The Nation Newspaper

Tag: debate

  • The five-dollar debate

    The five-dollar debate

    THE economy is clearly in the doldrums; nearly every sector is suffering acute inertia, the corruption monster is on the loose while the current federal budget seems irredeemably mired in implementation hiccups. These are fundamental problems that require hard-headed responses from both the executive and legislative arms of government. But instead of seeking far-reaching solutions to the dire situation the country is faced with, these two bodies are bickering over a five-dollar differential in the oil benchmark of the 2013 federal budget.

    There is no doubt that five dollars in millions of places is a lot of money just as we recognise that an oil producing country must find an appropriate benchmark to peg its oil price upon; but these arguments become trifling when they override fundamental issues. Now, the House of Representatives has threatened to shelve all considerations for next year’s budget unless the Federal Government accedes to its demand that the oil benchmark is pegged at $80 per barrel against $75 proposed by the Federal Government. The Senate on the other hand, has found a middle ground of $78.

    Under the circumstance Nigeria’s economy is today, oil benchmark is neither here nor there. It is indeed the least of the challenges the economy is faced with. We wish to remind that in the last two decades or so, we have deliberately under-benchmarked our oil earnings and there has not been any spectacular benefits accruable there from. The economy has continued on its seeming inexorable slide. If this benchmark gimmick has not worked over these years, why do we keep splitting hairs over it?

    Again, we are inclined to align ourselves with the position of the House which queries the logic of deliberately inducing deficits into the budget only to borrow funds at costs to make it up. It is troubling that the Federal Government is proposing a deficit of about N700billion, which includes domestic borrowings. Government compounds its argument by insisting that a higher benchmark would hamper its ability to access a $1.2billion loan from the World Bank that will be ready for draw down next year.

    The Federal Government team led by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi have warned of grave consequences to the economy should government not have its way on this tussle. But our answer to that is that Nigerians hardly believe government officials anymore, particularly this duo. Not after the fuel subsidy saga during which our economic minders, including the twain, had warned of doom of calamitous proportions should the so-called subsidy be retained. But it all turned out that the ‘subsidy’ was a ruse anchored on a grand scale corruption.

    And talking about corruption, it has been revealed to Nigerians that it may well be the problem with our budgets and not the margin of benchmark. On many occasions, we have heard of unilateral withdrawals by the Federal Government from the excess crude account in which proceeds accruing from lower oil benchmarks are warehoused. A most recent example is the report by the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force led by Mallam Nuhu Ribadu which found that about N2.8 trillion may have been unlawfully drawn from the federation account.

    We are worried that this unnecessary bickering, as we consider it to be, would distract us from the real issues about the budget and the economy. Some of these include, promptitude of the budget which has been a sore point for a long time now, and a more efficient implementation regime – government seems to absolutely lack the capacity to move from projections to actual. And, unless the Federal Government summons the courage to kill the rampaging monster of corruption, no formula or benchmark would work.

  • Obama wins debate but does not recover lost ground

    Obama wins debate but does not recover lost ground

    •The first battle you must win is the one with your toughest adversary: yourself

    AFTER a flaccid first debate performance, President Obama redeemed himself in the second event. His performance was nearly masterful. Unlike the first debate where his responses bored the listener by being too wordy and enmeshed in the arcane, his second debate answers were pithy. He not only evinced command of facts and figures that seemed elusive in the first encounter, he spoke of large themes such as economic fairness, gender discrimination, peace and security, and the role of government. Some of what he espoused was too much a rehash of moderate-conservative orthodoxy to do him or the nation much good. Yet, at least, he talked as if he possessed a vision for the country and that the burden of the last four years had not reduced him to a transactional president satisfied with minor policy initiatives at a time when only major steps will suffice.

    Taking small steps when the moment begged for a series of huge leaps was the trademark of President Hoover. In the American political context, Hoover’s name is synonymous with failure. As the surge waters of the Great Depression descended on his countrymen, all Hoover could advise was for them to hold their breath and pray they did not drown before the tide subsided. After the first debate, Obama was in danger of being perceived as the spiritual heir of Hoover’s palsied incrementalism.

