Category: Comments

  • On recent development in Nigerian forex market

    On recent development in Nigerian forex market

    • By Motunrayo Fakorede

    As of October 23, USD$1 exchanged for NGN1,225 on the parallel market. A far cry from the NGN700 that was obtainable at the same time barely 12months ago. Arguably, this is largely attributable to the “floating” of the Naira in June 2023. This floating, which has been regarded as another round of devaluation in some circles, seems to align with years of recommendations by the World Bank and similar voices in the financial sector and as such, seemed to a welcome development in by a good number of policy analysts, at the onset. However, barely five months into the policy, the expected wins seem to have evaded the country and the touted corrupt practice of multiple exchange rates seems to have only been more emboldened rather than depleted.

    The Naira’s current situation is not a recent or one-off development. In fact, the increase in exchange rate is one that most Nigerians are very familiar with as the Naira has experienced a continued downfall from 1983 to date. Successive governments and Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) leadership have adopted different approaches to defend the Naira, attract inflow of foreign capital and retain certainty as well sanity in the foreign exchange market, yet all achieving the same outcome – continuous devaluation of the Naira.

    The common rhetoric among the international community in the past has been that the Naira is overvalued. This is quite understandable, considering the nature of the Nigerian economy. Fact is Nigeria is a commodity producer, with our major export and source of foreign exchange being crude oil, while the outflow of foreign exchange from Nigeria is a considerably longer list. This makes the Naira unattractive in the international community and puts the country at a disadvantage when compared to other developing economies that are less commodity focused.

    Case in point, South Korea. South Korea is one of the success stories of the developing world that has successfully transformed from a majorly agrarian economy, immediately after the war in the 1950’s, to one of the most industrialised economies of date. South Korea’s economy boasts of brands like Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo, amongst others that compete comfortably with top global brands in the automotive and electronics industries. Yet, South Korean Won traded at over 1,000 KRW to USD$1 as of 2016 when the Nigerian Naira traded at an average official rate of NGN248 to USD$1, and currently trades at 1,336.4 KRW to USD$1 as of October 11.

    Read Also: Bandits kill one, abduct 25 in Southern Kaduna

    Proponents of Naira devaluation could argue that the comparison does not align with the current world order because, the currency of an industrialised economy like South Korea should ideally be valued higher than that of a commodity dependent economy like Nigeria. The point could be further made, though rather unpalatable for the average Nigerian who continues to feel the direct impacts of the Naira devaluation, that the current trajectory of the Nigerian Naira appears to be more in tune with the true state of the Naira, than what was previously obtainable, as the status of the Nigerian economy did not support the (past) value placed on the Naira. It could further be argued that the many years of inconsistent policies employed to “manage” and “defend” the value of the Naira has created a thriving parallel market industry that allowed Nigerians to access foreign exchange in Nigeria, without going through the recognised Foreign Exchange (forex) Autonomous market, while simultaneously allowing the ‘’currency brokers” and/or Bureau de Change operators to run a very profitable business of obtaining forex from the CBN at the official rate, (‘defended value’), to resell at the parallel market value. The result of this is the emergence of an industry that has become rather too powerful to manage with the attendant effect more felt with the floatation of the Naira, producing a thriving forex industry amid the downward spiral of the Naira. Putting things in perspective and taking for example, as of October 11, there a was still a gap of N256.5 between the I & E rate of N768.599 as reported by the CBN, and the parallel market value of N1,025 reported by the Bureau de Change operators. That is still a significant margin, and the margin continues till publication date.

    With the continuous fall in the value of the Naira in the face of the implementation of the floating policy, the consensus appears to have changed as to the solution to Nigeria’s perennial economic crisis. While the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and similar development organisations previously recommended floating and unification of the Naira, it has become apparent that floating the Naira is not sufficient to achieve prosperity and stability for the economy. More attention needs to be placed on increasing inflow of foreign exchange to Nigeria. In short, we need to make Nigeria and the Naira attractive to the global economy.

    While it is hard to envisage a reversal of the exchange rate to what it was a year ago, a more attractive Nigeria and Naira will be a driving force for a more prosperous economy. A more attractive Nigeria and Naira will derive from more focus on investment, industrialization, infrastructural development, and the service industry; all drivers of employment, which in turn drives purchasing power and by extension an impression of prosperity. This writer is of the opinion that while the government may have garnered great support from the business and international community for the official floating of the Naira, it will only achieve a renewed hope for Nigerians when the people are able to operate from a sense of prosperity and like the South Koreans, not derive their worth/wealth by the exchange rate of the day, but by the inherent prosperity that they experience.

    •Fakorede, BSc (Hons), ACA, CFE writes from motun.fak.fm@gmail.com

  • Nigeria at Belt and Road Forum: Issues and prospects

    Nigeria at Belt and Road Forum: Issues and prospects

    • By Charles Onunaiju

    Nigeria’s participation at the 3rd Belt and Road Forum  for international cooperation held in China’s capital, Beijing between the 17th and18th of October marked the country’s most high profile engagement with the China-initiated international framework for cooperation since signing on to the initiative in 2018. 

    The 3rd edition of the forum in Beijing marked also the 10th anniversary, since it was founded. The “Silk Road Economic Belt” and “21st Century Maritime Silk Road”, more famously known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was announced in 2013 to facilitate infrastructure connectivity, enhance unimpeded trade, deepen financial integration, promote policy coordination and give full effect to people-to-people contacts across the world. It took as its inspiration, the more than 2000 years ancient Silk Road through which not only trade and commerce grew but also cultural intellectual exchanges flourished in both land and sea routes that connected China with central Asia, Europe and Africa. 

    In today’s world, the Belt and Road initiative is the concrete expression of the trend of globalization but underwriting it with concrete and tangible network of connectivity and given practical meaning to open and inclusive world system or order. Nigeria’s participation at the 3rd edition of the Belt and Road for international cooperation with her high-level delegation, led by the vice-president, Kashim Shettima and comprised of top and strategic government ministries – Foreign Affairs, Power, Works, Trade, investment and Industry, Transportation, Budget and National Planning, the country’s highest representation to the forum yet, showed an increasing understanding of the process and how it could be aligned to Nigeria’s major priorities of economic recovery and sustainable growth. 

    Along with the ministerial delegation were also key government departments including the Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC), Nigeria Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, and the National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI).

     The government delegation apart from participating at the main session of the Belt and Road Forum received Beijing’s highest level attention and held bilateral meetings with both the Chinese president and vice-president in spite of a punishing schedule of the Chinese leader who has to meet and welcome more than two dozen heads of state and government from across the world that thronged the Chinese capital. 

    More than 100 countries and international organizations were in Beijing for the summit and the tireless UN secretary general, Anthonio Guterrens was in personal attendance to underscore the significance of the Belt and Road mechanism in the construction of a functional global order that is inclusive. China has since 2005, declared Nigeria as a strategic partner and Nigeria’s attention at the highest level of China’s political authority with a side-line bilateral meeting gave concrete expression to a Beijing’s deliberate cultivation of Abuja as an important and strategic partner. 

    Beijing is usually a cynosure of world attention, as China is the largest trading partner of almost 150 countries and also invests an average of US$340 million around the world on daily basis.

     That President Bola Tinubu empanelled a high-powered delegation with full complement of strategic government ministries and departments underscored his understanding of the imperative to engage the China-initiated Belt and Road mechanism for its potential practical contribution to the requirements of the country’s economic recovery, national security and political stability. 

    As governor of Nigeria’s mega city, Lagos State, in the early 2000s, Tinubu engaged with a leading Chinese company, China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) which resulted in the establishment of the Lekki Free Trade Zone. The Zone has since expanded and now has more than 150 companies attracting both domestic and foreign investors, which is a joint venture between the Lagos State government and China-Africa Lekki Investment Limited (CALIL). 

    The zone is Nigeria’s biggest and most successful industrial hub and currently hosts such strategic infrastructure project, Lekki Deep Sea Port built in record three years under the Belt and Road Cooperation between Nigeria and China and which cultivated multinational investment of leading French and Singaporean companies. President Tinubu’s experience of practical and tangible outcomes in Nigeria-China cooperation would have played important role in the decision for Nigeria’s high-level participation at the 3rd Belt and Road Forum in Beijing. 

    At the side line  of the bilateral meeting with the Nigeria’s delegation, the Chinese leader, XI Jinping assured that “China is ready to continue working with Nigeria to push for more tangible outcomes of China-Nigeria and China-Africa Belt and Road Cooperation and help Nigeria and Africa realize industrialization and agricultural modernizations” and added that “ China supports Nigeria in pursuing a path to modernization suited to its national conditions and stands ready to enhance personnel exchanges at all levels with Nigeria to advance high-quality cooperation”. 

