TheNewsGuru

Tag: Dakuku Peterside

  • Nigeria and the Scramble for Africa 2.0 – By Dakuku Peterside 

    Nigeria and the Scramble for Africa 2.0 – By Dakuku Peterside 

    “Scramble for Africa” historically refers to the late 19th and early 20th centuries when European powers colonised and divided the African continent, seeking political, economic, and strategic dominance. Africa was mercilessly exploited, and to date, the scars remain. With its rich resources and sizable population, Nigeria became a prime target of British colonial authorities, a historical fact that underscores its continued strategic importance on the continent. Fast forward to the 21st century, and a new scramble for Africa is underway. This time, global powers compete for influence, resources, and markets rather than territories. Once again, Nigeria plays a central role in these geopolitical and economic dynamics.

    In this modern scramble, the dynamics differ considerably. The focus has shifted from territorial to economic conquest wrapped in infrastructure investments, aid and strategic alliances. Leading global actors—such as China, the United States, the European Union, and emerging powers like Russia, Turkey, and India—vie for influence across Africa through diplomacy, trade deals, and development initiatives. While politically independent, Africa remains a stage for intense geopolitical competition, as the world’s most powerful nations recognise the continent’s potential and seek to secure a share of its resources and promising future.

    Nigeria is pivotal in Africa’s trajectory as the continent’s most populous country and largest economy. The country is rich in oil reserves, has a rapidly expanding technology sector, and boasts an increasingly youthful and growing population. By 2050, projections indicate that one in four people will be African, and Nigeria is expected to account for a significant portion of that demographic shift. This youthful population, with its energy and potential, presents a promising future, making Nigeria a focal point in global power plays, with its future development and stability crucial for Africa and the world.

    However, Nigeria also faces many domestic challenges that complicate its ability to maximise the benefits of this shadow battle for influence by global powers. These issues include endemic corruption, ineffective political leadership, and security concerns. These issues have created a fragile environment for economic growth, even as foreign powers, as part of their grand strategy, seek to invest in the country’s resources and infrastructure to position their countries for influence and economic advantage.

    In recent years, a series of high-profile international summits have been held aimed at solidifying relationships with African nations. These summits, often referred to as an ‘old trick’ in international diplomacy, remain effective in the modern scramble for Africa. They serve as platforms for global powers to compete for influence and partnerships, highlighting the continued importance of Africa in the global geopolitical landscape.

    Unfortunately, Africa has learnt nothing from history. Some notable examples of these partnership summits include the Russia-Africa Summit, the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit, the European Union-African Union (AU) Summit, the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, and China’s Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC).

    Each of these summits represents a strategic attempt by global powers to strengthen ties, secure economic partnerships, and cement their geopolitical foothold in Africa. For instance, the European Union’s Global Gateway project, announced at the EU-AU Summit, seeks to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by offering substantial investments in African infrastructure. Likewise, the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit highlighted a $55 billion investment plan over three years, reflecting a renewed focus by Western powers on regaining influence in a continent where China’s presence has become increasingly dominant.

    China’s FOCAC remains a crucial pillar of its engagement with Africa. At the 2024 FOCAC summit, China pledged USD 51 billion for 30 infrastructure projects across Africa, positioning Beijing for more significant influence on the continent. Meanwhile, emerging powers like India, Turkey, and the Gulf states are also working to deepen their ties with African nations, creating more comprehensive partnership options for African leaders.

    In this evolving global chessboard, the question remains: Is Nigeria a pawn in the hands of international powers, or can it become an active player shaping its destiny? Nigeria’s vast natural resources, demographics, expanding technology sector, and strategic location make it an attractive playground for foreign investment and global geopolitics. However, the country’s ability to benefit from this renewed battle for global influence hinges on its ability to navigate the complex landscape of international diplomacy and partnerships, in addition to the quality of domestic governance , the power of immigration , the rise of Ai and ICT and its positioning in the new global economic order. This is purely a function of leadership that has understanding and requisite navigational skill.

    At present, Nigeria faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, foreign investments can drive much-needed infrastructure development, job creation, and technological advancement. However, the ever-present risk of economic dependency and the challenge of maintaining sovereignty exists. China’s large-scale infrastructure investments, often funded by loans, have sparked concerns over Nigeria’s rising debt burden and the potential for long-term economic vulnerability. These concerns underscore the need for Nigeria to adopt a cautious approach, ensuring that foreign partnerships do not compromise the country’s sovereignty or its long-term developmental goals. This delicate balance requires strategic decision-making and a clear understanding of Nigeria’s long-term interests in the global geopolitical landscape.

    Nigeria’s potential to play an active role in the African continent and emerging global dynamics is inextricably linked to its domestic stability, achieved by strengthening democratic institutions, improving security, promoting inclusive development, and maintaining a favourable investment  environment. Nigeria inevitably must build a strong economy as the foundation for effective foreign policy. We cannot continue to tumble from one economic policy to the next and expect to be given strategic importance in this new war for influence by powerful global nations on the continent.

    Nigeria’s leadership is central to its success in this new scramble for Africa. Without visionary and strategic leadership capable of understanding global dynamics and advancing Nigeria’s long-term interests, the country risks being left behind in the race for international influence. The need for such leadership is urgent, as Nigeria’s leaders must prioritise its strategic autonomy, leveraging its vast resources and human capital to negotiate favourable terms with global powers.

    Nigeria needs to be more active in a world where geopolitical competition intensifies. Its foreign policy must proactively build alliances with traditional and emerging powers while safeguarding the nation’s long-term interests. The country’s leaders must recognise the importance of actively shaping Nigeria’s future and Africa’s collective destiny. Nigeria, with its potential and resources, has a significant role in shaping the continent’s future.

    So far, sound bites from Nigeria’s foreign affairs minister, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, seem reasonable, but action is more important. Nigeria is championing the 4D principle, Democracy, Demographics, Development and Diaspora. We led the UN tax reforms but till date we are yet to appoint  a permanent representative in the global body to further advance our agenda items. Nigeria has yet to appoint substantive ambassadors for all our missions in nearly one year, yet we expect the world to take us seriously in diplomatic engagements. Regional leadership in West Africa and the continent should be our natural forte, but we also are not getting it right.

    As one of Africa’s largest economies, Nigeria is uniquely positioned to lead the continent in defining its collective positions in dealings with external powers. However, this requires smart diplomacy and a Pan-African approach, whereby African nations present a united front in their negotiations with global actors. If African nations act as individual entities, they risk being divided and conquered by more considerable powers with far more excellent resources and strategic leverage.

    Africa’s ability to thrive in this new era of global competition depends on its capacity to unite as a bloc to secure mutually beneficial deals with external partners. By adopting a coordinated Pan-African strategy, African nations can negotiate from a position of strength, ensuring they benefit from foreign engagement rather than being exploited.

    The new scramble for Africa presents both opportunities and risks for Nigeria. Foreign investment offers a pathway to infrastructure development, economic growth, and technological innovation. However, the risk of neocolonialism and economic dependency looms as Nigeria and other African nations rely on external capital for their development. A culture of dependence on aids and foreign capital often creates a disincentive for critical thinking and institutional development.

    Nigeria’s future will depend on its ability to manage these external influences, prioritise national interests, and strengthen its internal governance. With strategic foresight and effective leadership, Nigeria can turn the renewed global scramble for Africa into an opportunity for national development, positioning itself as a key player worldwide. However, if Nigeria fails to navigate these challenges, it risks repeating past mistakes and falling prey to the forces that once sought to dominate it.

    The historical and contemporary scrambles for Africa share similarities in the way foreign powers seek to exploit Africa’s resources for their benefit. However, the modern scramble is driven by economic partnerships rather than direct colonisation. With exemplary leadership, Nigeria can be central to this new global competition as one of Africa’s most influential countries. While foreign investments bring growth opportunities, Nigeria must navigate the challenges of dependency, corruption, and internal security issues to ensure that it benefits from the new scramble without repeating past mistakes. Nigeria’s future depends on its ability to manage foreign relations while prioritising its national interests and development.

  • Nigeria’s public policy gambles – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nigeria’s public policy gambles – By Dakuku Peterside

    In July 1986, Nigeria’s military president, General Ibrahim Babangida, launched a public policy initiative hailed as the silver bullet for Nigeria’s distressed economy: the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). A local adaptation of an IMF/World Bank  initiative, SAP was intended to stabilise the economy. However, within a year of its implementation, the programme had left a trail of hunger, industry closures, unemployment, and acute poverty. Instead of achieving its objectives, SAP exacerbated the economic crisis, leaving Nigerians groaning under economic hardship. SAP was part of a broader World Bank/IMF global economic policy framework.

    While SAP failed from a broad perspective, certain socio-economic elements—like poverty alleviation, job creation, and rural development—experienced some success in the medium term.

    Fast forward 37 years to 2023, and Nigeria’s new political leadership revisited two critical elements of the 1986 SAP: the policy on petrol subsidies and the floating of the Naira. While these policies’ medium to long-term impacts are still uncertain, their short-term effects bear an uncanny resemblance to those of their predecessor.

