TheNewsGuru

Tag: Magnus Onyibe

  • Time to prohibit petroleum product imports – By Magnus Onyibe

    Time to prohibit petroleum product imports – By Magnus Onyibe

    In 2011, the Chinese, demonstrating their strategic foresight, established a refinery in Niger Republic, which borders Nigeria to the northeast. This refinery, with a capacity of 20,000 liters per day and a cost of $5 billion, was completed swiftly and produces both diesel and petrol. Now, the Chinese are in the process of setting up another refinery in Ghana, Nigeria’s southwestern neighbor. Although this new refinery is not yet operational, China and Ghana have expressed their intention to make Ghana a hub for petroleum refining in Africa.

    China’s interest in building refineries in countries neighboring Nigeria stems from the region’s unmet demand for refined petroleum products. Historically, Nigeria’s petrol subsidies, which the government has struggled to remove, have encouraged the smuggling of subsidized fuel into neighboring countries. However, with the Dangote Refinery—the largest single-train refinery in the world—now operational, alongside the growing energy independence of nearby nations,  smuggling of petrol may become less attractive, casting doubt on China’s plans.

    Aliko Dangote’s $20 billion refinery and petrochemical complex in Ibeju-Lekki, Lagos, is central to Nigeria’s current reform efforts to liberate herself from the shackles of economic decline. Though Dangote did not initiate this transformative project under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, it became operational during his tenure. That is even as Tinubu’s government has actively assisted in resolving significant challenges, such as securing local feedstock for the refinery and removing bureaucratic obstacles that had hindered its smooth operation.

    The impact of the Dangote Refinery is profound, not only in Nigeria and across Africa—its primary markets—but also in Europe. For example, Nigeria had imported over $3 billion worth of petroleum products from Malta over a span of about 24 months, but the operation of the Dangote Refinery has disrupted this trade. The refinery, which produces Euro 5 standard fuel, has even forced several European refineries that were focused on supplying African markets to shut down. This shift has been acknowledged by both the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Bloomberg in their separate surveys, underscoring the global ripple effects of the Dangote Refinery.

    Given the above, Nigeria has no option but to recognize and promote the Dangote Refinery and others in the pipelines as national assets, particularly in terms of its patronage. This is because its significant impact in Nigeria, Africa, and Europe has repositioned the country globally, not just as a crude oil producer but as a key player in oil refining. It’s a status that Nigeria achieved back in 1965 with the establishment of the Port Harcourt refinery, but a privilege lost nearly 28 years ago when all four state-owned refineries became dysfunctional due to poor management.

    Now, what Nigeria has yet to do, but should, is add petroleum product imports to its list of prohibited imports. This should be done in a similar fashion to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s restriction on the importation of 41 items that could be produced domestically, preventing access to CBN funds for their import and promoting backward integration and self-sufficiency.

    Such a move would not only reduce the pressure on the naira arising from importers of the commodity chasing the dollar to pay for shipments into our country, but it would also help sustain the local refining capacity for crude oil, sparing citizens the ordeal of long fuel queues and even overnight stays at petrol stations to access fuel. Moreover, it would prevent capital flight, create local jobs, and help reduce the high unemployment rate of 5.3% keeping our youths idle and vulnerable to crime. As the saying goes: an idle hand is the devil’s workshop.

    Additionally, it would boost the Gross National Product (GNP) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which have been declining and contributing to the nation’s financial struggles.

    It is pertinent to note that the return of local refining isn’t solely tied to the Dangote Refinery. Nigeria already has five modular refineries in operation, with Aradel starting as early as 2010 and Waltersmith following in 2020. The positive news is that these existing refineries are expanding their petrol refining capacities, something they were previously restricted from doing due to some restrictions embedded in the constitution. For instance, Edo Refinery is working to increase its capacity to 80,000 liters per day.

    Additionally, the Crude Oil Refining Association of Nigeria (CORAN) has reported that fifteen more modular refineries are under development. This is alongside the efforts to revive the four legacy refineries, which are in different stages of resuscitation.

    Although the Port Harcourt refinery has failed to resume production on seven different occasions after multiple recommencement announcements, once all these refineries eventually come online, Nigeria will be flush with refined petroleum products. Ideally, a significant equity stake in these state-owned refineries would be sold to capable investors who possess the necessary expertise. This would allow the refineries to operate efficiently and profitably, similar to the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) company, where major International Oil Companies (IOCs) are the majority stakeholders. One would argue that, that model, as opposed to the Operation and Management (O&M) concept being contemplated by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, NNPCL. Additionally, the funds raised from the sale of equity in these refineries can be invested in other sectors of the economy, particularly in infrastructure, such as solar panels, which are becoming more essential as electricity costs skyrocket.

    This information makes it clear that the policy shift isn’t solely aimed at benefiting the Dangote refinery. Instead, it marks a broader transformation in Nigeria’s energy security strategy, allowing the nation and its citizens to genuinely benefit from petroleum energy sufficiency and independence. This paradigm shift is largely driven by the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which is gaining renewed momentum in the current administration.

    The narrative represents a ray of hope in what seems like a dark tunnel. Despite the socioeconomic challenges making the future seem bleak, as a nation, we are far from doomed. The reset that these reforms are intended to initiate is already showing positive signs, like the imminent energy security resulting from local petroleum refining.

    Before diving deeper into what has gone right or wrong in the past year of President Tinubu’s administration, I must acknowledge that I have faced criticism from those who don’t agree with my less pessimistic perspective on the country’s state.

    In simpler terms, some critics question why my writing tends to highlight the positive developments rather than the prevailing negative sentiments. My response is that one should always seek opportunities within adversity. I implore more Nigerians to toe that path to maintain their sanity, especially in these difficult times. As a democracy advocate and an optimist, I aim to see beyond challenges and highlight the brighter side of life, rather than only dwelling on the negative aspects that people, especially those affected by hardships, often exaggerate. If everyone fixates on the difficulties, there’s a risk that hope might be lost, which is the danger of focusing solely on a single narrative. That’s why some of us choose to emphasize the glimpses of hope on the horizon.

    As a public policy analyst and democracy advocate, I take it upon myself to counter the risks of a single-story paralysis by highlighting the positive developments for Nigerians. However, many pessimists, who only skim the headlines, reject my optimism, preferring to focus on fear, despair, and gloom over the hope I try to bring through my analyses.

    Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the acclaimed Nigerian author, and women’s rights advocate, recently shed light on the concept of the “single story,” describing it as “a narrative that only offers one perspective, repeated over and over.” She warns that the danger of this single story is that it fosters stereotypes, ultimately discouraging progress by making people complacent.

    Equally important for our political leaders is the advice from Gary Vaynerchuk, who said, “Don’t take constructive criticism from people who haven’t constructed.” Vaynerchuk, a well-known entrepreneur, author, and motivational speaker, stresses the need to evaluate the credibility of the source when receiving feedback.

    In Nigeria, where football spectators often act as though they know more than the coaches, our political leaders would do well to heed the advice of experts like Taiwo Oyedele, the President’s adviser on tax reforms, and Olu Verheinjen, the adviser on petroleum energy, rather than listen to the detractors engaging in nihilistic politics.

    For instance, consider the recent announcement of new tax incentives under Executive Orders 40-42 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. These incentives, the product of work led by Oyedele and Verheinjen—both recruited from the private sector—are aimed at pulling Nigeria out of its economic and political challenges. Should we ignore such policies with the potential to uplift our country, just to appear socially acceptable by lamenting the state of the nation rather than celebrating its progress?

    These newly unveiled fiscal incentives hailed as groundbreaking, include the Value Added Tax (VAT) Modification Order 2024 and the Notice of Tax Incentives for Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Production, in line with the Oil and Gas Companies (Tax Incentives, Exemption, Remission, etc.) Order 2024. The VAT Modification Order introduces exemptions for key energy products and infrastructure, such as diesel, feed gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), electric vehicles, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure, and clean cooking equipment.

    This is in addition to the tax reliefs already provided to Medium and Small-Scale Enterprises (MSMEs) to boost liquidity and stimulate economic activities. If implemented effectively, these measures will reduce living costs, enhance energy security, and accelerate Nigeria’s shift to cleaner energy. With transportation costs playing a huge role in the average Nigerian’s life and the rising cost of living intensifying hardships, these tax breaks should provide much-needed relief.

    Moreover, the Notice of Tax Incentives for Deep Offshore Oil & Gas Production is set to offer tax relief for deep offshore projects. This initiative seeks to position Nigeria’s deep offshore sector as a prime destination for global oil and gas investments. Some analysts even project that this could push Nigeria’s oil production to 4 million barrels per day, more than double the current capacity of 1.6 to 1.7 million barrels per day.

    Isn’t this the reason why ExxonMobil recently pledged, during a meeting in the U.S. with President Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Petroleum Energy, Olu Verheinjen, to invest $10 billion in offshore exploration infrastructure? Shouldn’t we be highlighting this positive development to inspire hope, rather than perpetuating the pessimism that keeps many Nigerians in a state of despair?

    Based on feedback from the presidency sources, these reforms are part of a broader agenda of investment-led policies championed by President Tinubu, underscoring the administration’s commitment to sustainable growth, energy security, and overall economic prosperity for Nigerians.

    Similarly, under the leadership of Dele Alake, formerly a prominent figure in the media, the Ministry of Solid Minerals is working to transform Nigeria’s solid minerals sector into a key contributor to the economy through foreign exchange. In the past, the country’s mineral wealth was exploited haphazardly, but with proper management, these assets are poised to start yielding significant economic benefits, much like Nigeria’s oil and gas resources.

    As the two-year mark of the four-year tenure of the incumbent administration approaches—the timeline some Nigerians have set for President Tinubu to start delivering on his Renewed Hope agenda—there are signs of progress. For the many Nigerians who have struggled under the weight of the administration’s radical reforms, there are indications that things may be improving.

    Looking ahead, it is expected that by the end of this year, inflation—which is already on a downward trend—will decline further. Likewise, the naira, which remains weak against foreign currencies, should strengthen as the nation’s economic fundamentals improve.

    Undoubtedly, Nigerians are eager to breathe a sigh of relief—and rightfully so.

    Banning importation of petroleum products which makes up forty percent (40%) of our country’s import bill will be a good starting point towards strenghtening the naira and further accelerate the current  downward slope and trajectory of the hitherto galloping inflation rate so that Nigerians can exhale.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • Issues surrounding debate between Trump, Harris, and how democracies die – By Magnus Onyibe

    Issues surrounding debate between Trump, Harris, and how democracies die – By Magnus Onyibe

    The barrage of court trials and two assassination attempts that have characterized the 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign were expected to undermine his bid for the presidency. Yet, like a cat with nine lives, Trump has not only prevailed in several court cases but also survived two assassination attempts—one during a campaign event in Pensylvania and another at his golf club in Palm Beach, Florida.

    Despite these challenges, Trump has managed to overcome many of the obstacles designed to derail his quest to return to the White House in 2025. It is worth noting that Trump’s struggle is not unique; the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has also allegedly sought to use the judicial system to remove the independent candidate Robert F. Kennnedy jnr.  from the ballot. Historically, no U.S. president has been convicted and sentenced to jail, but Trump was faced with  34 criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing. If not for his determined fight and the Supreme Court’s less aggressive stance, his political adversaries and the judicial system might have succeeded in keeping him off the November 5 ballot.

    Before Trump’s legal troubles, the most severe challenge faced by U.S. presidents was impeachment, which typically resulted in the loss of a second term opportunity. Similar to the challenge Trump had to deal with, the independent presidential candidate Mr.Kennedy Jr.who is a former DNC member also faced political persecution from his former party which is a justification for his  supporters believing that the DNC’s efforts to remove him from the ballot reveal deep divisions within the party.

    On August 24, when he chose to withdraw his candidacy and endorse Trump, he expressed his frustrations about the DNC’s attempts to disqualify him from the race. Despite his legal challenges, Kennedy Jr. managed to navigate the complex political landscape before endorsing Trump. Unlike Kennedy Jr., Trump has faced legal convictions and two assassination attempts in just two months, likely exacerbated by the intense criticism from his opponents who view him as a threat to democracy. Only Gerald Ford 38th U. S president experienced two assasination attempts with a woman as the assailant.

    I will discuss the attempts on Trump’s life in more detail later in this discourse.

    Despite the numerous legal challenges and attempts to disqualify him, Donald Trump remains resilient and is still the frontrunner in the race for the 2024 presidential election, just under 50 days away. The conviction he faces involves alleged tax evasion and financial manipulation in New York, where many of his businesses are based. Trump dismisses these charges as a political witch hunt orchestrated by his rivals, a claim the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has firmly denied.

    This situation provides a troubling lesson for developing countries: the use of legal obstacles against political opponents, once thought to be a hallmark of third-world politics, is now becoming a feature in advanced democracies as well. The pattern of legal attacks against Trump, who is being pursued under the Biden administration, mirrors tactics seen in developing nations, where political persecution is more common.

    For instance, in Nigeria, similar tactics are evident: the current governor of Kano state is accused of politically motivated prosecution of his predecessor, even though he too has been accussed of also hounding his predecessor too and in Kaduna state, a former governor is facing revenge charges from his successor. Similarly, in Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro reportedly declared himself the winner of an election without proper vote counting or transparency last month August . Subsequently following a brutal crackdown on dissenters, his opponent in the contest Edmundo Gonzalex has fled the country for the safety of his life.

    These parallels suggest that Trump’s prosecution could be seen as political persecution akin to what is found in some developing countries, rather than purely legal or judicial actions. The challenges against Trump emerged after Congress, controlled by the DNC and encouraged by the executive branch, failed to impeach him over the January 6, 2020, Capitol invasion by his supporters even though the house of representatives did, but the senate voted against Trump’s impeachment by the lower chamber.

    In their book “How Democracies Die,” Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt discuss the erosion of liberal democracies globally, positioning Trump’s presidency as a potential threat to democratic norms.

    It is striking that, six years after the publication of the book “How Democracies Die,” which portrayed President Trump as a threat to democracy, the current situation in the U.S. political landscape suggests Trump may actually be the victim of judicial weaponization. This alleged misuse of the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the Biden administration could be targeting not only Trump but also independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Trump for the 2024 presidential race.

    The notion of DOJ weaponization has become significant enough to prompt a strong denial from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who insists that the DOJ is not engaged in improper practices against political opponents.

    As a scholar in politics and international affairs, I find it alarming how rapidly democracy seems to be eroding in a country-the U.S. which is often considered the pinnacle of democratic governance—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Surprisingly, this potential decline in democracy does not align with the prediction by Levitsky and Ziblatt, who suggested that Trump would be the one undermining democracy. Instead, if Trump’s and Kennedy Jr.’s claims are accurate, Trump might be the victim of such tactics, not the perpetrator.

    The authors of “How Democracies Die” noted that American politicians increasingly view rivals as enemies, intimidate the press, and threaten election results, undermining democratic institutions like the courts and intelligence services. They expressed concern that states once praised for their democratic innovation are becoming authoritarian by altering electoral rules and suppressing voting rights to retain power.

    They also highlighted the unprecedented election of a president with no prior public office experience, presumed minimal commitment to constitutional rights, and alleged  authoritarian tendencies. The book concluded with a troubling question: Are we witnessing the decline of the world’s oldest and most successful democracy?

    Given that these concerns were first raised in 2018, during Trump’s presidency, and now seem even more pronounced under a bureaucracy-led administration, I worry about the implications for newer democracies like Nigeria’s. That is because if democracy in the U.S. is under serious threat, what hope is there for emerging democracies struggling to establish themselves?

    In my view, the current state of democracy in the U.S., which appears to be under severe threat, suggests that Levitsky and Ziblatt should revisit their book from six years ago to address the present political turmoil and allegations of judicial abuse by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    While the events of January 6, 2020, with the Capitol invasion leading to a protester’s death and injuries to law enforcement, were troubling, the recent spate of assassination attempts on Trump within two months are alarming. These attempts are likely fueled by the continued demonization of Trump as evil and wicked by his opponents. Despite accusations against Trump for inciting the Capitol riot, no charges have been filed against those inciting violence against him, which has led to unprecedented threats against his life.

    Trump’s strong support base, despite intense verbal and physical attacks, remains substantial, as shown by the 2019 election and current polls even as his rival, Kamala Harris, continues to portray Trump as a threat to democracy, further escalating tensions. Pope Francis’s recent comments labeling both presidential candidates as evil and urging Catholics to vote for the lesser evil may also contribute to the toxic environment surrounding the violence defining  the forthcoming U.S election.