    Vice President Shettima responded with an appreciation that “China has always treated Nigeria and other African countries with respect and as equals; has never bossed them around and has done its best to support Africa in seeking independence and development.” He further hinted that “Nigeria is ready to further deepen Belt and Road Cooperation with China and lift Nigeria-China relations to a new level”.

    Read Also: Tinubu sets up committee to consider gaps in police legal framework

    President Xi Jinping had earlier told the delegations from over 150 countries at the massive China National Convention Centre that “Belt and Road Cooperation has extended from Eurasian continent to Africa and Latin America,” and has progressed from “sketching the outline” to filling in the details”, and that blueprints have been turned into real projects and noted that “a large number of signature projects and “small yet smart” people-centred programs have been launched”. 

    The Chinese leader who proposed eight major steps to deepen the Belt and Road International Cooperation opined that “China has learned that humankind is a community with a shared future and China can only do well when the world is doing well. And when China does well, the world will even get better.”

    It should not be forgotten that in recent years, a plethora of international infrastructure programs, more remarkable for their sheer numbers than their efficacies have emerged involving the U. S, Japan, India, Australia and European countries in various combinations, most of them marriages of convenience or mere China-countering alliances.  These range from Asia-Africa Growth Corridor and Trilateral partnership (The U.S, Japan and Australia) to the Blue Dot Network and Build Back Better World Initiatives. However, so far, as Japan Times, puts it in its recent editorial, “It’s been more fancy talk than finance”. Meanwhile, the Asia Investment and Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), and Chinese institutions such as the Silk Road Fund, China Development Bank, the EXIM Bank of China have invested up to US$1 trillion in Belt and Road related projects across the world. 

    Nigeria’s participation at the forum witnessed an avalanche of several MoU’s outlining cooperation in several key areas of the Nigeria’s economy. Trade and economic relations between Nigeria and China received a boost following the signing of a Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI) and three Chinese firms for new projects valued at $2 billion. 

    The Nigerian government also received letters of intent for new projects and investments worth $4 billion from more Chinese companies. 

    The three MOUs to partner with NASENI include the construction of a new energy automobile facility for the production of new energy electric vehicles by Shanghai Launch Automotive Technical Co Ltd; construction of turnkey delivery of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) assembly line projects by China Great Wall Industry Corporation; and the transfer of technology on lithium batteries, electric vehicles and allied technologies by Newway Power Technology Company Ltd.

    The Chinese firms that presented Letters of Intent to the vice president to pull together $4 billion in investments are TBEA (solar products); DongFeng Vehicles Co. (vehicle design and production), and HiLong Energy (CNG, LNG, methanol). Others are Space Star Technology (Drone technology transfer); ENRIC (clean energy utilization technology); Hidier Group (development of new industrial park), China State Construction Company (building technology and materials); CIMC (natural gas infrastructure delivery); Value Platform International Services Ltd (vocational training) and Acadia Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. (smart grids and micro-grids). Shettima also met with several communications, tech, railway, power and construction giants based in China. They include the China National Electric Engineering Co. Ltd, China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC), China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC), China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC), China Communications Construction Co. Ltd (CCCC), HUAWEI Technologies, Senteng International Company Nigeria Limited, China National Electric Engineering Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co. Ltd.

    All these are significant engagement that have potentials to translate into tangible aggregates and therefore should be diligently followed-up.

    •Onunaiju, is director Centre for China Studies Abuja, participated at the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing

  • P&ID Case: Lessons and the path forward

    P&ID Case: Lessons and the path forward

    • By Oluwagbemiga Ogunsote

    On Monday, October 23, a commercial court in the United Kingdom rendered a verdict that significantly altered the course of a protracted and complex legal battle between Nigeria and Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID), a British Virgin Islands-based company. In what can only be seen as a victory for Nigeria, Justice Robin Knowles, presiding over the case, made a ruling that set aside an earlier arbitral award against Nigeria. 

    The earlier award in favour of P&ID was a staggering sum of $6.6 billion, alongside a seven percent interest rate, as damages to be paid by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The implications of this week’s ruling are profound, as it potentially prevented P&ID from seizing foreign assets owned by the nation.

    But just before we act like we are wont to do – pat ourselves on the back and put that past behind us and move on – it is important that we do what rational beings would do. We should as a matter of utmost importance reflect on how we got here in the first place. Perchance, such an exercise will enable us to take away critical learnings that may steer us away from treading such a path in future.

    Let us be realistic…if the arbitration award was not as huge as it was to even pose an existential threat to Nigeria, the last-minute efforts to stall and thwart the payment of the award might never have taken place. 

    In 2010, during the Yar’Adua/Jonathan administration, Nigeria had entered (what on the surface was) a laudable gas supply and processing agreement (GSPA) with P&ID, with the goal of developing a gas processing plant in Cross River State to help cut down gas flaring and increase availability of gas for other national uses such as power generation. 

    Flaws and fraud in the contracting process would eventually be exposed. How a contract with such national ramifications could have been executed in a shabby manner that it was, clearly showed that private pecuniary interests had taken control of the process. It would later come to light that Nigeria’s Ministry of Justice was not even carried along. Sensitive documents that had no business being in the hands of P&ID found their way out of confidential government circles and into P&ID meeting rooms. Even P&ID Nigeria Ltd which was the original corporate entity the government had discussions with ended up being a different corporate entity from P&ID which the government eventually signed the contract with. 

    Due diligence and adherence to laws and processes are often sacrificed for selfish interests…and the P&ID contract was no exception. However, we have no idea the scale of loss Nigeria has suffered due to this in other less celebrated scams.

    Eventually, the GSPA project never came to fruition, and P&ID alleged that Nigeria had breached the terms of the contract. This dispute culminated in a protracted legal battle that was taken to arbitration in 2012, with a senior lawyer Olasupo Shasore (SAN), a former Attorney-General of Lagos State, representing Nigeria’s interests. 

    The ramifications of such an enormous sum leaving Nigeria’s coffers would have been nothing short of an economic catastrophe. Interestingly, Nigeria had a 90-day window in 2017 to appeal the ruling …and didn’t take it until the time lapsed and a summary, no-contest judgment was issued against Nigeria.

    Read Also: Losing P&ID case would have cost Nigeria $15b, says  Buhari

    Consequently, Nigeria, seeking to be allowed to re-enter a dispute of the award, initiated legal proceedings in both the United Kingdom and Nigeria to prove that the project was fraudulent from conception and that even the arbitration process was not spared from corruption and manipulation to favour P&ID.

    Typical of the strategy of locking the stall after the horses have bolted, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission set up a special P&ID unit specifically for this case to work backwards and prove the different levels of ‘fraud’. In the fireworks that followed, some people were caught in the crossfire. One of such was Nigeria’s counsel, Shasore (SAN), who it transpires had consistently urged Nigerian officials to engage in the arbitration process to avoid an adverse judgment and had penned a letter to EFCC as far back as March 2016 calling on the agency to investigate corruption in the case. Accused of all manner of malpractice and vilified repeatedly in the media for same, Shasore’s experience also showcased another flaw in our system that we must pay attention to, and address vehemently whenever we can: how government functionaries pay little attention to who and what may need to be sacrificed so that they can save face or service their interests. 

    Speaking in this direction in Monday’s judgment, Judge Knowles had scathing words for former Attorney General, Abubakar Malami with respect to the accusations against, and mistreatment, of Shasore.

    He mentioned three matters (Page 101, Para 470) that referred to Nigeria’s conduct in relation to the previous hearing. One of them was, “Mr Malami’s decision to put forward a false and dishonest case in his evidence before Sir Ross Cranston about the alleged corruption of Mr Shasore SAN, which has only been abandoned sub silentio in the course of this trial.”

    He had earlier (Page 96, Para 442-5) had this to say, “Mr Shasore SAN has not, in my judgment, been shown to be corrupt. His actions are inconsistent with Nigeria’s theory that he was….on the other hand, the account given in this judgment shows that responsibility for failures to obtain evidence and to avoid delay lay rather with many ministers and officials, whom Mr Shasore, SAN and others (including Stephenson Harwood and Mr Cordara QC at one stage) pressed repeatedly.”

    In a stunning indictment of the former Attorney General’s conduct in the case, Judge Knowles emphasised: “I add that in my view, Nigeria (and specifically Mr Malami SAN, the Attorney General) did not in truth believe Mr Shasore, SAN was corrupt.” He went on to list facts including the fact that the Nigerian government continued to appoint Mr Shasore to represent its interests in other arbitration cases.

    Sadly, in the euphoria of the quashing of the award, these are other dimensions of the judgment that will escape mentions by the media which had served as channels of amplification of the false allegations for years. Indeed, the judge referred to the fact that Shasore chose not to make any attempt to give any independent account to the court of the allegations made against him – an option which was open to him. I can only conclude that such a golden silence can only be characterised as patriotism.