    The issue is not necessarily the nobility of these policies’ intentions—after all, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Nor is it about the appropriateness of the policies themselves. What’s indisputable is that these public policies have imposed unintended consequences, hurting the very people they were meant to help. These aren’t the only government policies in Nigeria, at both the national and state levels, that have failed to achieve their intended objectives or have produced adverse effects.

    It is not uncommon to see government policies fail to meet their goals. Such failures drain public resources, exacerbate the suffering of the people rather than alleviate it, and erode public trust in the government. The question is, why? As Nigeria continues to embark on new public policies that, if not carefully examined, may produce unintended consequences, I will explore why public policies fail in Nigeria and how we can do things differently.

    First is the need for more rigour in policy conception. Most policies emerge as reactive measures to imminent problems the government seeks to solve. This reactive approach often forces a sense of urgency in policy formulation, leaving little time for proper planning, research, cost-benefit analysis, and scenario mapping of both intended and unintended consequences. We often see policy statements made in the media by leaders on the fly, with policy implementing institutions scrambling to catch up in executing  these policies. This approach is dangerous in a democracy and detrimental to economic development. The lack of rigour in developing the fuel subsidy removal policy is evident for all to see.

    For instance, the president made a straightforward policy statement during his inaugural speech that “oil subsidy is gone,” triggering immediate reactions from the people and the economy. However, there was no clear, overarching policy framework to guide the process, consider intervening variables, anticipate unintended consequences, and devise ways of mitigating them. The policy apparatus was unprepared, and implementation has been a game of catch-up with unintended  results. The ongoing attempts to rein in the consequences of this policy have largely failed, and the damage is evident for all to see.

    Contrastingly, the Philippines, one of the few countries that successfully removed petrol subsidies, took a markedly different approach. The government meticulously laid the groundwork for the policy over nearly five years, engaging independent assessors to evaluate the potential impact of subsidy removal and mitigation measures. The implementation was phased, with provisions for targeted support to assist vulnerable citizens, ensuring the impact was cushioned for lower-income households. The Philippine government also proactively communicated the rationale behind price changes and the benefits of deregulation, which helped build public trust and acceptance of the reforms. This strategic, long-term approach fostered a more sustainable oil and gas market in the country, a stark contrast to Nigeria’s short-term, reactive policy formulation.

    Second, policymakers in Nigeria are often driven by short-term gains and personal interests. The prospect of immediate results or benefit too easily sways them, and they seldom consider the long-term impact. True leaders think about generational impact and provide solutions that transform society for posterity. Unfortunately, such leaders are not common in Nigeria . Many policymakers are so short-sighted and parochial that their focus on policy is as narrow as pursuing the subsequent election victory. Even when good policies are created to benefit society, a lack of political continuity often kills their implementation. Political discontinuity in policy execution has led to frequent policy disruptions. New policymakers tend to abandon previous policies to create new ones, even if the old policies are addressing the challenge it was designed to address   or nearing completion. This constant change fosters confusion and instability.

    Thirdly, policymakers in Nigeria often lack a deep understanding of the policies they plan to implement or the economic context. Instead of developing solutions that are tailored to Nigeria’s unique circumstances, they often defer to foreign solutions—a copy-and-paste approach, without the necessary adaptation . The floating of the Naira under this administration is a prime example. On paper, the policy aligns with recommendations from international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank and was heralded as the solution to Nigeria’s exchange rate problems. However, previous governments resisted the policy due to fears of unintended consequences in an import-dependent and mono-product export economy. This lack of understanding and the blind adoption of foreign solutions have led to the current exchange rate crisis. May be adaptation could have produced a different result.

    Nigeria’s economic structure means that fluctuations in the Naira’s value against major currencies directly affect the cost of living for millions of Nigerians, especially those living in multidimensional poverty. The government was overly optimistic, expecting the Naira to stabilize at around N750 per USD. However, within a year of implementing the policy, the exchange rate has mostly harmonized and partially deregulated (with the CBN still intervening to influence the Naira’s value). However, the currency has depreciated by over 300%, from N500 per USD at the start of this administration to N1600 recently. The problem lies in the supply of USD in the market, which neither the Nigerian government nor the private sector has significantly impacted. Demand far outweighs supply, leading to a severe erosion of the Naira’s value.

    It is evident that policymakers in Nigeria often underestimate the challenges and potential unintended consequences of their policies. This was the case with both the oil subsidy removal and the exchange rate floating. As a result, they have yet to find answers to the many unintended consequences that have nearly overwhelmed the planned policy objectives. Most Nigerians are less concerned with the policies’ good intentions and more affected by the harsh consequences. Furthermore, there was poor communication with stakeholders. The government needed to adequately prepare the public for the unintended consequences or provide sufficient remedial and palliative measures. As the saying goes, ‘To be forewarned is to be forearmed.’ Nigerians were unprepared for what they are now facing.

    Moreover, misleading narratives led to these policies. The government framed the economic situation under the Buhari administration as dire, suggesting that without these two policies, the country would collapse. This doomsday narrative initially led to the policies being received as the panacea to Nigeria’s economic woes. But time is proving the opposite, and people are increasingly frustrated. The difference between the tail end of Buhari’s regime and now feels like a lifetime. The price of everything has at least doubled, if not more.

    I advocate for a more intellectual approach to governance. Politics seems to dominate everything, and this lack of capacity to engage with the complexities of governance leads to ineffective policymaking and implementation. Nigeria must develop a national policy elite capable of creating, pursuing, and sustaining sound policies. Nigerian leaders must work to bridge the gap between policy formulation and implementation. Most policies fail at the implementation stage due to conflicting interests and the impunity that hinders Nigeria’s economic and social progress.

    In Nigeria, the persistent failures of public policy reflect more profound issues in the governance structure, where reactive measures, short-term thinking, and a reliance on foreign templates overshadow the need for tailored, well-researched, and rigorously planned policies. The consequences of these approaches are evident in the current economic distress and public disillusionment. Nigeria must cultivate a new generation of leaders and policymakers who prioritize long-term societal transformation over immediate political gains to break this cycle. These leaders must embrace a more intellectual and context-sensitive approach to governance, ensuring that policies are well-conceived and effectively implemented, with robust mechanisms in place to mitigate unintended consequences. Only through such a paradigm shift can Nigeria hope to achieve sustainable economic and social progress.

  • Nigeria and the illusion of good governance – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nigeria and the illusion of good governance – By Dakuku Peterside

    Good governance is universally acknowledged as a critical factor in the progress and development of any nation. In Nigeria, both the elite and the common people share this profound understanding of governance’s impact on the country’s trajectory. However, despite this shared understanding, these groups have a significant divide in their conception of what constitutes “good governance.” For the masses, good governance is primarily about tangible improvements in living conditions—such as access to necessities, healthcare, education, and security. The elite, however, view good governance through a broader lens, encompassing systematic approaches to resolving public policy challenges. Meanwhile, technocrats and academics emphasize key principles like participation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, equity, effectiveness, and inclusivity as the hallmarks of good governance. Despite these varied perspectives, there is a consensus across all sectors that good governance is sorely lacking in Nigeria.

    This column explores the reasons behind Nigeria’s persistent struggle with good governance, even after sixty three  years of independence and twenty-five years of representative democracy. The question arises: why, despite numerous opportunities for reform and change, does good governance remain elusive? To find an answer, we might consider Joseph de Maistre’s assertion that “every society gets the kind of leadership it deserves,” or Jimmy Carter’s observation that “a government is as good as its people.” However, I argue that the root causes lie deeper than these philosophical reflections. Corruption, underdevelopment, lack of political accountability, misuse of power, insecurity, and nepotism are not the root causes but symptoms of a broader deficit in good governance.

    To explore this issue further, I engaged in informal discussions with ten members of Nigeria’s elite circle. Several recurring themes emerged from these conversations, offering insight into why good governance remains so elusive in Nigeria despite regular elections and changes in leadership.

    One of the fundamental reasons for Nigeria’s governance challenges is the high rate of illiteracy, which is fundamentally incompatible with the demands of a functional democracy. Democracy relies on an informed citizenry that can actively participate in governance, demand accountability, and advocate for their rights. However, in Nigeria, high illiteracy levels have created a populace that cannot effectively participate in the process leading to or  demand good governance. This situation has allowed the elite to maintain power with minimal resistance, perpetuating a cycle of poor governance. Without an educated and informed electorate, the necessary pressure for good governance remains absent.

    Illiteracy not only weakens the  citizenry’s ability to hold leaders accountable but also makes them vulnerable to manipulation by unscrupulous politicians. In many cases, illiterate voters are swayed by short-term incentives, such as cash handouts or promises of immediate benefits, rather than assessing the long-term implications of their choices. This dynamic perpetuates a cycle of poor governance, as leaders who are elected based on populist appeals rather than merit are less likely to prioritize the common good once in office.