    As we await the outcome of investigations by relevant security agencies into the latest assassination attempt on former president Trump, it’s clear that the heightened rhetoric and extreme language in this election season are contributing to the dangerous climate. Given Nigeria’s constitution is modeled after the U.S. system, the lessons from these developments are crucial for understanding and improving our own democratic practices.

    Among the many unusual events in the current U.S. political season, it’s striking that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, ex-Congressman Adam Kinzinger, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, and former Trump spokesperson Anthony Scaramucci endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris over their party’s candidate at the RNC convention in Philadelphia. This endorsement was even featured prominently in a campaign video by the RNC.

    Television adverts in themself are so incendiary that it is a surprise that there has not been open confrontations between supporters of both parties in the manner that violence erupts in African countries where democracy is underdeveloped like Kenya, Malawi , Uganda and Nigeria amongst others.

    In contrast, the endorsement of Trump by independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose support worried the DNC, received minimal media attention.

    It is also notable that during the September 10 ABC News debate, Kamala Harris accused Trump of influencing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that had legalized abortion for decades. Harris, who supports abortion rights, argued that the new ruling undermines women’s rights. If Trump did influence the decision, it would be seen as a significant achievement for him and a blow to the DNC and the Biden-Harris administration. While the RNC might argue that Trump appointed three of the justices responsible for the reversal, this raises concerns about political influence in the judiciary.

    Harris also accused Trump of obstructing a bipartisan bill on gun control and immigration and border control bill  in Congress. This claim suggests that Trump still holds substantial political power, capable of undermining the current administration’s efforts. However, it is curious that the Biden-Harris administration succeeded in passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Act but failed to pass the border and anti-illegal migration bill.

    After Trump defeated Biden in the June 27 presidential debate, he is now reported to have lost the September 11 debate to Harris, according to a CNN flash poll. This result is seen by some as a form of revenge for Harris after Trump’s earlier victory over Biden. However, polls taken shortly after debates may not reflect the final outcome accurately. Despite Harris’s strong performance in style and demeanor during the debate, Trump remains favored by some voters on key issues like the economy and immigration, which are crucial for the 2024 presidential race. While Harris reveived the endorsement of the songstar Taylor Swift, Trump has the backing of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

    That suggests that while Harris’s campaign is populist and female solidarity Trump’s is driven by economic and kitchen table issues.

    Interestingly, President Biden’s bid for a second term was derailed by a disastrous debate outcome that led his party to replace him with Vice President Harris as the DNC candidate. Biden’s failure to manage the economy, which has been plagued by inflation and a high cost of living, was his main shortcoming. He was not facing impeachment, a common reason for modern U.S. presidents failing to seek re-election. For instance, Richard Nixon did not seek a second term due to the Watergate scandal, while Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden all faced challenges either from party renomination issues or defeat by the opposition.

    In many ways, Jimmy Carter’s  and DNC’s loss in 1980 was due to several factors and hack back to Joe Biden’s current woes.

    Here are a few examples:

    1. **Economic Troubles**: High inflation (14.8%), unemployment (7.5%), and an energy crisis created a difficult economic environment. Similar economic issues are affecting Biden today.

    2. **Iran Hostage Crisis**: The 444-day hostage crisis made Carter appear weak, paralleling how the ongoing Israeli-Gaza conflict has affected Biden’s image.

    3. **Foreign Policy Issues**: Carter faced criticism for his handling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and other foreign policy matters. Similarly, Biden is criticized for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    4. **Internal Party Conflicts**: Carter’s primary challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy weakened him, similar to how Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent run is impacting Biden.

    5. **Challenger’s Strong Campaign**: Ronald Reagan’s effective campaign capitalized on Carter’s weaknesses. Trump is often compared to Reagan for his outsider status and campaign style.

    6. **Shift to Conservatism**: The 1980 election marked a shift towards conservatism, a trend that echoes today as Trump positions himself against the liberal agenda of Harris.

    This shift highlights a continuing struggle in American politics between conservative and liberal ideologies.

    It is remarkable how the political landscape in the U.S. in 2024 mirrors that of 1980, 44 years ago. The parallels between Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Donald Trump today, as well as between Jimmy Carter then and Joe Biden now, are striking. Unlike Carter, Biden anticipated a similar outcome and chose to step aside, allowing Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the DNC ticket. This strategic move has given the DNC new momentum, making the current race a close contest.

    If the RNC had similarly replaced Trump’s vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, with someone like Nikki Haley or Sarah Palin, the dynamics of the race might have shifted significantly. Being of lndian origin ,Haley might have countered Harris’s appeal to minority voters, and Palin could have strengthened gender equality arguments, which currently favor the RNC.

    Pope Francis’s recent comments on the U.S. presidential race, urging Catholic voters to choose the “lesser of two evils,” might not dramatically change the decisions of the 52 million U.S. Catholics, but it could clarify choices for some voters who would consider Trump lesser evil , but has heightened political tensions since word evil is considered too toxic to used in the context of elections.

    Clearly, Pope Francis criticized both candidates on moral grounds: Trump for his stance on immigration and Harris for her support of abortion rights. His intervention stands out because he typically avoids commenting on party politics.

    Just like Trump’s controversial comments about Haitian immigrants and the resulting threats against them such as the claim that there has been bomb threats in schools in Haitian communities in Ohio, calling Trump a threat to democracy whose re-election would result in end of democracy  may have also contributed to the recent spikes in assassination attempts against the 45th president of the U.S.

    His unconventional approach, including his strict immigration policies targeting illegal immigrants, as is the case in europe where illegal immigrants are also under attack ,challenges American traditional practices and may contribute to the animosity he faces.

    The truth is that despite the fact that the U.S was built bi immigrants , no president courts open borders and wants illegal immigrants to over run the country because of the consequences which Trump and his supporters are trying to prevent, but his opponents demonize him as if he is evil. Yet they lament that he scuttled a bi-partisan bill to solve border/immigration issues.

    What that suggests is that the incumbent administration may be bereft of ideas of how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants or just wanted to play to the gallery to gain the votes of liberals.

    Also, the  criticism Trump receives from American technocrats about his alleged departure from traditional political norms are akin to the backlash faced by past leaders who were deemed to have deviated from established practices. Like Ronald Reagan and Trump, who both entered politics from outside traditional bureaucratic paths. Reagan who was a two (2) term governor of California before becoming president was a movie star. Trump’s outsider status -real estate mogul and reality television show host has shaped both his support and opposition.

    Despite currently facing prosecution,some would say persecution,Trump remains a prominent contender and powerful frontrunner for the presidency in the upcoming November 5th election. The belief that his repeated escapes from assassination attempts might signify a higher destiny suggests he could be poised to return as the 47th president of the U.S.

    May God save Donald Trump

    Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst ,author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,Tufts University, Massachusetts,USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more ,please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Why NNPCL’s decision to lease instead of sell refineries spells doom – By Magnus Onyibe

    Why NNPCL’s decision to lease instead of sell refineries spells doom – By Magnus Onyibe

    For a long time, I have advocated for the federal government to privatize the oil and gas sector, which has been tightly controlled since oil was first discovered in commercial quantities in 1956 in Oloibiri, now in Bayelsa State. I reiterated this point in my column last Tuesday, August 27th, in an article titled “Understanding the Toxic International Petrol Politics in Nigeria,” where I shared the following perspective: “Currently, there are five fully operational modular refineries: Aradel in Port Harcourt, WalterSmith in Imo State, Edo Refinery and Duport Midstream in Edo State, and OPAC in Delta State, with a combined processing capacity of less than 20,000 barrels per day.”

    I further noted: “These smaller refineries are expected to benefit from President Bola Tinubu’s recent directive to sell the 445,000 barrels per day of crude oil, previously reserved for local refining, in naira. This crude oil reserve was intended to supply the four NNPCL refineries, which have been non-functional for over a decade despite consuming over $25 billion in turnaround maintenance without producing even a single liter of petrol.”

    I concluded my appeal with advice that the refineries should be transferred to the private sector, as NNPCL lacks the capability and efficiency to operate them profitably: “Hopefully, the current administration will recognize the wisdom in my advocacy for selling the struggling government-owned refineries to private sector players who can operate them more efficiently, as I have argued in numerous media interventions over the past decade.”

    I have consistently argued that the government has no business-in-running- businesses. Following the commissioning of the Dangote Refinery by former President Muhammadu Buhari on May 22 of last year, I wrote an article advocating for the sale of the struggling NNPCL-owned refineries. The article, titled “Tinubunomics: Time To Sell The Petroleum Refineries,” was published on August 15, 2023, and directly addresses the current situation.

    If NNPC Ltd had fully committed to selling its controlling interest to private investors, it would demonstrate that the nation’s leadership is serious about truly opening up the oil and gas sector. Beyond that, the move would have alleviated the burden on ordinary Nigerians who have long suffered from fuel shortages, a crisis that has plagued the sector since its inception and even to date that queues have returned to petrol stations again causing avoidable anguish on motorists.

    In the piece, I made the case as follows:

    “The universal principle that government has no business in business is crucial in solving the current energy crisis affecting both our leadership and citizens. It’s unnecessary to reiterate that government operations are inherently inefficient due to the bureaucratic hurdles typical of public sector governance. Such complex processes are ill-suited for running the business of refining petroleum products, a task that requires the intricate coordination of human expertise and advanced technology.”

    I further argued:

    “Operating an oil refinery demands a high level of agility and quick decision-making to achieve optimal outcomes. In addition to the government’s inability to act swiftly, which hampers progress, there’s the fundamental difference in the objectives of government operations versus business operations.”

    I also pointed out:

    “The primary role of government is to organize and protect its citizens for progress and prosperity. It achieves this by ensuring compliance with the rule of law, which both leaders and the governed must respect. This adherence to the rule of law is essential for establishing and maintaining law and order, benefiting all members of society and legitimizing the government.

    What this means is that the government is not driven by efficiency or speed but by its capacity to provide equity and justice for citizens, as well as uphold governance principles and ethics for the greater good of the society.”

    To support my argument with an ideological foundation, I referenced a well-known philosopher:

    “As John Locke stated, the purpose of government is ‘to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people.’”

    I further reinforced my point by explaining the appropriate role of government in a market-driven capitalist economy like ours:

    “Among other responsibilities, the government essentially provides the legal and social framework within which the economy operates. This means that the government is not meant to be a business operator but rather to ensure a level playing field for businesses to compete.”

    Expanding on the issue, I contrasted the ideal scenario I was advocating with the reality at the time the original piece was written about a year ago:

    “Unlike the forces that drive business, where companies thrive on competition with similar service providers to gain a market advantage and thereby add value to society, the situation in Nigeria was quite different. The government had been the sole investor in oil and gas refining since oil was discovered in Oloibiri, modern-day Bayelsa, in 1956, creating a monopoly that stifled value creation.”

    I then reflected on the situation:

    “That was the unfortunate state of affairs in Nigeria until the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) came into effect last year. This was followed by President Tinubu’s inauguration speech on May 29, which marked the end of the petrol subsidy.”

    Additionally, I noted:

    “Before these changes, the Federal Government’s monopoly in the oil and gas sector was like an albatross hanging over it. Unlike the goals of government, the primary objective of any business is to meet the needs and wants of society while generating profit.”

    After having firmly opposed the idea of government involvement in business just a year ago, it was a remarkable and welcome surprise that our nation’s oil giant, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPC Ltd), has now recognized the merit of the argument. On Friday, August 30, NNPC Ltd announced that it is inviting private sector operators to bid for the management and operation of the Kaduna and Warri refineries.

    This announcement, made by the Chief Corporate Communications Officer of NNPC Ltd, Mr. Olufemi Soneye, stated that the company is seeking both short- and long-term Operations and Maintenance (O&M) contracts for the Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company (WRPC) and the Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company (KRPC).

    Elaborating on the initiative, he outlined the scope of work for the O&M contracts, which will include but not be limited to:

    • – Long-term and short-term production/operations planning
    • – Production and operations execution
    • – Monitoring, reporting, and optimization of operations
    • – Maintenance planning (short-term)
    • – Maintenance execution
    • – Reliability and inspection
    • – Process and control engineering
    • – Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and Laboratory
    • – Specialist engineering
    • – Health and Safety
    • – Environmental management
    • – Turnaround maintenance planning and execution
    • – Minor projects
    • – Non-hydrocarbon Procurement
    • – Sub-contractor management
    • – Inventory and warehouse management

    The NNPC Ltd spokesperson further mentioned that the company’s goal is to enhance the refining process to ensure quality by utilizing the latest technology, including Computerized Maintenance Management Software (CMMS) and Warehousing Management Systems (WMS).

    While this move falls short of the complete or partial sale of the refineries, which l have been advocating for and was initially implemented by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2007 before being reversed by his successor, the late President Umar Yar’Adua, this new initiative is still a positive step. As the saying goes, “Half a loaf is better than none.”

    The basis for my argument that existing oil refineries should be sold to private investors stems from the widespread belief among Nigerians that the government’s business is- nobody’s- business. In other words, government-owned businesses are often neglected or mismanaged. The poor performance of government-owned enterprises in Nigeria further supports the idea that, in a market-driven capitalist economy, the government should not be involved in business—a principle widely accepted in management theory.

    There are exceptions to this rule, such as in monarchical systems like Saudi Arabia, where ARAMCO, a state-owned company, remains highly profitable, generating $100 billion in 2023. This success can be attributed to the unique nature of a monarchy, where loyalty to the king means that the government’s business is effectively the king’s business, as the king embodies the state.

    Moreover, other state-owned oil companies in market-driven economies, such as Petrobras in Brazil ($25 billion profit), Sonatrach in Algeria ($5.5 billion), and Petronas in Malaysia ($19 billion), have also shown significant profitability. The concerns about NNPCL’s underperformance are heightened when compared to these companies, especially since NNPCL, operating in a similar market-driven environment, reported a profit of N2.297 trillion ($3.3 billion) in its 2023 annual report. Given that Nigeria is OPEC’s sixth-largest oil producer, NNPCL has the potential to perform much better and is currently underachieving.

    Similarly, government involvement in business is mandatory in China due to its communist orientation, which represents another exception to the general rule that governments should not engage in business. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, the belief that “government business is nobody’s business” has become ingrained among public servants, leading to significant negative impacts on the profitability of publicly owned organizations.

    In contrast to the apathetic attitude often seen among Nigerian public servants toward state-owned assets, citizens in China exhibit a strong sense of ownership over public enterprises due to a deep-seated patriotism reinforced by the country’s communist ideology. This ideological commitment has made government involvement in business highly successful in China. A prime example is the construction firm China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC), which plays a central role in the nation’s infrastructure development projects across Africa, including road construction, railways, and ports in Nigeria.

    On the other hand, in Nigeria, where there is a notable lack of patriotism, particularly within the public and civil service, government dominance in business has historically led to poor outcomes. This was the case until the government began to relax its control over businesses, starting with the unbundling efforts during General Ibrahim Babangida’s military regime.

    During that period, industries such as broadcasting and banking were privatized, a trend that continued under President Olusegun Obasanjo’s civilian administration. Obasanjo further opened up sectors like ports and telecommunications to private investment, and more recently, the electricity sector has also been liberalized.

    A common thread among these privatized entities and newly accessible sectors in Nigeria is that they have all become profitable, significant job creators, and contributors to GDP growth. Additionally, they have become more substantial sources of tax revenue following the government’s decision to allow private investment.

    The situation highlights the risks associated with the prevailing belief in Nigeria that “government’s business is nobody’s business,” a notion deeply ingrained in the mindset of many Nigerians, especially public and civil servants. This attitude often leads to the reckless management of state-owned enterprises, which has resulted in their failure.

    In contrast, businesses where the government holds only a minority stake have generally thrived. For example, the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) company, which operates in partnership with international oil companies (IOCs), has been a significant revenue source for the NNPC.

    To address the challenges of government-owned businesses, it is crucial to move away from the mindset that government assets are inherently neglected. This attitude underlies issues such as corruption and the mismanagement of public utilities, and government-run businesses such as banking services when the likes of  UBA,FirstBank and Unionbank, electricity provider NEPA, telecommunications company NITEL, and the airline Nigeria Airways were under the control of the government.

    Following the unbundling of the aforementioned assets to private investors, they have become profitable not only  to the investors but they are also creating employment and paying taxes to the government.

    Despite NNPC’s transformation into NNPCL and its shift towards a market-driven approach, it still operates with bureaucratic constraints typical of government agencies. Rather than pursuing a full sale of the refineries, NNPCL is opting for a concession strategy, inviting private sector bids for the management of the Warri and Kaduna refineries.

