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.