    Another significant factor contributing to Nigeria’s governance challenges is the weakness of civil society. A robust civil society is essential for fostering participatory democracy, holding leaders accountable, and ensuring that governance serves the public interest. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s civil society remains fragmented and largely ineffective. High illiteracy, economic hardship, and a lack of civic consciousness exacerbate this weakness. Historical evidence suggests that strong civil societies are correlated with better governance outcomes. For instance, countries like China and Japan experienced significant improvements in governance following periods of strong civil society engagement. China was post Chairman Mao, during the reign of Dieng Xiaoiong and Japan under Junichiro Koizumi.  In contrast, Nigeria’s weak civil society continues to contribute to the persistence of poor governance.

    The limitations of civil society in Nigeria are partly due to the country’s socio-economic challenges, including poverty, unemployment, and inequality. These issues have made it difficult for many citizens to engage in civil society activities, as they are preoccupied with meeting their basic needs. Additionally, the government’s often hostile stance towards civil society, including restrictive regulations and harassment of activists, has further weakened the sector’s ability to influence governance positively.

    A robust civil society is essential for fostering good governance, as it provides a platform for citizens to voice their concerns, advocate for change, and hold leaders accountable. In countries where civil society is strong, such as in many Western democracies, there is often a higher level of political accountability and better governance outcomes. In contrast, Nigeria’s weak civil society has struggled to mobilize the populace effectively or to challenge the entrenched power structures that perpetuate poor governance.

    Effective leadership does not occur in a vacuum; it requires strong institutional frameworks that guide and support the governance process. In Nigeria, the absence of these frameworks has resulted in unstructured and ineffective leadership. Institutions play a critical role in ensuring continuity, stability, and accountability in governance. When these structures are lacking, leadership becomes arbitrary, and the delivery of public services suffers. Without strong institutions, governance becomes a matter of personal discretion rather than a structured process to serve the public good. The absence of effective checks and balances allows for the concentration of power in the hands of a few, leading to the abuse of authority and the perpetuation of corruption.  Nigeria’s governance system lacks the uniform standards, benchmarks, and guardrails necessary to ensure consistent and high-quality governance.  Strengthening these institutions is essential for improving governance in Nigeria, as they provide the necessary framework for ensuring that leaders are held accountable and that public resources are managed responsibly.

    Nigeria’s leadership selection process is another significant barrier to good governance. A credible governance system should be meritocratic, ensuring that the most qualified individuals ascend to leadership positions. However, the political party system in Nigeria is far from meritocratic. It is dominated by cronyism and clientelism, resulting in the selection of leaders who prioritize personal gain over public service. This flawed system perpetuates a cycle of ineffective governance, as leaders selected for their loyalty rather than their competence are unlikely to deliver the kind of leadership that fosters development and progress.

    This flawed selection process is deeply rooted in the country’s political culture, where politics is often seen as a means of personal enrichment rather than public service. Political parties, rather than serving as platforms for articulating and advancing policy ideas, are often vehicles for advancing the interests of powerful individuals or groups. This results in a political landscape where the most qualified candidates are frequently sidelined in favour of those who can mobilize financial resources or secure the backing of influential figures.

    Nigeria’s cultural norms and attitudes also significantly hinder good governance. These norms often create an environment resistant to public accountability, a key pillar of effective governance. In many Nigerian communities, particularly in the northern regions, there is a preference for strong, autocratic leaders, and dissent is often discouraged. This cultural disposition aligns with the ruling elite’s aversion to accountability, further stifling the development of good governance practices. In such an environment, the principles of democracy—debate, dissent, and accountability—are often viewed with suspicion or outright hostility.

    Moreover, the cultural acceptance of corruption and the normalization of unethical behaviour further entrench the governance deficit in Nigeria. In many communities, corrupt practices are not only tolerated but are also seen as a necessary means of survival or advancement. This creates a vicious cycle where corruption is perpetuated at all levels of society, from the grassroots to the highest echelons of power.

    The country’s diverse geopolitical, regional, and socio-cultural differences have produced a fragmented governance system with little uniformity in standards. While well-intentioned, policies such as the Federal Character and affirmative action have further complicated the governance landscape, creating disparities across regions and leading to uneven governance outcomes. The absence of clear standards and benchmarks allows for a wide variation in governance quality across different parts of the country, further complicating efforts to achieve good governance on a national scale.

    The challenge of achieving good governance in Nigeria is multifaceted, rooted in a complex interplay of high illiteracy rates, weak civil society, the absence of robust institutional frameworks, a flawed leadership selection process, anti-democratic cultural norms, and the lack of uniform governance standards. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that includes improving education, strengthening civil society, building robust institutions, reforming the leadership selection process, promoting democratic cultural norms, and establishing clear governance standards. Only by addressing these underlying issues in a comprehensive manner can Nigeria hope to overcome its governance challenges and achieve sustainable development.

  • From the DNC: Lessons for Nigerian political parties – By Dakuku Peterside

    From the DNC: Lessons for Nigerian political parties – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nigerians’ profound interest in US elections is no mere coincidence. The roots of this fascination lie deep in the historical and structural connections between the two countries’ political systems. Nigeria’s democracy, modelled closely after the US presidential-style system, naturally invites comparisons and draws parallels with American political practices. This connection is further deepened by the increasingly globalised nature of our world, where political developments in one nation can reverberate across continents, influencing governance, policies, and even public opinion in far-flung regions. In Nigeria, this is particularly evident as US political dynamics, especially in the current digital age where social media amplifies voices and ideas, significantly impact the local political landscape.

    The strong economic and diplomatic ties that bind Nigeria and the United States further underscore the importance of closely observing events like the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and its counterpart, the Republican National Convention (RNC). These events are not just spectacles of democracy; they are pivotal in shaping US foreign policy, which invariably has significant implications for Nigeria. As the US navigates its complex political terrain, the decisions and policies that emerge from these conventions often ripple through its foreign relations, including with nations like Nigeria. In this context, the lessons that Nigerian political parties can draw from the DNC are not just valuable, but they are essential for the maturation and evolution of Nigeria’s democratic processes. These lessons have the potential to reshape the political landscape and inspire positive change in Nigeria.

    Political parties are the cornerstone of any functioning democracy. They serve as the vital platforms through which individual political aspirations are translated into collective action. This process is not just about enhancing electoral competitiveness, but also about ensuring that diverse interests within the society are represented and fostering a culture of political engagement among the populace. These functions are the bedrock upon which accountability and responsiveness in governance are built. For a developing democracy like Nigeria, where democratic institutions are still in the process of solidification, the institutionalisation of party structures is not just important—it is crucial.

    However, Nigeria faces significant challenges in this regard. The political landscape is often marred by a lack of effective party structures, which hinder parties’ ability to stimulate meaningful public dialogue or empower citizens to participate actively in the political process. This shortfall weakens the democratic fabric of the nation, leading to a disconnection between the government and the governed and often resulting in unresponsive governance to the populace’s needs and aspirations. It is urgent that these challenges are addressed, and it is the responsibility of all stakeholders in Nigerian politics to work towards a more inclusive and responsive system.

    Many Nigerians find themselves drawn to the Democratic Party of the United States for various reasons. These reasons range from the party’s historic nomination of a woman of colour, which resonates deeply in a country like Nigeria with its complex tapestry of ethnic and gender dynamics, to a general scepticism towards figures like Donald Trump, whose policies and rhetoric have often been perceived as divisive. There are also religious sentiments at play and an alignment with the broader policies and values that the Democratic Party espouses, particularly in areas such as social justice, healthcare, and immigration. This connection to the Democratic Party underscores why the DNC  is relevant to Nigeria’s political evolution. The convention is not merely a gathering of like-minded individuals; it is a platform where the party’s ideals, strategies, and future directions are showcased to the world. For Nigerian political parties, observing and learning from the DNC offers a unique opportunity to glean insights that can be adapted to strengthen their democratic processes.

    One of the most remarkable moments of the DNC  was President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside in the 2024 race, passing the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris. This decision was not just a political manoeuvre but a powerful statement about leadership and prioritising national interest over personal ambition. This act of selflessness and commitment to the greater good starkly contrasts the behaviour of much of Nigeria’s political elite, where prioritising personal and group interests over national ones is often the norm.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has been vocal in his criticism of Nigeria’s leadership, describing it as plagued by self-centeredness—a significant impediment to the nation’s development. In Nigeria, political elites often wield power through political patronage and economic dominance, manipulating public opinion to align their interests with those of the country. This manipulation creates a dangerous dynamic where policies reflect the interests of the elite rather than the nation’s true priorities, leading to a disconnect between the government and the people. In this context, few Nigerian political leaders are willing to sacrifice their ambitions, even when they conflict with the common good. Biden’s decision to step aside offers a powerful example of what it means to lead with integrity and a focus on the nation’s collective well-being.