    Given the problematic history of corruption, such as the crude oil-for-refined products swap scandal under former Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, it is concerning that NNPCL is not opting for a complete sale to private investors with the necessary expertise and funding. This cautious approach seems to ignore the lessons from previous failures in managing government assets.

    Fortunately, the Petroleum Products Importers Association has expressed interest in pooling resources to acquire one of the refineries. This initiative should be encouraged. Private sector operators are likely to use the refinery more effectively compared to leasing it to an operator who might exploit the system, as seen with the mismanagement of toll gates on highways.

    Selling the refineries or their controlling shares outright to new buyers could also enable Nigerian retail stations to expand into neighboring countries and address the problem of petroleum product smuggling across our borders. The example of OVH’s purchase and sale by NNPCL Retail, and its subsequent merger, demonstrates the potential for Nigerian buyers to extend the franchise to neighboring countries, similar to how Citgo, a Venezuelan brand, once operated in the U.S.

    Smuggling may persist due to the lack of a formal framework for selling petrol across borders. The type of innovative approach required for this expansion is best handled by private sector investors. Therefore, President Bola Tinubu should consider transitioning from the proposed concession of the Warri and Kaduna refineries to a full sale to experienced entrepreneurs.

    Over the past fifteen months, President Tinubu has revised several policy initiatives he deemed suboptimal. Concessioning the refineries is less effective than a complete sale, and reversing this decision would likely earn him a commendation from industry stakeholders and the public. Given Mr.President’s responsiveness to Nigerians’ needs such as increasing the amount paid to the poor through conditional cash transfer and returning some of the subsidy on petrol pump prices, there is hope that he will take the necessary steps to stop NNPC ltd from engaging in this latest gambit which spells doom for the oil behemoth that is supposed to be our country’s cash cow but still punching below its weight. As Oliver Goldsmith wisely said, “Hope is not a bait; it covers any hook.”

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Understanding the toxic international petroleum politics in Nigeria – By Magnus Onyibe

    Understanding the toxic international petroleum politics in Nigeria – By Magnus Onyibe

    The alarm in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, now blaring loudly, was first sounded by Mr. Tony Elumelu. In 2021, Elumelu invested over $1.1 billion to acquire a 45% stake in the OML 17 oil drilling asset, a venture in which Shell, Total, and Eni relinquished their shares, leaving the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPCL) with the remaining 55% on behalf of Nigerians.

    To his dismay, in 2022, Elumelu discovered that only a small portion of the crude oil produced from his wells and fed into the Escravos pipeline actually reached its intended destination. The majority of the crude was being stolen by oil thieves who had mastered the technique of illegally tapping into the Escravos pipeline.

    It is widely known that the criminal siphoning of our crude oil into vessels, which are then transported to unknown locations by thieves, is robbing Nigeria of desperately needed foreign exchange from oil sales. This theft has severe consequences for the country’s economy.

    In a recent interview with the Financial Times of London, Tony Elumelu expressed his frustration that oil theft continues to account for about 18% of production. He emphasized the seriousness of the issue, saying, “This is oil theft, not something small like stealing a bottle of Coke. The government should know who is behind this and should inform us. In the U.S., when Donald Trump was shot at, the authorities quickly identified the assailant. Our security agencies should be able to tell us who is stealing our oil. How can vessels enter our territorial waters without our knowledge?”

    In what seems like response to Elumelu’s challenge to Nigeria’s security agencies, a special task force was established by the Chief of Defense Staff, General Chris Musa, to combat the oil theft syndicate. The task force has achieved some success, allowing the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPCL) to project an increase in oil production from the current estimate of 1.3 million barrels to 2 million barrels next year.

    Alhaji Aliko Dangote, another prominent investor in Nigeria’s oil industry, also voiced concerns about issues in the downstream sector. Dangote, who recently launched a $19.5 billion refinery with a capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, has faced difficulties due to a lack of crude oil supply. Mr. Davakumar Edwin, Vice President of Dangote Refinery, accused International Oil Companies (IOCs) of starving the refinery of crude oil feedstock, which has delayed the supply of petrol to the Nigerian market. Edwin stated, “Aside from Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), to date, we have only purchased crude directly from one other local producer (Sapetro). All other producers refer us to their international trading arms.”

    He further explained, “For instance, in April, we paid $96.23 per barrel for a cargo of Bonga crude grade, excluding transport. The price included $90.15 for dated Brent, $5.08 for NNPC’s premium (NSP), and a $1 trader premium. Meanwhile, we bought WTI at a price of $90.15 for dated Brent plus a $0.93 trader premium, including transport. When NNPC later lowered its premium based on market feedback, some traders began asking us for a premium of up to $4 million over and above the NSP for a cargo of Bonny Light. Data from platforms like Platts and Argus shows that the prices offered to us are significantly higher than market rates. We had to escalate this issue to the NUPRC.”

    Alhaji Aliko Dangote, President and Founder of Dangote Group, echoed Edwin’s concerns but clarified that the NNPC is doing its best. He noted, “Some of the IOCs are struggling to provide us with crude. Everyone is accustomed to exporting, and nobody wants to stop exporting.”

    Also, as if in response, President Bola Tinubu has formed a committee led by Finance Minister Wale Edun. This committee has been tasked with developing a framework that will allow crude oil to be sold in naira to local refineries, starting with the Dangote Refinery. Following discussions with stakeholders, the committee has reportedly set a target for next month to begin producing petrol locally, which would help alleviate the pressure on the national treasury caused by the need to provide foreign exchange for petrol imports.

    The expected output from the Dangote Refinery could also relieve Nigerians from the dual burden of not only paying high prices for petrol but also wasting valuable time queuing for fuel—an issue that many hope President Tinubu’s intervention will resolve permanently.

    It is noteworthy that while Tony Elumelu is shocked by the brazen crude oil theft in the downstream sector, which is causing significant revenue loss to both his company and the country, Aliko Dangote is facing challenges from International Oil Companies (IOCs) that are withholding crude oil feedstock from his refinery. This ultra-modern facility is crucial for ending Nigeria’s reliance on petrol imports, which have long been a major component of the country’s import expenses, especially as the government has been subsidizing petrol prices for years.

    These two significant challenges, which have caused sleepless nights for these two indigenous multi-billionaire investors in the oil and gas industry, are critical. If resolved, they have the potential to transform Nigeria’s socioeconomic development from a negative to a positive trajectory.

    Fortunately, the outspoken criticism of industry irregularities by these two relatively new entrants into the oil sector is prompting much-needed reforms. The industry is currently undergoing what could be called a facelift through the strengthening of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which was passed into law in 2021 but has yet to be fully enforced.

    These issues underscore why  understanding the toxic international petroleum politics in Nigeria, discussed in detail in this piece, should concern all Nigerians. Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the oil and gas sector is the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, and we must protect it fiercely. The high cost of living crisis triggered by President Bola Tinubu’s removal of the petrol subsidy on May 29 last year highlights the central role that crude oil and its derivatives play in our economy and daily lives.

    A question likely on the minds of some readers is whether the current upheavals in the oil and gas industry are new issues. The reality is that these challenges have existed since crude oil was first discovered in 1957 and its exploration began in Oloibiri, now part of Bayelsa State. However, the reason these issues—such as crude oil theft and the allocation of oil for local refining—are now receiving more attention is because private investors, who place a high value on accountability, are now involved in the industry.

    In the past, when the oil and gas business was solely a matter between the government and International Oil Companies (IOCs), efficiency was not a priority for those on the government’s side. But now, with private investors like Tony Elumelu and Aliko Dangote—who have invested $1.1 billion in oil exploration and $19.5 billion in refining, respectively—these entrepreneurs are determined to protect their investments and ensure a return on their bold ventures.

    Faced with the harsh realities and absurdities of the industry, both Elumelu and Dangote became increasingly frustrated when their investment plans were threatened by unexpected saboteurs. Their concern for their investments contrasts sharply with the often indifferent attitude of public servants, who traditionally did not prioritize Nigeria’s 55% equity in joint ventures with IOCs, which Elumelu has now acquired the 45% hitherto held by the transnational oil corporation.This same lack of concern for protecting Nigeria’s interests in crude oil production sharing agreements is why there has been no proper metering system to accurately measure the volume of crude oil pumped into pipelines or shipped abroad until private investors like Dangote entered the scene with his refinery, capable of refining at least half of Nigeria’s present crude oil output.

    So, rather than viewing the disruptions caused by the agitations by Elumelu and Dangote as problematic, I see them as opportunities. Their involvement signals a positive shift in the industry as they justifiably questioned what could have happenned to their substantial financial commitments in oil exploration and refining, if the sector was not properly sorted by government. In my view ,Elumelu and Dangote can be seen as catalysts for change in an industry long plagued by complexities and absurdities. Indeed their efforts are beginning to help clean up or sanitize the industry, reinforcing the idea that private sector involvement introduces greater efficiency compared to government-driven operations burdened by bureaucracy.

    Most Nigerians would likely be shocked to learn that the lack of ownership mentality among officials responsible for national assets—an attitude reflecting a deep-seated lack of patriotism—is partly to blame for the fact that four federal government-owned refineries have been non-functional for nearly two decades. Equally alarming is the finding by a National Assembly committee that, despite the federal government investing up to $25 billion in public funds over the past decade for the turnaround maintenance of these four refineries, not a single liter of petroleum product has been produced. This situation is appalling, scandalous, and regrettable.

    The same lack of accountability and ownership is also why crude oil theft continues to flourish, despite the NNPCL’s claim in its 2023 financial report to have spent around ₦1.8 trillion on securing its extensive oil and gas assets. Yet, millions of barrels of crude oil are still being stolen in massive ocean-going vessels without detection, contributing to Nigeria’s recent inability to meet its OPEC production quota.

    It may surprise some readers to learn that the dysfunction of these four government-owned refineries is also due in part to sabotage, carried out by international organizations in collusion with Nigerian public servants embedded in the crude oil exploration and export value chain, particularly within the NNPC Ltd., which is responsible for importing petrol into Nigeria.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s revelation adds another layer of complexity. He shared that during his presidency, he urged International Oil Companies (IOCs) to establish refineries in Nigeria, but they refused, citing rampant corruption in the sector. Obasanjo recounted that Shell, for example, declined his offer to take equity participation and manage Nigeria’s refineries, arguing that the refineries had not been properly maintained. Shell’s reasoning was clear: “There’s too much corruption with the way our refinery is run and maintained. And they didn’t want to get involved in such a mess.”

    While Obasanjo viewed the IOCs’ rejection as an indictment of Nigerian corruption—a narrative often pushed by the Western world to make Africans blame themselves for the continent’s underdevelopment—I would argue that this refusal was actually a strategic move by the IOCs. As agents of imperialist interests, their primary goal has always been to extract crude oil and other raw materials from Africa, particularly Nigeria, for the industrialization of their home countries, rather than genuinely supporting African industrialization—a promise they frequently make but seldom fulfill, often deceiving those who are unaware of their true intentions.

    Most Nigerians would likely be shocked to learn that the lack of ownership mentality among officials responsible for national assets—an attitude reflecting a deep-seated lack of patriotism—is partly to blame for the fact that four federal government-owned refineries have been non-functional for nearly two decades. Equally alarming is the finding by a National Assembly committee that, despite the federal government investing up to $25 billion in public funds over the past decade for the turnaround maintenance of these four refineries, not a single liter of petroleum product has been produced. This situation is appalling, scandalous, and regrettable.

    The same lack of accountability and ownership is also why crude oil theft continues to flourish, despite the NNPCL’s claim in its 2023 financial report to have spent around ₦1.8 trillion on securing its extensive oil and gas assets. Yet, millions of barrels of crude oil are still being stolen in massive ocean-going vessels without detection, contributing to Nigeria’s recent inability to meet its OPEC production quota.

    It may surprise some readers to learn that the dysfunction of these four government-owned refineries is also due in part to sabotage, carried out by international organizations in collusion with Nigerian public servants embedded in the crude oil exploration and export value chain, particularly within the NNPC Ltd., which is responsible for importing petrol into Nigeria.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s revelation adds another layer of complexity. He shared that during his presidency, he urged International Oil Companies (IOCs) to establish refineries in Nigeria, but they refused, citing rampant corruption in the sector. Obasanjo recounted that Shell, for example, declined his offer to take equity participation and manage Nigeria’s refineries, arguing that the refineries had not been properly maintained. Shell’s reasoning was clear: “There’s too much corruption with the way our refinery is run and maintained. And they didn’t want to get involved in such a mess.”

    While Obasanjo viewed the IOCs’ rejection as an indictment of Nigerian corruption—a narrative often pushed by the Western world to make Africans blame themselves for the continent’s underdevelopment—I would argue that this refusal was actually a strategic move by the IOCs. As agents of imperialist interests, their primary goal has always been to extract crude oil and other raw materials from Africa, particularly Nigeria, for the industrialization of their home countries, rather than genuinely supporting African industrialization—a promise they frequently make but seldom fulfill, often deceiving those who are unaware of their true intentions.

    Before delving deeper, it’s important to recall that oil and gas were discovered in commercial quantities in Oloibiri, modern-day Bayelsa State, in 1957. For years, Nigeria exported crude oil exclusively until the first refinery was established in Port Harcourt in 1965. Back then, all refineries were government-owned, and it was within the government’s prerogative to allocate 445,000 barrels per day (bpd) for local refining at the NNPC-operated facilities.

    At the time, everything was managed within the government framework, which only required setting aside the 445,000 bpd needed by the four refineries located in the Niger Delta and Kaduna. Two of these refineries are in Port Harcourt with a combined refining capacity of 210,000 bpd, one in Warri with a 125,000 bpd capacity, and the fourth in Kaduna with a 110,000 bpd capacity.

    Initially, the allocated crude oil came from the volume produced by International Oil Companies (IOCs), whose parent companies are based in Europe and Asia. However, today, there are multiple indigenous crude oil producers with significant capacity, as well as a growing number of local private refineries with substantial capacity, making the 445,000 barrels set aside for local refining insufficient.

    Isn’t it remarkable that, aside from the persistent issue of crude oil theft, another challenge has been the shortage of crude oil for local refining? Yet, if all goes well, these two long-standing and seemingly insurmountable challenges in the oil and gas industry may soon be relegated to history.

    In truth, the primary mission of the IOCs has always been to extract natural resources from Africa to fuel the industrial revolution in Europe, which began with the invention of the loom machine by Jeane-Marie Jacquard in 1804 and the steam engine by James Watt in 1765. Extracting crude oil for refining abroad is part of the agenda set during the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, where Africa was partitioned into territories for European powers under the guidance of Otto Von Bismarck, the German Prime Minister.

    As these newly created territories were exploited for raw materials in the past, the current practice of exporting crude oil and other resources to Europe is an old habit that IOCs are reluctant to abandon. This resistance is evident in their opposition to President Bola Tinubu’s directive to sell oil to local refineries in naira. The IOCs seem intent on sabotaging efforts to achieve energy independence, citing commitments to overseas buyers as an excuse.

    Given that the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) took nearly two decades (13 years) to materialize and the Dangote Refinery took about seven years to build, why did the IOCs not anticipate that exporting all of Nigeria’s crude oil would no longer be viable? It’s telling that the multinational corporations were aware of the PIA’s implications, as evidenced by their divestment from onshore assets in favor of offshore operations. Yet, they continued to forward-sell Nigeria’s crude oil to foreign buyers, fully aware that the country had committed, through the PIA, to becoming more energy independent.

    The primary reason for this situation is that it’s more profitable for the International Oil Companies (IOCs) to export crude oil to their home countries, where it is refined into products like PMS, DPK, AGO, and NAFTA. These products are then sold back to Africa at significantly higher prices. This practice has been the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the colonial powers for a long time. As a result, they find it difficult to change their approach and sell crude oil to Nigerian refineries instead.

    This continued extraction and export of raw materials from Africa aligns with the imperialist agenda of European countries. However, this long-standing practice (regarding crude oil refining) has been disrupted by the establishment and commissioning of the Dangote Refinery in Lagos last year, much to the dismay of these colonial exploiters.

    To better understand the challenges Nigeria is facing, consider the following scenario: IOCs extract crude oil from Nigeria and export it to their home countries at relatively low prices (ranging from $37 per barrel in the 1980s to the current $80-$100 per barrel). There, the crude is refined and then sold back to Nigeria at several times the original cost per barrel. This process not only creates jobs and boosts the economies of the IOCs’ home countries, but it also leaves Nigeria with high unemployment among its youth and environmental degradation due to oil and gas exploration. This dynamic is why Nigeria often experiences a trade deficit, benefiting the home countries of the IOCs.