    The difference between the two debates was the president came into this one with starch in his collar. It was a contentious sparring session. This time, the president did not hire himself out as his opponent’s trampoline. This time following the biblical guidance on giving and receiving, the president delivered more blows than he took in. The long-term importance of his combativeness should not be missed. Throughout his political career, President Obama painstakingly positioned himself as a “non-offensive” black man so as not to perturb too much of a largely white electorate. In 2008, this strategy helped him win the election against an irascible, mercurial John McCain. In 2012, it might help him to lose it.

    In surrendering the first debate, Obama gave away more than he realised. He allowed the fallacious Romney to appear presidential, thus pilfering in one easy night a chunk of the goodwill Obama had studiously cultivated over the years. The results of the first debate were extraordinary in that the considerable electoral movement toward Romney was disproportionate to the performance levels of the two candidates. Romney won that first debate but Obama’s performance was not so meritless as to justify the erosion of support he has suffered. Startled by the loss of fortune occasioned by that debate, Obama was forced to reassess his passive black man strategy. His performance at the second debate shows that he decided to shelve the passive approach. As such, the second debate may be more important for what it taught Obama than for anything it revealed to the voting public.

    President Obama learned he could publicly confront, fight and even ridicule a leading white conservative and still garner enough support to have won the debate. In a politically divided nation, a leader will lose his way if his guiding principle becomes “thou shall not offend.” He has to realise everyone will not like him and that many will bitterly oppose him, politically and personally. Thus, the most prudent thing is to battle your opponents by fashioning policies that attract and galvanise a winning electoral and governing coalition. Obama may now understand that he can forge such a coalition by asserting himself more than he can by acting demure. He may now understand a black man can actively battle against a conservative white opponent without being completely written off by the white electorate as a Mau Mau run amok. As long as he fights wisely and well, he will maintain enough support. If the president holds on to win the election, he will be able to view his first debate performance as a blessing in disguise. Without having that setback, he might not have abandoned the passive approach and only by abandoning this stance can he move from being a middling chief executive to becoming the excellent one we expected.

    Mitt Romney lost the debate but did not suffer in the opinion polls. Romney did not do poorly, he just did not equal Obama. One of his problems, Romney appeared confident, perhaps too confident. Some of his answers were tinged with the plutocratic arrogance he successfully hid during the first outing. One could sense his natural disposition was to be dismissive of minorities and women whom he did not consider among the masters of the economy. The concern he expressed for their welfare was as meretricious as a streetwalker’s affections. All in all, the debate showed Obama at his best was better than Romney at his. Strangely, this might do Obama no good. Although he scored less than Obama, Romney did not implode during the debate. Undecided voters, who are mainly white conservative moderates, can still conceive of Romney as being president. While there is no greatness evident in the man, they believe he can do a yeoman’s job in office. This will be sufficient for them to base their vote on tribal (racial) affiliation. Since they do not feel Obama has proven to be an exceptional president, they feel no hesitation dumping him.

    The working thesis in this election is that if these white conservative moderates sense that Obama is only slightly better than his opponent, that slight advantage will be a disadvantage. It will not deter them from flocking to Romney. In American politics, the admonition against changing horses in mid-stream does not apply when the incumbent steed is black and the challenger is a white thoroughbred.

    During the debate, the two men battled over many issues. Governor Romney tried to berate “Obamacare” but his attack seemed unduly rehearsed and wooden. Health care reform has been President Obama’s signal piece of legislation. This column has repeatedly assessed this attempt as a flawed compromise where an impuissant Obama yielded too much to the insurance companies and did not sufficiently protect low-income consumers. Obamacare is the equivalent of giving the poor a raincoat. That would be fine in a storm except that the insurance companies are pelting them with rocks and bullets not water. The poor need a Kevlar shield. Obamacare provides only the image of one. In reality, the measure was not truly health care reform but insurance reform. More people will be entitled to insurance but they will pay a higher price. Those who have little money will end up purchasing insurance policies with coverage that will prove elusive when most needed. As badly as it sounds, this improves the current system. This is where Romney told on himself. He presented no alternative save the current way. He would rather continue feeding a vulnerable public to ravager insurance companies. In effect, he would toss everyone into the water. The fit and lucky would make it to shore. If the alligators don’t get the rest, the piranha will. Such is the way of life and death in the Romney-world of health coverage flimsily regulated.