    The DNC also highlighted the importance of unity and inclusivity in the political sphere. Despite internal differences and varying perspectives, all significant DNC members rallied behind Kamala Harris, presenting a united front. This unity was notable not just for its existence but for the way it transcended the divisions that often characterise political gatherings. There was no emphasis on Harris’s gender or race, no factionalism between “technocrats” and “professional” politicians, and no divisive rhetoric around religious affiliations. This starkly contrasts Nigeria’s political elite, who frequently exploit the country’s rich diversity;ethnic, religious, gender,  and social status—to advance their agendas. This exploitation often leads to feelings of exclusion and marginalisation among various groups, weakening the social fabric and undermining the potential for a unified nation.

    Another critical lesson from the DNC convention is the importance of consistency in policy positions. Vice President Kamala , in her address, clearly articulated her stance on a range of issues, including healthcare, housing, abortion rights, foreign policy, and the economy. The Party’s leading figures maintained a consistent and coordinated stance on these issues, united by a shared vision and policy goals. This consistency is crucial in a functioning democracy, as it provides voters with a clear understanding of what the party stands for and what they can expect if it comes into power.

    In stark contrast, Nigerian political parties often lack well-defined ideological beliefs and are instead defined by the personalities that dominate them. This absence of a coherent philosophy leads to frequent shifts in party allegiance, resulting in internal conflicts and inefficiencies in governance. Rather than focusing on meaningful policy dialogue, Nigerian political parties often operate within a patron-client framework, where loyalty is bought and sold and where policies are shaped not by the needs of the people but by the whims of influential individuals. This system stifles democratic processes and undermines effective governance, making it difficult for the country to move forward in a cohesive and coordinated manner.

    The DNC and RNC conventions also underscored the importance of respecting past leaders and celebrating the nation’s history and heroes. Both conventions paid homage to past presidents, civil rights leaders, and other figures who have shaped American history. This respect for tradition and the achievements of those who came before is a hallmark of a mature democracy. It reflects a commitment to continuity and recognition that the past provides a foundation for the future.

    In Nigeria, however, the narrative is often quite different. Successive leaders frequently seek to undermine their predecessors, showing little respect for the accomplishments of those who came before them. This attitude weakens the nation’s institutional memory and hampers efforts to build on previous successes. Current Nigerian political leaders often want to be seen and treated as demigods, believing their contributions are unparalleled and their legacies should overshadow those of their predecessors. This mindset stifles political progress and continuity, as each new administration needs to start from scratch rather than build on previous governments’ work.

    Finally, the DNC convention showcased a strong commitment to the peaceful power transfer to a new and younger generation of leaders. This was not just a rhetorical commitment; it was evident in how the convention provided a platform for young leaders to speak, presenting themselves as the party’s future. This is reminiscent of Obama’s 2004 DNC speech, which propelled him to national prominence and made his candidacy viable. The DNC’s approach to leadership transition reflects an understanding that the nation’s future depends on empowering the next generation and providing them with the tools and opportunities they need to lead.

    In Nigeria, however, the situation is quite different. Despite a youthful electorate,older politicians continue to dominate the major political parties. Patronage systems, which fuel entrenched interests, control these parties, preventing young people from playing significant roles beyond being tools for violence during elections. The failure to meaningfully involve young people in the political process deprives the country of fresh ideas and energy and perpetuates a cycle of stagnation and underdevelopment.

    Ultimately , the DNC offers a wealth of lessons that Nigerian political parties would do well to heed. These lessons are not merely theoretical; they are practical steps that, if implemented, could lead to a more vibrant, responsive, and effective political system in Nigeria. By adopting these practices, Nigerian political parties can play a pivotal role in the consolidation of democracy, ensuring that the nation’s political system is not only resilient but also reflective of the will and aspirations of its people.

  • China, Nigeria, and hostage aircraft – By Dakuku Peterside

    China, Nigeria, and hostage aircraft – By Dakuku Peterside

    Every story has two sides, but when a country’s reputation as  a sovereign and an investment destination comes under threat, it calls for immediate concern and action from its citizens and leaders. The recent unfolding of a concerning development has significant implications for Nigeria’s global standing as an investment hub. A Chinese company, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd, secured a court order in France following an arbitration award  initiated in 2017, with the Ogun State Government over a contractual relationship  that dates to 2010. The arbitration panel ruled in favour of Zhongshan, stating that “It is clear that Zhongshan is the effective winner in these arbitral proceedings, in that it has proved its version of events is accurate, successfully resisted Nigeria’s jurisdictional and preliminary objections, established a valid claim against Nigeria under the Treaty, and obtained an award for substantial damages.” This is not just a legal victory for the Chinese firm, but a red flag for Nigeria’s global investment reputation that demands immediate attention and action.

    This ruling is a significant blow to Nigeria’s absolute sovereign status and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The order has since been upheld by a US court, which dismissed Nigeria’s sovereign immunity defence in enforcing the $70 million investment treaty award. The US court was scathing in its judgment, asserting that Nigeria had “gruesomely” violated the Chinese firm’s fundamental and commercial rights. This ruling has led to the dramatic seizure of three Nigerian aircraft in France—aircraft that belong to the federal government. The seized jets include a Dassault Falcon 7X, a Boeing 737-7N6/BBJ, and an Airbus A330-243, all stationed at Paris-Le Bourget and Basel-Mulhouse airports.

    While initially a dispute between a subnational government and a private firm, this situation has spiralled into a crisis with broader and more severe implications for Nigeria. It raises critical questions about Nigerian subnational entities’ conduct and  the federal government oversight of international contracts.  Can subnational entities enter into agreements guaranteed by sovereign that do not include national assets or support? What level of due diligence should subnational governments observe before they engage in contractual relationship with foreign firms? More importantly, does this case reflect a more profound, systemic issue within Nigeria—a culture that lacks respect for contracts and international agreements?

    The case also casts a spotlight on the perceived weaknesses of Nigeria’s institutions, which need more authority or respect on the global stage.

    This perception is troubling and raises the question: do foreign investors lack confidence in Nigerian  institutions ? These are not rhetorical questions but rather pressing concerns that demand a thorough investigation and straightforward answers. The implications are dire, as evidenced by this case, which has resulted in public embarrassment for the country and the potential loss of much-needed funds due to poorly negotiated and managed contractual relationship . A thorough investigation is crucial to restore trust and confidence in Nigeria’s international business dealings.

    This situation is not an isolated incident but part of a worrying trend. It calls to mind earlier cases, such as the P&ID arbitration ruling in 2010, where Nigeria was found tardy in a failed gas supply and processing contract. Though this was reversed but it left a scar .  Similarly, in  2019, a UK court awarded an Irish engineering firm $9.6 billion in damages against Nigeria over a failed gas project. In that case, the firm went so far as to instruct its lawyers to identify Nigerian assets worldwide that could be seized to enforce the arbitration award. These incidents paint a troubling picture of Nigeria’s handling of international contracts and the country’s reputation on the global stage.

    The ongoing dispute with Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd is likely to negatively impact Nigeria’s global standing, especially when the country is desperately trying to attract foreign direct investment. This case highlights the often poorly structured nature of Nigeria’s international contracts, where subnational governments and even private companies have found ways to entangle the federal government in their questionable and often poorly thought-out deals. The result is a further tarnishing of Nigeria’s already fragile reputation. Following the Dangote saga where there is perception that Nigeria could not treat its own businesses fairly ,this is another blow to Nigeria’s global image . The country already suffers from a prevalent negative perception regarding the sanctity of contracts, largely due to inconsistent adherence to contractual obligations. The federal government’s failures to uphold these commitments, particularly at the subnational level, only exacerbate the problem. This disregard for the sanctity of contracts contributes to a growing cynicism about Nigeria as a reliable destination for investment and business. It is crucial to uphold agreements and respect contracts to restore Nigeria’s reputation.

    The symbolism of this saga is still visible to us. Beyond the immediate damage to Nigeria’s national reputation, this incident brings broader issues related to leadership, business ethics, and the sacrosanct nature of contracts. It underscores the importance of continuity in government—where all governments inherit their predecessors’ assets and liabilities and should not cancel contracts arbitrarily. Moreover, this situation highlights the critical need to build solid, responsive, and trustworthy institutions that command respect locally and internationally and can handle the complexities of international business contracts. It is an anomaly that contracts involving Nigerian subnationals or firms and foreign businesses always situate arbitration in foreign lands when local institutions are available and ostensibly capable of fulfilling this role.

    This incident lays bare Nigeria’s leadership challenges and sensitivity to foreign investment disputes. If not resolved diplomatically and swiftly, such disputes could severely jeopardize Nigeria’s diplomatic relations and economic credibility.  I am happy the minister of foreign affairs is rising up to the challenge. The needless dispute between a negligent subnational entity and a private firm, which has dragged sovereign assets into the fray, could strain diplomatic ties between Nigeria and China. Recall that the root of this matter is the bilateral investment treaty signed by Nigeria and China in 2001 and since then we have seen progress in trade and investments on both sides. This recent imbroglio is  particularly concerning at a time when the federal government is expending billions of naira to woo foreign investors. The dispute has cast a stark light on the nature of business transactions in Nigeria, revealing the many dangers they pose to investors, especially when projects collapse or are mismanaged. The potential loss of much-needed funds due to poorly negotiated and managed  contractual relationship   is a stark reminder of the economic impact of such disputes.

    The recurring cases of Chinese companies taking advantage of Nigeria’s open business doors are increasingly worrisome. It is imperative that the federal government, particularly the Office of the Attorney General, take a closer look at international contracts entered by state governments to insulate sovereign assets from exposure. This situation raises significant constitutional questions: does the federal government have the constitutional authority to regulate or even approve contracts entered by subnational entities?

    The ongoing dispute between Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd and the Ogun State Government, which has now implicated Nigeria’s sovereign assets, is a stark reminder of the importance of upholding the sanctity of contracts and ensuring due diligence in international agreements. The federal government must take decisive action to safeguard Nigeria’s reputation as a reliable investment destination. This includes strengthening institutions, enforcing contractual commitments, and resolving disputes through diplomatic channels. Please government must  address these issues to ensure  good diplomatic relations and  not deter much-needed foreign investment, compromising Nigeria’s economic future.

    The time has come for Nigeria to reassess its approach to international business dealings. This reassessment must focus on restoring confidence among global investors, ensuring that all levels of government adhere to international best practices, and building institutions that are strong, respected, and trusted by domestic and international stakeholders. Nigeria can repair its reputation and safeguard its national interests in an increasingly interconnected global economy by doing so.

    This incident is more than just a legal or diplomatic issue; it is a wake-up call for Nigeria to realign its policies, practices, and institutions with global business demands. The country cannot afford to continue this path of negligence, laxity  and mismanagement. As this case has shown, the cost is far too high—not just in monetary terms, but in terms of Nigeria’s global standing, credibility, and future prosperity. It is imperative that Nigeria learn from this episode, take corrective action, and ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future. The nation’s economic future and place in the global community depend on it. As for the foreign business sharks that aim to reap off Nigeria’s through dubious business deals  that cannot hold waters, it is time we isolate and deal with them and their Nigerian companions. Convicting some of these criminals will serve as a deterrent to others and help reduce such incidents in Nigeria.

  • Nigeria and the Symbolism of the Paris Olympics – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nigeria and the Symbolism of the Paris Olympics – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nations, diplomacy, and sports are interwoven. Sports persons and sports teams are, in a sense, representatives of and mirrors of their countries. It is no coincidence that most great nations are also leading sporting countries  because it is a significant tool of soft power projection. Nations demonstrate their might either through ‘Fight’ or ‘play’. The latter is the province of international sporting events like the Olympics.

    Sporting competitions, particularly at the elite level, have often been likened to modern-day wars. This metaphor draws on the intense rivalry, nationalistic fervour, and strategic and physical battles that characterize sports and warfare. However, unlike actual wars, which involve devastating loss of life and destruction, sports provide a controlled environment for channelling competitive instincts and resolving conflicts through non-violent means. Little wonder the famous author Goerge Orwell posits, “serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words, it is war minus the shooting.” Modern states are not expected to wage war against each other for the fun of it or just sheer dominance; the only arena of legitimate dominance that elicits nationalism and patriotic fervour is international sports.

    Like wars, sporting events, especially international competitions like the Olympics, become arenas where national pride and identity are fiercely defended and displayed. Athletes are often seen as warriors representing their nations, carrying the hopes and aspirations of their people. The victories and defeats in these arenas are celebrated or mourned, almost like battles won or lost on a battlefield. The spectacle of countries competing against each other in these global events can evoke strong emotions, much like the nationalism that fuels wars. Preparing for high-level sports competitions mirrors the strategic planning  capabilities seen in military campaigns. Coaches and athletes meticulously study their opponents, devise game plans, and adapt their strategies as the competition unfolds. This aspect of sports is comparable to the strategy  and tactics employed in warfare, where intelligence, preparation, and adaptability often determine the outcome. The intense focus on outmanoeuvring and outthinking the opponent in sports can be seen as a simulation of the strategic elements of warfare.

    The Olympics are the highest arenas of sporting glory, where sporting artistry, creativity and skills are showcased to a global audience for fame, glory, prominence and recognition. Whatever happens there mirrors the relative might and priorities of the state. It significantly reflects the economic status of a state and the opportunities it offers. Better-organized societies and prosperous nations are more likely to achieve better results; the reverse is the opposite. Prosperous countries invest heavily in the sports industry and reap the reward in the country’s performance at these major sporting events. Historically, Africa and other third-world countries have won fewer sports awards in these competitions. Although this may have improved a little recently, the improvement is not significant.

    The Paris Olympics is the latest iteration of great power competition in sports. So far, the  final medals table reaffirms the familiar order of precedence among sporting nations: the US, China, Australia, France, the UK, Japan etc, are the leaders. Despite our population and talent, Nigeria is nowhere represented in the medals table. Nigeria’s lacklustre performance at the Paris 2024 Olympics has shown our level of organizational tardiness, shabby preparation and short-term solutions for long-term challenges, poor incentive system, lack of patriotism, corruption and nepotism; low government and private sector investment.

    Olympics success is a function of many factors- training and preparation, athlete commitment and level of patriotism, sports administration capabilities, investment in sporting infrastructure, funding and professionalism. The poor organizational capabilities of the Nigeria Olympic Committee (NOC) led to the non-registration of Favour  Ofili for a race in which she had a bright chance. This is not the first time NOC has displayed this level of negligence. Nigeria’s performance at the Paris Olympics mirrors the extent of our preparations, investment, and commitment. It is clear that we need a significant improvement in our sports administration to avert a more consequential crisis soon afterwards.

    Our athletes do  not just  have potential, they are talented and capable. However, there is a lack of sufficient incentive and motivation for them to excel in the global international sporting arena. D’Tigress, Nigeria’s female basketball team, became the first African team (male or female) to reach the Olympic quarterfinals in Basketball. Favour Ofili became the first Nigerian in 28 years to reach the 200m finals. Chukwuebuka Enekwachi, in shotput, shone brightly even without a medal. Also, 18-year-old Samuel Ogazi became the first Nigerian man to reach the 400m final since 1988.  Ese Brume, Ruth Usoro, and Prestina Ochonogor  all secured spots in the final of the long jump event.

    These achievements are a testament to the potential of our athletes and should give us hope for the future of Nigerian sports.

    The Honourable Minister of Sports, Senator John Owan Enoh, demonstrated exceptional organizational skills at the Summer Olympics. However, the limited timeframe was insufficient to fully impact the final medal table. This underscores the crucial role of possessing superior organizational capabilities and engaging in long-term planning in the success of our athletes and teams. It is imperative that we allow adequate time for preparations to manifest in tangible results, and this should be a key focus of our sports administration.

    However, the trend of Nigerian athletes competing for other countries raises questions about our sports administration, nationalism, and reward systems. Annette Nneka Echikunwoke, who won silver for the USA in the hammer throw, was a victim of administrative incompetence in the 2020 Olympics and hence had to switch representation to another  country.  Salwa Naser took silver for Bahrain in the women’s 400m race.  Yemisi Ogunleye won gold in the women’s shot put for Germany. Tade Ojora and Victoria Ohuruogu competed for Britain, Rhasidat Adeleke for Ireland, Daisy Osakwe for Italy and Manuel Mordi for Germany, among others. This trend is a loss for Nigeria and must end. We must be ready as a country to harness the talents of all Nigerians and appreciate them, no matter where they are in the world. This will not only strengthen our sports teams but also promote a sense of national pride and unity.

    John F. Kennedy argued that “sports are a microcosm of society. They are a medium through which we convey our values and goals.” It has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It can unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to young and old in a language they understand. It creates hope, whereas once, there was only despair. During this Olympics period, Nigerians feasted on the game, glued to their screens to cheer up their favourite athletes and inspire Nigerian athletes to sporting immortality.

    As the Olympic games were on, Nigerian youth embarked on the mother of all protest, where in the North, many lives and property were lost and damaged, and, in the South, a pervasive feeling of hopelessness was in the air. Whether there was any link between the competitive sports of the Olympics and the competition for state power by protesters is yet to be fathomed, but one thing is clear: there is a parallelism between competitive sports and competitive contest for influencing government power in a direction the protesters are clamouring for.

    The physicality of many sports, where athletes engage in direct, sometimes brutal, competition, also draws symbolism from physical combat. Sports like boxing, rugby, and American football, where physical dominance is crucial, can be seen as direct analogues to combat. Even in less physically confrontational sports, the psychological battles between competitors—where mental strength, resilience, and the will to win are paramount—resemble the psychological warfare between opposing forces in a conflict.