    To further illustrate this point, let’s do a bit of math to compare the price of exported crude oil with the cost of imported petroleum products in Nigeria. A barrel of crude oil, which is equivalent to 42 U.S. gallons or 159 liters, is priced between $80 and $100. In contrast, the current landing cost of a liter of refined petrol imported into Nigeria is at least N1,117 per liter. Although comparing these figures can be challenging due to the different units of measurement—crude oil in barrels and refined products in liters—it highlights the significant markup and the opaque nature of the pricing, making the disparity between crude oil prices and refined product costs difficult to fully grasp.

    For those willing to dig deeper, let’s compare the selling price of a barrel of crude oil—currently just $80, the price at which we export it overseas—with the N1,117 per liter landing cost at which we import the 159 liters contained in that same barrel. A quick comparison reveals that, as a net exporter of crude oil, Nigeria is at a significant disadvantage.

    This comparison helps explain why our economy is struggling and why it can no longer sustain the burdensome petrol subsidy. It’s clear that the scenario outlined above is a major factor behind Nigeria’s financial deficit, which exceeds N120 trillion.

    Given this reality, it’s crucial for us to support and encourage Aliko Dangote not to sell his refinery to the NNPCL, despite his threat to do so. This came after Alhaji Farouk Ahmed, CEO of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDRA), a subsidiary of NNPCL, wrongly accused Dangote Refinery of attempting to replace the national oil giant as a monopoly.

    Moreover, we should encourage other business leaders, such as Chief Mike Adenuga of Conoil, Mr. Femi Otedola of Geregu, (who has been involved in and out of the oil industry), Sahara Energy’s Kola Adeshina, Aiteo’s Benedict Peters, Nestoil’s Ernest Azudialu, and other well resourced Nigerians, to invest more significantly in the sector. This would ensure that Nigerians are fully involved in the entire value chain—from exploration to refining, shipping, and even gas processing, where Julius Rone is making strides with his UTM Offshore.

    Remarkably, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, owner of BUA cement, is also reportedly constructing a refinery of considerable scale. This could lead to a situation where Nigeria has the capacity to process crude oil into petrol in excess, much like how the country has become a net exporter of cement, with Dangote Cement and BUA Cement, dominating the African market and keeping foreign competitors like Lafarge and Flour Mills Cement on their toes.

    Already , it is a tribute to the entrepreneurship of Nigerians that about five (5) Nigerian banks have spread their footprints into the African landscape with thriving subsidiaries in full bloom.

    At this point, I believe that continuing to present additional facts and figures to  justify the need for Nigeria, nay Africa’s independence from being an appendage to other economies and regions would be unnecessary. Rather readers should reflect on the situation and realize that, despite the challenges, our country is on the brink of a significant transformation in the oil and gas sector. So, it should be clear that halting the export of our crude oil and increasing local refining capacity is crucial for job creation, boosting foreign exchange earnings, and enhancing our GDP.

    Currently, there are five fully operational modular refineries: Aradel in Port Harcourt, WalterSmith in Imo

    State , Edo Refinery and Duport Midstream in Edo State, and OPAC in Delta State, with a combined processing capacity of less than 20,000 barrels per day. These smaller refineries are expected to benefit from President Bola Tinubu’s new directive to sell the 445,000 barrels per day of crude oil reserved for local refining in naira. It is the crude oil reserrve referenced above that was providing the supply for the four NNPCL refineries, which have been non-functional for over a decade despite consuming over $25 billion in turnaround maintenance, without producing even a single liter of petrol.

    Hopefully , the present administration would see the wisdom in my  advocacy for the sale of the ailing government refineries to private sector players who would operate them more efficiently as canvassed  in my numerous media interventions over the past decade.

    After providing a historical background to connect the past with the current state of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria, including the international factors exacerbating the local refining capacity crisis, it’s time to address the way forward.

    As already underscored, International Oil Companies (IOCs) seem to struggle with changing their longstanding business model of extracting raw materials from Africa and processing them into finished products in Europe or Asia. This situation reinforces the theme of my upcoming book, *”Africa Exporting Wealth, Importing Poverty,”* with the subtitle: *”Are Africans Thinking or Sinking?”* The book details how the West has systematically underdeveloped Africa by exploiting its natural and human resources, from the era of the slave trade to colonialism, neo-colonialism, and the ongoing practice of imperialism encapsulated in unfair trade practices with Africa as the underdog and victim.

    The current conflict between Aliko Dangote, NNPCL officials, and IOCs has exposed how Africa continues to be stripped of its resources. This confrontation represents one of the final struggles of African entrepreneurs with the awareness and determination to resist the ongoing exploitation by Western powers.

    The environmental devastation caused by irresponsible resource exploitation in Africa, such as the irreversible damage in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) due to mining, is well-documented. Belgium, the colonial ruler, left the DRC in a blighted state, a situation that persists today. It’s within this broader intellectual framework that I analyze the dispute between NNPCL executives, IOCs, and Dangote Refineries over Nigeria’s control of its petroleum resources.

    Through this lens, I hope Nigerians will gain a deeper understanding of the conflict surrounding local petrol refining, which has been oversimplified by some analysts as a lack of planning by Dangote Refinery. In reality, it also stems from a rivalry between two Kano State natives—Aliko Dangote and Samad Rabiu—that has spilled over into the oil industry and society. Though a simplified view, it remains a valid observation.

    Rather than engaging in buttonh  heads, the two illustrious kano indigenes Aliko Dangote and Samad Rabiu need to start collaborating and stop sabotaging each other.

     

    Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst ,author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,Tufts University, Massachusetts,USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more ,please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Why Donald Trump would win Kamala Harris – By Magnus Onyibe

    Why Donald Trump would win Kamala Harris – By Magnus Onyibe

    The Democratic National Convention (DNC), starting on Monday, August 19, in Chicago, is set to see Vice President Kamala Harris officially accept her nomination as the party’s presidential candidate. Harris has secured over the necessary 1,976 delegate votes needed to represent the DNC in the presidential election against former President Donald Trump from the Republican National Convention (RNC) on November 5, 2024.

    Through a virtual roll call, Harris had already received the endorsement of the DNC stakeholders before the convention began. However, this development did not immediately alleviate the pressure on President Biden, who was forced to end his re-election campaign following a poor debate performance against Trump. But his traducers did not stop there as they initially also demanded that he should resign and exit the White House effective immediately.

    This situation echoes the tale of Oliver Twist, who perpetually asks for more. That is because not a few  Republicans had been calling for Biden to resign from the presidency since he had conceded his re-election bid to Harris, suggesting he was unfit to continue in office.

    Fortunately, the initial calls for Biden’s resignation, fueled by the notion that withdrawing from re-election indicated his incapacity, have subsided. Although he has about five months left in his presidency, Biden has recovered from a recent bout with COVID-19 and even participated in a joint campaign event with Harris in Maryland on August 15.

    President Biden’s decision not to seek re-election on Sunday, July 21, 2024, led to calls for him to step down from the presidency, an unprecedented move, particularly because he was pressured by his party members and allies.This decision mirrors President Lyndon Johnson’s choice in 1968 to forgo re-election, although Johnson completed his term rather than resigning.

    In a twist of fate, the COVID-19 pandemic, which initially helped Biden win the presidency in 2020, seemed to have undermined his re-election bid less than 90 days before the November 5 election. The pandemic was crucial to Biden’s 2020 victory and Trump’s exit from office, but it now appears to be Biden’s Achilles’ heel. His poor debate performance against Trump, which he admitted was dismal, intensified calls for him to withdraw from the race, and he eventually succumbed to pressure from allies like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Ironically, the same pandemic that boosted Biden’s 2020 campaign is now contributing to his inability to seek re-election, potentially aiding Trump’s return to the White House. Although Biden did not specifically cite COVID-19 as the reason for his withdrawal, the pandemic’s negative impact on his campaign, including his abysmal debate performance when he faced- off with former President Trump in a CNN-organized TV debate and the resulting criticism for his subpar output, influenced his decision to step aside.

    Several factors contributed to President Biden’s declining approval ratings and his decision not to seek re-election. Public opinion soured over his foreign policy, particularly due to the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the surge of illegal migration into the U.S., and perceived excessive U.S. support for Ukraine and Israel in their respective conflicts. The recent escalation in the Middle East, including the assassination of key figures such as Hamas leader in lran and Hezebah commander in Lebanon , the potential for broader conflict involving Russia and Iran in what might stretch into a third world war, has further strained the situation and democrats under pressure to end the two conflicts-lsraeli/Hamas and Russia/Ukraine wars before they degenerate into a  conflict of global dimension.

    Although Biden initially received praise for his handling of foreign policy during his 2019-2020 campaign, however his approval rating had dropped to about 38% by February this year. While COVID-19 was not the only reason for his withdrawal, it significantly impacted his presidency and political environment. Consequently, Biden decided to step aside for Vice President Kamala Harris, whose nomination has rejuvenated the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and restored enthusiasm for the party’s 2024 campaign.

    Coincidentally, the RNC candidate, Donald Trump, has also gained momentum. This boost followed President Biden’s poor performance in their first debate and Trump’s ability to maintain a strong public profile despite ongoing legal issues, including a failed assassination attempt. The would-be assassin’s bullet merely grazed Trump’s ear, which many supporters and undecided voters interpreted as divine protection, especially as Trump instinctively moved his head away from the shot aimed at his forehead.

    As Trump celebrated these developments, President Biden stepped down, leading to a surge in support for Vice President Kamala Harris and reinvigorating the DNC. Recent polls show Harris in a tight race with Trump. While Harris’s campaign slogan, “We are not going back,” suggests a commitment to preventing Trump’s return to the White House, some analysts argue it lacks impact compared to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), which may not be as effective as in previous elections.

    Despite the current enthusiasm for Harris, some pundits caution that the excitement may be short-lived. Historical patterns suggest that the political landscape can shift rapidly, and the initial boost for Harris might not last beyond the convention, which started on August 19.

    In 2016, few predicted that Donald Trump would make it to the White House, with most polls favoring Hillary Clinton. Despite Clinton winning the popular vote by about 3 million votes, Trump won the presidency by securing 307 electoral college votes to Clinton’s 227. The US electoral system is so complex that although Clinton received 65,853,514 popular votes, while Trump received 62,984,514 of the popular votes, Trump won the contest.

    That 2016  election marked the fifth time in U.S. history that the winning candidate lost the popular vote, and Trump’s victory in that contest against all odds suggests he might repeat that success in 2024. There is a conspiracy theory that Clinton’s loss was influenced by key electoral college voters who were opposed to the idea of a Clinton presidential dynasty, akin to the Kennedy family or the Bushes.

    Had Clinton won, it would have added a husband-and-wife presidential pair to the list of political dynasties, including the Kennedys and the Bushes. Given the political dynamics and underlying racial and gender biases in the U.S., some argue that while there is public support for Kamala Harris, there may be underlying resistance due to her being a female and a Black candidate, reflecting deeper societal biases.

    In summary, there are likely many voters in the U.S. who may harbor latent racial biases and might not vote for Kamala Harris due to her being both a woman and a person of color. While former President Barack Obama successfully engaged younger voters in 2008 through social media—who judged candidates by their abilities rather than race—Harris’s campaign relies on this demographic to support her. The challenge remains whether these younger voters can influence their parents, who may hold biases against Harris. Plus how many of the youths, particularly university students are willing to overlook the administration’s support for the ongoing massacre of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel even though Hamas is the agent provocateur?

    Obama faced the challenge of being a Black man, and despite extensive efforts by previous Black leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Obama was the first to succeed in winning the presidency. Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee from a major party, also failed to win despite being Caucasian.

    Given these factors which still exist as formidable barriers, it’s doubtful that Harris will overcome the same obstacles. Her bid for the presidency in 2024 may face significant hurdles, akin to the proverbial difficulty of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Although Harris has gained momentum since Biden’s withdrawal, this enthusiasm is expected to wane after the current convention.

    The concern arises from the fact that Kamala Harris will face realpolitik challenges when she steps out of her scripted, teleprompter-driven comfort zone into unscripted interactions with news reporters. These journalists will likely press her on various aspects of her tenure as Attorney General of California, her time as a senator, and her current role as Vice President. Apart from young democrats who are on her side because she did not want Biden due to his old age,  there is no evidence that blacks or women who should be natural constituents are with her in significant numbers.

    While Harris’s team has preemptively addressed potential questions through social media, this structured approach may not shield her from direct questioning by reporters. The upcoming television debate between Harris and former President Trump on September 10 could be a critical moment. If Harris fails to perform effectively, especially given her background as a former prosecutor, it could significantly damage her campaign, much like Biden’s poor performance against Trump on June 27, 2024, which led to the end of his re-election bid.

    How would she defend the multiple conflicting political positions that she has taken in her two decades-long political career which make her look like a chameleon that’s always changing its color to blend with the environment it finds itself in?

    The key question is whether a debate between Trump and Harris could mark a political downfall for Harris, the first female, and woman of color to become Vice President and a major party’s presidential candidate. Trump’s supporters, who view him as divinely chosen to return to the White House, are driven by his continued popularity despite being the most criticized and vilified presidential candidate since his 2020 loss. This popularity persists even amidst criticisms of his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the numerous court cases that he has been slammed some of which he has received judgement in his favor.

    Ron Klain, former Chief of Staff to President Biden, recently highlighted that the White House did not effectively promote Kamala Harris, potentially by design. Biden’s body language had suggested he might not seek re-election due to concerns about his age during the 2019 campaign against Trump.

    Although it was anticipated that Harris would replace Biden in the 2024 race, this created friction between them after they assumed office in 2020 and Biden’s intentions to run again became evident.

    Ultimately, COVID-19 and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s concerns about the DNC not being able to take control of the House if Biden remained as the candidate led to Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race.

    Harris now faces the challenging task of securing the presidency against the formidable Donald Trump, who has experience from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and remains a strong contender. Despite Harris’s boost from Biden’s endorsement, she is not inheriting strong voter support from a president whose approval ratings had plummeted to around 38% before he stepped down. Meanwhile, Trump, known for his ability to come from behind, is likely to leverage his support from evangelicals and MAGA supporters to mount a strong campaign.

    Given that Kamala Harris has not faced the rigorous challenges of a presidential campaign like Donald Trump, who is running for the third time, and that she did not go through the traditional party primaries but was selected by President Biden, her optimism about winning the election is puzzling. That is more so because she is not enjoying overwhelming support of her natural constuents -women folk and blacks or colored who nurse the grudge that as District Attorney in San Francisco she is alleged to have the penchant for jailing blacks on crimes that could have ordinarily been deemed unserious .

    According to PEW Research, 63% of Americans find that televised debates help them assess a presidential candidate’s capabilities. However, Harris has not participated in debates or unscripted media interviews since her ascent to the top of the ticket roughly a month ago, which did not involve the usual primary process. Her reaction to tough questions, such as when she was confronted by a Democrat during one her campaign events about the Gaza conflict and how the U.S. is complicit , suggests she may struggle with probing questions from journalists, especially given her record of shifting positions. This could undermine her rising popularity before the November 5 election.

    Moreover, despite the DNC’s portrayal of Trump as a threat to democracy and accusations of racist comments (which he denies), swing voters are increasingly seeing Trump as a candid politician who speaks plainly about issues. Trump’s straightforwardness may help him regain momentum, as he provides clear positions on various topics, in contrast to more evasive politicians. This directness is a double-edged sword: it appeals to some voters but alienates others due to his blunt demeanor.

    An often-overlooked fact is that while President Biden has been involved in politics for about fifty years, former President Trump has been active in the political arena for only about a decade.

    Remarkably, since launching his presidential bid against Senator Hillary Clinton in 2016 and winning the presidency, Trump has become the RNC’s presidential candidate for a third time. His charismatic leadership has given him greater influence over the party than any other figure, including Ronald Reagan, and surpasses even the Bush family’s influence with its father-and-son presidential dynasty.

    In contrast, Kamala Harris began her political career in 2002 when she ran for District Attorney of San Francisco and won. This marks about twenty-two years of political experience, double the time Trump has spent in politics.

    If Kamala Harris does not win the presidential election on November 5, which in my reckoning seems quite probable, she still has time to try again in the future. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who was 68 when she ran for president, Harris is only 59, giving her a decade more to pursue another presidential bid before she becomes too old to run.

