Editorial
That Ghana’s Hostility Against Nigerian Businesses
Some months ago, it was widely reported that a good number of foreign businesses operating in Ghana had been shut down following the strict implementation of that country’s Investment Protection Act (IPA) of 1994.
Most disturbing was the report that the bulk of the affected businesses belong to Nigerians. Even Nigeria’s foremost indigenous telecommunications giant, Globacom, which had earlier been granted licence to operate in Ghana, was not spared the vandalisation of its masts and other equipment, including the defacing of its promotional billboards across the country.
Ghana’s first official comment on this ugly development came from the Minister for Trade and Industry, Hannah Tetteh, who was said to have stoutly defended the clampdown. According to her, Ghana deliberately bars foreigners from participating in the retail sector of the economy as to protect her citizens from undue competition in an area where they are believed to possess the capacity to succeed.
The IPA does, however, allow for some foreign participation in retail trading but only to the extent that such will lead to investment in the development of supermarkets and shopping malls. Even so, such foreigners must deposit the sum of $300,000 (about N45.7million) with the Ghana Investment Promotion Council (GIPC) and also undertake to employ no fewer than 10 Ghanaians.
Meanwhile, Nigerian victims of this atrocious business policy have continued to lament their situation while hoping that there would be a quick intervention from the government in Abuja.
President Goodluck Jonathan’s call to his Ghanaian counterpart, John Attah Mills, to investigate the source of this hostility against Nigerian businesses doesn’t appear to be yielding any result. Instead, it was the Senate President, David Mark, whose protest, while on a recent visit to Accra as guest of the Nigerian High Commission, elicited some reassurance from the first Deputy Speaker of the Ghanaian Parliament, Hon. Essien Adjao, that the Legislature would examine the complaints of affected foreign business owners.
Both President Jonathan and Senator Mark had, in their respective statements, reminded the Ghanaian authorities of the good brotherly relationship that had existed between the two West African countries, insisting that Ghana’s action fell short of the expectations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Protocol on Free Trade which is geared towards economic co-operation within the sub-region.
Contrary to Tetteh’s claim that the IPA is for the protection of Ghana’s retail traders, recent reports emanating from the former Gold Coast suggest that severe protectionist measures are steadily being drafted to exclude more foreigners, especially Nigerians, from participating in other sectors of the country’s economy. In fact, the frenzied pursuit of this hostile business policy almost led to the illegal removal from office of a Nigerian Managing Director of Amalgamated Bank of Ghana, Mr. Wole Ajomale.
The Bank of Ghana had on March 3, 2009 sent a sack letter to Ajomale, accusing him of seriously violating the country’s Foreign Exchange Act of 2006. But following the latter’s legal suit challenging his ouster, a Ghanaian court was said to have reversed the sack order and only stopped short of describing the apex bank’s action as rather mischievous.
Another raging instance of the ongoing hostility against Nigerians is the reported move by Ghana’s film industry (Gollywood) to impose some highly outrageous fees and other restrictions on Nollywood practitioners from Nigeria.
The Tide is not against any nation that is eager to save some indigenous jobs for her people. Of course, that should be one cardinal objective of any responsible government. But even so, are such decisions not usually weighed against any major international agreements to which the country is a signatory?
We hold that the revolutionary pressures that gave rise to the recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa are now steadily building up in Ghana. And like in the former case, the Nigerian community will certainly be the worst hit. After all, reports have it that Nigerian traders are already being booed by their Ghanaian counterparts.
This is why we caution that we cannot afford to wait until Nigerians are physically attacked in Ghana, or any other country for that matter, before thinking of what to do. We, therefore, believe that there can be no better time to act than now.
While we await positive attitudinal change on the part of the Ghanaian government, we think that the Nigerian government has to from the indigenisation policy and accept as fact that charity does not begin abroad, but at home. There is in our view the urgent need to fashion plans and policies to protect not only foreign investors but their indigenous counterparts as a potent means of empowering and building in them fertile confidence in their own national economy.
We say so becasue, if successive Nigerian governments had placed the necessary priorities on indigenous investors, academics and other technology-based major players, the familiar brain-drain and search for better fortunes abroad would have been discouraged.
Even as The Tide condemns in its entirety the seemingly hostile posture by the Ghanaians, which runs counter to the spirit of the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Trade, we do hold that Nigeria and her economic planners should take a hard look at our economic policies with a view to not merely increase local content, but also empower the citizens to face the new challenges we now know.
