legacy City preferred to other options that could have been more beneficial to the nation? Even if it is a private sector initiative, are there not many other sectors of the economy, particularly energy and public transportation, crying for investment that would have been more beneficial to the public? Was the idea of an Abuja Legacy City, with its planned huge financial investments, not preferred to others because it offered people in power, such as Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, the former SGF, who claims to have coordinated the celebrations, ample opportunity for graft? Who were those behind the decision to build the Legacy City? And why should such a large chunk of land in Abuja, a national asset, be handed over to a so-called private company for the development of an exclusive city, the social benefit of which is not so apparent? And who are the shadowy members of the Board of this secretive company? Why can’t the sponsors of the project reveal their identities? It is a matter of public interest. The public is entitled to know who are behind it all. We need to know those who made the cash calls from which N1.2 billion was allegedly raised to compensate the original owners of the land, as well as the US$18 billion proposed for the project. And was the compensation offered to the indigenous owners of the land in question reasonable, prompt and adequate? How much was paid to the FCT for the land in question? These are legitimate questions begging for answers.

      We are reminded of a similar land grab by Jonathan, the former President, near the airports in Abuja that was originally intended for the development of the aviation industry in Abuja. Is this not a replication of the failure of judgment by Jonathan in the land grab that caused such a public furore in the country? And did Jonathan not feel obliged to turn a blind eye to the deal because of his own Abuja land grab? The fact of the matter is that such a land grab of a valuable national asset in the nation’s capital, or anywhere else for that matter, is outrageous and should, in no circumstances, be tolerated or accepted by the public. I find it morally repugnant as it is not in the public interest. Even if it is fully and finally developed, which I doubt in present circumstances, it is bound to be socially divisive as questions will continue to be asked in future about its ethical and moral perspectives. If the sponsors of the project decide not to go ahead with it for financial and other reasons, who takes over their assets including the Abuja land? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Secondly, the man at the centre of the project, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, admits that he coordinated activities marking the centenary celebrations, including the Legacy City Project. Why should he have been given such wide powers by the Jonathan PDP federal government? Was he solely in charge of the Legacy Project, or were other ministers involved in the transactions? Were the federal Attorney-General, Finance Minister and the Minister of Trade and Investments asked for advice on such a massive project? If they were not, then there is something fundamentally remiss about the manner in which the project was conceived and executed. In fact, in view of its national importance and possible negative physical effect on Abuja, such a project should not have been conceived and approved without a referendum, as would have been the case in other civilised climes. Abuja is our collective national patrimony. Any departure from its original master plan should be thoroughly debated first before any alteration to it. The big, rich land grabbers have already succeeded in distorting and changing the Abuja master plan. It is now over built and no longer the beautiful city it was supposed to be. Clusters of slums are now growing around Abuja. Those who support Anyim in this matter will argue that he acted in good faith even if his judgment and his role in the sordid matter can be called into question. But this can only be established by a thorough investigation into the manner such a vast track of land was acquired by private individuals in our capital city where there will soon be an acute shortage of land.

    The Eko Atlantic City in Lagos with which it is being wrongly compared by its sponsors is totally different from the Abuja Legacy City. First, most of the land in respect of the Atlantic City is land reclaimed by its sponsors from the sea. A lot of investment went into that venture. What investment have the sponsors of the Abuja Legacy City made in the Abuja land they have grabbed? Besides, unlike the Eko City project, the Abuja land grabbed for the proposed Legacy City is a national asset. This and Jonathan’s land grab in Abuja should be thoroughly investigated and the land grabbed should be revoked and recovered from them. We cannot afford to have people placed in a position of trust and responsibility, such as the SGF, grabbing public land, or aiding other private individuals to do so. It is clearly an abuse of trust and power about which President Buhari should do something.

    Over the years, the position of the SGF has become too powerful. That was not the case when civil servants, with all their faults, held the post which, for a long time, was held along with the post of Head of the Federal Civil Service. For all practical purposes, the SGF is now like an unelected prime minister, more powerful than the ministers. It is he who coordinates the activities of all the ministers, many of whom are denied direct access to the President, as all important official documents pass through him. I believe it is time to review the position and powers of the SGF so as to avoid its abuse as in this land grab case. As is becoming clearer with recent revelations, ex-President Jonathan did not really know much about what was happening in his government. He only saw and heard what his ministers and the SGF wanted him to know. This does not exonerate him from ultimate responsibility for the chaotic financial situation he left behind in the country. But he was not really on top of his government the way Obasanjo would have been. Despite his many faults, President Obasanjo would almost certainly not have endorsed the idea of a Legacy City of the kind planned for Abuja.

  • Buhari’s visit to Washington

    Buhari’s visit to Washington

    Last week, President Muhammadu Buhari concluded a four-day official visit to Washington at the invitation of President Barack Obama. The official visit, the first in recent years by a Nigerian leader, was hailed by the Nigerian media as a huge success. The day after the visit, the World Bank (IFC) announced a soft loan of US2.1billion to Nigeria for the reconstruction of the war ravaged Northeast of Nigeria. The timing of the WB loan was politically-significant, as it was probably already in the pipeline before the president’s visit to Washington. The high point of the visit was the private discussion between the two leaders, which focused on global terrorism (Boko Haram) and the widespread public corruption in Nigeria, over which there is much global concern. President Buhari also addressed the US business community in Washington, as well as some of the over 300,000 Nigerians in diaspora in the US.