    Sporting competitions as modern-day wars is a metaphor that captures the Olympics’ intensity, rivalry, and national significance. While most of the sorts share many characteristics with warfare—nationalism, strategy, physical and psychological battles—the critical difference lies in sports’ peaceful and constructive nature. Unlike wars, which bring destruction and suffering, sports unite people, offering a way to celebrate human achievement, resolve conflicts, and foster global unity. The contrast between the Russian-Ukraine conflicts, the Hamas brouhaha and the Paris Olympics is obvious. The Olympics are symbols of peace and prosperity. The insane, rootless fanaticism that drives a sports team is the same spirit that motivates patriotic people. Nigeria should use opportunities of future Olympics to be counted among the respected  nations of the world. Let our future outing qualify us to  be regarded as a nation of serious minded people.

  • Perspectives on #EndBadGovernance protests – By Dakuku Peterside

    Perspectives on #EndBadGovernance protests – By Dakuku Peterside

    We are witnessing some of the worst anti-government protests in our recent democratic history, fuelled by economic hardship, hunger and a general feeling of disillusionment among many Nigerians. Whatever the arguments are for or against the protests, it suffices that some Nigerians are making public their anger against the system and resolute to demand change. The protest, after Day 4, showcased the massive dichotomy in the various regions’ interpretation of their stake in the Nigerian project and the impact of the economic realities and peoples’ feelings about them. Understanding Nigeria’s fault lines is not just crucial, but it’s also enlightening to understand her socio-political dynamics and culture of resilience. I will point out six ways the #EndBadGovernance Protests have shown the stubbornness of our fault lines and differences in our level of political sophistication.

    First, the North-South divide plays out clearly in the attitude, feelings, and intensity of participation in the protest. In the South, the Southeast is entirely silent and has refused to join the protest, and the South-South is shyly participating. The southwest sees a little more participation, and Lagos is the epicentre of the protests in this region. On the other hand, the North is in turmoil, and participation is more active and resilient with all sorts of unprintable demands. Unfortunately, some parts of Nigeria, especially the North, have become chaotic and bloody. It is not surprising that this is the case. This correlates with the difference in poverty, hunger, and out-of-school children’s data respectively between the North and the South.

    The economic hardship bites more in the North, and they feel the pinch and are more likely to protest it. The North have the poorest states, the most negligible GDP per capita, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and high incidence of hunger. A combination of the high prevalence of pharmaceutical opioids abuses and out-of-school children (almaJiri) in Northern Nigeria reflected in the violent dimension of the protest in that region. Kano, Zamfara, and Kebbi are the three states with the highest prevalence of opioid abuse. This high rate of idle, unengaged and uneducated youth is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. However, these socioeconomic realities and sentiments often highlight our political certainties and show our fault lines and pain points. There is also the question of unsubstantiated ethnic and regional dimension to the north’s protest degenerating to a riot.

    Second is the Lagos – Abuja divide. Both are the two major cosmopolitan urban cities in Nigeria. There are pockets of protest across Lagos, and some have refused to be influenced by a massive campaign led by the Lagos political elite to stop the demonstrations happening in Lagos. The Lagos political elite worked hard to show that Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not that unpopular at his home base. Also, some residents did not want to pass a vote of no confidence on Mr President for various pecuniary reasons. The withdrawal of Igbos from the protest is not just in the Southeast. It was noticed that many Igbos in Lagos refused to participate in the protest, taking out an essential element in the bite of the protest.

    Abuja is home to a diplomatic community. Abuja civil society class showed themselves as enlightened and not beclouded by ethnic bias. The protest could not be restricted to the Moshood Abiola Stadium as initially proposed by the government but that did not reduce its efficacy. Police brutality in Abuja to some extent reduced the nuisance of the protest to public life. one take away from Abuja and lagos is that in cosmopolitan cities, no ethnic group can hold the cities or Nigerians hostage.

    Third is the stance of the Southeast states and the Igbo ethnic group. The leadership and followership made a conscious decision not to participate. This may be a metaphor for silent political protest in the Nigerian state. The elites were united in framing the protest as not concerning the Igbos, who are victims of the Nigerian state. They sold it as a Yoruba versus Hausa-Fulani struggle. Igbos are beginning to see themselves as not part of Nigeria. The continued imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu, the many seeming denials of Igbo’s opportunities in the higher political equation, the Igbo’s political opposition stance, and the general feeling that they are made scapegoats in conflicts like this are reasons some espoused as the significant justification  for the decision not to join the  protest.

    The fourth is the vast difference between the propaganda of government apologists and many ordinary Nigerians who refused to buy into the propaganda. Government apologists were primarily concerned with defending the government, its policies, and its actions. Although they mainly showed anger against the government at the centre, the people also looked at the subnational governments as a sore point. The federal and state governments put out arguments against the protest. They argued that first, the government is just a year old and needs time for their policies and actions that lead to growth and development start showing.

    On the other hand, the people feel that one year is enough time to see signs of economic growth and prosperity that will inspire hope for a better future. The people argued that their conditions were worse on all indices one year after the new administration came to power, and they wanted things to change. The government also argued that the leadership of the protest was faceless. However, this is counterintuitive because the fear of the dictatorial tendencies of the government is driving voices of opposition and criticism underground. Civil society’s leadership typically boldly represents the masses’ views and is not afraid of a democratic government to clamp down on them for civil protest.

    The lesson here is that Nigerians who hitherto are resilient under extreme hardship are beginning to question and demand change from the government, and simplistic explanations for bad governance cannot dissuade them from reacting. Also, the government is throwing out a few “stomachs’infrastructure”to a few people here, and it is no longer sufficient to convince many people to support the government. People are against unjust laws, heavy taxation, inefficient systems, and destructive policies that lead to hunger and poverty. The government must be proactive in catering to the people’s needs and not reactive to the people’s actions because of failed promises and visions.

    The fifth is the adversarial relationship between the Nigerian police and the people. Although the Nigerian police do good work sometimes, the public perception of them is negative, and this affects the people’s reaction to the police. In managing crises and conflicts, the Nigerian police sometimes struggle. In this protest, their poor handling of de-escalation of crisis, crowd management, and more reliance on brute force to handle civil unrest are clear for all to see. Amnesty International raised concerns. The police job is difficult, especially in these circumstances. However, proper training and preparation for democratic-sanctioned civil protests are essential. The police must study their responses and modus operandi in dealing with this protest and learn the lessons that will guide future responses.

    The sixth is the Nigerian elite and their discordant tones. There needs to be an elite consensus on issues that pertain to good governance and economic development. The elites hijacked the system and are benefiting from the system and, as such, are not united in one voice to change the system. The voices of the few elites who are not benefiting from the system are faint and inaudible to make any meaningful change. These elites uphold no Nigerian values, ethos, or shared ideals and visions. The elite sees Nigeria’s interests from personal interests and ethnic perspectives.

    A critical evaluation of the protest must be done to learn from it, improve things based on new findings and push for a better Nigeria. There is a need for a total rejigging of Nigeria’s government and governance system from federal to LGAs.  The mission, vision, policies and structures must be reviewed to put in place a fit-for-purpose system that will achieve the dreams and aspirations of the people. The government may think it needs more time because one year is too small to judge them, but the people have not seen a clear roadmap for growth on which to base their hopes.

    The general perception is that the government is placing a dangerous knee on the neck of the masses and does not care about their plight. This perception is dangerous because it is fuel to extreme positions by the people. The government should not feel that the benign nature of this protest is a testament to its failure. It may be a warning sign of a more significant revolution if the administration does not change direction. Perception is everything. There is blood on the street; we must reflect and ensure the spilt blood count for something.

  • In government, size matters – By Dakuku Peterside

    In government, size matters – By Dakuku Peterside

    Any government can easily undermine its credibility if it sends mixed signals on essential policy issues or initiatives, flip-flop from one policy or strategic direction to another, and turn essential socioeconomic frameworks into a yo-yo game. The outcome and resultant consequences have  been consistent: a total erosion of integrity and trust in the government. This has been more glaring in the critical decision on Nigeria’s government size and its twin, cost of governance. In government, size matters!

    But what matters most is the ideological underpinning of what determines size, relative to goals and objectives. The size of the government in Nigeria has, over the years, been a contentious issue, primarily because of its linkage with bloated bureaucracy, huge recurrent expenditure, and negative impact on economic growth. It is common sense that as the size and cost of the government skyrocket, there will be less funding for development interventions.

    At this time, we can see that the more specific challenges and consequence of not having the right service architecture that matches context, resources and state objectives is manifested in the multiplicity of Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) that perform similar functions or have overlapping responsibilities, hence the increased cost of governance and an increasing misery index. This “misery index” reflects the challenges faced by the average citizen due to the inefficiencies and redundancies in the government system.

    These challenges have been the bane of governance in Nigeria and merit attention. Successive administrations in Nigeria recognised this elephant in the room and set up processes to tackle these challenges. One would have wondered why it is taking too long to streamline government and governance when everyone knows and agrees it needs to be done. The answer lies in one thing – the political will and courage to take an action that has enormous political ramifications and may affect millions directly and indirectly, supposedly in terms of government jobs and the quality of services the government provides.