    Harris can leverage the goodwill she’s building now as a foundation for a future campaign. After all, President Biden, who has just concluded his 50-year political career, made several attempts after being a senator and vice president before finally winning in 2020, partly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic which helped him take over the White House from then President Donal J.Trump who would likely return as the 47th president of the USA.

    Many Nigerians have formed prayer groups to support Trump’s return to the White House, believing he is more favorable to legal immigrants and anti-abortion policies, as seen in his support for overturning Roe v. Wade. With the election still several months away, the wait feels long, and many are anxiously anticipating the outcome.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria. To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • How banks could have avoided the FX gains tax through CSR – By Magnus Onyibe

    How banks could have avoided the FX gains tax through CSR – By Magnus Onyibe

    In a society where a few live in luxury while many struggle in poverty, it’s not surprising that feelings of envy, jealousy, and even resentment arise among the less fortunate towards those who are well-off.

    This is particularly true when it comes to banks, which serve as intermediaries, receiving deposits from those with surplus funds and lending them to those in need—for a fee. However, it seems that these deposit money banks are growing wealthier while their customers are becoming poorer, making them easy targets for criticism.

    A notable critic is Mr. Femi Otedola, chairman of Geregu Electricity Power Company, who recently expressed concern that around five banks, likely from the top-tier category, have allegedly spent over $500 million on private jets for their executives. The banks, on the other hand, argue that these jets are necessary for their executives to save time, avoiding the delays and inconveniences of commercial flights. They also point out that these jets are often part of leasing pools, generating income for the banks when not in use by their executives.

    An analysis of this situation suggests that the issue of banks making substantial profits while others in society struggle financially is multifaceted. Banks are profit-oriented institutions, primarily focused on delivering returns to their shareholders. During economic downturns, they often become more cautious, reducing lending and taking on less risk, which can worsen economic hardships. This behavior can widen the wealth gap, as bank profits do not typically benefit the broader population, contributing to income inequality.

    To address the challenges posed by the banks’ significant profits, stricter regulations and policies may be necessary. This could be why an excessive profit or windfall tax has been introduced through the amendment of the Finance Act 2023, which imposes a levy on banks’ Foreign Exchange (FX) gains. The tax rate on these gains has been increased from 50 to 70 percent.

    This move comes in response to the significant FX income banks generated following the naira’s devaluation after the current administration took office.

    The new policy has faced initial criticism, particularly from banks that have described it as double taxation. KPMG Nigeria, a tax and audit advisory firm, criticized the 50% windfall tax on banks’ foreign exchange revaluation gains recorded in 2023, warning it could lead to legal challenges, as Nigeria’s tax policy does not support retroactive taxation.

    Similarly, PwC Nigeria raised concerns that the unpredictability of the windfall tax on already reported 2023 profits might deter investment. Prominent lawyer Dr. Olisa Agbakoba also criticized the proposed amendment to the Finance Act, arguing it was poorly conceived and outside the National Assembly’s authority. He added that the policy’s burden would likely fall on the banks’ customers.

    While banks and audit firms are opposing the tax, Femi Otedola, the largest shareholder in First Bank of Nigeria (FBN), has voiced his support, arguing that revenue from windfall taxes could be directed towards essential public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, benefiting all citizens and reducing social inequality.

    Tony Elumelu, Chairman of United Bank for Africa (UBA), and Ladi Balogun, CEO of First City Monument Bank (FCMB), also expressed support after meeting with President Bola Tinubu and his economic team, saying that extraordinary income should help alleviate poverty, aligning with the government’s intentions.

    The Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) and the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN) have also endorsed the FX Windfall tax on banks. CITN Chairman Chief Samuel Agbeluyi noted that windfall taxes, or “prosperity taxes,” are not new and have been applied in situations where certain sectors, like telecommunications during COVID-19, performed exceptionally well.

    Despite being swiftly enacted into law, critics argue that effective implementation will be challenging due to the issues they have identified.

    In hindsight, proactive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) efforts by the banks might have mitigated this situation. Banks have previously engaged in commendable public good projects, such as the renovation of the National Arts Theatre and contributions to the CACOVID initiative during the pandemic, which provided medical care and palliatives to Nigerians.

    Based on experience from other jurisdictions/climes, I anticipated the FX gains tax, during the public presentation of my book “Leading From The Streets: Media Interventions By A Public Intellectual 1999-2019” three months ago. In that welcome address, I highlighted the large profits banks were declaring while other sectors and most Nigerians were struggling. In light of the above, l suggested that banks could positively impact society by reconsidering some charges, such as waiving fees for alerts and statement printing, as a small but significant sacrifice for the greater good.

    “We should recognize the commendable efforts of Corporate Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the leadership of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), banks and major corporations, through the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) CACOVID, provided much-needed support to Nigerians, earning widespread praise and reinforcing public confidence in the corporate sector’s resilience.”

    As if l was being prophetic, I expressed the view above on May 8, about three months before the proposal to amend the Finance Act 2023 on July 17, which was passed by the Senate on July 23. If bank owners and managers had followed my advice to lessen the burden on their customers, it’s possible the FX gains tax, which is now causing them significant concern, might not have been imposed.

    Doing good to members of a society/community can earn an organization or sector the goodwill of the people in the society where they operate. I believe that is the spirit behind Tony Elumelu’s Africapitalism philosophy which is being driven through his Tony Elumelu Foundation, TEF outreach to Africans with  one hundred million dollars ($100m) funding for mentoring and seeding young entrepreneurs. One wonders why a similar concept to help the critical mass of Nigerians in one way or the other was not copied by the financial services sector or the Bankers Committee in Nigeria. That is what self-regulation is about.

    Take for instance the Dangote Group which has made concerted efforts to support the most vulnerable in our society by offering them sucor through distribution of food (rice)to the indigent nationwide.

    Contrast the image of the Dangote Group five (5) years ago, and one can see the difference from when it was highly vilified for its trucks being a menace to the road users to the present situation where those public officers in NNPC Ltd condemning products from Dangote Refinery can be lynched by a Dangote loving mob for what they consider unpatriotic and intransigent behavior.

    Such is the power of image burnishment which can change negative to positive perception and it can be applied be individuals, corporates and governments as well with superlative outcomes such as the Tony Elumelu and Aliko Dangote outcome.

    I am aware that the anticipated revenue from the FX tax is intended to partially fund the 2024 national budget deficit of N9.18 trillion, with N6.2 trillion expected to come from the windfall bank tax to help reduce the deficit. This supplementary budget, intended for infrastructure, education, and other critical areas, was passed by the National Assembly alongside the amendment of the Finance Act 2023, which imposed a 70% tax on FX gains—now part of the Finance Act 2024—along with penalties for non-compliance, including three years of imprisonment and a 10% fine.

    However, many economists believe that taxing capital gains is inefficient. The dilemma is that without taxing capital gains, people might shift taxable income into this category. This creates a complex situation: if our banks are overly taxed, they might lose their competitive edge internationally, especially as they expand across Africa and generate foreign exchange for the country. This makes the tax a tricky issue.

    In “Das Kapital,” Karl Marx explores the consequences of the rich and the poor coexisting in society without balance. He argues that society is divided into two main classes: the bourgeoisie (the rich) and the proletariat (the poor). Marx believed the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat by paying them less than the value of their labor, generating profits for themselves. In modern Nigeria, given the large profits banks are reporting, they could be seen as the bourgeoisie, extracting value from the Nigerian banking public, who resemble the proletariat. This concentration of wealth among banks supports Marx’s view that capitalism leads to wealth concentration in the hands of a few, while the majority remain poor and powerless, potentially leading to unrest.

    We saw a glimpse of such unrest during the naira redesign exercise introduced by the CBN in 2022/23, which caused a severe naira shortage. Bank managers hoarded the currency in their vaults, selling it at a premium incurring the wrath of the masses who set some bank buildings on fire. Public anger was also directed at P.O.S. operators who charged high fees for naira withdrawals as they were physically attacked.

    I aimed to apply Marx’s concepts of exploitation, surplus value, and class struggle to Nigeria’s current situation, where the CBN has had to intervene to prevent public anger against banks, bankers, and related services like P.O.S. operators.

    Overall, Marx’s ideas about the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie are relevant to Nigeria’s banking system, where banks appear to be profiting significantly while much of the population remains economically marginalized. The naira redenomination exercise and the resulting public anger towards bankers and P.O.S. operators highlight the tensions between these classes. The CBN might be trying to diffuse this tension through the profit tax on banks, which is now causing discomfort for financial institutions, especially deposit money banks.

    The banks’ difficulties are compounded by the timing of this policy, which coincides with a new CBN recapitalization requirement. Banks must now increase their capital base to N500 billion for an international license and N200 billion for a national license, prompting them to scramble to raise funds from the Nigerian public, who are currently facing high inflation nearing 40%.

    Adding to the challenges, the CBN has issued a directive that all funds in dormant accounts must be transferred to the CBN for safekeeping. Faced with multiple policies that could harm the financial services sector, bankers suspect malice from ex-bankers now leading the Ministry of Finance and the CBN, specifically Wale Edun, Minister of Finance, and Yemi Cardoso, CBN Governor. These policies are seen as stripping banks of idle funds in dormant accounts and windfall money that could have supported their recapitalization efforts.

    This suspicion is intriguing, especially since the CBN allowed banks to report their FX windfall in their 2023 annual accounts before implementing the FX gains tax policy. It feels like a trap, particularly because banks had no warning, despite two of the four deputy governors, Philip Ikeazor and Emem Usoro, coming from the banking sector. It seems the era of a secretive CBN governor, where financial institutions must closely watch for signals, has returned.

    This secretiveness, common in the U.S., where understanding the Federal Reserve Bank governor’s next move is an art, appears to have taken hold in Nigeria. A host of financial analysts is now trying to decipher the CBN’s actions.

    Given these circumstances, the windfall FX gains tax can be seen as a strategic, albeit controversial, move that could have a significant impact if fully implemented.

    Notably, windfall profit taxes on certain sectors due to extraordinary profits from favorable policy changes are not unprecedented. For instance, in 1981, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s finance minister, Geoffrey Howe, imposed a windfall tax on banks that made excess profits, raising about £400 million through a 2.5% surcharge on non-interest-bearing current account deposits. Similarly, in 2020, Chancellor Rishi Sunak imposed a bank profits surcharge to raise £2.1 billion for the UK government.

    Despite resistance from banks, Thatcher defended the policy, arguing that the banks’ large profits were due to government policy, not improved efficiency or service.

    In Nigeria, a similar tax on banks is expected to generate about N6.2 trillion, contributing to the increase of the 2024 appropriation to N35.055 trillion after the National Assembly’s amendment of the act. European countries like Spain and Italy have also imposed windfall taxes on oil companies following a 40% increase in prices due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

    In the United States, the Windfall Profit Tax (WPT) was enacted in 1980 as part of a compromise between the Carter Administration and Congress over the decontrol of crude oil prices, following price controls implemented by President Nixon from 1971 to 1980.

    The bottom line is that the banking sector may become sturdier and more robust if the capital base for international licenses is increased to N500 billion and N200 billion for national licenses as directed by the CBN. That would enhance the capacity of the Nigerian economy to grow to become a one-billion-dollar one as envisaged by the incumbent administration.

    The last time bank consolidation occurred in Nigeria was in 2005, and the number reduced from 87 to 25 after undergoing consolidation via mergers and acquisitions.

    Will the number of banks shrink further after the ongoing consolidation exercise?

    Already, the CBN has approved the gobbling up of an old generation financial institution, Unity Bank Plc by a start-up Providus Bank even as Hallmark Bank was wound down by the apex financial institution.

    The Providus/Unity merge minicks the manner in Titan Bank, a very young bank acquired Union Bank, which is one of the oldest regional financial institutions whose origin predates independence and which is in the same age range as Wema Bank, First Bank, and UBA.

    Incidentally, UBA had also been acquired by a relatively new Standard Trust Bank in the manner that Titan and now Providus deemed to be babies in banking, acquired grandees such as Union Bank and Unity Bank.

    Although, the Titan/Union Bank acquisition/merger is currently caught up in controversy, the Standard Trust Bank/UBA deal merger has worked out well for the shareholders who have received more value since the combination.

    Is it not amazing that one bank that has remained unchanged in terms of ownership is First Bank? Despite remaining intact and not having been acquired or receiving new funding from new owners, so no dramatic change of management has been forced, it has been pulling its weight by growing organically. As such it has remained amongst the tier 1 banks in Nigeria.

    The bottom line is that with banks being better capitalized would the high interest rates charges synonymous with Nigerian banks be reduced any time soon?

    Is the CBN strategizing on how to achieve that objective of a regime of interest charges dropping from its present high of 30% to single digits?

    That is perhaps the question that is uppermost in the mind of the banking public in Nigeria.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Protests: lssues around the issues – By Magnus Onyibe

    Protests: lssues around the issues – By Magnus Onyibe

    Five years ago, on October 11, when Nigeria celebrated its 59th anniversary, I wrote a piece titled “The Call for a National War on Poverty,” which was published in Thisday newspaper and several other traditional and online news platforms.

    The motivation for writing the article stemmed from the excessive focus on fighting corruption, which had created a hostile environment for foreign investors. This focus led to economic recessions between 2015-2023, with Nigeria plunging into recession twice in those eight years.

    Today, nearly five years after that article, Nigeria and its citizens continue to grapple with corruption and poverty. Instead of moving from poverty to prosperity, the standard of living has worsened, leading to the #EndBadGovernance protests by angry and hungry Nigerians, which regrettably resulted in significant unrest and destruction.

    The four days of protests before President Bola Tinubu’s national address wreaked havoc on the nation so much so that our beleaguered country and its struggling economy suffered further damage, with about 13 lives lost and properties worth billions of naira destroyed. The situation was so dire that the presumed convener of the protest, popular lawyer Olu Adegberuwa, reportedly expressed regret: “I appeal to the protesters to withdraw from their various protest grounds and suspend the protests immediately and indefinitely to give room for meaningful dialogue and engagement with the government.”

    In recognition of the severe poverty currently ravaging Nigeria, as l earlier stated  five (5) years ago, I wrote an article titled “The Call for a National War on Poverty.” Originally published on October 11, 2019, I am republishing and updating it with a new title: “Issues Around the Issue Of Protests” which is focused on the question of whether President Tinubu’s reform policies are against or promoting poverty?”

    The question raised in this article’s title about whether the current administration is fighting poverty is crucial because unlike his predecessor, ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, who focused his leadership solely on fighting corruption for eight years, President Bola Tinubu’s administration, just over one year old, has concentrated on implementing massive reforms that have the potentials to alleviate poverty. Ostensibly, these reforms are aimed at overturning decades-old policies that have kept Nigerians shackled and in poverty. But they are taking a bit longer to manifest their positive expectations which is why some Nigerians are anxious and aggrieved.

    Key among these policies are the removal of subsidies on petrol, the naira, and electricity. These have been replaced with new socio-economic paradigms, which, although they hold promise for long-term improvement, have initially caused significant hardships for many Nigerians.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo offers a unique perspective on the removal of petrol subsidies and boosting local production of this crucial commodity. He remarked, “If those who are selling or supplying refined products for Nigeria feel that they will lose the lucrative opportunity, they will also make every effort to get him (Dangote) frustrated.” He added, “Those problems, as far as the government refineries are concerned, have never gone. They have even increased. So if you have a problem like that and that problem is not removed, then you aren’t going anywhere.”

    Five years ago, I called for a paradigm shift in our development strategy from merely fighting corruption to combating poverty and reforming policies that hinder development. This call was ignored by the previous administration, which continued its anti-corruption efforts without investing enough effort in combating poverty. The efforts devoted to solely tackling corruption ultimately proved ineffective, as reflected in Nigeria’s stagnant corruption perception index, while the fight against graft damaged the economy and the country’s image. As a result, the economy and the lives of Nigerians deteriorated, leaving the current administration with the task of alleviating the masses’ frustration after their painful experiences under the former regime.

    Given this background, President Bola Tinubu, who promised change, was expected to quickly deliver the benefits of democracy. However, the delayed realization of promised economic reforms, which have had a severe impact on the general populace, has made the Renewed Hope Agenda seem like an illusion. That is why many Nigerians have been anxiously waiting for a drastic improvement in their conditions and becoming impatient as respite is not manifesting in their expected timeline.