    Regarding the issue of fair pay for women, Obama reminded the audience that he championed legislation calling for equal pay and expanding women’s legal rights thereto. Romney tried to steer away from this big issue by trumpeting that his record of hiring women to important positions when he was Massachusetts governor demonstrated his commitment to equal distaff treatment. However, he never mentioned whether his female staffers received salaries equal to their male counterparts. He dared not enter that territory. He is on public record opposing equal pay for women. When Obama effectively assessed that Romney’s position was not only unjust but poor economics, Romney could not fashion a retort. There was none to fashion. If he told the truth lurking in his heart – that women are lesser beings and thus deserving of lesser pay – he would surely throw the election. Thus, he sat and silently smirked waiting for this awkward issue to pass.

    The most dramatic moment of the debate focused on Libya. Romney thought he had Obama cornered. Romney was right on one point. There was a corner. However, he was dead wrong as to who was in it. Romney strutted about like a bantam rooster when Obama stated he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror merely one day after the attack happened. Romney implied Obama was lying. When the moderator informed Romney the president had indeed used those words, Romney looked nonplussed as if someone just handed him a passage to read in Sanskrit. Attempting to regain composure and the offensive, Romney suggested the Administration had purposely misled the public about what occurred in Benghazi. Obama’s riposte was the highlight of the evening. Firmly and passionately, he defended his team and his own integrity. He said he took full responsibility for Benghazi but that Romney’s insinuation of a cover-up was offensive to decency. Obama declared that was not the way he conducted business as commander-in-chief of a great nation. He said it so deftly that one was left with the impression that Romney alleged a cover-up because that is exactly what he would have done had he occupied the Oval Office at the time. With the turn of a few choice sentences, the accuser, not the accused, was revealed to be morally shallow.

    The most important segment of the debate centered on economic policy and taxation. Sadly, Obama stuck to the old saw that deficit reduction was a top priority. He endorsed the recommendations of a commission he established to reduce deficit spending by 4 trillion dollars in ten years. Trying to be even-handed, he said this would be accomplished by budget cuts on one hand and tax increases on the rich on the other. This is unsound economics. In a period of weak economic growth and significant private-sector debt deleveraging, reducing government deficit spending is the road to economic deflation. In the end, such deflation hurts the poor and working classes while benefitting the financially endowed.

    Meanwhile, Romney crafted a tax proposal that seems to give a bit to everyone without taking anything from them. It is too easy to be true. It is also mathematically implausible that the proposal would reduce the deficit. This is where the fun starts with Romney. If implemented, his proposal will produce a higher deficit. Either he tackles this with higher taxes which could be economically poisonous if those taxes fall too heavily on the working and middle classes. However, he could well let the higher deficit stand. Spurring more economic activity by putting more money in private-sector hands, this policy would be condign. Ironically, this is what should be happening given the current economic circumstance. If this is Romney’s ultimate design, he must be given credit. The ersatz conservative may actually be attempting to accomplish through the sidedoor what an unabashed progressive Democrat would have tried through the front one. Sadly, on economic matters, President Obama has not been a progressive or even a liberal. Thus far, he has had the mind and heart of a 1970’s Republican wrapped in black skin and adroit in the symbolic rhetoric of the mild social liberalism of the first two decades of the 21st century. In other words, Obama is a liberal on social issues but a moderate-conservative on economic matters. The nation would be on more solid footing if the president were less amphibious.

    The silliest moment of the debate came when both candidates claimed government does not create jobs, only the private sector does. This nonsense is particularly ironic coming from two men willing to devote so much time, log so many travel miles and spend billions of dollars to win a government job. It is a fairy tale of free market orthodoxy that teachers, firemen and air traffic controllers do not perform real and valuable service to the public and the economy. It makes no sense to believe that when government spends money for the construction of a road, bridge or railway that the laborers on these projects are not performing “real jobs” because the money comes from government. The truth is that government is an important direct employer and indirect job creator in every nation, including America. Without government exercising this function, the economy would be reduced to perpetual depression. That is a fact that no amount of free-market cheerleading can mask. Not only is it wrong it is dangerous for it belittles the role of government at a time when government has a very important role to play.