    The current administration acknowledged this inverse relationship between the ballooning size of government and economic growth. Hence, at various times, the president had promised to streamline the size of government ministries, departments, and agencies. The president made several consequential statements to address the challenge of the unsustainable size and cost of government. The most applauded was his commitment to implementing the Steve Oronsaye  report on mergers and streamlining of government agencies.

    This column dealt with the issue in a piece titled “High Cost of Government, Low Outcome”. In that piece, it was my argument then as it is now that “I acknowledge as a fact that a US-type presidential system tends to be big by constitutional requirements. And in a country where the government is both an industry and a social welfare institution, the tendency for big expansive government is high”.

    Nearly a year later, the government is clearly in a dilemma. Instead of streamlining  the size of government, we are likely to see MDAs increase by the end of the year. In the past six months, the National Assembly has initiated bills to create more than two dozen new agencies and institutions. According to Order Paper, a parliament watchdog publication, under its Oronsaye Report Tracker project, 25 establishment bills have been passed since the presidential proclamation.

    Most recently,  President Bola Tinubu signed the Acts establishing the Southeast and North-West Development Commissions into law. Mr President also announced the creation of the Ministry of Livestock Development, the 49th Federal Ministry. The presidential think tank suggests that the Ministry of Livestock is the silver bullet that will solve the perennial farmer-herder conflict, assuming that the Ministry of Agriculture is not fit-for-purpose agency to manage such.

    Several new agencies and commissions have already been established between the Buhari administration’s last days and the Tinubu administration’s promise to implement the Oronsaye report. Some of such institutions are the Nigeria Data Protection Commission, the National Social Investment Programme, and the National Senior Secondary Education Commission. It appears that this is an unending exercise. The bourgeoning of government ministries and agencies paints a picture of desperation and a government throwing everything it has at solving intractable socio-economic challenges or improving standards, but in reality, it is adding to the problem of an over-bloated government without the efficiency needed to deliver on the ethos of a public-private partnership model for economic growth.

    It is evident that the government urgently needs a comprehensive plan to refocus its desire to manage interests and its responsibility to right size/streamline the size of MDAs or its twin;cut the cost of governance. The consequences of inaction will be appalling. What is the effect of increasing the size of government and, by implication, the cost of governance at a time of national economic distress? At a time when the debt profile is at an all-time high, inflation is taking a toll and debt servicing cost expenditure accounts for a greater percentage of our spending. Expanding the government’s footprint during economic distress can significantly hamper economic growth, widen our debt profile crisis since we often borrow to fund recurrent expenditures, worsen inflation, kill private enterprise, and affect the most vulnerable among us.

    Unarguably, a combination of a large, bloated government in a third-world country and inefficient public service is an inhibitor of economic growth. One can argue that size is not necessarily an indicator of efficiency, productivity, and quality of service. It is sometimes better to professionalise the civil service, increase their value addition through innovation and technology, and proper human resource management. The government needs to take a step back and appreciate that despite its best intentions, the perception and signaling it provides does not engender or promote the commitment required to solve citizen’s present and future challenges; and as such should take deliberate steps to create an enabling economic environment that will enhance the private sector’s ability to create jobs and absolve any possible loss of jobs that may  result from the streamlining of government MDAs.

    Today’s technological advancements, even locally, has made it easier to rely on e-governance technology to provide seamless services in government to government, government to business, and government to citizens. Some state governments are at the foundational level of setting up e-governance to improve their services. Edo  and Akwa Ibom states in the south-south, Enugu and Ebonyi in the southeast are creating the architecture for this. The future is e-governance. It is inevitable. So, the earlier we adopt, adapt and refocus the civil service towards being service-oriented and not job creation-oriented, the better it will be for the efficient government running.

    Big and small governments have their relative advantages and disadvantages, but the multiplicity of MDAs with overlapping responsibilities serves no purpose other than to drain scarce resources. It simply reduces government services to social security rather than productive labour. The greatest challenge of a multiplicity of MDAs that are also inefficient is that they stifle the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation, encourage waste, promote corruption, mediocrity, and politics triumph over national interest. Even much more fundamental than the multiplicity of MDAs or cost of governance is the impact of the misalignment of governments’ words and actions. It does irreparable damage to public trust.

    This administration’s multiplicity of government MDAs, as well as the size and cost of governance, is best understood by correlating its words with the actions that follow. When used as an instrument of popular appeal, words could mean something different in politics and public life from their ordinary literal meaning. It is action that builds trust and credibility. It is time the government stuck with its goal of adopting or adapting the Oronsaye  report on streamlining the MDAs to achieve efficiency, save cost, create policy consistency and build public trust. Nigeria is in a difficult place now, and businesses and citizens want clarity of policies and direction. Even the  MDAs and civil service need clarity and a roadmap for the future. I recommend that the government comes out clearly and tell Nigerians where they are on this issue of the ideology, purpose and size of government. The government’s words must match their actions.

  • Books from the Heart of a Nation – By Dakuku Peterside

    Books from the Heart of a Nation – By Dakuku Peterside

    Nigeria is a complex and multifaceted country that elicits various thoughts and viewpoints. Yet, there is some order in disorder. My recent journey through books about contemporary Nigeria or autobiographies of Nigerians brought this reality to light. I have read many books, and in the spirit of Barbara Tuchman, I feel that “books are the carriers of civilisation and without books, history is silent, literature dumb, science crippled, thought and speculation at a standstill.” Of the many books on Nigeria’s nature and essence I have read recently, four stood out as rich in insights into what makes Nigeria and Nigerians unique.

    One of the books is “Made in Aba: A Life of Coincidences” by Enyi Abaribe. The title reflects the author’s journey from his birthplace to his current position as a Nigerian senator.

    Another is “A Polity in Transition: A Chronicle of Nigeria’s socio-political and economic development 1914–2014” by Ahmed Tijjani Abubakar, with a title that signifies Nigeria’s evolution over a century. There is also Onyeka Onwenu’s “My Father’s Daughter”, a title that symbolises the author’s relationship with her father and  her country.

    The fourth book is Ademola Adebise’s “The Transformational Leader: The Journey of a Tech Bro turned CEO”. It captures the author’s transformation from a tech entrepreneur to a corporate leader. Each book follows a different trajectory but converges at the intersection between Nigeria, promises, the glorious past, and the chequered present. Each book contains lessons about Nigeria, but I will highlight only a few for each book.

    “Made-in-Aba” is an autobiography spiced with essays on critical national issues . The author weaves snippets of his life in Nigeria, covering over five decades and interspersing various regions and multi-ethnic dichotomies with significant events that shaped Nigeria’s sociopolitical and economic life. Despite the circumstances of one’s birth, poor or rich, amid man-made obstacles of leadership failure, with iron-steal determination, character, and focus, one can still get to the top in Nigeria. Senator Abaribe’s journey is a testament to the resilience and determination of Nigerians.

    Abaribe describes the Nigerian civil war as catastrophic, emphasising its profound human and material costs,and its lasting impact on national consciousness. He criticises the tendency among the elite to avoid discussing the war. However, Abaribe argues that a significant impact of the war is that it exposes our fault lines, and politicians across the breadth and width of our nation have magnified them to humongous proportions, and these fault lines have stubbornly remained with us. Besides, the book teaches us that Nigerian politics is crude and not for the faint-hearted. Any sane mind can never fathom the twists and turns. Those who want to participate must “beware”.

    One enduring legacy of our past is the lack of fairness and equity in our shared national patrimony. This is evident in our federation, the massive divide between the haves and have-nots, and the nature and make-up of leadership in all ramifications – agency, structural and systemic.  Since independence, we have struggled to ensure fairness and equity in allocating government offices and projects. In the last ten years, it has risen to the level of marginalisation, discrimination, subordination, and nepotism. Enyi Abaribe’s book highlights this succinctly and how this is a disincentive to hard work and the spirit of excellence.

    “A Polity in Transition: A Chronicle of Nigeria’s Socio-Political and Economic Development” chronicles Nigeria’s rapid decline from its hopeful beginnings at independence in 1960 to its current economic, social, security, and democratic challenges. This book serves as a stark reminder of the importance of learning from history. Even with low internal cohesion, when post-independence political leaders first took control of the government in 1960, there was great hope for Nigeria’s future both within and outside the country. Given the size of its market and the presence of oil resources, Nigeria had a robust, diversified economy with significant growth potential.

    One lesson from the book is that the successor generation of Nigerian leaders abandoned the founding fathers and any dreams they had for the country. Another important lesson is that conducting free and fair elections over the years in Nigeria can be compared to a camel passing through the proverbial eye of a needle. To date, it does not appear to be a priority for us as a nation, while it is evidently at the root of our problems.