    Unfortunately, this expectation persists despite being unrealistic. The reality is that it is wishful thinking to believe that Nigeria’s current economic problems, caused by poor policies over the past four to five decades that were supposed to be ad-hoc but became entrenched and permanent, would disappear instantly. When President Tinubu finally addressed the nation on the fourth day of the protests, which had turned riotous, he outlined the steps taken to help Nigeria escape poverty:

    “In the past 14 months, our government has made significant strides in rebuilding the foundation of our economy to carry us into a future of plenty and abundance. On the fiscal side, aggregate government revenues have more than doubled, hitting over 9.1 trillion Naira in the first half of 2024 compared to the first half of 2023 due to our efforts at blocking leakages, introducing automation, and mobilizing funding creatively without additional burden on the people. Productivity is gradually increasing in the non-oil sector, reaching new levels and taking advantage of the opportunities in the current economic ambiance.”

    He then highlighted that under his administration, the federal government has advanced about N570 billion to government at sub-nationall levels to ameliorate hardships at the grassroots level and Nigeria has reduced the proportion of revenue used to service debt from 98% to 68% and paid off $5 billion in foreign debt. Additionally, he announced an investment of N45.6 billion for the procurement and installation of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) kits in mass transit vehicles to counter the increased costs following the removal of petrol subsidies.

    Mr. President also stated that the government under his watch has also allocated N200 billion to a newly formed program to drive consumer credit at single-digit interest rates to boost production and purchasing credit for the masses, just as it has provided N50 billion for the newly launched NELFUND, driving the currently functional student loan program. Other initiatives include setting aside $620 million for the empowerment of Nigerian youth through digital and creative enterprises.

    Despite these measures, some protesters and leaders from the main opposition parties, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP), were not appeased. They argued that the broadcast, despite its calls for calm and dialogue, was self-serving. Fortunately, the nationwide tension has subsided, and peace has returned to most parts of the country. This may be because the genuine intentions of the protesters were overshadowed by those with a regime-change agenda, as evidenced by minors waving Russian flags during the protests. The use of minors to display these flags is likely a tactic to avoid prosecution, as the 1999 constitution as underaged individuals cannot be charged for criminal actions.

    During the four days of unrest, three global events paralleled the protests in Nigeria.

    The first event is the ongoing civil disobedience in the United Kingdom, fueled by misinformation spread via social media, similar to how social media was used during Nigeria’s 2020 #EndSARS protests and is now driving the #EndBadGovernance protests. This disobedience was sparked by the tragic stabbing of three children in Southport by a 17-year-old, Axel Rudakubana, who was wrongly identified by far-right activists as an immigrant.

    Although UK authorities classify this as an anti-immigration crisis, I argue it is xenophobia targeting not just blacks but Muslims and non-Caucasian foreigners. This attitude mirrors the xenophobic violence in South Africa, where locals attacked the businesses and homes of successful black immigrants. It is also similar to the events that happened in Nigeria in the mid-1980s when Ghanaians were expelled in an anti-immigration crisis dubbed “Ghana-Must-Go.” A few years ago, Ghana retaliated by antagonizing Nigerians doing business and living there, accusing them of dominating commerce .

    These scenarios illustrate that global poverty crises are triggering protests against authorities for either implementing poverty-inducing policies or being lax with immigration policies that allow immigrants, legal or otherwise, to take local jobs.

    Ironically , just as Nigerians are marching against hunger, Britons are rioting under the guise of anti-immigration sentiments against Muslims, Arabs, and non-Caucasians, whom they believe are taking their jobs and corrupting their culture. This intolerance is both sad and disappointing.

    Surprisingly, Britons may not even accept legal immigrants, despite these skilled workers filling gaps left by the UK’s exit from the European Union. This situation highlights global crises of various kinds, with world leaders still struggling to find solutions. This is evident as former U.S. President Donald Trump, now a candidate of the Republican Party, and his supporters—comprising about 30% of voters, similar to the Republican’s 30%, (with 40% as independents in swing states which both parties are struggling to win over to their respective sides) —also expressing displeasure over illegal immigrants, whom they accuse of taking American jobs.

    Given these dynamics, Trump is likely to win the November 5 election due to his stance on immigration, much like Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party, which gained 143 seats in the French parliament by pushing an anti-immigration agenda. Consequently, with significant seats in the French parliament, President Emmanuel Macron must form a coalition government after the ongoing Olympics in Paris.

    These events underscore a growing global intolerance towards foreign nationals and frustration with leaders’ policies on socioeconomic issues and immigration across the world.

    Ultimately, citizens are expressing their dissatisfaction through protests and at the ballot box, as seen in the recent violence in the UK and France, following elections that enabled far-right gains. This expression of discontent is a hallmark of democracy, which guarantees freedom of speech, so protests against government in  Nigeria is not an exception. But forceful regime change which has been established as the sinister motive of some of the protesters in Nigeria is condemnable and thankfully and commendably ,Nigerian security agencies gathered enough intelligence to figure it out and nipped it in the bud.

    Another significant moment for me is Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka’s condemnation of the Nigerian police’s brutal response to protests, resulting in numerous deaths, a figure disputed between 13 by some accounts and 7 by the Nigerian police. Unimpressed with the police conduct, Prof. Soyinka stated:

    “Live bullets as a state response to civic protest – that becomes the core issue. Even tear gas remains questionable in most circumstances, certainly an abuse in situations of clearly peaceful protest.

    “Hunger marches constitute a universal S.O.S., not peculiar to the Nigerian nation. They belong indeed in a class of their own, never mind the collateral claims emblazoned on posters.

    “They serve as summons to governance that a breaking point has been reached and thus, a testing ground for governance awareness of public desperation.

    “The tragic response to the ongoing hunger marches in parts of the nation, and for which notice was served, constitutes a retrogression that takes the nation even further back than the deadly culmination of the watershed #ENDSARS protests.

    “It evokes pre-independence – that is, colonial – acts of disdain, a passage that induced the late stage pioneer Hubert Ogunde’s folk opera BREAD AND BULLETS, earning that nationalist serial persecution and proscription by the colonial government.”

    Compared to the British police’s reliance on technology and surveillance cameras to manage riots, the Nigerian police’s lack of such infrastructure has led to accusations of unprofessional conduct. However, the security agencies argue that their harsh response was due to a hidden agenda among protesters, aiming for regime change through subterfuge, which they were duty-bound to prevent as earlier stated.

    In fact,  it was rather disconcerting and surprising that the suspicion of a regime change became evident when protesters were seen waving Russian flags. This act confirmed intelligence reports, leading the Inspector General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, to announce that the military was on standby in case the police were overwhelmed. This position was echoed by the Chief of Defense Staff, Army General Chris Musa, in a subsequent press conference.

    Considering Russia’s involvement in neighboring Niger Republic, Mali, and Burkina-Faso where regime changes supported by the Wagner Group—a Russian-backed mercenary organization—have replaced French colonial influence, the concerns of Nigerian security agencies about potential plans to forcefully remove the Nigerian president were valid and commendable.

    Hence, possibly as a preemptive measure, military force was used in some cases to repel suspected regime change agents who had infiltrated genuine protesters. This might have unfortunately resulted in the tragic deaths of Nigerians, estimated by Amnesty International to be up to 13, though the Nigerian police as earlier stated claim the number is 7. Although the death of even one Nigerian arising from engaging in street protests is unacceptable, the conduct of the Nigerian police, especially the commissioners in Edo, Rivers, and Lagos states, is commendable as they worked hard to gain the trust and confidence of the protesters, making the protests in these locations less destructive.

    Another key point for me is the CNN documentary titled “1968: The Year That Changed America,” which highlighted significant events in the US, including the civil rights movement and riots in Washington, DC, revealing the brutality of security agencies at that time. The documentary struck me with the similarity to how present-day Nigerian police had treated protesters, particularly during the #EndSARS riots in 2020, though having learned their lessons they have been less harsh in the current protests. The takeaway from the documentary is that Nigeria’s current practice of democracy is reminiscent of the US in 1968, over half a century ago.

    Finally, as the dust from the imbroglio or temporary madness that engulfed our country resulting in an orgy of bloodletting settle, it is hoped that both the administration and the masses have learned lessons from the catastrophic fallouts.

    Hopefully, going forward, Nigeria and Nigerians will not be prosecuting just a war on corruption which it has been doing without significant success even before Nigeria secured her independence in 1960 from British colonialists, as one has cataloged in this piece,  but also a more serious war against poverty which is the enemy of the multiple ethnic groups/ nationalities that make up this great nation and who speak over 250 tongues and have risen  in unison to declare collectively that they are hungry . As a stanza in our national anthem enjoins us “…though tribe and tongue may differ in brotherhood we stand”. We should all do well to imbibe the wording in the national anthem which are critical ethos that we should operatoonalize as good citizens of our great nation, Nigeria.

    In light of the foregoing, our subsidiary fights should be against religious bigotry and zealotry as well as against ethnic jingoism which crept into the agenda of the protesters in the nasty incident in certain parts of our country, particularly in Lagos state.

    Commendably Lagos state governor Babajide Sanwo- Olu distanced the state government from the xenophobic outburst by the leftists just as the President Tinubu has done in his broadcast demonstrating that there is zero tolerance for hate in our county.

    As Nigerians, we must all rise up against politics of excluding any members of any particular ethnic sections of our country from living in any part or being in the leadership of our country.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Hardship protests: Should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee? – By Magnus Onyibe

    Hardship protests: Should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee? – By Magnus Onyibe

    Starting from the 1st of August, which falls on next Thursday, disgruntled Nigerians are planning to initiate a ten-day street protest under the hashtags #EndBadGovernance2024, TinubuMustGo, and others.

    In response to the fear instilled in many Nigerians by the threats from the protest organizers—who have warned of severe consequences (which, to be fair, is a lawful action in a democracy if conducted peacefully)—those who can afford it are stocking up on groceries and other essentials to last at least ten days, should the protests actually take place.

    While people have prepared for potential food shortages, concerns remain about the safety of individuals and property, which are common issues during street protests. Despite the organizers’ promises of a peaceful demonstration, the various reasons behind the protest—#EndBadGovernance, HungerProtest, TinubuMustGo, etc.—raise concerns.

    These worries are amplified by the disastrous outcomes of the 2020 #EndSARS protests. The youth organized these protests to voice their dissatisfaction and anger towards the Nigerian Police unit, SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad), known for its brutality and extortion. Although the protests started with good intentions, they were derailed by individuals with malicious agendas, which has left the nation’s leaders feeling uneasy.

    The authorities are justifiably concerned because it’s been less than five years since the #EndSARS incident, from which the country has yet to fully recover due to the massive loss of life and property caused by likely criminal elements who infiltrated the initially peaceful protest and caused chaos.

    The current anxiety among those in power is exacerbated by the fact that the levels of hunger and anger in the country, spurred by the recent removal of subsidies on petrol, naira, and electricity, are much higher than during the 2019/2020 period when the COVID-19 pandemic led to a national lockdown and economic shutdown, making life extremely challenging, particularly for those who live hand-to-mouth.

    This bleak outlook on the coming days prompted the title of my piece this week, which may seem unusual to readers. I ask for their understanding as the odd title is meant to reflect the dire situation described in the opening paragraphs, and it represents my contemplation of the potential consequences we might face if the planned street protests materialize on August 1.

    As I pondered the upcoming protest, which I believe is almost certain to escalate into riots—as was the case in Kenya on June 25/26, where 40 people tragically lost their lives and a vast amount of property was destroyed—the thought that came to mind was: “Should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee? In the end, it takes more courage to live than to take one’s own life.”

    Before proceeding further, I want to clarify that the quote used in the title is not my own. It is attributed to the French philosopher Albert Camus, who was also a novelist, playwright, and journalist. Camus is best known for his concept of “absurdism,” which suggests that humanity’s search for meaning and purpose is fundamentally at odds with the indifferent nature of the universe.

    The absurdity of the current crisis our country has been facing over the past year, and the potential crisis we may face starting Thursday, August 1, if the planned protests occur, led me to ponder the stark choices reflected in the title, “Should I Kill Myself Or Have A Cup Of Coffee?”. Personally, I know I will choose coffee, but there are valid reasons why our frustrated compatriots might feel compelled to protest the tangible hardships they are experiencing.

    Hence the  question posed in the title is not just about me; but it is directed towards our young population, who may be driven to join the protests out of hunger and anger. This emotional state could lead them to act impulsively, potentially putting themselves at risk.

    Given this context, I urge everyone to approach the situation with caution if the protests go ahead as planned. My appeal is grounded in the philosophical insights of Albert Camus, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957 “for his significant literary work, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times.” Camus’s ideas continue to influence contemporary thought and culture, making him one of the most important and thought-provoking figures of the 20th century. This piece is intended to raise awareness among potential protesters by reflecting on some of Camus’s thought-provoking quotes, which are interpreted below in the context of our current situation, in the hope that they may resonate with Nigerians considering protest.

    1. “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.”

    This means that despite the hardships we are currently facing, there is a potential for a brighter future, which we need to remain hopeful about.

    2. “You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”

    This suggests that instead of constantly seeking happiness, we should focus on making the best of our current situations, embodying the resilient ‘Nigerian Spirit.’

    3. “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

    To me, this means that we can resist and overcome challenges that threaten to derail us by embodying a spirit of resilience and determination.

    4. “You can’t create experience; you must undergo it.”

    This implies that by enduring the current difficulties, we will gain valuable experience that will help us handle even tougher situations in the future.

    5. “Life is very long when you’re angry, and very short when you’re happy.”

    This is straightforward: when we are angry, time seems to drag, but when we are happy, it seems to fly by.

    6. “The only real progress lies in learning to be wrong.”

    This suggests the importance of recognizing and admitting when we are mistaken and choosing to refrain from actions if the timing isn’t right.

    7. “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t than live as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.”

    This encourages us to live with faith and put God/Allah at the center of our actions.

    As an eternal optimist, and a trained diplomat I hope my appeal resonates with the protesters and helps calm their anger. For the government, my advice is twofold. First, it needs to strengthen the relationship between the leadership and the citizens. Currently, there is a noticeable disconnect between the government and the people it governs. Communication between the administration and many Nigerians, especially those active on social media, has been too confrontational. Regardless of whether these individuals—who are likely supporters of the opposition—voted for President Tinubu or not, the current administration should make efforts to engage and win them over.

    It is recommended that the government actively engage in dialogue with the youth, who are yet to see many proposed interventions come to fruition. Failing to communicate effectively with them can be compared to the public relations cliché of winking at a pretty lady in a dark room—you know what you’re doing, but nobody does,which means you’re not actually communicating. Without engaging with disillusioned, possibly frustrated, and angry youths, how can they understand and support the government’s programs and agenda? This is where the role of the youth minister becomes crucial. However, the youth minister appears to be conspicuously absent or ineffective.

    If the current government can negotiate with the Nigerian Labor Congress (NLC) and agree to increase the minimum wage from N30,000 to N70,000—a 125% raise—then there is no reason why our hungry and angry compatriots cannot be persuaded to hold back from protesting. According to media reports, President Bola Tinubu is currently consulting with various stakeholders, including faith leaders, traditional rulers, and others, which is a positive step. However, the youth seem to be missing from these discussions.

    Remarkably, President Tinubu’s  approach contrasts with the administration of Goodluck Jonathan, which failed to engage in consultations, leading to his failure to prevent the protests that forced him to reverse the decision to remove the petrol subsidy in 2012. The open consultations by President Tinubu’s administration suggest that Jonathan’s administration lacked the strategic skills to manage the situation, which contributed to his being labeled as clueless by opposition parties and ultimately losing power.

    The reality is that every Nigerian leader in the past four decades has understood the potential unsavory fallout from removing subsidies on petrol, the naira, and electricity. Even military leaders like Olusegun Obasanjo, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, and Sani Abacha did not eliminate subsidies. However,there was a consensus among the major presidential candidates in the 2023 elections that subsidies needed to be removed due to the corruption associated with them. Unlike previous leaders, Tinubu has shown the boldness to remove these subsidies and is standing firm in his decision, believing it is in the best interest of the country to eliminate a system that has nearly suffocated the nation.

    As a skilled political strategist, he has been using all the tools at his disposal to navigate the challenges facing his presidency. His adept handling of the upcoming street protests, expected to begin on August 1, has been commendable so far. However, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria needs to communicate directly with the Nigerian public through a live media session where anyone can call in and share their views with him. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as our President, should not avoid this important responsibility.

    We have also not seen legislators and members of the president’s cabinet reaching out to their constituents via video or direct engagements enlightening them about the programs and policies of government and the need for them to eschew bitterness and should not engage in violent activities if they must protest.