    The P&ID case has laid bare critical deficiencies in how the Nigerian government sometimes manages contractual agreements. To avert future disputes, Nigeria must mandate adherence to transparency and rigorous due diligence as non-negotiable prerequisites in all business contracts. Contracts must be meticulously researched and formulated to prevent costly legal battles. Nigeria’s oversight and accountability mechanisms concerning foreign investors require substantial improvement.

    The Nigeria vs. P&ID case serves as a stark reminder of the dire consequences that negligence, corruption, and a lack of due diligence can bring about. As Nigeria seeks to recover and glean lessons from this experience, we have a unique opportunity to implement critical reforms that will safeguard the nation’s interests in the future. Through the adoption of transparency, the strengthening of legal frameworks, and a commitment to public engagement, Nigeria can work diligently to prevent the recurrence of such a costly and damaging legal battle.

    • Ogunsote is a public affairs commentator. He writes in from Area 8, Garki, Abuja
  • A matter of principle

    A matter of principle

    • By Muhammadu Buhari

    Rarely in modern times can so few have tried to take so much from so many. 

    If Nigeria had lost its arbitration dispute with Process & Industrial Development in a London court on 23 October, it would have cost our people close to USD15 billion.

    We won, and all decent people can sleep easier as a result. 

    Justice Robin Knowles said Nigeria had been the victim of a monstrous fraud. 

    But it was a close-run thing. 

    As the judge said: “I end the case acutely conscious of how readily the outcome could have been different, and of the enormous resources ultimately required from Nigeria as the successful party to make good its challenge.”

    But ordinary Nigerians never took the decisions that ended up before Justice Knowles. 

    Had Nigeria lost, it would have required schools not to be built, nurses not to be trained and roads not to repaired, on an epic scale, to pay a handful of contractors, lawyers and their allies – for a project that never broke ground.

    • How did it get to this point? 

    • How did Nigeria prevail? 

    • Was this a one-off, or par for a shabby and distasteful course? 

    • What are the lessons for the future?

    The ‘P&ID Affair’ was already firmly set by the time I came into office in 2015. 

    A company registered in the British Virgin Islands that no one had heard of, with hardly any staff or assets, had won a contract to build a gas processing plant in Cross Rivers. 

    The company was owned by Irish intermediaries who knew Nigeria well and had done business in everything from healthcare to fixing tanks.

    The previous government could not supply the gas. 

    The plant was never built. 

    Construction was not started. 

    P&ID did not even buy the land for the facility. 

    But the contract, incredibly, was clear: P&ID could sue Nigeria, and claim all the profits it might have made over 20 years as if everything had been completed.

    Nigeria was in court in London, trying to talk down liability and costs. 

    Back at home, fixers were looking to work out a quiet settlement. 

    This is often the way. 

    A lot of contracts end up in dispute. 

    P&ID won a settlement in 2017 of USD6 billion, with compound interest. 

    People, including out of work ex-British Cabinet Minister Priti Patel, were queuing up to insist we paid, or risk Nigeria becoming an untrustworthy trade pariah.

    It was clear that far from the whole story hadn’t been told. 

    I tasked Abba Kyari, my chief- of-staff and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, with finding a way, even at that late stage and despite so much conflicting advice, to get us a fair hearing. 

    Working with a number of different agencies and senior officials of government, we began to find a huge amount of evidence, not all of which Justice Knowles was to accept. 

    But he agreed that P&ID had paid bribes. 

    He agreed that one of P&ID’s founders had committed perjury. 

    Read Also: I was not involved in P&ID case, says Sagay

    And he agreed that P&ID had somehow found in its possession a steady supply of Nigeria’s privileged internal legal documents, outlining our plans, strategies and problems.

    My own view is that this whole, sorry affair shows how important it is to follow the legal process in resolving a dispute. 

    It shows that given time and opportunity for each side to present their case, the temple of justice can satisfactorily resolve all disputes without resort to extra-judicial measures. 

    It was definitely worth the struggle: this was an attempted heist of historic proportions, an attempt to steal from the treasury a third of Nigeria’s foreign reserves.

    But even at this moment, we should note what the English judge cautioned. 

    The arbitration process in London “was a shell that got nowhere near the truth.” 

    We need better contracts, in the public and private sector. 

    And we need greater transparency: the reality is that, had P&ID not conjured up quite such an outlandish ransom, they may have found themselves in the same place as the myriad other invisible contractors who all too often quietly take Nigeria for many millions in out of court settlements. 

    Sterner sanctions are indicated for Nigerian public officials who have been proven to connive with foreign criminals to defraud our country.

    Nigeria has won this battle with corruption, but the war is far from over. 

    As Justice Knowles concluded: “This case has also, sadly, brought together a combination of examples of what some individuals will do for money. 

    Driven by greed and prepared to use corruption; giving no thought to what their enrichment would mean in terms of harm for others. 

    Others, that, in the present case, include the people of Nigeria, already let down in so many ways over the history of this matter by a number of individuals in politics and administration whose duty it was to serve them and protect them.” 

    Well said.

    • Buhari served as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2015-23
  • Toxic vibes in schools

    Toxic vibes in schools

    There is a toxicity in Nigeria’s educational ecosystem that indexes a deeper malaise needing to be unraveled and remedied. This toxicity has resulted in avoidable deaths – not just among learners but also teachers. Consider some of the latest cases:

    Some two weeks ago, a teacher in Delta State was reportedly attacked by a parent, leading to his untimely death. Until the incident, Sunday Ufua was a Physics teacher at Alihame Mixed Secondary School in Agbor, Ika South council area, where the parent allegedly assaulted him for having disciplined his son over reported bad behaviour. Parading the parent, Nnajiofor Nweke, late last week in Asaba, the police in Delta alleged that he flogged Ufua to death in an incident that took place on 18th October. “The suspect went to the school premises aggressively in search of one of the school teachers over punishment meted to his son at the school (and)… on sighting the said teacher, picked a cane in the school and started flogging him during which another teacher, one Ufua Sunday, while trying to mediate and stop him slumped and was rushed to hospital where he was confirmed dead by the doctor,” Delta police command spokesman, Bright Edafe, said at the suspect parade.

    Nweke denied that Ufua died from direct assault by him. He told journalists that he had gone to the school where he enrolled his children to protest the flogging of his 12-year-old son in Junior Secondary School (JSS) 2, and he had left before he got reports that a teacher slumped. He acknowledged, though, that he assayed flogging another teacher with a cane that was lying by on a table, but “one of the teachers advised that l should wait for the principal to report the matter to him. At that time, it was getting to the time for my business, so l left. Later, my daughter called and said the teacher that used to look after them had slumped and l rushed back.”

    Before the suspect parade, Delta State Governor Sheriff Oborevwori  described events leading to Ufua’s death as condemnable and avoidable, saying the state government frowned “seriously on parents going to bully teachers for genuinely meting out disciplinary measures against students for bad behaviour such as is alleged in the extant case.” He tasked the state police command to thoroughly investigate the incident and bring culprits to book, adding: “As a state, we will never tolerate actions like this in our schools.”

    About the same time as the Delta incident, a JSS 3 pupil in Kaduna State was treated to corporal punishment by school helmsmen that resulted in his death. Marwanu Nuhu-Sambo was allegedly flogged on 20th October by the school principal, vice-principal and some prefects of Al-Azhar Academy, a private secondary school in Zaria, until he gave up the ghost. He was reportedly disciplined for absenting himself from school. The police in Kaduna confirmed arrest of the principal and vice-principal, with more arrests on the way; while the school board shuttered the academy following the incident.

    Marwanu’s relations said the lad had stopped going to school upon being asked to repeat his class after failing the promotional exam. “He was taken back to the school by one of his uncles and handed over to the school principal, who vowed to punish him for absconding. It was after the uncle left that teachers engaged the late Marwanu in serious beating, to the extent that they broke his tooth and later killed him,” a sister to the boy was reported saying. She further alleged that the boy’s body was abandoned near the school toilet till closing hours, when the school management rushed him to a nearby hospital only to be told he had died. Another relation said the beating indeed started soon as Marwanu was handed to the principal, who staged relay flogging of the lad with the vice-principal. The boy was thereafter taken to the assembly ground where he was further flogged in the presence of other students. “He was again taken to the principal’s office and flogged again, upon which he attempted to runaway but was prevented from doing so by the school prefects,” the relation said, adding: “He was beaten to the extent that he lost some of his teeth, and then went into a coma and subsequently lost his life.”