The recent massacre in Yelewata, Benue State, ranks among Nigeria’s deadliest attacks of
2025. While official figures put the death toll at 59, media reports and Amnesty International estimate between 100 and 200 fatalities. This atrocity extends a decade-long pattern of violence in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, where Beacon Security data records 1,043 deaths in Benue alone between May 2023 and May 2025.
President Tinubu’s visit on 18 June—four days after the 14 June attack—has drawn sharp criticism for its lateness. This delay echoes a history of inadequate responses, with Human Rights Watch documenting similar inaction in Plateau and Kaduna states since 2013, fuelling a culture of impunity. The attack lasted over two hours without meaningful security intervention, despite claims of swift action.
The violence bore hallmarks of genocide, with survivors recounting systematic house burnings and executions. More than 2.2 million people have been displaced in the region since 2019 due to comparable attacks. Data show Benue’s agricultural output falls by 0.21 per cent in crops and 0.31 per cent in livestock for every 1 per cent rise in violence.
Security forces continue to underperform. No arrests were made following the Easter attacks in April (56 killed) or May’s Gwer West massacre (42 killed). During his visit, Tinubu questioned publicly why no suspects had been detained four days after Yelewata, highlighting entrenched accountability failures.
The roots of the conflict are complex, with climate change pushing northern herders south and 77 per cent of Benue’s population reliant on agriculture. A Tiv community leader described the violence as “calculated land-grabbing” rather than mere clashes, with over 500 deaths recorded since 2019.
Government interventions have largely fallen short. The 2018 federal task force and 2025 Forest Guards initiative failed to curb violence. Tinubu’s newly announced committee of ex-governors and traditional rulers has been met with scepticism given the litany of past unkept promises.
The economic fallout is severe. Benue’s status as Nigeria’s “food basket” is crumbling as farms are destroyed and farmers displaced. This worsens the nation’s food crisis, with hunger surges in 2023-2024 directly linked to farming disruptions caused by insecurity.
Citizens demanding justice have been met with force; protesters faced police tear gas, and the State Assembly conceded total failure in safeguarding lives, admitting that the governor, deputy, and 32 lawmakers had all neglected their constitutional responsibilities.
The massacre has drawn international condemnation. Pope Leo XIV decried the “terrible massacre,” while the UN called for an investigation. The hashtag “200 Nigerians” trended worldwide on X, with many contrasting Nigeria’s slow response to India’s swift action following a plane crash with similar fatalities.
Nigeria’s centralised security system is clearly overwhelmed. A single police force is tasked with covering 36 states and 774 local government areas for a population exceeding 200 million. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, 29,828 killings and 15,404 kidnappings were recorded nationally. Proposals for state police, floated since January 2025, remain stalled.
Other populous nations offer alternative models. Canada’s provincial police, India’s state forces, and Indonesia’s municipal units demonstrate the effectiveness of decentralised policing. Nigeria’s centralised structure creates intelligence and response gaps, worsened by the distance—both physical and bureaucratic—from Abuja to affected communities.
The immediate aftermath is dire: 21 IDP camps in Benue are overwhelmed, and a humanitarian crisis is deepening. The State Assembly declared three days of mourning (18-20 June), but survivors lack sufficient medical aid. Tragically, many of those killed were already displaced by earlier violence.
A lasting solution requires a multi-pronged approach, including targeted security deployment, regulated grazing land, and full enforcement of Benue’s 2017 Anti-Open Grazing Law. The National Economic Council’s failure to prioritise state police in May 2025 represents a missed chance for reform.
Without decisive intervention, trends suggest conditions will worsen. More than 20,000 Nigerians have been killed and 13,000 kidnapped nationwide in 2025 alone. As Governor Hyacinth Alia stressed during Tinubu’s visit, state police may be the only viable path forward. All 36 states have submitted proposals supporting decentralisation—a crucial step towards breaking Nigeria’s vicious cycle of violence.
Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999 marked a watershed moment in the nation’s political history. After enduring nearly 16 years of successive military dictatorships, Nigerians embraced a new era of civil governance with the inauguration of President Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999. Since then, the country has sustained a democratic system for 26 years. But, this democratic journey has been a complex mix of progress and persistent challenges.
The formal recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day in 2018 by former President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged a long-standing injustice. The annulment of the 1993 presidential election, Nigeria’s freest, betrayed the democratic aspirations of millions. That it took decades to honour this date reflects the nation’s complex relationship with its democratic memory.