    In the end, Obama acquitted himself at the second debate. He proved that he is better than Romney. This advantage may be insufficient to sway undecided white voters. The majority of this group may decide that tribal affiliation trumps Obama’s skill and temperamental advantages. While the debate may not stop the move of this segment toward Romney, it has helped to reactivate Obama’s own support base. This will be important to maintaining his leads in many of the key states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc.) that will ultimately decide the election. If he does survive this battle of attrition and hold to the presidency, perhaps the lessons learned in the second debate may lead to a different way of governance in his second term. Stylistically, the president has learned he can be more assertive without alienating the American heartland. Perhaps more importantly, he may summon the courage to break with mainstream orthodoxy and veer toward a more progressive economic path. This path would promote the retooling of the American industrial sector, bolster the middle class with more jobs and better wages, and assure the continued viability of the programs at the core of the American social compact: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Beyond the immediate fallout from the debate, the longer-term hope is that he breaks from the strictures of conservative thought. We do not require this new hope to be one of audacity. We just pray it will not be a forlorn one.

  • Another view on onshore-offshore oil debate

    Another view on onshore-offshore oil debate

    One regrettable thing about not speaking out on issues that have the potentials of defining the direction, quality of life, development and growth of society, is that one lives with the burden of failing to act right and on time, too, forever. Over the years, this has been the lot of poor majority Nigerians, who seem always comfortable to either sit on the fence or act as bystanders and impartial arbiters in issues that affect them. The consequence has been that politicians smart enough to identify this weakness have continued to brew subversive policies and live large while the people suffer steady decline in fortunes.

    Today, the issue of the abrogation of onshore-offshore oil dichotomy, which has maintained an increasingly delicate presence on the controversy table, is challenging the peoples’ will to determine their future, organize and achieve their personal and collective goals in life. The bill, which provides adequate financial reward and compensation for oil producing communities or states where oil is drilled whether offshore or onshore, has since pitched the North against the South. With tempers running high and fingers pointed at key politicians, particularly former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Honourable Ghali Na’ Abba, former Speaker, Federal House of Representatives, in whose administration and leadership of the House, respectively, the controversial bill was introduced, the president has since added salt to injury by pronouncing the issue settled.

    While Obasanjo is accused of introducing the bill to divide the House and as well as scuttle an impeachment moves by the National Assembly, Na’Abba is accused of doing little or nothing to protect the north, which today, is on the receiving end of the bill. The former Speaker, his traducers insist, was blinded by greed, an alleged gubernatorial ambition and hate for the then Kano State Governor, Rabiu Kwakwanso, with whom he never enjoyed the best of relationships, to permit the bill, to spite him.

    However, in an interview, recently, the former Speaker dismissed his accusers, saying that he did his best to prevent the bill from sailing through and protect the interest of the north. But rather than assuage frayed nerves, Na’Abba’s reaction has since deepened the controversy surrounding the matter. Indeed, to keen followers of politics in the National Assembly and Kano State at the time, Na’Abba’s belated defence possibly qualifies as warped tales from dream lands. Equally coming close to the typical situation of a drowning man desperate for survival, Na’ Abba in his bid to wriggle out of a condition, which he watched as the north walked into, deliberately decided to twist bare facts out of shape. Seeming like the proverbial monkey that clapped and jumped, while his house, the trees, were being felled by the enemy, Na’Abba’s mind, perhaps, was set on other things while Obasanjo acted his scripts to the hurt of the north.

    But assuming, without conceding, there was any meat in his argument that no northern governor raised a finger in opposition to the abrogation of the onshore-offshore dichotomy bill, why would he settle for a strange ‘clause’ to, according to him, discourage Obasanjo from signing the bill, when an open and outright opposition and condemnation of the bill would have settled the matter pronto? This featherweight defence, for the discerning, further gives away the deceitful manner in which the matter was handled by Na’Abba’s leadership. This is why one considers his finger-pointing to northern governors annoying and ridiculous, to say the least.

    Bad as it were, it is never too late to make amends since lessons have been learnt from the action and inaction of those who should know better, just as its practice has manifested grave inadequacies in the distribution of national wealth for growth and development of the nation. This is why not a few people were shocked when signs emerged that President Goodluck Ebere Jonathan was not disposed to revisiting the issue.

    While one is constrained by the volatility of this issue, it would spell doom not to speak out against stay of review for an issue that is potentially strategic in achieving the Nigeria of our dreams where everyone irrespective of creed or class can grow together and enjoy equal opportunities in all spheres of human endeavour.

    There is no disputing the fact that until the discovery of oil on land and sea, the nation had found life in other money-yields such as cocoa, palm oil, groundnut, among others. Even at the discovery of oil, money made from these sources was deployed to develop it, just as natives of oil communities had benefited immensely from these revenue sources before oil became the main source of sustenance.

    There is no doubt, therefore, that there are apparent disparities in revenue sharing formula, which leaves a sour taste in the mouth particularly as it negates the spirit of brotherhood and unity that reigned before the abrogation of the dichotomy.

    One clear sign today is the slow pace of development in most of the non-oil producing states. The abrogation has equally widened the poverty grid and also weakened the capital base of non-oil producing states, thus making it difficult to deliver democracy dividends without so much struggle. Most of the non-oil producing states find it difficult to evenly grow as their oil producing counterparts.

    As currently obtains, South-south and people of the oil-producing littoral states are at prime position with 13 per cent allocation, thus underscoring the urgent need for a review. Funny enough, while this has weighed negatively on the north, governors of South-south states, typical of the literary character, Oliver Twist, want more!

    The position of governors of ‘Prince’ States, who are opposed to the dichotomy is understandable. They hinge their argument on the fact that the matter had long been decided by the nation’s apex court, the Supreme Court, in favour of the subsisting sharing formula. But truth, however, is that the Supreme Court ruling like a sticky plaster, has simply continued to provide a temporary cover for an already nourished oil producing states, while for the non-oil producing states, challenging economic conditions have since drifted from a prickly state to a growing cancerous sore needing urgent medication.

    I believe fervently that Nigeria is a country destined to stay glued by the creator. Our forebears made no error in their judgement that we share a common destiny. The kind of security challenges we are sailing through could only have happened in a society that offers no hope for its coming generation. Increasing the current revenue allocation in favour of the non-oil producing states, could no doubt restore hope to the hopeless, but thousands of kilometers away from solving the mirage of problems confronting, especially the North. It may be a temporary succour, more importantly the kind of relief needed to cruise to the next level.

    It is not time immemorial when agriculture sustained the nation. In the early 60s. agriculture constituted more than 75% of this country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and foreign earnings. So, where and how did things go awry? Maybe, we say, the oil boom. But it is not a curse that we discovered oil. The tragedy is the failure to invest the earnings to develop other natural endowments, especially agriculture. God forbid, what happens if “our oil” dries off? It is a common knowledge that our foreign earnings from agriculture, expectedly but regrettably, began to fall when we discovered oil in 1956 and abandoned the farm. Agriculture related industries like cotton industries, leather factories also plummeted. Unemployement, poverty and other vices followed.

    My verdicts: the oil producing states, in the spirit of neighborliness should let up the issue of a revisit of the dichotomy. Yes, it is a common sense to benefit from one’s resources, but more common and apt is to be one’s brothers keeper.

    • Aiyekooto writes in from Ilorin, Kwara State

     

  • Mimiko, Akeredolu, Oke debate today

    Mimiko, Akeredolu, Oke debate today

    Labour Party (LP) candidate Governor Olusegun Mimiko, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) standard bearer Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) flag bearer Olusola Oke will today participate in the debate organised by the Nigeria Debate Group, led by veteran broadcaster, Aremo Taiwo Alimi.

    The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Africa Independent Television (AIT) and Raypower FM, Chief Raymond Dokpesi, who is said to be a sympathiser of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State, is also a member of the debate group. A few months ago, AIT gave Mimiko an award as the best governor.

    The debate, holding at the Adegbemile Cultural Centre, Oke-Eda, Ondo State, trails the first round that featured six candidates. However, three candidates of mushroom parties would be excluded from today’s debate, which would be televised live.

    Last week, the running mates also participated in two debates, answering questions on the duties of a deputy governor.

    During the last debate, the audience and the candidates breached the rules by engaging in attacks. At a stage, the panelists reminded Akeredolu about the rules, but the ACN candidate told them that Mimiko, who had first attacked him, was not cautioned.

    Alimi frowned at the violation of the rules by the audience, saying it was a dent on the state. The six candidates received certificates of participation after the debate. An Akure politician, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “We have confidence in the eminent broadcaster, Taiwo Alimi, but it is important to stress that a debate group should not have any partisan politician on board to safeguard its credibility.”

  • Governorship debate holds October 11

    The Nigeria Election Debate Group (NEDG) has said the grand finale of the governorship debate would hold on October 11.