    There are valid concerns that some organizers of the protests might have plans to escalate them into riots with the intention of forcibly removing the President, who was elected by the people.

    Nevertheless, he should reassure those who feel marginalized that he is the President of all Nigerians, open to their ideas and support. Those who disagree with him should follow the appropriate process, which is to wait for the 2027 election cycle if they believe he is unpopular. By then, hopefully his policies, which seem harsh now, are expected to have started showing positive results for the masses, who may then vote for him in large numbers. Apparently he introduced these tough policies early in his term, starting on May 29 last year, in order to have sufficient time to implement them and improve the economy before the next national elections. Based on my analysis, if President Tinubu takes these steps, he will overcome any efforts to remove him from office.

    With time running out, the need for action is urgent.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Who wants Donald Trump dead? – By Magnus Onyibe

    Who wants Donald Trump dead? – By Magnus Onyibe

    So, who wants Mr. Donald Trump, the former US president and front-runner for the November 5, 2024, presidential election, dead? There are four (4) possible suspects.

    The first is Iran, which recently declared it would exact revenge for the US-inflicted murder of its senior military commander in Iraq, Hassan Soleimani. Iran, which was sanctioned by the United States and Western European countries for her alleged support of terrorist organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, is highly motivated to stop former President Trump from returning to office as president in 2025.

    During Trump’s administration, billions of Iranian dollars were frozen in addition to other sanctions imposed on her for allegedly participating in covert activities aimed at developing and obtaining nuclear weapons.

    However, under President Biden, the funds that were seized were released subject to Iran ceasing to build nuclear weapons and ceasing to finance terrorist groups globally, especially in the Middle East.

    Iranians may be worried that their Torchorer-in-Chief is on course to retake the White House and carry on punishing them from where he left off in 2020, given the increasing likelihood that former President Trump will return to office in January 2025.

    Experience has shown that Iran can be tenacious in its pursuit, so this is not an extreme supposition.

    However, that nation has refuted any role in the Trump assassination attempt.

    The second is Russia, which has been the US’s fiercest adversary since the days of the Cold War till date. That nation could be held accountable for the ongoing conflict it is having with Ukraine, a former USSR territory that the US is leading NATO, the North American Treaty Organisation, to arm and finance to fight on Ukraine’s behalf, a war that has claimed thousands of Russian lives. In the scenario outlined above, every prominent US citizen or official becomes a potential target for murder.

    China ranks third on the suspect list with the second-biggest economy in the world, after the United States, which holds the top spot. China is the closest competitor to the United States and is projected to surpass it economically in 2050.

    The fact that China is waging an unofficial war against Taiwan, a territory it claims to be Chinese but which the Taiwanese reject only serves to heighten mistrust of the country.

    In the manner that tension hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, a former USSR republic, escalated into a full-scale war, if the tension between China and Taiwan, an ally of the US, were to escalate into a war, Taiwan would be relying on the US to provide her with protection.

    So, targeting the likely next president of the US for assassination is not implausible.

    The Democratic National Convention (DNC), the political party of President Joe Biden (who is Trump’s primary opponent in the presidential contest), is the fourth suspect. Interestingly, this is the second time that Biden and Trump will face-off in a presidential contest in the last decade. The first was in 2019/2020, and the second will be in November 2024, (if Biden does not step down) when the winner will be elected to the White House.

    When former President Trump’s supporters rejected President Biden as the presidential contest winner in 2020, they stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2020, setting off a disastrous chain of unpalatable and unsavory events.

    As a result, former President Trump’s allies and advisers, including his then strategist Mr . Steve Bannon and White House counsel Mr.Peter Navaro, have been imprisoned, and the Democratic-controlled Congress has impeached Mr. Trump. He was only spared from being fully impeached by the Republican-controlled Senate at that time.

    The former president was also hit with an extraordinary number of criminal and civil court lawsuits, some of which have been rejected or are pending decision. He has been found guilty of one of the charges and is currently awaiting sentencing.

    It seems more like a supernatural intervention than human ability and aptitude that President Trump has overcome all the legal and political roadblocks erected in his route to the White House—what he has rightly labeled a witch hunt of the hue associated with third-world countries where the practice of democracy is yet to attain maturity. The fact that Mr. Trump not only survived a COVID-19 infection in 2020 but also narrowly avoided an assassin’s bullet on 13 July  suggests that he has twice cheated death.

    As a result of his dexterous navigation of the political path to the White House strewn with roadblocks that were intended to hurt his brand rather than help him, Mr. Trump’s popularity has exploded, as shown by the most recent surveys showing him well ahead of his primary rival, President Trump and DNC in all the battleground states.

    It is understandable why supporters of the man who appears to be unstoppable—Donald Trump—have come to the conclusion that his political opponents in the Democratic Party have become so desperate that they felt compelled to attempt his assassination. That is even though the man who attempted to assassinate him -Mathew Crooks is a registered Republican.

    How amazing that after all their attempts to stop him from employing both legal and  clandestine strategies/ tactics, Mr.Trump has remained the front-runner in the race to become president on January 20, 2025.

    Indeed, presidential assassinations in the United States date back to 1865. In fact, it was especially popular in the 1960s. President John F. Kennedy was slain in November of 1963, to be exact. On March 30, 1981, there was also an attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life. Presidents Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James A. Garfield in July 1881, and William McKinley in September 1901 were assassinated before the attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life in 1981.

    So, Donald Trump the 45th president, and Ronald Reagan 40th president share a common destiny of escaping assassin’s bullets.

    It was not surprising that the first person to accuse the Democratic National Committee (DNC) of being behind the July 13 assassination attempt on Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump was Senator J.D. Vance, just moments after the attempt and before he was selected as the vice presidential candidate and running mate of the GOP presidential candidate.

    Without equivocation or mincing words, Senator J.D Vance wrote on X formerly known as Twitter:

    “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,”

    And made the following conclusion “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

    Several other Republicans have echoed similar comments in public, notwithstanding the victim of the shooting. Mr Trump has been gracious in preaching togetherness and rejecting violence, just as his opponent, President Biden, has strongly opposed political violence while conceding that his bulls-eye statement about Trump was an exaggerated phrase that he should not have made.

    The discussion of whether 81-year-old President Joe Biden had the capacity for a second term took on a life of its own following the scathing debate on June 27 between the 45th President of the United States of America, USA, Mr. Donald Trump, who President Biden succeeded in 2020 and is determined to reclaim the mandate that he lost to the incumbent about three and a half years ago. This is because the outgoing president was always correcting himself when he lost his line of thought during the debate.

    But, unlike the 45th President of the United States, Mr. Trump, who is set to return to the White House as the 47th President in January, he is not bragging about his landslide victory over the 46th and incumbent President, Mr. Biden, in the first of their scheduled series of debates (another one is scheduled for September) before the November 5 presidential election. Instead, the typically no-holds-bared former president Trump let it blossom and become a hot-button issue about President Biden’s flaws, particularly his age-related issues.

    There is a consensus of opinion among the democrats, republicans, and indeed all Americans as well as television viewers around the world, that the 46th US president, Joe Biden, gave a dismal performance in the debate. As he struggled to put his thoughts together, some critics claimed he unintentionally revealed to the audience that aging has taken a toll on him. This was so obvious as he was muttering gibberish to the dismay, indignation, and discomfort of both his fellow Democrats and his opponents in the Republican Party, as well as politically neutral Americans.

    It is no surprise that about 30 congressmen/ women have been calling for his stepping aside from the contest.

    Somehow , it is reminiscent of the Watergate Scandal that resulted in the resignation Richard Nixon as president of the U

    The awkward memory loss reminds politics watchers of the equally aged and former Senate majority leader (now minority leader), Mitch McConnell, who recently lost his train of thought in the middle of a speech, humiliating himself and other politicians when he practically went blank in the course of given a speech. People would probably prefer not to take a chance on witnessing President Biden’s aging health deteriorate to the extent of McDonnell’s.

    After the debate, even President Biden’s most ardent supporters began to question his ability to govern the US for an additional four years. As a result, a wave of Americans is currently demanding that President Biden give up on his goal of running for reelection at the age of 81.

    The main arguments made against President Biden’s reelection candidature are that his mental capacity is being questioned and that his faculties are purportedly in poor shape, as seen by the poor performance and result of the CNN-organised debate.

    One of former President Trump’s staunchest opponents and a former White House staffer during Trump’s tenure, Alyssa Farah Griffin during the debate twitted“viewers of all political stripes and the consensus is Biden needs to be replaced,” and the debate is “worse than I believe most people imagined.”

    Longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz wrote on X that his focus group of undecided voters is “surprised and concerned about Biden’s voice,” adding “This doesn’t bode well for questions about his health.”

    CNN Chief National Correspondent, John King said: “Right now as we speak, there is a deep, a wide and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party,” adding that “It involves party strategists, it involves elected officials, and it involves fundraisers. And they’re having conversations about the president’s performance, which they think was dismal . . . some of those conversations include “‘should we go to the White House and ask the president to step aside?’”

    The preceding harsh conclusions are only a handful of the criticisms that dominated media headlines during and soon following the June 27 discussion.

    Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House of Representatives with significant influence in the DNC, reportedly recently spoke privately but bluntly to President Trump, telling him that polls show he cannot win the presidential race against GOP candidate Mr. Trump and that if President Biden remained in the race, he would destroy Democrats’ chances of regaining control of the House of Representatives.

    Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Adam Shiff, both firm supporters of President Biden, have allegedly joined the rising chorus of Democratic party leaders asking that Biden abandon his re-election bid.

    It is a plea and demand that the besieged President Biden has resisted thus far, reminding his opponents that his potential replacement is not performing well in polls as well.

    To make matters worse, the president has just succumbed to the COVID-19 virus and he is self-isolating instead of campaigning to save what is left of political life which Mr. Trump is about to bury.

    Could that be a final sign, perhaps from divine forces or the so-called hand of God, to listen to the voice of the people, which is thought to be God’s voice? (vox-populi-vox-Dei)

    The truth is that the Democratic National Convention, or DNC, is in no less of a risky situation than when they insist that Joe Biden can not continue to be their presidential candidate and force him to withdraw, enabling Vice President Kamala Harris to run against the highly popular Republican nominee, Donald Trump, who is currently leading both Biden and Harris in the polls.

    Remarkably, the presidential contest is just over 100 days away and the reality check is that opinion polls show that neither of the DNC candidates has an approval rating above 40%.

    As of February 12, President Biden’s rating was 38.9%, while Vice President Harris’s rating was 37.5% as per the average of surveys conducted by FiveThirtyEight, a company that uses data and facts to enhance public awareness.

    Two (2) years ago, I authored an article titled “The Donald Trump that Africans Do Not Know”. That was after spending about a week getting to know him at his Palm Beach golf club and home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. In the story, I made the following observations:

    “The first thing that springs forth from the mind of some Africans as soon as the 45th president of the United States of America, USA, Donald J Trump is mentioned is the impression that he does not like Africans, which is so untrue. And that wrong notion of President Trump disliking Africans stems from the fake news planted by his political opponents in the media and attributed to him such as Africa is a shit hole country.

    Although the statement is flawed in a fundamental way, most people who believe and therefore are not enamored by President Trump have not bothered to critically identify and examine the flaw. That is the reason emotions seem to have clouded their judgment and why they have swallowed the falsehood hook line-and-sinker.

    As we all know, Africa is a continent of 54 countries and not just one country.

    So how could President Trump have made the comment attributed to him by his traducers: “Africa is a shit hole country”.

    l then further made the following clarifications:

    “Since most Africans failed to critically scrutinize the comment because they were eager to believe all the vile things that the so-called Never Trumps had to say, the flaw or illogicality of referring to Africa as a shit hole country, whereas it is indeed a continent, has unfortunately been lost on some of them.

    “Those who are hell-bent on generating friction between Africans and the 45th president of the US had done a ‘good’ job as most people of black race have remained trapped in that mind-bending spell which l intend to dispel with this intervention.

    “Hopefully, by debunking the myths about how Mr. Trump feels about Africans and what he had done to elevate Black Americans and those residing in the continent during his tenure as president of the US, there would be a rethinking and resetting of Africa/Trump relationship that would position the continent to benefit more from Mr. Trump’s presidency of the US, if he returns to the White House as he plans to in 2024.

    “Not only because Nigeria has the largest population of black people on earth or by its being the biggest economy in Africa by GDP, but based on my personal experience as a Nigerian who has met President Trump one-on-one, I would like to use Nigeria as a reference point for assessing Trump-Africa relationship which is currently foggy owing to calculated misinformation.”

    As if to confirm my favorable opinion of President Trump and inspire fellow Africans and Black Americans to feel the same way, surveys conducted recently have shown that, between 2016 and 2020, when President Trump was in office, the jobless rate for Black Americans fell dramatically.

    The information supported my previous position that, if elected president, he would not emasculate Black people but rather provide them greater chances to realize the mythical American dream.

    And it would seem that, two years ago, I was being prescient when I projected that he would win the 2024 presidential election, which he appears to be on course to do and become the 47th president in a little one hundred (100) days.

    Naturally, not everyone shared my positive opinion of Mr. Trump, and they retaliated with criticism of my findings, which prompted me to write a follow-up article titled “The Donald Trump Magnus Onyibe Does Not Know,” using their criticisms as the main talking point because the title was not originally mine but was instead created by a critic who forced me to present the following arguments:

    “Perhaps, because a stereotypical opinion had long been formed about the 45th President of the US following several years of unmitigated public relations faux pax on the part of Mr Trump who never bothers to correct some misrepresentation of facts about him, my presentation of the persona of the former president of the US which is inconsistent with the mindset already shaped and propagated by a session of the Western media about Mr Trump generated a mixed bag of vile and vicious attacks as well as enlightening and encouraging comments. The anti-Trump sentiments expressed against the article and my further comments are the subject of this follow-up opinion piece.

    “So basically, the purpose or raison detre for this further intervention is to shed more light on the areas of contention via the reproduction of the points of view of those that vehemently disagree with me on the need to engage with the 45th president of the US who is poised to be the 47th by contesting for the office next year when the incumbent president, Joe Biden’s first tenure would be over.

    “As earlier stated, one particular critic made a case that l do not know Mr. Trump well enough to warrant my trying to market him to blacks in the US and Africans on the continent, simply because they have already formed the opinion that Mr. Trump is a racist and anti-Africa.”

    It is my sincere hope that by now the doubters of former president Trump’s divine mission to lead the United States and, in fact, the world, whom the evangelical community in the US saw in 2016, and who threw their weight behind him to win the presidency that year before he lost it in 2020 to president Biden, have been thoroughly weaned of their negative bias.

    The fact that Mr. Trump twice cheated death—once by surviving a deadly COVID-19 infection during the pandemic that killed one million Americans and a second time by eluding an assassin’s bullet during a campaign stomp in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13.

    With President Biden now struck down by Covid-19 infection of which we wish him a speedy recovery, it is incredible that covid-19 that played a role in his ascendancy to the presidency of the US in 2020 is once more playing a critical role in his political future if it compels him to step down from seeking reelection.

    For the time being, except if an apocalypse happens, former President Donald J. Trump appears to be on track to return to the White House after beating President Biden or replacement at the polls on November 5, all things being equal.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

  • Freedom for Nnamdi Kanu: An idea whose time has come – By Magnus Onyibe

    Freedom for Nnamdi Kanu: An idea whose time has come – By Magnus Onyibe

    In my column of 14 July 2017 titled: “Biafra: From Monologue To Dialogue”, I had a tinge of optimism that the incarceration of Nnamdi Kanu, lPOB leader facing sedition charges from the Federal Government of Nigeria, was about to end.

    The optimism was informed by the fact that the national assembly and presidency had waded into the matter especially when Arewa youths issued Igbos a so-called quit notice from the north and all other members of the Nigerian union started threatening to expel members of other ethnic groups in their domain.

    In that 2017 media intervention, which is seven years ago, l made the case below:

    “As the cry for Partitioning of Nigeria along ethnic, cultural and religious lines, which mimics the Partitioning of Africa amongst European countries during the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, grows louder, it is pertinent to note that the conflict is being fueled by policies steeped in politics, as opposed to equity and justice.

    “This is why allowing the Igbo agitation in particular and similar self-determination struggles amongst the multifarious ethnic nationalities in Nigeria to remain a monologue rather than a dialogue, has been dangerous, if not reckless.