    Read Also: Police smash child stealing syndicate, arrest one

    Confirming the arrest of the principal and vice-principal, the police in Kaduna indicated that investigations showed Marwanu was subjected to merciless beating involving more than 100 strokes of the cane. Police command spokesman, Mansir Hassan, said: “At the assembly, the principal ordered that Marwanu be given 105 strokes of the cane. Thereafter, they took him to the office, removed his clothes and trousers and continued beating him with sticks on the head and back and his body. The principal later handed him over to the school prefects who continued beating him with sticks until one of his teeth fell off. It was at that point that the deceased went into coma.” The police spokesman added: “But instead of rushing him to hospital, the prefects brought him out and dumped his body in the school premises near the male toilets until closing time. Cries from other students in the school who watched in trepidation reportedly attracted other teachers, who rushed to the scene where they found that the boy had given up the ghost.”

    The school board, in a statement, denounced the incident, saying the punishment served on Marwanu was not part of the school’s policy, and that the officers who imposed “the irresponsible punishment did so without consultation.” It stated that the affected officers had been suspended from the school forthwith and handed over to the police for investigation and further action, adding: “Finally, the school is closed for academic activities till further notice.”

    And in Ebonyi State, a school principal and a teacher were gruesomely murdered by hoodlums at Nkaleke, Ebonyi council area. It was reported that the suspected assassins arrived at Nkaleke Echara Community Secondary School, Ojiegbe, on 13th October in a tricycle and shot dead the principal, Simon Ominyi, and a teacher, Moses Nwibo. Insider accounts said the hoodlums pretended as if they were on a genuine mission and inquired about the principal’s office from someone, who led them some distance  away and pointed out the office. But shortly after, they began shooting sporadically. “Immediately the assassins found their way into the principal’s office, they ordered the man and his guests to lie down and Mr. Ominyi, sensing danger, complied without hesitation. But in spite of the principal’s plea and non-resistance to their order, they still shot him to death on the spot,” a source was reported saying. After pumping bullets into the 50-year-old principal, the hoodlums also cut down the school teacher. The incident created tension in the area, making students and teachers to flee the school and residents the adjoining community.

    The police in Ebonyi confirmed the incident, saying investigation had begun to track down the killers. Meanwhile, organised labour protested the killings. “It is very bad for a sane man or woman to kill a teacher, who only works with chalk and pen. We condemn the act. The cane we are using is just to correct the schoolchildren,” state chairman of the Nigeria Union of Teachers, Francis Okorie, said. His counterpart for Trade Union Congress, Chidi Igboji, said it was a “shameful act” to kill teachers.

    The vibes of bestial violence in schools are displacing the culture of decency that ideally should characterise that ecosystem. There is a vicious mode taking over component groups – teachers, students, parents and other outsiders having a beef with system insiders. Even school owners are not exempt, going by the fate of five-year-old Hanifa Abubakar who was kidnapped and murdered in January 2022 by Abdulmalik Tanko, proprietor of the school where she was enrolled for early childhood education. And we now know that students are potential lynch mobs. Final year Civil Engineering student at Obafemi Awolowo University, Okoli Ahinze, was beaten to death by a student mob last April for allegedly stealing a phone.

    It isn’t that there are ready answers here as to possible underlying reasons for this horrible trend. But there are sufficient indications of pent-up frustration within the school ecosystem finding expression in bursts of aggression. Is it the prevailing state of the socio-economy de-egging the heads, or is it the general curricula losing depth in inculcating civility? Sociologists and educationists should help to interrogate.

    •Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation

  • Solving the education crisis in Nigeria

    Solving the education crisis in Nigeria

    • By Cristian Munduate

    IIR: There are approximately five million children in Nigeria who are 10 years of age. By this age, these children should be able to read and understand simple text and solve simple math problems. However, fewer than two million Nigerian children can perform these tasks. Only 27 percent of Nigeria’s 7- to 14-year-olds can read, write and count, far below other countries of the same development status. Learning poverty is particularly acute for the poorest children (96 per cent), children living in rural areas (87 per cent) and those living in the Northeast (87 per cent) and the Northwest (88 per cent).

    Foundational skills such as reading and solving basic math problems allow for cognitive development and acquisition of more complex skills. When we fail to provide these skills to children in the first three years of schooling, learning becomes an increasingly frustrating experience. The consequence is high levels of dropout (42 per cent of students drop out between primary 1 and the first year of Junior Secondary School), fuelling the out of school problem.

    So, what is driving high levels of learning loss in Nigeria?

    First is the quality of teachers. There are low levels of teacher competency and pedagogical skills. Fifty per cent of teachers in basic education in Nigeria lack minimum teaching qualifications.

    Second and related to the first, is the limited capacity of teachers to assess students in classrooms using simple diagnostic tools that tell what children know and can do.

    Third, is the inconsistent use of mother tongue in the first three years of schooling, a strategy proven to be highly effective in improving literacy levels globally and locally. But mother tongue is only as effective as the extent to which teachers are trained to teach in it and teaching and learning materials are available in the classroom.

    Read Also: Police smash child stealing syndicate, arrest one

    Fourth is the low and regressive spending on education in Nigeria. Education allocation was a mere 1.2 per cent of GDP in 2021 which is well below the international benchmark of 4-6 per cent. Education expenditure is consumed by recurrent expenses such as teacher salaries leaving little to invest in improving the quality of education. This results in overcrowded classrooms-teacher student ratios reach 1:124 in the Northeast and a chronic shortage of qualified teachers. For example, an additional 195,000 teachers are needed, nationwide, at the primary level

    The good news is that Nigeria has generated local evidence on what works to improve literacy and numeracy based on global best practices. Structured pedagogy, a model that combines continuous professional development of teachers involving mentoring and coaching, with lesson plans and high-quality teaching and learning materials in local languages, and uses formative assessment, can significantly improve numeracy and literacy levels in local language and English. Through various interventions such as the Reading and Numeracy Activity (RANA) and Kanuri Arithmetic and Reading Initiative (KARI) tested in the Northeast and in the Northwest, in formal schools and in Integrated Qur’anic Schools, these models have consistently improved foundational literacy and numeracy in Grades 1-3.

    Even when children exit grades 1-3 with learning gaps, they can quickly catch up through programs known as Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL). This innovative method groups children in grades 4-6 according to their learning level rather than grade to improve literacy and numeracy levels.

    These models are now active in local government areas in 15 states, but we must do more. To consistently generate the type of human capital needed to power the economy and to build a socially cohesive society, Nigeria needs to scale structured pedagogy to all schools and in all local government areas. This will require more investment in the quality of education and repurposing of existing budget lines on teacher development and teaching and learning materials to what we know works. It also demands regular competency-based assessments at school, state, and national level to track progress and a coming together of the education sector annually to evaluate progress and to course correct.

    Given the scale of the challenge and the urgency to act, we should all partner, with government. It needs coordinated and harmonized action by all partners around a common framework of action. The starting point must be to galvanize the education sector around the common purpose of ending the learning crisis. We can and must do it. We owe it to the 106 million children of school age in Nigeria who have a right to education and to a bright, prosperous life.

    •Munduate is the Representative of UNICEF in Nigeria. Prior to joining the United Nations, she was Minister of Social Welfare in Guatemala

  • Bureaucratic reforms and potentials forenhanced investment promotion in Ondo

    Bureaucratic reforms and potentials forenhanced investment promotion in Ondo

    Ondo state is situated at the juncture of three critical natural resources—agricultural produce, oil and natural gas, and solid mineral deposits, from gold and marble to granite and lignite. In crop production, Ondo is the number one producer of cocoa. And it is the fifth largest producer of crude oil. It possesses one of the largest deposits of natural gas all over the world, and the second largest bitumen deposits too. And overall, Ondo State has the sixth largest economy in Nigeria. These are all great and inspiring facts that undergird the possibilities that the promotion of investments in the state can unleash.

    However, and as the organizers of this lecture must have realized, nothing good comes easy. And not least in Nigeria where the economic progress of any state is tied in with the sociopolitical and socioeconomic fortune of the Nigerian economic performance. And so, opening up the opportunities and finding the strategies that enhance and promote investments in Ondo State require not only that all minds but hands must be on deck. It also demands some tasking institutional and governance reforms that must backstop such promotion.

    There are two correlated reasons for this. The first is that investments lie at the fundamental base as a key source of capital that all states need to finance their economic and productive activities, achieve technology transfer, enhance human resource capacities and other skills and competences development, and jumpstart internally generated revenue. All this, including the imperative of income poverty reduction, are all implicated in a state’s determination to achieve socioeconomic growth and development for her citizens. And the significance of drawing in capital investment that enables infrastructural development is what drives governors and presidents to put in strenuous efforts in wooing investors into the critical sectors of their economies. However, and this is the second reason for the need for urgent institutional and governance reforms, investors are too shrewd to be drawn in by mere political and economic rhetoric. As rational calculators, the demand of the rational choice theory implies that they must make the most calculated and self-interested decisions that will bring in the maximum benefits for them.