One of the most momentous successes of Nigeria’s democracy has been the uninterrupted civilian rule over the last two and a half decades. The country has witnessed seven general elections, with power transferring peacefully among different political parties. This is particularly notable considering that prior to 1999, no civilian government had completed a full term without military intervention. The peaceful transitions in 2007, 2015, and 2023 are testaments to Nigeria’s evolving democratic maturity.
Electoral participation, while uneven, has also reflected a level of democratic engagement. In 2003, voter turnout stood at about 69 per cent, but this figure dropped to approximately 34.75 per cent in 2023, according to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Although the declining turnout raises concerns, it also highlights the increasing expectations of the electorate, who demand credible and transparent elections.
Another area of progress is the growth of a vibrant and free press. Nigerian media has played a crucial role in holding governments accountable and fostering public discourse. Investigative journalism and civil society activism have exposed corruption and human rights abuses. The rise of social media has further expanded the democratic space, enabling young Nigerians to mobilise and advocate for change, as evidenced by the 2020 #EndSARS protests.
Judicial independence has seen mixed results. On one hand, the judiciary has occasionally demonstrated resilience, such as in landmark rulings that overturned fraudulent elections or curtailed executive excesses. On the other hand, allegations of political interference and corruption within the judiciary persist, undermining public confidence in the legal system’s impartiality.
Nigeria’s democracy has also facilitated the decentralisation of power through the federal system. State governments now wield some autonomy, allowing for experimentation in governance and service delivery. While this has led to innovative policies in some states, it has also entrenched patronage networks and uneven development across the federation.
Despite these successes, Nigeria’s democratic journey faces formidable problems. Electoral integrity remains a critical concern. Reports from election observers, including those from the European Union and ECOWAS, frequently highlight issues such as vote-buying, ballot box snatching, and violence. The introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and electronic transmission of results in 2023 elections showed promise, but technical glitches and alleged manipulations dampened public trust.
Corruption continues to be a pervasive issue. Nigeria ranks 145th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of 25/100. Democratic institutions meant to check graft—such as anti-corruption agencies and the legislature—often struggle due to political interference and weak enforcement mechanisms.
Security challenges have also strained Nigeria’s democracy. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, separatist agitations in the South East, and herder-farmer conflicts across the Middle Belt have collectively resulted in thousands of deaths and displacements. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2024, Nigeria ranks as the eighth most impacted country by terrorism. The government’s difficulty in ensuring safety erodes public confidence in the state’s capacity and legitimacy.
The economy poses another critical remonstrance. Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita stands at approximately $2,400 as of 2024, with over 40 per cent of the population living below the national poverty line. High unemployment and inflation have fueled discontent and disillusionment with democratic governance, especially among youth. Without addressing economic grievances, the democratic dividend will remain elusive for many Nigerians.
Ethnic and religious divisions further complicate Nigeria’s democratic consolidation. Politicians often exploit identity politics for electoral gains, exacerbating social tensions. Although federal character principles aim to promote inclusiveness, they have also sometimes fostered a quota mentality rather than merit-based appointments.
Gender representation remains inadequate in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Women occupy less than 10 per cent of seats in the National Assembly, one of the lowest rates globally. Efforts to pass gender parity bills have faced stiff resistance, highlighting deep-seated cultural and institutional barriers to female political participation.
Civil liberties, while constitutionally guaranteed, are under threat. Crackdowns on protesters, restrictions on press freedom, and surveillance of activists reveal an authoritarian streak within the democratic framework. The controversial Twitter ban in 2021 exemplified the country’s willingness to curb digital freedoms, prompting domestic and international criticism.
The political crisis in Rivers State embodies broader democratic struggles. Attempts to control the state through undemocratic means expose weaknesses in federal institutions and the rule of law. Immediate restoration of democratic governance in Rivers State is vital to preserving Nigeria’s democratic integrity and institutional credibility.
Local governments remain under the control of state governors, depriving citizens of grassroots democracy. Last year’s Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy is promising, but state-level resistance threatens its implementation. Genuine autonomy would bring governance closer to the people and foster democratic innovation.
As we mark Democracy Day, we must honour the sacrifices of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, Kudirat Abiola, Femi Falana, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Pa Alfred Rewane, President Bola Tinubu, and countless others, who fought for Nigeria’s freedom. As democracy in Nigeria continues to evolve after 26 years, this day should inspire action toward its renewal. With despotism and state failure as real threats, both citizens and leaders must take responsibility—citizens by demanding more, and leaders by delivering. Excuses are no longer acceptable.