    Expectations here about the possible benefits of the visit are quite high. The Nigerian public is upbeat that President Buhari’s visit to Washington will mark a turning point in bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. President Obama promised that the US will assist Nigeria recover its stolen money laundered in the US. But in Washington there was probably less euphoria about the possible outcome of the visit. While American diplomats in Nigeria and a lot of American scholars have been profuse in their expression of goodwill and friendship towards Nigeria, it is by no means certain how much of this feeling is shared by the American establishment that has grown weary of Nigeria’s serial failure. President Obama has visited some African countries. but to show his displeasure, he has not yet visited Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa. In recent years, relations between the two countries have been somewhat strained over a variety of issues. US officials have publicly rebuked Nigeria for the alleged human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the fight against the Boko Haram insurgents. Pleading a Congressional law against countries with a record of human rights abuses, the Obama government has refused arms supplies and sale to Nigeria. From the Nigerian perspective, this has made the prosecution of the war against the insurgency more difficult. Supply of American attack helicopters to Nigeria is vital for the success of the war against the insurgency. The US has withheld this. President Buhari has promised to address this American complaint regarding human rights abuses in Nigeria.

      Of course, the Nigerian military and security forces should be more professional and humane in their military offensive against the BH insurgents, despite the latter’s savagery. There is some evidence that the Nigerian military have often been brutal in dealing with non-combatants in the war, detaining and even shooting some unarmed civilians. This is wrong. It is bound to be counterproductive as it alienates the local civilian population and drives them into the arms of the BH insurgents. However, it is, perhaps, necessary to remind the US about the savage manner its armed forces conducted its war in Vietnam, which stirred the conscience of the world. There has also been international concern over the inhumane manner detainees in the US military base in Guantanamo in Cuba are being treated. Nor is Israel, America’s strategic ally in the Middle East, being denied US arms supplies despite the savagery of the Israeli Defence Forces in its past military operations in Palestine and Lebanon. The Jonathan government responded to these double standards by actually asking the US to withdraw its military training team from Nigeria, a rebuff which the US resented deeply. By the time the Jonathan PDP government was ousted from power in May, military collaboration between the two countries had virtually ceased.

     In addition, persistent and strong condemnation by the Obama US government of widespread and increasing corruption in Nigeria, though justified, was openly resented by the Jonathan PDP government as undermining its moral authority in Nigeria. The US played no role in the defeat of Jonathan in the presidential election, but there can be little or no doubt that it was happy to see that government go. Under Jonathan, relations with the US were so strained that only a new government could repair the damage. The situation presents the Buhari government and the Obama US administration with new opportunities to take the first tentative steps towards normalising relations between their two countries.

      However, there is no point in being starry eyed about bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. The situation calls for a measure of realism on both sides. Over the years, relations between the two countries have moved like a roller coaster, with periods of cordiality between them, followed quickly by short spells of policy differences and open hostility. On the Nigerian side, the refusal of the US to sell arms to Nigeria during its civil war was considered an unfriendly act by a country that Nigeria considered a friend and ally. In fact, President Nixon had to be restrained by the Harold Wilson British Labour government from recognising the secessionist state. This created a deep mistrust in Nigeria about the attitude of the US towards Nigeria. Then, again in 1975, or thereabouts, after the hurried withdrawal of Portugal from Angola, the Nigerian military leaders were irritated by the diplomatic but ungainly pressure by the US on Nigeria to recognise the Western backed FLNA movement as the new government in Angola, instead of the MPLA, which was backed by the progressive African states. In response, the Nigerian military leader, Murtala Mohammed, warned the US that ‘Africa has come of age’ and should not be dictated to by foreign powers. This rebuff, and the nationalisation of British Petroleum holdings in Nigeria in 1976 by the Obasanjo military regime, angered the US and removed any illusions it may have had that, if necessary, Nigeria would not hesitate to oppose US policy in Africa and act in its own perceived national interest. One American analyst described Nigeria’s response to the post-colonial situation in Africa as ‘muscular’, a remark which shows a misunderstanding of Nigeria’s African policy, particularly on the process of decolonisation in Africa. Very few American policy makers really understand that, in spite of its internal contradictions, Nigeria is fiercely independent, that it does not like being treated as a ‘client state’, and is resentful of any heavy-handed external pressures.

     In addition, the US has not been consistent in its opposition to military rule in Nigeria.  It tended initially to maintain an attitude of benign indifference to military regimes in Nigeria, but it limited military assistance to Nigeria to training its ECOWAS forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In 2003, total US military assistance to Nigeria was only US$7m. It was only in recent years, after the excesses of the brutal Abacha military regime in Nigeria, and the return to civil rule, that relations with the US began to improve. The US began to accept that its overarching national interest in Nigeria and, indeed, Africa, is in promoting democracy, and offering support for the development of physical and social infrastructure in Nigeria. It provided annually some $7 million to pro-democracy organisations in Nigeria during the Abacha regime to strengthen the struggle against military rule in Nigeria. America’s hope is that stronger Nigeria-US relations would impact more positively on the growth of democracy, stability, and prosperity in Africa. In this regard, there is a mutuality of interests between the two countries which, in recent years, and from the perspectives of the US, has been brought to the fore by the increasing role and expansion of Chinese influence in Africa. The US is concerned about this development which has the potential of reducing America’s considerable political, strategic, and economic power in Africa. It is in this light that recent renewed US interest in Nigeria and Africa should be viewed.

     As far as bilateral economic relations are concerned, the US, under President Bush, gave Nigeria considerable financial assistance to fight the HIV/AID scourge, including a substantial financial grant in 2003. The US financial contribution made a substantial difference to the success of reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence in Nigeria. There is also the US sponsored African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) which is supposed to promote African exports to the US market. In 2000, Nigeria was among the top 10 exporters to US. But this programme has not made much economic impact in Nigeria as, under AGOA, African exporters are still constrained by quantitative and qualitative restrictions. The US has virtually ceased to import oil from Nigeria. It is now a major oil producer and exporter. China and India have replaced the US as the largest oil importers from Nigeria. Nigeria is also one of the largest importers of wheat from the US. President Obama has committed his government to assisting Nigeria and other African countries with solar energy, badly needed, particularly in Northern Nigeria where electricity supply is much lower than the national average. But Nigeria cannot expect from the US any significant financial assistance. ODA flows from the US to Nigeria have averaged annually less than US$100m in the last decade. Before then, it was even lower, averaging less than US$30m. In contrast, ODA from the UK in 2006 was US$1,031m as against the ODA from the US of only US$167. ODA from the EU in the period was US$248m.

    It is important for the two countries to strengthen their bilateral relations in areas where they can both identify a mutuality of interests, such as in security and economic cooperation. But while the US can make a contribution towards securing the much-needed change in Nigeria, it is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders to take the initiative by introducing domestic measures that will propel the country forward and redirect Nigeria’s economic strategy and development in a more progressive way, The US, on its own efforts alone, cannot secure Nigeria. It cannot end corruption here. This is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders.

  • Federal bailout of insolvent states

    Federal bailout of insolvent states

    Last week, President Muhammadu Buhari handed the insolvent state governments a financial bailout of N713.7b. The financial package was reported as consisting of accruals from the LNG (N413.7b), a special CBN intervention fund of between N250b andN300b, and the rescheduling with federal assistance of the states’ outstanding bank loans.

    In addition, the sum of $1.7b from the ECA was shared among the three tiers of government. But it was stated that this was not a part of the bailout package offered the insolvent states by the Federal Government. Some 24 or more state governments owing their workers salary arrears of seven months or more will share this federal largesse. This generous financial bailout is almost unprecedented in the annals of public finance in Nigeria. It should be regarded as exceptional. It would be wrong of the states to draw the conclusion from this bailout that such measures can be repeated in future. Even if this was possible, it negates the constitutional principle of federalism in which all states, including the federal, are coordinates. It reinforces the existing tendency of the states becoming increasingly dependent financially on the centre. This is bad for federalism.

    The financial relief measures provided the insolvent states with an immediate lifeline and temporary relief. They were widely welcomed in informed financial circles all over the country as necessary and timely. The finances of the insolvent states had collapsed once the oil revenue started falling. Even the few relatively solvent states stood in danger of being dragged down by the insolvent states. The package will immediately help the insolvent states to meet their wage and other financial obligations to their workers. The finances of the Federal Government too were so bad that it too needed a bailout. Before leaving office in May, the previous PDP Federal Government had borrowed over N400 billion from the CBN to meet its immediate financial obligations to its workers. This is half of what it needs to borrow from the CBN in this fiscal year. In some cases federal workers and pensioners had not been paid for upwards of four months, leading President Buhari to complain bitterly that his new government met an empty treasury. Certainly, federal finances were just as bad as those of the insolvent state governments. Many vital federal projects have had to be put on hold as a result of the poor state of federal finances.

    Now public finances in Nigeria have generally not been handled with the transparency, prudence and diligence that are needed to ensure financial stability in the country. At all levels, governments have spent public funds recklessly on unproductive ventures. All governments like to spend money, including unearned income. This is what accounts for Nigeria’s woeful record of financial recklessness and corruption. Its record of budget deficits is uninspiring. It is estimated that the debt stock of the state governments is now over N600 billion, while that of the Federal Government is in the trillions of naira. All these domestic as well as external debts, now increasing steadily, will have to be paid off someday.

    Governments may need to borrow occasionally to executive projects that contribute to economic growth. But this is not the case at all in Nigeria. Very often the public sector borrows money for projects that it does not really intend to implement, or that contribute little or nothing to economic growth in the country. For instance, many of the insolvent states are building local air ports, hotels, stadia, and funding other similarly unproductive projects, such as the Tinapa tourist resort that are inherently wasteful. But the banks are only too willing to lend money to the financially imprudent states because they know that, no matter what happens, they will get their money back through federal guarantees and deductions at revenue source. They prefer lending to the state governments to lending to the private sector which is better placed to use borrowed funds more judiciously and create more jobs. Quite often, public sector borrowing crowds out the private sector from access to vital bank loans.

