Editorial

That Ghana’s Hostility Against Nigerian Businesses

Published

15 years ago

August 9, 2010

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.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

3 days ago

September 29, 2025

The Tide

On the 30th of August, Rivers people trooped out to participate in local government elections conducted across the state. These elections, which produced new chairmen and councillors for the 23 local government areas (LGAs), were organised by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The exercise has ushered in a new crop of grassroots leaders whose shoulders now bear the responsibility of steering the affairs of their respective councils. With the polls concluded and winners duly announced, the time has come for the newly elected officials to roll up their sleeves and begin the hard work of governance.

According to the results declared by RSIEC, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured a dominant lead, winning chairmanship seats in 20 of the 23 local government councils, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clinched the remaining three. This outcome not only reflects the current political dynamics in the state but also places a significant weight of expectation on the shoulders of the APC-led councils to justify the confidence reposed in them by the electorate. It is imperative that political rhetoric now gives way to tangible development, especially at the grassroots level where government is felt most directly.

Following the elections, the successful chairmen were officially sworn into office by the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas. The solemn ceremony marked a transition from campaign promises to the reality of public service. With their inauguration complete, the time for celebration has ended; the time for delivery has commenced. The electorate now awaits meaningful action that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the voting public.

As helmsmen of their various LGAs, these leaders must quickly settle down to work. Their constituents expect them to provide direction, formulate policies, and execute programmes that will uplift communities long neglected. The local government tier is closest to the people and, as such, must rise above politicking to meet the everyday needs of the citizenry. It is not enough to occupy office; they must make their impact visibly and positively felt across their domains.

The Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments—although not yet fully implemented—is a welcome development that underscores the autonomy of the third tier of government. Once this is operationalised, the excuses often cited for underperformance will no longer hold water. With funds directly accessed from the Federation Account, council administrations will be better empowered to meet the developmental needs of their localities, if only they manage resources judiciously and prioritise the right projects.

The onus is now on the chairmen to contribute meaningfully to the broader development of Rivers State. The state government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. Local government councils have defined responsibilities—ranging from rural infrastructure, primary healthcare, and basic education to waste management and local security—that must be adequately addressed. It is high time they stopped passing the buck and started acting as the elected leaders they are.

We extend our congratulations to all who emerged victorious in the elections. However, with this victory comes great responsibility. It is no longer about party affiliations or electoral campaigns; it is about governance. The chairmen must launch people-centred projects that will genuinely improve the lives of the rural populace—projects in water supply, road maintenance, school renovation, and youth empowerment, among others. Let their tenure be remembered for its impact, not its slogans.

Central to their mandate should be the welfare of workers. Council employees form the engine room of local governance, and their morale significantly affects service delivery. The new chairmen must ensure regular payment of salaries, staff training, and a conducive working environment. Neglecting this vital aspect will only hinder whatever grand plans they may have for their LGAs.

It is also essential to institute a robust peer review mechanism. The new LG officials should not operate in isolation; rather, they should learn from one another, share ideas, and compete constructively in a bid to outperform each other in service delivery. Healthy competition among council areas will drive innovation and foster accelerated development. Such a system will also help the public identify high-performing councils for emulation.

Given the typically short tenure of council administrations, it is crucial that they focus on projects that are realistic and impactful. Time and resources should not be wasted on white elephant ventures that are neither sustainable nor beneficial to the people. Instead, chairmen should pursue programmes that match their timelines and address immediate community needs.

Peace and security must remain a cardinal objective for all council steersmen. Regardless of who facilitated their election or what political loyalties they hold, they must ensure peace reigns in their areas. Development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. These leaders must work closely with traditional rulers, youth groups, and civil society organisations to maintain law and order.

A critical understanding must also prevail—that chairmen are leaders of the people, not just leaders of political parties. They must conduct themselves as impartial administrators serving all constituents, irrespective of political affiliations. Additionally, they must work harmoniously with the state governor, who remains the leader of the state. Petty rivalries and political infighting serve no purpose in the development agenda.

Now that the elections are over and governance has begun, it is essential for these chairmen and councillors to adopt an inclusive approach. They must carry everyone along—party members and opposition alike—in their development plans. Creating division or playing favourites will only fracture communities and stall progress. Leadership at the grassroots demands fairness, equity, and a listening ear.

Rivers people have played their part by coming out to vote. The baton has now been passed to the new council helmsmen. They must seize the opportunity to leave lasting legacies in their communities. History will not judge them by the number of rallies they held or the speeches they gave, but by the quality of life they brought to their people. Let them not squander this moment.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

1 week ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.