    Adebise’s ‘The Transformational Leader’ shows that Nigeria’s issue with inept leaders can be reversed with visionary and prepared leadership . This is one lesson we can easily munch from Adebise’s book. According to the book, Ademola Adebise led two critical business model revolutions that established him as a transformational leader. The first was captured in Chapter 5 of the book. Segun Oloketuyi, Moraf Oseni, and the author midwifed the launch of ALAT, the first fully digitalised bank in Nigeria, in 2016. The message is clear: vision, innovation, and disciplined execution will propel you beyond mediocrity.

    The second big lesson from the book is that prepared leaders are critical to an institution’s or nation’s success. Adebise was prepared for leadership, and this enabled him to lead Wema Bank through three crises: EndSARS, COVID-19, and the Naira reconfiguration cash crunch, back-to-back, all of which resulted in the bank emerging strong. The takeaway is that Nigeria is on a free fall because we need prepared, selfless, and visionary leaders. There is something fundamentally wrong with our leadership recruitment process and the transaction mindset of those in leadership positions. This underscores the urgent need for visionary leadership in Nigeria.

    Onwenu’s memoir is a thought-provoking firsthand account of the Nigerian civil war. Her human-centred account shows our political elite’s insensitivity in the face of citizens’ sense of helplessness. “Given the political chain of events unfolding up until then, no one needed to be told that war was imminent,” she narrates on page 115 of the book. It is easy to draw a parallel to the fact that, to date, our leaders are still insensitive to the cries of the people.

    Another perspective she captures is that during a war, lives, property, peace, values, and innocence are lost and never found. In our current political experiments, this is a path we must avoid at all costs. Civil disturbances that lead to civil breakdown and unrest are evil winds that do us no good. We all are casualties of such devastation, both the victors and the vanquished.

    It is indisputable that books have the potential to shape, challenge, and change our perception of our country. These books will provide you with “new eyes” and reasons to reflect on where and how we went wrong. A nation’s history and challenges often find expression in the life stories of its most exposed citizens. Thus, the memoirs of prominent national elite members highlight a nation’s life journey so far and its road ahead.

    Carl Sagan posits that “books are the repositories of the world’s knowledge. They allow us to travel through time, to tap into the wisdom of our ancestors, and to shape our understanding of the present and future.” The books here examined lead us into Nigeria’s past and present. They also light the way forward through outright suggestions. They inadvertently leave us with a ghost: how to tackle the significant social, political, or economic issues confronting us. By learning from these narratives , we can understand the root causes of Nigeria’s challenges and inspire future leaders to build a more equitable and prosperous nation.

  • Towards genuine LG autonomy – By Dakuku Peterside

    Towards genuine LG autonomy – By Dakuku Peterside

    Last week, Nigeria’s Supreme Court took a fundamental step towards dismantling the grip of state governors on the local government(LG) system and local government funds. The Supreme Court ruling on a suit filed by the attorney general of the federation,Lateef Fagbemi SAN, pointedly said the governors were undermining the functionality and operations of the LG system. They stretched it further by inferring that the governors were hell-bent on destroying democracy. In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court made it clear that it is unconstitutional for state governments to control, withhold or tamper with funds meant for local governments and prohibited any further allocation of LG  funds to state governments or funds to councils without elected officials. Even with the best of intentions, the judiciary exercised legislative authority and redefined the fundamental concepts of federalism. With this move, Nigeria’s 774 local government councils will receive allocations directly, circumventing State-LG joint accounts prescribed by the constitution in Section 162(6) and governors’ interference.This decision aims to ensure that state governments do not misappropriate LG funds and provide financial independence for LGs. The court further directed that governors cannot dissolve democratically elected LG officials because it violates our 1999 constitution.

    Presently, LGAs are provided for and captured in the constitution, but they are just extensions and appendages, in fact, at the mercy of state governments. Governors and regional leaders have consistently opposed any attempt to provide LG autonomy from the post-independence days (1960-1966). The subordination of that level of government and the alleged embezzlement of its finances reached a fever pitch in 1999.  At some point, governors elected on the APC platform cautioned the National Assembly in 2013 to focus on their business and forget local government autonomy. The governors contend that other presidential-style federations, from which we derived our model, all have two tiers of federating units. The LGA system in all such two-tier federations is entirely and discretionarily the responsibility of the state government.

    Governors perceive local government autonomy as a danger to their power and influence at the grassroots. They want to maintain a firm grip on LG politics and administration. Governors believe state autonomy and local government autonomy as congruent and not separated. These ruling challenges this assumption and tries to establish LG autonomy and financial independence from the state. However, some have argued that it affects the balance of power between the federal and state governments when the federal directly funds the local governments and may use it to control or challenge the state power or other political leverage.

    For decades, governors have been seen by the populace as meddling in the smooth functioning of LG councils, especially tempering the funds allocated to that tier of government. The trust of the Supreme Court ruling, which evidently was influenced by popular yearning, is on the issue of financial autonomy and did not extend to other fundamental issues affecting local government functionality in Nigeria. It is a no-brainer that the fight to liberate local government from the shackles of control by different tiers of government may have started with financial independence; much more needs to be done.

    Like most Nigerian institutions, the most significant reason why the LGA system is functioning sub-optimally is the complete absence of free, fair, and credible elections. Without free and fair elections, accountability and transparency are just wishful thinking. Leaders at that level, or any other level for that matter, do not owe their emergence to the power of the people and, therefore, have no sense of responsibility. The creation of state independent electoral commissions, practiced in other federal systems  , has become our albatross in Nigeria. Except for a few states, abusing that constitutional provision merits an award for infamy.

    Related to the abuse of the electoral process, which is widespread and deeply rooted in the country’s political landscape, is the issue of the quality of persons “elected” to that level of government. The dearth of capacity is not limited to elected officials but is also established in the LGA civil service. The outcome is disastrous when charlatans and political jobbers are forced on the people in local governments with little or no capacity to lead or even manage resources. The practice is that governor’s gift local government chairman positions to their cronies and touts who are experts in rigging elections but have no modicum of decency, leadership capacity or intellectual dexterity needed to lead LGs.

    Another reason LG autonomy is a mirage is the recruitment, discipline, and appointment of top LG civil servants by the state government through the LG Service Commission. This is where political interference is most located, and we have given the least attention. There is often a need for more qualified and motivated personnel in local governments. This shortage of skilled workers affects the quality of services provided and the implementation of development projects. Bureaucratic inefficiency, red tape and slow administrative processes hinder the effective delivery of services and the implementation of development projects.

    We have been seduced to believe that financial autonomy is  the only pathway  for LGs to define their own development priorities and implement them independently. This can be compared to giving you a coin in one hand and taking it from another hand. The devil is often in the details. We must dig deep to evaluate the quality and capacity of the human resources needed for effective and modern local government governance.

    The institutional frameworks within which local governments operate are often weak and poorly enforced. This results in a lack of accountability and transparency in the management of local government affairs and that is the greatest problem of a financially independent LG system. Weak institutions and poor oversight are the other stumbling blocks to LG system that can achieve a modicum of results or development. The legislative councils, where they exist, are comparable to living furniture in the chairman’s office or a waiter for the most powerful state-level politician in the LGA. Annual audits from the office of the auditor general of LG and internal auditors in the Council are more of a ritual than any serious assignment of examining and verifying financial transactions.

    Corruption has since been democratized in LGs. True, it is rampant at all levels of government in Nigeria, including the local level. Funds meant for development projects often get siphoned off by corrupt officials, leaving local communities needing more resources for growth and improvement. Also, in many parts of Nigeria, local governments face significant security challenges, including insurgency, banditry, and communal conflicts. These security issues divert resources away from development projects and create an unstable environment for effective local governance.

    Finally, there is high public apathy and low civic engagement in LGs. The populace are too distant from the LG administration to insist on accountability . Many citizens need to be more engaged in local government activities. This lack of public involvement and oversight allows dysfunction and corruption to persist unchallenged. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive reforms to improve governance, increase transparency, ensure adequate funding, and foster greater civic engagement.

    Beyond these anchors on the neck of LGs, the Supreme Court verdict is a starting point for a long-drawn process. It will help the LGs in three ways. First, the  profound constitutional change by the Supreme Court  will put them on a journey of financial independence and accountability. Second, this ruling may become the catalyst for the further reform of the LGs to become fit for purpose. It will help set the agenda of having a holistic look at LG to make it more functional and purposeful. Third, we must decide whether to take LGs seriously as the third level sub sovereign  with attendant functions and responsibilities or to scrap it and have proper two level federating units. Some have argued that it does not help to have a superstructure that recognised LG as micro sovereign tier of government  on paper and not in practice.

    Aside from financial autonomy, LGs  must achieve administrative and political freedom to foster grassroots growth. They exist as separate legal entities free of state government apron strings or should be removed from the constitution to create a two-tier structure. Free, fair, and credible elections are the most critical step towards genuine LG autonomy without contestation. We must revisit this and decide how best to achieve this, either through the existing state Independent Electoral Commission (state INEC) or by allowing the Federal INEC to conduct all elections in Nigeria.