    What is to be done to restore Nigerian public finances to stability? The solution is clear and has been well articulated for years by leading financial experts. First, budgetary deficits have to be drastically reduced to contain inflationary pressures and more public borrowing. The deficits can easily be reduced if identified leakages in revenue collection are plugged. What has been going on in the NNPC where a lot of revenues are not remitted to the Federal Government is simply scandalous and should be brought to an end. In fact, Nigeria will lose nothing financially by scrapping the NNPC totally. It has become a financial drain pipe that the country can no longer afford. Secondly, and in this context, it is time to end the so-called oil subsidy which has become the source of financial scam in the country. It is the oil importers and their agents in the NNPC who benefit from the subsidy, not the poor. The public is tired of the long queues at petrol stations for fuel. Where it is available it is being sold for over N150 per litre. So, where is the subsidy? We should no longer put up with the supply blackmail by the oil importers. Savings from the withdrawal of the oil subsidy can be better utilised by building more oil refineries. Thirdly, all the governments of the federation have to increase their internally generated revenue as Lagos State has succeeded in doing over the years. It is estimated that it generates internally about 70 per cent of its annual budget. Where it has borrowed, it has the capacity to repay the loan without much strain. Fourthly, the Federal Government should be more cautious in offering borrowing states bank guarantees. Such federal guarantees should only be extended to states that have a credible record of financial management, not those who continue to borrow recklessly.

    In all these cases of financial profligacy, it is the people, particularly the poor, who suffer the consequences of this financial recklessness. Salaries are unpaid, families and children suffer and projects that are of direct benefit to the public in the health and education sectors are simply put on hold, as is the case now. Just as there is no free lunch, there are no free funds. All borrowed money has to be paid soon or later. And the burden of repayment is always on the poor. The poor people of Greece are now facing the excessive borrowing of their governments in the past. They now have to bite the financial bullet. Those who took the decision to borrow and spend such borrowed money recklessly hardly ever suffer any consequences, as they would have stashed enough money away to ensure their future comfort and that of their family. Already, several governors are being interrogated and prosecuted by the EFFC for the vast sums of money they have stashed away. It is still possible for them to be let off the hook for lack of diligent prosecution by the EFCC. But who will bailout the poor from this huge financial burden when it is pay back time?

  • A tribute to Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun Alo (1936-2015)

    The death has been announced by her family of Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun-Alo, one of the leading figures in the development of secondary school education in Nigeria. She had been ailing for some time and passed on peacefully in her home at Lekki, Lagos, on Saturday, June 13. She would have been 79 on September 26, 2015. News of her death spread quickly and was received by the Lagos elite and her professional colleagues all over Nigeria as a rude shock, even though it was known to her friends that her health had not been too good in recent years. For decades, after graduating from Cambridge in 1961, she had had been a towering figure in secondary school education in Nigeria, heading several federal government colleges in Nigeria, including the Federal Government College for girls in Abuja. She was widely admired by her friends and colleagues for her personal warmth, charm, professional diligence, and a formidable intellect, one of the best of her distinguished generation of women achievers in Nigeria in diverse fields.

    Mrs. Abisogun-Alo had an excellent pedigree on both sides of her family lineage. According to her memoires, This City Girl, partly an excellent social history of Lagos, and first published in 2011, her father, Mr. Peter Akintunde Abisogun Wright, was a grandson of Chief Akinlaja Abisogun of Isale Eko. In his times, he was one of the leading social figures and personalities in Lagos in the 1930s. After primary school at St. Peter’s, Faji, he went up to the CMS Grammar School, Lagos, for his secondary education where he obtained his school leaving certificate in 1909. Thereafter, he trained as a Chemist and Druggist at the General Hospital in Lagos. He worked there for a while, but left later for the Post and Telegraph Department (P. &T) where he worked as an accounts clerk. He soon gave this up too and ended up being a successful auctioneer and general contractor. He was well known and was prominent in business and social circles in Lagos, where he was highly regarded and respected. In fact, his friends and admirers called him the ‘Lord Mayor’ of Lagos. He made his mark in the respected Lagos Stores, Wright and Co. He was one of the earliest nationalists in Nigeria. In protest against colonial rule in Nigeria, he officially dropped his European and Christian names, Peter and Wright, preferring to be called Akintunde Abisogun instead.

    Equally, Olugbolahan’s mother, Ethel Adeleye, nee Shyngle, was the daughter of Margaret Cole and her husband, the distinguished lawyer, Barrister Egerton Shyngle, whose, older brother, Charles Egerton Shyngle, had read law at St. Catherine’s College, Cambridge. Another brother had also been at Jesus’ College, Oxford, where he real law. The Egerton Shyngle family was famous for producing some of the leading lawyers in colonial Lagos in those days. They had family connections in Bathurst, The Gambia, Freetown, Sierra Leone, Accra, Ghana, and Lagos. Olugbolahan’s mother, Ethel, was educated at the elite CMS Girls’ Seminary at Broad Street, Lagos. After her celebrated marriage to Mr. Abisogun at the Tinubu Methodist Church in December, 1930, she established a successful dress making business in Lagos. Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun–Alo, who was born on December 26, 1936, was the only child of the marriage, but she had siblings from her father’s other children before he married his mother. They waited anxiously for six years for Gbolahan to arrive.

    Her distinguished parents, who settled at Tokunbo Street, moved in the best social circles in Lagos. It could be said of Olugbolahan that she was born with the proverbial silver spoon. She was her mother’s only child and her parents paid a great attention to her subsequent education. From her memoires published a few years ago, it can be seen how her privileged background had a profound effect on her education and public service later. She had a privileged education as well.

    After the Princess School in Lagos, she attended the elite CMS Girls’ Seminary in Lagos which also admitted boys before they were sent off at 7 or 8 to the prep school at the CMS Grammar School, across the school at Broad Street. Among her contemporaries at the School were Chief Ernest Shonekan, and Chief Akin Disu, owner of the Eagle Paints. Then in 1949, she entered the Queen’s College, Lagos, then at Onikan. But a year later, some of the students at Queen’s, including Gbolahan, were transferred to the new school, St. Anne’s School, Ibadan. After a few months at St. Anne’s, Ibadan, she returned to Queen’s College, Lagos. In the process, she lost a year at Queen’s. But her father, who doted on her, could not stand the separation. The Queen’s College, Lagos, was the first girls’ secondary school started by the colonial government in Nigeria, and had established a reputation as the leading girls’ secondary school in Nigeria. In all respects it was a special school, carefully nurtured by the colonial government. Virtually all the teaching staff were British expatriates with an Oxbridge background. At Queen’s, she won the Lady Bourdillon Scholarship for gifted students. Sir Bourdillon was then the colonial governor of Nigeria. In 1955, her final year in school, Olugbolahan was appointed the head girl in recognition of her outstanding contribution, as a student, to the school’s reputation.  Olugbolahan had also acquired some fame as the best athlete ever produced by the school. Her school record in the high jump remained unbroken for many years after.

    She had very good results in the school in 1955, coming out in Grade One, and with many distinctions, in the then Cambridge School Certificate Examinations. For many years after, her impressive academic accomplishments at Queen’s was the talk of the town in Lagos and made her a role model for secondary school girls in Lagos. She was the envy of many parents for whom she became a reference point in the education of their daughters.

    From Queen’s, she entered the King’s College, Lagos, in 1956, after examinations, for her Higher School Certificate (HSC), then equivalent to the GCE advanced level. She read English, History, and Latin there. Among the girls who had preceded her to King’s for the HSC were Miss Ebun Adenubi ( now Prof. Mrs. Elebute), Grace Alele (now  Prof Grace Alele Williams), and Miss Olugbo Lucas, the daughter of the highly respected Ven. Lucas of St. Paul’s Church, Breadfruit, fame (now Mrs. Olugbo Hollist). At King’s, Olugbolahan was equally an outstanding student, obtaining her four HSC subjects in two years.

    After King’s, and on the basis of her 1957 HSC results, she sat for the entrance examinations and was admitted to Girton College, University of Cambridge, in 1958, a rare feat then, for an honour’s degree course in history. At Cambridge, she was the contemporary of the famous and beautiful Princess of Toro, Uganda, Elizabeth Bagaya, who once served as Idi Amin’s Foreign Minister. They became close at Cambridge and good friends after. When I served in Uganda in 1973, as acting High Commissioner, the Princess always asked me about Mrs. Gbolahan Abisogun Alo, with whom I was then barely acquainted. She spoke with nostalgia about their times at Cambridge, the fun they both had there, and the many friends they made at Cambridge.

    Among her Nigerian contemporaries at Cambridge were Hope Harriman, now deceased, Dayo Akinrele, and his younger brother, Tunde. There were also Alaba Akinsete, Olumuyiwa Awe, and Sam Olaitan, all of them research students at Cambridge. As she says in her memoires, social life at Cambridge was a pleasure and a lot of fun. She was a foundation member of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Club of Nigeria and was very active in the Club, participating fully in the preparations for the Annual May Ball, which she attended regularly until recently when she became frail. When I was the President of the Club she encouraged me and gave me her full support, which she also extended to my successors.She was very passionate about the Club.

    On graduating from Cambridge in 1961, she returned home. She had by then met and been engaged to her future husband, Olajide Alo (later Ambassador Alo), a young and promising Foreign Service Officer, then serving in our High Commission in London. They were married at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos, on December 30, 1961, and returned immediately to London where her husband, Jide, was then serving as a second secretary. He was my senior and much admired colleague in the diplomatic service. She had herself wanted to join the diplomatic service as she read history at Cambridge. But this was not possible at the time. So for the first few years after her marriage she did not seek any employment, going abroad with her husband on his different postings from London, to New York, to Cotonou, Geneva, and Brazil. Meanwhile, the children, three of them had started arriving, the first, a boy, Akinola, in London, in 1962, the second, Olatunbosun, a girl, in Cotonou, in 1964, after which they returned to Lagos on posting, and then Segun, a boy, in 1971.

    As Mrs. Abisogun Alo discovered later to her discomfort the life of the wives of Foreign Service Officers was by no means an easy one. For those of them who wished to have a career, like Abisogun, she could not, despite her impressive education. They could not work abroad. They could at home, but this meant staying in Nigeria to pursue their careers, while their husbands went out frequently on posing. My wife and I also found ourselves in this rather difficult situation. For ten years after our marriage, she too could not work despite her excellent qualifications. This situation often created strains in the marriage. Eventually, Olugbolahan and Jide, her diplomat- husband, decided that it was best for her to pursue her career at home and be with the children. By then she had already lost ten years of her career.

    Nonetheless, she subsequently had a distinguished career in the federal ministry of education where she served as principal in several federal government colleges. She was the foundation principal at the federal Government College for girls in Abuja for several years. She also rose to the pinnacle of her professional career as Principal (special Grade), and a National Director of Education.  She was appointed the Pro-Chancellor of both the Universities of Bauchi and Abuja, a member of the Governing Council of Bells University, and a Trustee of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC). In 2003 she was honoured with the award of an Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR) in recognition of her immense contribution to the development of secondary school education in Nigeria. She was a recipient of many other national and international honours, including an honorary doctorate in education from the Lagos State University.

    Sadly, she was pre-deceased by several decades by her husband, Ambassador Olajide Alo, and her eldest son, Akinola, a geologist, who died in a road accident in Lagos in September, 1995. Left to mourn her are her two remaining and loving children, Olatunbosun, and Segun, her devoted cousin, Mrs. Bimbola Bolodeoku (nee Egerton Shyngle), her former students, and her numerous friends and admirers all over the country and beyond. May her soul rest in perfect peace.

  • A tribute to Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun Alo (1936-2015)

    The death has been announced by her family of Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun-Alo, one of the leading figures in the development of secondary school education in Nigeria. She had been ailing for some time and passed on peacefully in her home at Lekki, Lagos, on Saturday, June 13. She would have been 79 on September 26, 2015. News of her death spread quickly and was received by the Lagos elite and her professional colleagues all over Nigeria as a rude shock, even though it was known to her friends that her health had not been too good in recent years. For decades, after graduating from Cambridge in 1961, she had had been a towering figure in secondary school education in Nigeria, heading several federal government colleges in Nigeria, including the Federal Government College for girls in Abuja. She was widely admired by her friends and colleagues for her personal warmth, charm, professional diligence, and a formidable intellect, one of the best of her distinguished generation of women achievers in Nigeria in diverse fields.

    Mrs. Abisogun-Alo had an excellent pedigree on both sides of her family lineage. According to her memoires, This City Girl, partly an excellent social history of Lagos, and first published in 2011, her father, Mr. Peter Akintunde Abisogun Wright, was a grandson of Chief Akinlaja Abisogun of Isale Eko. In his times, he was one of the leading social figures and personalities in Lagos in the 1930s. After primary school at St. Peter’s, Faji, he went up to the CMS Grammar School, Lagos, for his secondary education where he obtained his school leaving certificate in 1909. Thereafter, he trained as a Chemist and Druggist at the General Hospital in Lagos. He worked there for a while, but left later for the Post and Telegraph Department (P. &T) where he worked as an accounts clerk. He soon gave this up too and ended up being a successful auctioneer and general contractor. He was well known and was prominent in business and social circles in Lagos, where he was highly regarded and respected. In fact, his friends and admirers called him the ‘Lord Mayor’ of Lagos. He made his mark in the respected Lagos Stores, Wright and Co. He was one of the earliest nationalists in Nigeria. In protest against colonial rule in Nigeria, he officially dropped his European and Christian names, Peter and Wright, preferring to be called Akintunde Abisogun instead.

    Equally, Olugbolahan’s mother, Ethel Adeleye, nee Shyngle, was the daughter of Margaret Cole and her husband, the distinguished lawyer, Barrister Egerton Shyngle, whose, older brother, Charles Egerton Shyngle, had read law at St. Catherine’s College, Cambridge. Another brother had also been at Jesus’ College, Oxford, where he real law. The Egerton Shyngle family was famous for producing some of the leading lawyers in colonial Lagos in those days. They had family connections in Bathurst, The Gambia, Freetown, Sierra Leone, Accra, Ghana, and Lagos. Olugbolahan’s mother, Ethel, was educated at the elite CMS Girls’ Seminary at Broad Street, Lagos. After her celebrated marriage to Mr. Abisogun at the Tinubu Methodist Church in December, 1930, she established a successful dress making business in Lagos. Mrs. Olugbolahan Abisogun–Alo, who was born on December 26, 1936, was the only child of the marriage, but she had siblings from her father’s other children before he married his mother. They waited anxiously for six years for Gbolahan to arrive.

    Her distinguished parents, who settled at Tokunbo Street, moved in the best social circles in Lagos. It could be said of Olugbolahan that she was born with the proverbial silver spoon. She was her mother’s only child and her parents paid a great attention to her subsequent education. From her memoires published a few years ago, it can be seen how her privileged background had a profound effect on her education and public service later. She had a privileged education as well.

    After the Princess School in Lagos, she attended the elite CMS Girls’ Seminary in Lagos which also admitted boys before they were sent off at 7 or 8 to the prep school at the CMS Grammar School, across the school at Broad Street. Among her contemporaries at the School were Chief Ernest Shonekan, and Chief Akin Disu, owner of the Eagle Paints. Then in 1949, she entered the Queen’s College, Lagos, then at Onikan. But a year later, some of the students at Queen’s, including Gbolahan, were transferred to the new school, St. Anne’s School, Ibadan. After a few months at St. Anne’s, Ibadan, she returned to Queen’s College, Lagos. In the process, she lost a year at Queen’s. But her father, who doted on her, could not stand the separation. The Queen’s College, Lagos, was the first girls’ secondary school started by the colonial government in Nigeria, and had established a reputation as the leading girls’ secondary school in Nigeria. In all respects it was a special school, carefully nurtured by the colonial government. Virtually all the teaching staff were British expatriates with an Oxbridge background. At Queen’s, she won the Lady Bourdillon Scholarship for gifted students. Sir Bourdillon was then the colonial governor of Nigeria. In 1955, her final year in school, Olugbolahan was appointed the head girl in recognition of her outstanding contribution, as a student, to the school’s reputation.  Olugbolahan had also acquired some fame as the best athlete ever produced by the school. Her school record in the high jump remained unbroken for many years after.

    She had very good results in the school in 1955, coming out in Grade One, and with many distinctions, in the then Cambridge School Certificate Examinations. For many years after, her impressive academic accomplishments at Queen’s was the talk of the town in Lagos and made her a role model for secondary school girls in Lagos. She was the envy of many parents for whom she became a reference point in the education of their daughters.

    From Queen’s, she entered the King’s College, Lagos, in 1956, after examinations, for her Higher School Certificate (HSC), then equivalent to the GCE advanced level. She read English, History, and Latin there. Among the girls who had preceded her to King’s for the HSC were Miss Ebun Adenubi ( now Prof. Mrs. Elebute), Grace Alele (now  Prof Grace Alele Williams), and Miss Olugbo Lucas, the daughter of the highly respected Ven. Lucas of St. Paul’s Church, Breadfruit, fame (now Mrs. Olugbo Hollist). At King’s, Olugbolahan was equally an outstanding student, obtaining her four HSC subjects in two years.

    After King’s, and on the basis of her 1957 HSC results, she sat for the entrance examinations and was admitted to Girton College, University of Cambridge, in 1958, a rare feat then, for an honour’s degree course in history. At Cambridge, she was the contemporary of the famous and beautiful Princess of Toro, Uganda, Elizabeth Bagaya, who once served as Idi Amin’s Foreign Minister. They became close at Cambridge and good friends after. When I served in Uganda in 1973, as acting High Commissioner, the Princess always asked me about Mrs. Gbolahan Abisogun Alo, with whom I was then barely acquainted. She spoke with nostalgia about their times at Cambridge, the fun they both had there, and the many friends they made at Cambridge.

    Among her Nigerian contemporaries at Cambridge were Hope Harriman, now deceased, Dayo Akinrele, and his younger brother, Tunde. There were also Alaba Akinsete, Olumuyiwa Awe, and Sam Olaitan, all of them research students at Cambridge. As she says in her memoires, social life at Cambridge was a pleasure and a lot of fun. She was a foundation member of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Club of Nigeria and was very active in the Club, participating fully in the preparations for the Annual May Ball, which she attended regularly until recently when she became frail. When I was the President of the Club she encouraged me and gave me her full support, which she also extended to my successors.She was very passionate about the Club.

    On graduating from Cambridge in 1961, she returned home. She had by then met and been engaged to her future husband, Olajide Alo (later Ambassador Alo), a young and promising Foreign Service Officer, then serving in our High Commission in London. They were married at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos, on December 30, 1961, and returned immediately to London where her husband, Jide, was then serving as a second secretary. He was my senior and much admired colleague in the diplomatic service. She had herself wanted to join the diplomatic service as she read history at Cambridge. But this was not possible at the time. So for the first few years after her marriage she did not seek any employment, going abroad with her husband on his different postings from London, to New York, to Cotonou, Geneva, and Brazil. Meanwhile, the children, three of them had started arriving, the first, a boy, Akinola, in London, in 1962, the second, Olatunbosun, a girl, in Cotonou, in 1964, after which they returned to Lagos on posting, and then Segun, a boy, in 1971.

    As Mrs. Abisogun Alo discovered later to her discomfort the life of the wives of Foreign Service Officers was by no means an easy one. For those of them who wished to have a career, like Abisogun, she could not, despite her impressive education. They could not work abroad. They could at home, but this meant staying in Nigeria to pursue their careers, while their husbands went out frequently on posing. My wife and I also found ourselves in this rather difficult situation. For ten years after our marriage, she too could not work despite her excellent qualifications. This situation often created strains in the marriage. Eventually, Olugbolahan and Jide, her diplomat- husband, decided that it was best for her to pursue her career at home and be with the children. By then she had already lost ten years of her career.

    Nonetheless, she subsequently had a distinguished career in the federal ministry of education where she served as principal in several federal government colleges. She was the foundation principal at the federal Government College for girls in Abuja for several years. She also rose to the pinnacle of her professional career as Principal (special Grade), and a National Director of Education.  She was appointed the Pro-Chancellor of both the Universities of Bauchi and Abuja, a member of the Governing Council of Bells University, and a Trustee of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC). In 2003 she was honoured with the award of an Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR) in recognition of her immense contribution to the development of secondary school education in Nigeria. She was a recipient of many other national and international honours, including an honorary doctorate in education from the Lagos State University.

    Sadly, she was pre-deceased by several decades by her husband, Ambassador Olajide Alo, and her eldest son, Akinola, a geologist, who died in a road accident in Lagos in September, 1995. Left to mourn her are her two remaining and loving children, Olatunbosun, and Segun, her devoted cousin, Mrs. Bimbola Bolodeoku (nee Egerton Shyngle), her former students, and her numerous friends and admirers all over the country and beyond. May her soul rest in perfect peace.

  • Reducing cost of governance in Nigeria

    Reducing cost of governance in Nigeria

    The cost of running Nigeria’s vast and bloated bureaucracy has become too high and unsustainable. It presents President Muhammadu Buhari with one of his most pressing and gravest challenges. The success of his government will be determined by his success in bringing public expenditure down and under greater control.

    In his commissioned report a few years ago, Professor Anya O. Anya warned the Federal Government that the country was spending over 70 per cent of its total revenue on public administration. Of the balance of 30 per cent, which should go to capital projects, at least 15 per cent is lost through policy slippages and widespread public corruption. Large bureaucracies tend to provide more opportunity for graft and public corruption. They constrain growth. It can, in the circumstances, be seen why vital infrastructure projects, such as roads and electricity supply cannot be executed in the country.

    Nigeria runs 37 separate governments, consisting of the federal and state governments, one of the largest in the world. At the federal level, the president is constitutionally obliged to appoint a minister from each of the 36 states, plus Abuja. In effect, he has to appoint 37 ministers. This constitutional provision should be reviewed. At the state level, the situation is pretty much the same. The governors are constitutionally obliged to appoint not fewer than 12 commissioners. But in actual fact, at both levels, the president and governors find a way of circumventing even these large constitutional limits by adding a coterie of special advisers and other numerous idle aides. In addition, the country has to run over 700 local governments with the same overstaffing as the federal and state governments. When you factor in the vast expenditure on the National Assembly, it is a prescription for economic and financial disaster at all levels of government.

    The United States, the most powerful and richest country in the world, has a comparatively slimmer and more cost effective bureaucracy than Nigeria. It has less than 20 federal ministries and secretaries of state (equivalent to our own ministers). The British cabinet is smaller than that of Nigeria. And spending on the public service in Britain is undergoing savage cuts currently to reduce the cost of running the country. I can only think of two or three countries that, because of their huge size, have larger bureaucracies than Nigeria. But despite the huge size of its bureaucracy, top heavy with an inverted pyramid structure, Nigeria really does not have an effective public administration. This accounts for its poor budget implementation. Its bureaucracy remains weak, incompetent, and ineffective. A slimmer bureaucracy is likely to be more effective in implementing the government’s economic programmes and easier to control.

    Now, virtually all Nigerian political leaders acknowledge the fact that something really drastic has to be done to reduce the size of the Nigerian bureaucracy. When he was in office, President Olusegun Obasanjo really made a serious effort to tackle the problem by reducing federal staff and the cost of running the vast federal bureaucracy. The perks of civil servants were either monetised or reduced to bring down the cost of running the country. The privatisation strategy was more vigorously pursued through the hiving off of more public enterprises to the private sector. Some success was achieved in this regard, but his two successors did very little to sustain the programme. The result has been that, instead of cutting both the number of staff and the cost of running the bureaucracy, the federal bureaucracy has continued to grow inexorably. In fact, in the last few years, all efforts to tackle this problem have been more or less abandoned by both the federal and state governments.

    Now, as is well known, the situation today is that the Federal Government has had to borrow over N400 billion recently to meet its wage obligations, as a result of the loss of some 50 per cent of the total national oil revenue. Of the 37 states, over 20 owe their workers several months of salaries because of the fall in the financial allocations to the states. For instance, Osun State owes its workers over seven months of unpaid salaries.

    While it is easy for the Federal Government to have recourse to deficit financing through the CBN to meet its wage obligations, the states do not enjoy that fiscal privilege. So, it is difficult to know how the states intend to solve their difficult financial predicament. The banks are already over exposed in their lending to the state governments and are unlikely to offer them additional loans, or issue bonds on their behalf. This places the states on the horns of a financial dilemma. A recent meeting of the Governors’ Forum described the situation as a national emergency and disaster. The only way out for the states appears to be to increase their internally generated revenue. But this is a long term solution to an immediate and urgent problem.

    It is said that a country is poor because it is poor, meaning that it lacks the capacity to grow because of its poor strategy for growth. One of the major sources of the economic drains on a poor country is the diversion of vital economic and financial resources to a bloated bureaucracy that is largely unproductive and contributes little or nothing to economic growth in the country. Economic growth is made more difficult when a country, such as Nigeria, spends 70 per cent of its entire budget on public administration, including the building of vast secretariats all over the country.

    When the British were here, they ran the entire country from the modest old secretariat on the Marina in Lagos. Later, an equally modest federal secretariat was built at Broad Street. As independence approached, a new secretariat was again built at Tafawa Balewa Square in Lagos. Later, the military developed the vast secretariat complex at Ikoyi. When the capital was transferred to Abuja, a vast and impressive secretariat complex was again developed to house the vast bureaucracy that had developed over the years. But all this expansion in office accommodation has made little or no difference to the poor quality of public administration in Nigeria.

    Many people may not remember now that when Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was federal Prime Minster, he ran the entire country from his modest official residence at Onikan with only nine federal ministers, three from each of the old regions. The country was better and more effectively governed then. When I joined the diplomatic service in 1964 on graduating from the then University College, Ibadan, the entire Foreign Ministry was housed in only two floors in the General Post Office building on the Marina. Later it moved to two new complexes on the Marina. But each time it moved its offices to new and larger buildings, they proved inadequate because of the rapid expansion of its staff. Now the Foreign Ministry has a huge office building in Abuja, one of the largest Foreign Offices in the world. But it is already overcrowded because of its large and unwieldy staff.

    President Buhari’s objective of economic transformation in our country will be made a lot easier if he can find a way of reducing the huge economic and financial burden of running this country. This may be politically difficult, particularly at a time of mass unemployment. But there has to be a freeze on fresh recruitments in the federal bureaucracy. He should also consider offering civil servants financial inducements that will make them consider early retirement. This strategy will be costly in the short run, but will lead later to vast savings in the cost of running the country. It is not only the large size of the bureaucracy that accounts for the huge cost of running the country. The huge pay and financial perks of all public officials should also be reviewed downwards. Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State has shown the way by cutting his own pay and those of his commissioners. The same measures should also be considered by the states.