    A statement by the group’s Chairman, Aremu Allimi, said three parties would participate in the last phase of the debate, based on their findings.

    They are the Action Congress of Nigeria, whose standard bearer is Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN). Labour Party’s candidate is incumbent Governor Olusegun Mimiko, while the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate is Chief Olusola Oke.

    Allimi said the debate would be held at the Cultural Centre, Adegbemile, Akure between 5 and 8pm.

  • SGF reopens debate on State of Osun

    CONTROVERSY over the name change by the Osun State Government raged on yesterday.

    Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Senator Anyim Pius Anyim said the adoption of the name “State of Osun” by the government is unconstitutional.

    Governor Rauf Aregbesola, who proposed the name for the Living Spring State, argued there was nothing unconstitutional in what his administration did.

    According to him, there is no section in the constitution that stipulates how the component states making up the country should be addressed.

    The constitution, he said, clearly specifies that Nigeria shall consist of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Aregbesola said the Statute Book is silent on where to put the state.

    Anyim’s comment was made during a courtesy/advocacy visit by the House of Representatives Committee on Diaspora, when a member of the Committee, Ajiboye Famurewa, introduced himself as a lawmaker from “ the State of Osun.”

    “That is unconstitutional,” Anyim said, throwing the visiting lawmakers into laughter.

    The SGF went on: “Let me also say that, even though in a lighter mood, that the State of Osun issue should be a serious matter. And for me, it is a very serious matter.

    “We should not trivialise issues regarding our nationhood. More particularly as it could be interpreted anyhow to affect the unity of the country.

    “The constitutional name for each state should be upheld, more particularly by parliamentarians. Ordinary local politicians can try to politick with it, but not those of you who are to keep the country in shape and in firm stand.”

  • Still on the N5,000 note debate

    SIR: The controversy that has trailed the proposed N5, 000 note has refused to surrender, but as usual with every discourse in the Nigerian polity, it has remained a dialogue of the elites, something distastefully referred to as the “dialogue of the deaf”. In a country purportedly made up of about 160 million people (assuming it is not more than that), an economic policy that will affect their already crippled standard of living to its very root, has remained only on the table of the microscopic few who are privileged to be educated and in the same token privileged to have access to the mass media, while the congregation of other less privileged Nigerians, who are only less privileged because their country made them so, have been shut out of the discussion room, only waiting to be served with whatever the outcome is.
    Among the legion of views that have trailed the proposed currency note, various undertones can necessarily be inferred. While some are plainly political views trying to masquerade as economic sense, others are nothing but textbooks economics that seriously has no place in a seriously challenged economy like the Nigerian economy. One of such is the argument by the CBN that the new not would not cause inflation, but the CBN quickly forgets that the new policy is of a twin nature, thus even if the N5,000 note may not cause inflation, the coining of N5, N10, and N20 certainly will.
    Let us consider this: The least transport fare for any route in a place like Osogbo is N20, and in some instances N30, therefore once N20 is coined, is it not only commonsensical that with the kind of payment infrastructure that we have as a country, no bus driver or conductor will ever want to carry loads and loads of N20 coins in his pocket (that is if they have any pocket, because the money is always in the hand)?
    Evidently, given our peculiar circumstances as a people, the next thing that those drivers will simply do will be to raise the fare to the nearest note currency i.e. N50. Is that not inflation? Does that have to be written in any textbook? One wonders while it’s only the CBN policy-makers who do not seem to see this picture. For those in the CBN to so persist in the N5,000 note struggle as they’ve been doing as if it’s a personal ambition they must achieve, are they not suggesting by their body language that there is more to this than just a periodic review of the currency structure?
    Who says the currency re-structuring cannot take place without the introduction of the N5, 000 note and the coins? Must the CBN force coins down the throat of Nigerians when the necessary and supporting infrastructure such as vending machines, e.t.c is totally unavailable?
    The most disgusting part of the entire N5, 000 note propaganda by the CBN, is the total lack of regard for the people, the same people who the policy would affect. For the CBN to tell Nigerians that presidential approval for the project has been secured since November last year, speaks volume of the calibre of men who wield power in Nigeria, and for the Minister of National Planning, Dr. Shamsudeen Usman to come on air and tell Nigerians that the announcement of the new currency note was just to brief the people, simply leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

    • Olusola Adegbite, Esq.
    Town Planning Way, Ile-Ife,