    And this means that in investing their capital, they will critically investigate the political, social and economic environments of where they are prospecting, and this applies especially to a state’s business environment. We can say that investment does not come by patriotism. Rather, it comes through doing due diligence to ensure that my investment does not go down the drain due to a state’s unproductive business environment. In fact, it has been argued that such an assessment is done around four critical clusters:

    ·               Security and law enforcement;

    ·               Infrastructures and utilities like power, road and the public transportation networks, water and sanitation, and social welfare system;

    ·               Business development supports from the availability of industrial parks and zones to access to finance, and entrepreneurial facilities;

    ·               Optimal and functional regulatory services like property registration, tax administration, contract enforcement, the justice delivery system, and so on.

    Thus, an unstable political clime or volatile security situation will drive off any willing investors. And no amount of wooing will succeed. Given these concerns, we therefore need to reassess how we need to proceed not only in the context of this lecture, but also on the larger matter of enhancing the environment for investment in Ondo State. This allows us to raise and foreground some crucial questions:

    I.             In grounding the core of what is at issue here today, should we be concerned with “creating” a climate for investment or “promoting” the already existing climate of investment? Is there any need, given the timeline of this administration’s tenure, to reinvent the wheel?

    II.            If it is better to talk about promoting an already existing climate of investment (rather than creating a new one), what are the perceived gaps and loopholes in this investment climate, especially based on the perception surveys of past investors, as well as a critical assessment of the business and investment realities on ground in Ondo State? For instance, to what extent can the investors already on ground be said to be satisfied with the business environment sufficiently for them to become the state’s brand promoters?

    III.           Since most critical investors think largely in regional terms when it suits their calculations, to what extent can we say that Ondo State has harnessed her significant economies of scale vis-à-vis other states in the southwest?

    IV.           Is Ondo State involved in any existing or forthcoming collaborative economic and investment arrangements, especially with sister states in the southwest? Or do these states see themselves more as competitors rather than collaborators in opening up the southwest as a corridor of business opportunities whose cumulative benefits rebound to the advantage of all?

    Beyond the ambit of this lecture, these are questions that I presume ought to be cogent within the governance efforts of the Ondo State government to make the state a haven for investors. In the rest of the lecture, I will (a) look critically at how the larger Nigeria’s governance context affects Ondo State’s business environment; (b) the critical role that an institutionally reformed and functional public bureaucracy, like the Ondo State Investment Promotion Agency (OSIPA), can play in facilitating the objective of the state government; and finally (c) engage with other critical reform issues that the Ondo State government needs to factor into its objective of reforming its bureaucracy for an effective promotion of investment drive in the state. 

    The Ease of Doing Business in Nigeria

    Whatever we have to say about promoting investment in Ondo State cannot be divorced from the larger context of what the Nigerian business environment denotes. This is because within Nigeria’s federal arrangement, the federating states are equally drawn into federal framework that could either make or mar any individual investment efforts by the states. And all the states, for example, are drawn into Nigeria’s monocultural economy and its dependence on crude oil, with all the challenges that generate. Unfortunately, however, the demands for fossil fuel have drastically diminished all across the world and the dependence of other states on Nigeria’s crude oil has taken a serious dwindle in the world market. This immediately tells us that there is practically no future in carbon-based non-renewable energy as the mainstay for the national economy of any country with the ambition of amounting to being a significant player in the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions.

    Read Also: Aketi, Lucky, and the future of Ondo state

    The consequences of Nigeria’s dependence on crude oil are many. The least of these consequences, as consecutive Nigerian governments have realized, is the constant adverse shocks that come from global price fluctuations in the oil market. The most worrisome of the consequences is the vulnerability of the Nigerian economy to global economic recession and the foreign exchange depletion, high inflation and the other critical macroeconomic challenges that Nigeria has had to keep contending with, and which have kept her comatose for sixty-three years. This is made more significant because of the lack of an optimal productive capacities in manufacturing and any substantive industrialization process. The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recently reported a downward trend in Nigeria’s foreign direct investment profile as well as inflows in her foreign portfolios. This speaks dismally to a growing vulnerability whose impact on the GDP cannot be underestimated.      

    And in response to this gloomy statistics, successive Nigerian governments have been responding as energetically as they can to the urgent challenge of diversifying the monocultural economic framework to meet the global turn away from fossil fuel. Both the federal and state governments are now actively reconstituting their institutional and economic dynamics in ways that are meant to deliver on creating favorable business environments that will induce ease of doing business in Nigeria. For example, the establishment of the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC) in 2016 came with the objective of removing “bureaucratic constraints to doing business in Nigeria, and make the country a progressively easier place to start and grow a business.”  And as a consequence, Nigeria’s ranking in the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) Index improved from 146 in 2018 to 131 in 2020. This improvement has been due to the concerted effort to reform the processes involved in the business environment, especially the automation of the company incorporation processes which now enables self-service, as well as the institutional collaboration between the FIRS and the CAC that ensures (i) the introduction of the automatic electronic stamping of incorporation documents and issuance of Tax Identification Number (TIN); (ii) the issuance of a single application form for incorporation; and (iii) the decentralisation of the CAC application completion process.

    Despite the improvement that various administrations have achieved in reducing the challenges involved in attracting foreign investment into the Nigerian economy, the challenges and bottlenecks are still significant, especially when viewed across the states. These include the following:

    –              Lack of clarity on registration procedures for new businesses

    –              High cost of land acquisition and difficulty in obtaining land title

    –              Sanctity of agreements and enforceability of contracts

    –              Inadequacy of intra-state transport infrastructure (road and rail)

    –              Low level of automation of business processes within the civil service

    –              Lack of clarity of investment protectionlaws

    –              Raw materials shortages

    –              Weak public private partnership framework

    In the PEBEC 2023 assessment of the ease of doing business in Nigeria, Gombe maintained her first position in 2021 (7.69) and 2023 (7.15). Ondo State was on the 8th position in 2021 (6.16) and a distant 19th position in 2023 (5.47). this downward trend is certainly enough reason for action for the state government.

    Ondo Development and Investment Promotion Agency and the Challenge of Institutional Reform

    No significant discernment is required to know that achieving an optimal business environment that attracts investment is in direct proportion to the existence of a reformed, effective and efficient public administration system, functional infrastructures and reliable regulatory services. An efficient public service therefore becomes a key and fundamental institutional factor in reinvigorating the Ondo State efforts to boost and promote her business environment. This is because, as is the case all over the world, the effectiveness of the government is assessed through its bureaucracy in terms of (a) the quality of bureaucratic efficiency, (b) quality of service delivery, and (c) the professionalism of the public servants and frontline managers.

    The case can then be made for two related bureaucratic backends, involving MDAs, that service the efforts to sanitize, decentralize and make efficient the business environment. These are the direct and the indirect business environments. The indirect and larger environment involves the macroeconomic climate—industrial, security and infrastructural—which delivers policies that indirectly affect the investment environment. This policy environment concerns MDAs and their regulatory functions in terms of taxes, tariffs, licenses and permits, product standardization and quality assurance, customer satisfaction, environmental protection, financial services, etc. We must also not forget the critical issue of industrial relations and labour productivity that touch on recruitment, wage and incentives, labour-employer relations, etc.   

    In terms of the direct bureaucratic framework, no other institution in Ondo State represents the core of the structures that the government needs to force into the forefront of institutional reform than the Ondo Development and Investment Promotion Agency (ONDIPA) to correct whatever structural anomalies limits the capacity of Ondo State, with all her human and natural resources, to achieve the number one position in the ease of doing business in Nigeria. Established as the institutional arrowhead for the promotion of investment in the state as well as multilateral cooperation, ONDIPA was given the mission to “actively facilitate, promote, manage and support domestic investment, foreign direct investment, foreign portfolio investment and grant investments to help nurture new and foster existing industries for social and economic development of Ondo State.” And this is to be achieved in seven key areas: investor and sector targeting/marketing, policy formulation and advocacy, promotion of tourism, business facilitation, support and aftercare, partnerships and sectoral cooperation, multilateral and donor relations, and management of economic zones. In simple terms, ONDIPA is expected to simplify the administrative procedures involved in investment in the state, improve the regulatory transparency and channel private sector collaborations. However, given the dismal performance in the ease of doing business index, the general question to ask is, to what extent ONDIPA has fared in the achievement of its vision and mission? I will now proceed to break this general question into three clusters of interrogation that pose critical queries to the Ondo State government and ONDIPA.

    The first set of queries goes to the Ondo State government. First, and given the urgency with which the government is pursuing its objective of promoting investment, the question to ask is: what is the level of budgetary funding that ONDIPA enjoys? It would seem logical that if the government wants to improve its investment profile, it would give priority attention to the agency in charge of making it happen. But, does it? In the 2023 sectoral budgetary allocation, ONDIPA receives approximately N1.1b., which is very low compared to allocations to other sectors. Second, we can ask about the scope and depth of the administrative and institutional reforms that the Ondo state government has put in place (in terms of the ease of doing business) and their impact on both the ONDIPA and other correlated MDAs. These reforms will be in terms of (a) streamlining administrative procedures; (b) reduction in the cost of establishing new investments; (c) seamless access to information and guidelines in establishing new businesses; (d) the enabling capacity of the legal and regulatory instruments, financing options, land access/grant of certificates of occupancy (C-of-O); (e) the competences of the personnel in charge of making the business environment friendly and efficient; (f) the availability of post-investment facilitation and advisory supports; and most fundamental (g) the involvement of ONDIPA and other related MDAs in policy conversations, especially at strategic and tactical levels of decision-making on investment possibilities.

    The second clusters of interrogation targets ONDIPA itself and its institutional strategies and operational tactics. 

    o             What is ONDIPA’s professionalism quotient in terms of its competences, result-oriented and innovative capacities to attract investment? For instance, if benchmarked against other high-performing investment promotion agencies across Nigeria and beyond, how innovative would it be in terms of (i) the information facilitation, brand advocacy and projection of Ondo State as the state of choice in investment, and (ii) concrete investment generation? Ondo State’s position in the 2023 PEBEC index is an indication of an answer to this question.

    o             What corporate strategy undergirds its investment mission statement and marketing programs?

    The last set of question is direct. One: what institutional linkages and leveraging has ONDIPA achieved in terms of attracting, expanding and connecting shareholders, especially the private sector, foreign investors and local players in the investment space in Ondo State through profiling and projecting Ondo’s comparative advantages and the government policy successes and breakthroughs? Two: does the private sector possess a visible representation in ONDIPA’s operation?

    Conclusion: Strengthening Ondo State Public Service Performance

    In concluding this lecture, I will briefly outline ten core reform areas that will assist the government in its search for an optimal and functional public service that will backstop the investment drive in the state.

    As I see it, the first order of reform business for the Ondo State government is the urgency of a system-wide capacity building and performance-enhancing re-professionalization and improvement of workplace ethic for all public managers. This will involve productivity audits that eliminate internal processes that hinder efficiency, as well as series of trainings and capacity development programmes which will include financial and economic analysis of investment scenarios; methodologies and tools for project formulation appraisals; analysis of investment environment; analytical tools on investment options e.g. joint venture, rehabilitation projects, cost centres, project finance, financial modelling and evaluation, risk management and risk sharing, and so on.

    As a second order of business, government needs to focus on enhancing the public service’s capacity for policy intelligence on investment as well as stakeholders’ engagement skills. This will enable government officials to deploy multiple perspectives into their investment policy analyses through different techniques and procedures that test different investment scenarios. These officials and public managers will also be able to adopt creative and strategic communication skills in building a friendly business environment for stakeholders, while also designing and adjusting contracts and investment agreements as the environmental indicators will demand. 

    The next set of reform activities are specifically targeted at the transformation of the general business environment and specifically the ease of doing business dynamics. First, government reforms whose objective will be to reengineer the business and investment environment processes, especially through the review and reform of the standard operating procedures and guidelines is imperative. This will not only achieve the objective of dispensing with non-value-adding licencing regulations in order to speed up the cycle time in investment licencing. It will also eliminate hindrances involved in the bureaucratic and legal processes for granting land permits for investment purposes.

    Finally, the Ondo State government must necessarily review the baseline frameworks and modalities regarding her ease of doing business. First, it is imperative to strengthen statistics involving investment and other related matters. This will involve putting in place more systematic and evidence-based models and machineries for collecting data, establishing databases and information systems that enhance better decisions with regard to investments. This automatically place information and statistics at the core of the EoDB reform.

    Second, it is crucial to conduct regular sector analyses that will automatically benefit from the improved data collection and statistical frameworks. This will enable the Ministry for Economic Planning and Budget, as well as ONDIPA, to conduct periodic sector analyses, through a reprofiled monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, to generate helpful information required by investors, targeted business communities, development partners, research institutions, and the general public. For example, the government can facilitate an EoDB portal, upgraded into a public-private web platform that

    (a)          collates information real-time on starting or operating a business in the state,

    (b)          provides information on business registration process and fees, the process to renew a business permit, tax exemption, and other tax-related information, and

    (c)           provide downloadable form for citizens to submit questions, complaints, and feedback regarding business processes.

    And then, there is the need to review cost centres to significantly reduce investors’ transaction costs. This review will focus on issues such as the cost of registration and other administrative bottlenecks involved in registering businesses, the rationalization of multiple and constraining tax regimes, and the elimination of all forms of illegal payment schedules. The last leg of the reform is concerned with strengthening the government’s post-investment support systems through the provision of technical supports and advisory services that will be periodically reviewed in ways that ensure that existing investors are not only duly satisfied and their re-investment and project expansion assured, they eventually become the state’s brand ambassadors to other potential investors.

    (Being Lecture Delivered by Prof. Tunji Olaopa, retired Federal Permanent Secretary, professor of public administration and Executive Vice-Chairman, Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy – ISGPP – as Guest Speaker at the 2023 Ondo State Public Service Week on the Theme “Bureaucratic Impact on Investment Promotion in Ondo State” held on Thursday, 19th October, 2023 at the International Culture and Event Centre (The DOME), Akure)

    by Prof. Tunji Olaopa Retired Federal Permanent Secretary, Professor of Public Administration & Executive  Vice-Chairman, Ibadan School of Government  and Public Policy – ISGPP, Bodija, Ibadan  tolaopa2003@gmail.com

  • Mission of Nigerian journalism in fourth Republic

    Mission of Nigerian journalism in fourth Republic

    • Each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it –Frantz Fanon
    • By Iboro Otongaran

    What Frantz Fanon said in the quote above all those many years ago in 1961 rings true today about the place of Nigerian journalism in nation-building as it did during the arid climate of military dictatorship (1966—1999), and further down to the rapacity of British colonial rule (1859—1960). What brings Fanon and the acuity of his insight to mind is Naija Times book launch of October 19, 2023, which was the highlight of the online newspaper’s third anniversary celebration.

    Aptly communicatively entitled For a Better Society, the book, which is a collection of the paper’s leader for three years, is a non-squinting focus on and direction to what ought to be the mission of journalism in Nigeria in these times. The title of the book echoes Fanon’s penetrating insight and recalls the illustrious history of Nigerian journalism.

    COLONIAL TIMES

    During colonial rule Nigerian journalism acted as the coalescing agent by mobilising public opinion towards the achievement of a better society, which was but a dream because colonial rule didn’t allow Nigerians to take decisions for themselves, didn’t permit them to be the architect of their future, and would not allow them to plan for the education of their children. For the media, colonial rule had reduced Nigerians to indentured people who had to be liberated. This was the mission of Nigerian journalism during the colonial period. It was a mission that was fulfilled.

    The media organisations and journalists who “stormed the Bastille,” as it were, to break the shackles of colonial rule were many, but some stand out for putting in more than their fair share of the work. Frequently cited as chief among the truly outstanding, and regarded as “the father of Nigerian journalism,” is Ernest Ikoli. A media historian, John H. Enemugwem, in A Journal of Contemporary Research 2009, has noted “Ikoli’s nationalism of the pen for Nigeria’s independence.” Others included but are not limited to the West African Pilot and its publisher, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe; the West Indian, Robert Campbell, and his newspaper, the Anglo-African; the Lagos Observer; The Lagos Standard; the Lagos Weekly Record owned by the Liberian, John Payne Jackson; John Horatio Jackson, who assumed the editorship of the Record after the death of John Payne Jackson; the Times of Nigeria owned by J.P Davies.

    Read Also: We’ll encourage responsible journalism not gag press – Idris

    After a review of how the media acquitted themselves in their historical role in the colonial times, Enemugwem writes, ‘Because of their anti-colonial roles and opposition [to] the colonial administration in every ramification before 1920s, “what the African seemed to be missing in representative government, they appeared to be making up on the pages of newspapers.”’ Enemugwem concludes with the following accolade for the colonial press: “The confrontational posture of these early newspapers earned British West African nations African representation in the colonial administration of their countries from the 1920s to independence and the Lagos media were not only commended for promoting it but also for evolving a better situation in the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria” (emphasis added).

    MILITARY RULE

    This tradition of fighting for a better society, of working in concert with civil society and other stakeholders to evolve a better situation for the country was passed on to the new generation of media men and women, who in the post-colonial era of military rule, identified a mission of fighting for democracy and riding Nigeria of the jackboots of military dictatorship. It was a herculean mission, fraught with all the risks, including risks to life and limb. But the media did not flinch. Rather, they demonstrated the verity of the superiority of the pen over the gun. The military was driven back to the barracks, and once again another generation of Nigerian media professionals fulfilled their mission.

    Years after the nightmare of more than three decades largely of military dictatorship, the nation’s collective memory is still green with imagery of arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, closure of media houses, clampdown on all manner of free expression and extra judicial killings. In spite of these dire straits, the media, inspired by its illustrious history, faced down the military potentates and they blinked. Some journalists—Dele Giwa and Bagauda Kaltho on my mind—did not live to tell the story, but alive are Ray Ekpu, Bayo Onanuga, Yakubu Mohammed, Soji Akinrinade, Dan Agbese, Babafemi Ojudu, Kunle Ajibade, Charles-Obi, George M’bah, Onome-Osifo-Whiskey, Dare Babarinsa, Kolawole Ilori, Nosa Igiebor and many others, albeit with varying degrees of scars. The roll call in courage and bravery cannot end without paying due tribute to the dean of the old school, Dr Stanley Macebuh, who recruited and deployed the best and brightest in the vineyard of journalism, when the business was defined by good writing and impeccable grammar.

    THE FOURTH REPUBLIC

    The historical trajectory of Nigerian journalism shows that each epoch was confronted by a defining challenge. To recap, the challenge of the colonial times was the imperative of freeing the nation from colonial bondage. During military rule the task before Nigerian journalists was the restoration of constitutional rule which the military had taken away from 1966—1999, save for occasional flashes of civil administration that were not really free of the incubus of the men in khaki, who maintained a tight leash on their civilian collaborators that were allowed to operate mainly at the subnational level.

    The march of history since 1999 has thrust the nation into a different epoch, branded the Fourth Republic, and beset with a challenge of a different kind. Since the Fourth Republic began about 24 years ago, the Nigerian economy has been in a serious decline. In fact, the economy appears to be in a free fall now, wracked by the collapse of the real sector, fiscal instability hallmarked by run-away inflation, crippling infrastructure deficit, rampant insecurity, unprecedented level of unemployment that has produced the japa syndrome, insufficient public power, which, combined with other input factors like the exchange rate, has made Nigerian industries uncompetitive on the global stage. Other features of the economic collapse include a rise in universal poverty in the country, and a serious decline in virtually all human development indicators.

    Taken together, all these issues make up the economic equivalent of the challenges that Nigerian journalism confronted during the colonial times and in the period of military rule. Given the babble in the media industry, the brawls over personal preoccupations, the absence of media resonance by way of sustained agenda-setting on the economic crisis facing the nation, can the conclusion not be justifiably drawn that the main issue of our time, which is the economic meltdown, has become the blind spot of the Fourth Estate of the Realm? Why have Nigerian journalists not faced up to this national challenge with the kind of grit and gumption as well as the dedication that their predecessors responded to similar national challenges of their epochs? Why are we not seeing a concerted effort across the media industry to cobble up a coalition of all stakeholders to face down the economic maelstrom that is barrelling down to smash an ecology of 200 million people! Journalism in the Fourth Republic appears to be short of the coalescing essence that helped in the past to band progressive forces in a coalition that confronted and overcame national threats.

    I do not know the reason for the somnolence of Nigerian journalism in the face of a mortal threat to our collective existence. I only hope however that the intervention by Naija Times with the publication of For a Better Society will shake the industry out of its lethargy to begin the serious work of taking up its mission like the generations before it and work as one to fulfil it.

    • Otongaran, a Communication Artist, writes from Abuja
  • Vladimir Putin’s worldwide distraction tour

    Vladimir Putin’s worldwide distraction tour

    • By Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth

    The Kremlin’s fingerprints were all over Mohammed Deif and Hamas’s mass execution of more than 1,300 Israelis on October 7th. To understand who was behind the attack, intelligence analysts consider the Latin phrase “cui bono” – to whom is it a benefit?

    The answer is Russia. Gaza, in effect, was just another bloody stop on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s worldwide distraction tour.

    The fingerprints include multiple trips by Hamas senior officials to Moscow, training of Hamas militants by PMC Wagner mercenaries on “small unit tactics and the use of small unmanned aerial vehicles to drop explosive devices on to vehicles,” the launch of distributed denial-of-service attacks against Israeli government websites during the attack to disrupt a coordinated government response, a disinformation campaign linking weapons used in the attack by Hamas as sold on the black market by Ukraine, an immediate call by Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova for Palestine and Israel to implement a “ceasefire, renounce violence, exercise the necessary restraint and establish, with the assistance of the international community, a negotiation process aimed at establishing a comprehensive, lasting and long-awaited peace in the Middle East,” and a platform on Telegram where millions of dollars were raised in cryptocurrency to fund Hamas.

    One man it suspected of working for Ukrainian intelligence was killed in a gunfight during the operation, the FSB said, without providing further details.

    And then the timing of the attack – Putin’s 71st birthday.

    Israel and Russia, heretofore, have maintained a working partnership in Syria. Moscow is free to focus on targeting rebels fighting to topple Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s regime, while Jerusalem conducts airstrikes against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-backed militias and Iranian forces threatening Israel.

    Putin’s 71st birthday markedly changed the dynamics of that understanding when Hamas unleashed its reign of terror against southern Israel – and fired an opening volley of over 5,000 rockets into central Israel.

    Ukraine is why.

    Putin, faced with a badly faltering ‘special military operation’ after 592 days of fighting against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his generals, was badly in need of a major distraction for two primary reasons. To redirect Washington’s primary attention to the Mideast, and as cover for Putin’s then soon to be launched counteroffensive against Avdiivka in the Donbas.

    Iran and Hamas, working in unison, held the cards to making that happen. Deif played those cards on October 7th and, two days later, on October 9th, while the United States and the world were turning their attention to the carnage in Israel, Russian ground forces launched a sizable counterattack in Avdiivka.

    Putin’s primary gambit, for now, has failed. By October 15th the Russian assault on Avdiivka had ground to a halt. Ukrainian Tavriisk Group of Forces spokesperson Colonel Oleksandr Shtupun reported, “Russian forces have lost more than 300 pieces of military equipment and 3000 personnel.”  If the battle damage assessment is accurate, that could easily equate to a Brigade sized formation lost in six days of combat.

    Yet, Deif’s attack, codenamed “Al-Aqsa Storm,” continues to buy invaluable time and space for Putin in Ukraine. It is gaslighting anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian protests around the world and in the Arab Street. Sowing discord on Capitol Hill in Washington – while aiming to divide an already war-weary American public.

    Read Also: Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un pledge stronger ties

    Nonetheless, Ukraine remains Putin’s Achilles Heel. Zelensky and his generals continue to render Crimea untenable, while slowly advancing towards Melitopol and the Sea of Azov and soundly defeating repeated Russian counterattacks in the Donbas. Undeterred, the Kremlin continues relentlessly to encircle an embattled Avdiivka in what is becoming Bakhmut 2.0. Putin is also likely trying to force Ukraine to expend vast amounts of munitions, while gambling US funding for the war will dry up.

    Putin, like a bruised boxer, has survived this standing eight count – at least for now. But his window is closing as US M1 Abrams main battle tanks and ATACMS munitions begin to arrive on the battlefield and adversely impact Russian operations. Ukraine has already put ATACMS to use – successfully launching 18 missiles on Russian airfields and ammunition depots in occupied Berdyansk and Luhansk.

    While Ukraine continues to push Putin on the battlefield, he is likely to create new distractions elsewhere for the US and NATO to address. The Mideast was only Putin’s latest distraction. He was already creating chaos in the Balkans, Africa, the Gulf of Finland, and the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The intent is clear. Undermine US.and NATO military support to Ukraine by diverting Western resources, military assets, armaments, and munitions away from the battlefields of Russian occupied-Ukraine.

    Kosovo is ground zero of Moscow’s efforts to renew ethnic tensions in the Balkans. NATO peacekeepers have been stationed in Serbia’s breakaway province since June 1999 as part of the Kumanovo Agreement that ended the Kosovo War. Putin, undoubtedly, sees the opportunity to wag NATO’s tail in Kosovo and perhaps, kinetically so.

    Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vučić, heavily pro-Russian, is Putin’s willing accomplice. The White House warned on September 29th of the build-up of a sizable Serbian military presence on the Kosovo border. In response, Great Britain deployed an additional 200 soldiers, while NATO is equipping its  Kosovo peacekeeping force with heavy weapons should  “combat power” be required to deter or counter Serbia.

    In Africa, Putin is leveraging his PMC Wagner mercenaries to subvert and overthrow existing governments – including Niger and Sudan. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s targeted disinformation campaign continues to destabilize the entirety of West Africa’s Sahel region while marginalizing western influence – namely France and the U.S.

    On October 8th, in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel, Putin likely added the Baltic Sea as yet another theater in his growing list of distractions. Newly minted NATO alliance member Finland reported that the Balticconnector pipeline between the country and the Baltic state of Estonia was damaged. The adjacent Estlink underwater telecommunications cable and an undersea telecoms cable connecting Estonia and Sweden were also damaged.

    As retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis and former commander of NATO observed in a post on X, it has all the appearances of “Russian sabotage.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg later warned Brussels “will mount a “determined” response if the cause is proven to be a deliberate attack.”

    Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation claimed “external marks” were observed adjacent to the pipeline and communications cable. Chuck Pfarrer, the former U.S. Navy Seal and maritime special operations expert, noted in a post on X that “The Russian ‘research ship’ Sibiryakov was reported active in the Gulf of Finland in the weeks just prior to the break in the Baltic Connection pipeline.”

    Pfarrer went on to recall that the Sibiryakov “made an appearance near the Nordstream pipeline before it was sabotaged.” Putin, as he continues losing the war in Ukraine, is evidently increasingly willing to ruffle NATO’s feathers elsewhere – including Turkey.

    Putin did just that via Azerbaijan. Russia made no attempt to come to the assistance of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member Armenia in the latest Nagorno-Karabakh regional conflict with Azerbaijan. Rather, he allowed the conflict to fester, evidently intending to pull Turkey and the U.S. into opposite sides of the dispute.

    Turkey is a strong supporter of Azerbaijan. The US, seeking to turn Yerevan westward and away from the CSTO, recently deployed 85 soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division and Kansas National Guard to Armenia for 10-day exercise called Eagle Partner to prepare the “Armenian soldiers for an assessment later this year of their ability to conform to NATO standards if deployed as peacekeepers.”

    Beijing was Putin’s latest stop on his ‘worldwide distraction tour.’ Last Monday, he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Belt and Road Initiative summit. Xi said all the right things and rolled out the red carpet, but in reality, Putin left empty-handed.

    Like an aging magician, Putin’s distractions are becoming increasingly obvious – and increasingly an annoyance to China. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on October 12th sent his own blunt message to Putin and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. IDF fighter-bombers struck the Damascus and Aleppo airports in Syria, forcing the aircraft carrying Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian to Syria to turn around mid-flight.

    Ostensibly, Israel’s strike was to disrupt arms smuggling to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Geopolitically, Netanyahu was telling Putin his distraction gig was up – and that he had gone too far in dialing in Hamas into Moscow’s growing alliance with Iran and North Korea.

    Effectively, aside from Xi’s lip service, Putin is down to his “Arsenals of Evil.” His calculus now is largely one of going big or going home. Moscow triggering Iran and Hezbollah to go “all in” in Israel would be one way of going big.

    North Korea is another. Putin’s recent meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia may present another Autumn surprise. Kim may have foreshadowed that on October 13th, when North Korea issued a nuclear threat when the USS Ronald Reagan and its battle group arrived at the South Korea port of Busan at the conclusion of a US-South Korean-Japanese naval exercise in international waters.

    The Russian president, however, has likely miscalculated. His distractions, while useful in the short-run, likely will prove disastrous in the long-run. The US is beginning to respond militarily with shows of force, including the positioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike groups in the eastern Mediterranean – and notably, the rare forward-deployment of the U.S. Navy command ship the USS Mount Whitney.

    Putin began his worldwide distraction tour already losing in Ukraine. By its end, he might see not only Hamas destroyed, but Hezbollah as well and Iran’s nuclear weapons program checked, if not permanently neutered by Israel. Unwittingly, he also likely tied US military and economic funding for Israel with Ukraine – and at a time when a growing faction in Washington was opposed to giving Kyiv anymore.

    Many of the crises that exist in the world today can be linked directly back to Russia – cui bono. The solution may really be as simple as removing the cancer – Putin. Russia’s defeat in Ukraine would likely bring about an end to his murderous regime and put an end to its ability to create conflict and instability throughout the world.

    ·This article was first published in www.kyivpost.com

  • Investment fund for health: An approach to attaining universal coverage 

    Investment fund for health: An approach to attaining universal coverage 

    • By Noimot Balogun 

    Health has been agreed at the United Nations General Assembly to be a “precondition for and an outcome and indicator of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development”. According to WHO, Universal Health Coverage means that “all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship”.

    Unfortunately, approximately 75% of Nigerians have to pay out of pocket in order to access healthcare, with less than 5% of its population having any form of health insurance. These figures should be viewed in the context of a country whose minimum wage is approximately N30,000. With this context in mind, it is evident that the average Nigerian with no health insurance is at a very high risk of being impoverished due to health expenses. Imagine the effect of this gap on the pregnant woman and her unborn child.  In 2020, Nigeria had the second-highest maternal deaths globally and the fourth country with the highest neonatal deaths in 2021. 

    These depressing indices caused by financial incapability, other health burdens such as infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases, and poor maternal health advocacy continuously put thousands of pregnant women in low-income communities at risk of death or life-threatening complications. This crisis also affects the economy as negative birthing outcomes could lead to reduced human capital, increased absenteeism from work, and increased financial burden on the government and taxpayers. 

    Therefore, achieving Universal Health Coverage is a multifaceted need that requires solutions from collaborative interactions of government, donor organizations, private stakeholders and the populace. Without a doubt, significant efforts have been put into achieving UHC in Nigeria; however, the results of these efforts are still not satisfactory. It is therefore imperative to begin to look at other innovative opportunities to improve sustainability for health.

     One such opportunity is creating an investment fund for health towards building social capital where all actors benefit. One of the oldest forms of funding for healthcare apart from government funding is donor aid from international organizations; some of these aids are however time-bound; hence the issue of sustainability. Local mobilization of funding is therefore more veritable to harness potential resources from local actors.

    Read Also: Understanding the importance of Digestion and Gut

     A key element to achieving this funding is the effective collaboration between the public and private stakeholders of healthcare. 

    Using the maternal and child health index as a case study, one factor that contributes to maternal mortality is the low use of skilled birth attendants at delivery. 

    This has been shown to be partly due to the affordability of the cost of care amongst other factors.  

    With an investment fund, healthcare services such as antenatal care and delivery can be further subsidized to improve access to these services and subsequently reduce maternal mortality. 

    Aside from improving access to care, an investment fund can also improve the quality of care received at public facilities through the provision of modern facilities such as incubators, radiant warmers, oxygen dispensers, and inverters. 

    Also, in the area of drug delivery in maternal and child health, having a pool of funds that caters to the supply of essential medicines and routine antenatal care drugs, and even kits such as diapers, and baby clothing will further reduce the cost of care and improve quality of healthcare delivery. 

    Another very important sector which will expedite the achievement of UHC in Nigeria is the technology industry. By funding the digitization of healthcare, we stand a chance to promote health across wider regions and areas. 

    For example, the provision of simple digital tools to carry out point-of-care diagnosis in rural areas as well as training of health staff in such facilities has the potential to reduce the distance travelled by these individuals to get quality care and encourage the use of health facilities for health needs. 

    Also, the use of simple mobile technology to disseminate health promotion messages in local languages can encourage the average Nigerian to make better health choices and improve their health outcomes. 

     Inadequate data storage and management also have negative impacts on the quality of care Nigerians receive. This is because with poor data, healthcare will not be appropriately budgeted for, hence, leaving Nigerians to deal with the effects of having limited health resources. However, digitization of healthcare will address the key areas of healthcare delivery which include health information management and data storage, maintenance of servers, and provision of digital apparatus among others. 

    Although these projects require funding and human resources, an investment fund developed through a public-private partnership increases the chances of taking up these challenges in Nigeria. 

    This is the idea behind MRH Collective’s MamaBase Digital Registry, an innovative registry to take unique identification of all pregnant women in Lagos State; and a systematic tracking of the identified mothers such that the women present for antenatal visits, complete all tests and vaccinations, receive and use all drugs, and then deliver with a skilled birth attendant at the time of delivery.

     A health investment fund creates a pool for funding cutting-edge research and maternal follow up which are tailored to the peculiar needs of Nigerian women while accounting for the peculiarities of the Nigerian health sector. 

    This not only gives room to create local solutions for Nigerians but also empowers the average Nigerian health provider to give adequate healthcare delivery using evidence-based research which strives towards global standards. It is also important to strengthen the social capital for health by deliberately creating conversations for partnerships for health. 

    Partnerships are innovative paths towards improving universal health coverage through Primary Healthcare. 

    Through partnerships, everyone wins: Government is able to achieve its dividends for democracy; private partners are positioned as socially responsible corporate citizens with a sense of social good; the public benefits as the lives of primary caregivers at homes and families are protected for now and the future. 

    •Dr. Balogun writes from Maternal and Reproductive Health Research Collective, (MRH Collective www.mrhrcollective.org).