    “And it is therefore very heartening that both the presidency and the National Assembly, NASS are now weighing in to resolve the conflict as evidenced by recent consultations and media comments from both acting president, Yemi Osinbajo, and senate president, Bukola Saraki.

    “I’m pretty convinced that like the duo, it has dawned on most Nigerians that disputes related to ethnic nationalism can no longer be attended to via the surfeit of window dressing measures that have been the attitude of authorities in Nigeria.”

    My prognosis in 2017 which is seven years ago was wrong as evidenced by the fact that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB was re-arrested in 2021 and has remained under detention.

    So, my optimism that the presidency and national assembly had finally found the courage and formula to heal the old wounds in the ‘easterners’ and ‘northerners’ relationship which has been fractured since the unfortunate civil war ended some 54 years ago, was a misjudgment.

    Perhaps that is principally because it was not an idea whose time had come. But today it appears to me as it is an idea whose time has come.

    The quote “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come” is often attributed to Victor Hugo, a renowned French writer.

    It encapsulates the notion that when the conditions are ripe and the world is ready for a particular concept or change, the impact of that idea can be immense and transformative. According to the proponents of the thought process, the power of an idea lies not just in its intrinsic qualities but also in the context in which it emerges.

    They argue further that a groundbreaking idea that resonates with the needs, values, and aspirations of a society can spark significant change and progress. And conclude that when an idea aligns with the prevailing sentiments, challenges, or opportunities of a given time, it can gain momentum and catalyze action on a large scale.

    The current efforts and activities surrounding the renewed call to free Nnamdi Kanu tick all the boxes highlighted above.

    In fact, for the devotees of the concept of an idea whose time has come, the imminent release of IPOB leader Kanu is an example of a zeitgeist or a time spirit. One would argue that it is a historical moment, where the idea or concept (a “spirit” if you will) is perfectly received by a cultural movement that surrenders to its utility as dictated by historical necessity.

    In fact, the scenario described above aligns with the current dynamics of political change in our country which has brought a progressive president,Bola Tinubu to be at the helm of affairs at the Aso Rock Villa presidential seat of power. Thus it can be said that he has become the one put in a position to resolve the over half a century-old agitation by the Igbos in a manner that would be most beneficial by integrating them into one united Nigeria which they have been craving.

    That is because being a neo-liberal free market economy adherent, president Tinubu understands the economics of scale and appreciates the benefits of a large population being enjoyed by the likes of China and India which have the largest and second largest populations in the world and have leveraged the population advantage to also be the first and second fastest growing economies worldwide.

    So, the president recognizing that we are stronger together as a huge market would be keen to do all he could to heal the old wounds by addressing the reasonable grievances of the aggrieved parties and helping the lgbos blend with society as opposed to nursing grudges and expressing animosity.

    Hopefully, if President Tinubu decides to play the political card and helps to build the bridge by allowing a political solution that would enable Kanu to regain his freedom, peace would return to the otherwise very industrially productive region currently rendered comatose due to insecurity challenges such as the Seat-At-Home order on a certain day imposed by IPOB in protest of Igbo’s exclusion from mainstream Nigerian politics after the Biafran war ended in 1970.

    By last month June, it had been three years since Nnamdi  Kanu has been and continues to be the ‘guest’ of the federal government of Nigeria, FGN which has applied all manners of legal weapons to abridge his freedom following a charge of treasonable felony against him.

    Remarkably, multiple Nigerian and even ECOWAS courts had ruled that he should be freed from detention until the supreme court of Nigeria, on appeal from the FGN lawyers overruled the decision of the lower courts in December of 2023.

    As part of a more recent effort to help Kanu regain freedom through a political rather than legal process, 50 members of the House of Representatives from different parts of Nigeria and political parties, which branded themselves Concerned Federal Lawmakers For Peace and Security in the South East, had written to President Tinubu to activate Section 174 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 107(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for the release of the detained IPOB leader.

    One thing that is significant to note with the initiative is that never in the past had a coalition of lawmakers that are not of Igbo stock formed a bipartisan force to solicit for the release of the IPOB leader from detention. That it just happened is a pointer to the expectation that it is truly an idea whose time has come.

    So, given the current renewed and broad efforts involving non-Igbos, it seems to me now that it is a question of when, not if Kanu will be released from detention which willy-nilly will be sooner than later.

    The assertion above is underscored by the fact that it has become clear to all involved that diplomacy rather than the nzogbu nzogbu (forceful) approach hitherto adopted by the hard-liners in lPOB leadership would be the key to Kanu’s freedom.

    When that happens it would be a classic case of the triumph of diplomacy over the nzogbu-nzogbu (forceful) approach to conflict resolution.

    As at the last count, the former democratically elected president of Nigeria/former military head of state of our country, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former secretary general of the Commonwealth of Nations covering all the countries formerly under the British Empire including Canada, Australia and India to mention a few had just finished rubbing minds with the governors of the five(5) eastern states on the need to and how to secure Nnamdi Kanu’s release from detention.

    It was initially hoped that the involvement of eminent personalities such as the pair of Obasanjo and Anyaoku, who are juggernauts in the art of diplomacy and leadership not only in Nigeria (Anyaoku was also minister of foreign affairs in the 2nd republic)but the world (Obasanjo was a member of Eminent Persons Group with ex-prime ministers of Uk and Australia amongst others) Mazi Kanu was on track to be liberated from the jail for lack of a better terminology to describe his incarceration since June 2021 when he was allegedly renditioned from Kenya to answer to treasonable felony charges brought against him by the federal government of Nigeria.

    But the optimism about Kanu’s immediate freedom through the efforts of the former president and former commonwealth secretary general was dampened by the subsequent rebuttal of the news that the elder statesmen would be leading the delegation of eastern states governors to plead with President Tinubu.

    But hope is not entirely lost because although the corrigendum by former president Obasanjo that his meeting with the governors from the five southeast states in Enugu on the 3rd of July did not have the freedom for Kanu on the agenda looks like a setback, my hunch is that it is a tactical move by former president Obasanjo.

    After all, negotiations for political settlements of matters of that nature are not supposed to be made public until it is done and dusted.

    In other words, there may still be some ongoing backroom negotiations which makes it premature to go public with the freedom for Kanu initiative.

    Whatever the case may be, while the lPOB members see Kanu as a leader of the struggle to emancipate Igbo people through secession, some sons and daughters of Igbo land at home and in the diaspora consider him their kit and kin who are fighting for the common good of the Igbos, but perhaps in a nasty and abhorrent way which they detest and have denounced.

    Without a doubt, it is the rhetorics of defining Nigeria as a zoo and using expletives that do not bear repeating in this space to characterize leaders of Nigeria during feats of anger by Kanu that has, to put it mildly, bruised the egos of those he has been mocking as his vituperations bordered not just on disagreements with government apparachik but treating with disrespect other tribes.

    That is a major factor that has made the struggle to free him after he was renditioned into Nigeria three years ago, a very daunting process.

    According to John Maxwell, the renowned leadership expert, there is a difference between disagreement & disrespect. Apparently, the problem is not just a disagreement between the lPOB leader and the Nigerian nation.

    But it appears to be a disrespect problem because he tended to be disrespecting other tribes. The point being made is that, when one disagrees with another, both can talk it out. They will just sit there and probably agree to disagree,  by never agreeing on anything, but they will keep talking. So when we disagree, we’ll talk it out.

    But if one disrespects another, it puts a wall between them. This may result in what can be identified as a confirmation bias. In other words, people seek to listen to only people they agree with. Instead of confirmation bias, what is needed is a collaboration bias. Based on Maxwell’s philosophy, Igbos need to seek out people who are different from them to build relationships with in other to achieve full integration.

    Before Obasanjo and Anyaoku’s visit in the company of the Obi of Onitsha, Igwe Nnaemeka Achebe to confer with the five governors of eastern Nigeria in Enugu on Tuesday 3rd July, in November of 2021, Chief Mbazulike Amaechi, led a delegation of Igbo leaders to visit then president Muhamadu Buhari to appeal to him for the unconditional release of Nnamdi Kanu.

    During that meeting Chief Amaechi was in the company of Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, former Governor of Anambra State, Bishop Sunday Onuoha of the Methodist Church, Chief Barrister Goddy Uwazurike, former President of Igbo socio-cultural group, Aka Ikenga, and Mr. Tagbo Mbazulike Amaechi, the nonagenarian 2nd republic minister of transport (all who have now passed away along with Dr. Ezeife) had described the situation in the Southeast as “painful and pathetic,” lamenting that “businesses have collapsed, education is crumbling, and there is fear everywhere.”

    He then committed to then-president Buhari that if Kanu was released to him as the only First Republic Minister still alive, “he would no longer say the things he had been saying,” stressing that he could control him, “not because I have anything to do with them (IPOB), but I am highly respected in Igbo land today.”

    Then he concluded by making a solemn wish: “I don’t want to leave this planet without peace returning to my country. I believe in one big, united Nigeria, a force in Africa. Mr President, I want you to be remembered as a person who saw Nigeria burning, and you quenched the fire.”

    Unfortunately, that wish never came to pass, before the 93-year-old Amaechi and 86-year-old Ezeife joined their ancestors in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

    Fortuitously, although the late Mbazukike Amaechi had offered himself to then President Buhari as a guarantor of Kanu’s good behavior if released to him, a deal which the former president declined, reportedly Nnamdi Kanu himself and lPOB leadership have now undertaken to abide by whatever rules that are given as precondition for his freedom currently being negotiated.

    So an out-of-court settlement is on track even as a few days after the eastern states’ governors resolved to take their plea to President Tinubu, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe of Abia state has led his colleagues from the southeast to meet with the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi to negotiate the release of Kanu so that peace would reign in the eastern region like it used to before the agitation for a sovereign nation of Biafra raised the tension that has made the region a boiling couldrom of sorts.

    It is such a paradox that only in 2016 the eastern region merited being granted  by the United Nations Development Program, UNDO the status of the safest region in terms of human security in Nigeria.

    Today that geographical location has become so blighted that it is a shadow of its old self as the agitation to separate the Igbos from the rest of Nigeria has taken a very violent and bloody turn with thousands of the youths going to their graves prematurely.

    That high level of violence had made Igbo land a no-go area for people who cherish peace and tranquillity as the space that was in no  distant past a bastion of commerce and industry has become a cauldron of sorts.

    Before proceeding further a bit of historical background of the three figures who have influenced lgbo nation the most and have  been the major drivers of the Igbo struggle would be in order.

    The three notable leaders in the annals of the modern Igbo nation are Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Odimegwu Ojukwu and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

    It is striking that have passed away at ripe age and one is incarcerated.

    Azikiwe’s passion for the freedom of the oppressed people transcends Igbo land extending to his fight for independence of Nigeria and indeed the entire African continent. That is because he was one of the purveyors of Africa’s independence from colonial rule which is a mission he embarked on upon his return from acquiring education from Lincoln University, Connecticut, USA.

    The second is Chief Odimegwu Ojukwu who in a bid to separate Igbos from Nigeria, as a colonel in the Nigerian army serving as the military administrator of the then eastern region declared it as the nation of Biafra on the 30th May 1967.

    The third is Nnamdi Kanu who was driven by the zeal to conclude the liberation of Igbos from the injustice. He zealously continued with the struggle that  was started peacefully by Azikiwe before and continued after 1960 when Nigeria became an independent country and which Ojukwu pursued violently via a secession attempt in 1967 that degenerated into an unfortunate civil war that raged on for three years and left in its trail the loss of estimated three million souls and massive destruction of infrastructure in Igboland.

    The lPOB leader who had relied on fiery anti-Nigeria speeches which authorities regarded as hateful and seditious and was thus apprehended by law enforcement agencies has been fighting for his freedom through the judiciary for over three years period.

    The Igbos in pursuit of their quest to become more active participants in the mainstream political leadership of our country or be allowed to go their separate way have been “shaking the table”, be it via the civil war or the socioeconomically strangulating activities of IPOB in a bid to attract the attention of the FGN and the world.

    It is remarkable that only one of the three (3) Igbo leaders highlighted earlier pursued the goal of liberating Igbos peacefully and that personality is Dr.Nnamdi Azikiwe. Notably, he was an intellectual and preferred a non-violent approach to conflict resolution.

    To underscore his preference for dialogue over violence, it is worth recollecting a narrative in an interview he had in 1995 at at the age of 90 and in which he revealed how he admonished his protege in Ghana late Kwame Nkrumah, (who later became the prime minister of Ghana) to eschew violence in seeking change.

    As a direct opposite of Azikiwe’s approach, Chief Ojukwu who was an army colonel adopted the use of force which is why he attempted to secede relying on the instrumentality of guns and war.

    Likewise, Mazi Kanu’s modus operandi is the resort to fiery and incendiary speeches that fired up the youths of Igbo land who as a result felt obliged to pursue their freedom from the marginalization or ostracization by the Nigerian government as it were through confrontation of the nation’s security forces.

    My guess is that each of them leveraged their skills based on their areas of expertise, which is okay.

    Perhaps due to the notion of the average Igbo person influenced by the experience of the civil war and non-implementation of the end-of-war remedies promised which are: Reconciliation Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation – the so-called three Rs that were supposed to help re-absorb the Igbos back into the system, they have somehow become isolated in the scheme of things in our country.

    Worse of all even they too have been affirming that inequity by also increasingly distancing themselves or drifting away instead of building friendship bridges across the river Niger to other like or unlike-minded Nigerians.

    The above view is my assessment and a lot of hardliners have been debating that point of view with me over the years, l have been making the case that the imminent release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from detention and subsequent readmission of the Igbo nation into the mainstream of Nigerian leadership can only be attained through intensive and continuous negotiations which diplomacy is all about and not the nzogbu nzogbu (forceful) approach which has been the approach in the past decade or thereabouts.

    The truth is that we can not continue to allow our unarmed youths to confront security forces that are fully armed in the manner Palestinians confront Israeli Security Forces, and IDF with bare hands and stones.

    It is unwise that they would continue to throw states at security forces hoping that when they are mowed down and prematurely sent to their graves for a cause that can be negotiated, the powerful countries of theb would come to their rescue.

    Based on experience, diplomacy preferred by Nnamdi Azikiwe has always proven to be the best way of resolving conflicts no matter how complex.

    Nigeria attained independence without firing a shot against Britain. Similarly, India secured independence not through the barrels of the gun nor did apartheid end in South Africa via a war,but through a negotiated agreement which democracy is all about.

    It is only through diplomacy that the raging Israeli-Hamas conflict and the Russian-Ukraine war could have been avoided and would eventually end.

    That is a clear affirmation of the fact that diplomacy is the best solution for conflict resolution no matter how complex.

    So, it is a matter of when, not if peace returns to Igbo land, sooner than later through diplomacy it will be a tribute to the memory of my senior friend, the late Prof. George Obiozor who was the immediate past president General of Ohaneze Ndigbo who tried very hard to infuse the conversation on lgbo exclusion and the need to bring the ethic group into the mainstream with the fervor of diplomacy.

    I can recall his passion for reconciling the Igbo nation with the rest of Nigeria with nostalgia. As far back as the mid-1980s, Prof. Obiozor alongside Prof. Ukandi Damachi, Dr. Stanley Macebuh, and Mr. Tom Fabian ( all of them now of blessed memory) used to converge in my apartment at 1004 Estate in Victoria Island, Lagos.

    They used to do so even if l was much younger than them in age, academics, and every material aspect of life. But l felt honored to enjoy the privilege of sharing space and rubbing minds with some of the best brains in Nigeria as they were products of some of the best universities in the United States of America, USA from MIT, Princeton, and Harvard. They often engaged themselves in discussions that dug deep into the essence of our country from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

    Having operated at very high levels in both the academia and top echelons of government and the private sector they had highly valuable insights which l was happy to absorb from them.

    Restoring the southeast into the bastion of industrial development that it used to be was an overarching desire of Prof. Obiozor who had been Director Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Nigerian Ambassador to Israel and Cyprus, and lastly Nigeria’s ambassador to the United Nations before his retirement after which he took over the reins of leadership of Ohaneze Ndi Igbo, the apex Igbo socio-cultural group.

    It’s trite to state that Prof.Obiozor would be rejoicing in the other world on the day that Kanu is set free and his beloved Igbo land once again, regains its privileged status of being UNDP’s most secure geographical region in Nigeria.

    So, it is very likely in my estimation that all men and women of goodwill who have been craving peace in Igbo land can not wait to exhale and exclaim ‘victory at last’ when President Tinubu greenlights the freedom for Kanu initiative and welcomes the Lgbos into mainstream Nigeria.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng