Connect with us

Opinion

The Privatisation Debate

Published

on

The ugly revelations at the senate committee set up in July 2011 to investigate the failed privatisation exercise embarked by the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE) have thrown up, once again, the debate on the privatisation and commercialisation programmes and policies of the federal government  over the years.

The country has continued to lose colossal sums of money and resources in the name of privatisation of public enterprises. According to media reports, the BPE’S Director General, Bolanle Onoagoruwa, disclosed to the senate Committee that the Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON), Ikot Abasi, Akwa Ibom State built at the cost of $3.2bn was sold to Russel, a Russian-based company for $139million. A similar story goes for Daily Times, Delta Steel Company in Delta State, and Eleme Petro – Chemical in Rivers State sold to Folio Communications, Global Infrastructure, and Indorama respectively at paltry sums in comparison with the nation’s huge investments in them.

In the same vein many Nigerians felt that the sale of the Kaduna and Port Harcourt refineries in 2007 to Bluestar Oil Services Ltd, a consortium that comprised the Dagote Group, Zenon Oil, and Transnational Co-operation was under – valued and not transparent. Thus the consortium’s withdrawal from the deal and its (the deal) revocation by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration were greeted with jubilation across the country. The late President Yar’Adua’s action was seen as a clear demonstration of his respect for public opinion and strict adherence to due process.

But why did, successive administrations in Nigeria embrace privatisation as a sure and direct route to economic progress. From the early 1980s the country began to experience serious balance of payments and debt crisis and huge budget deficits resulting from the collapse of oil prices and the consequent contraction in the foreign exchange earnings. During the period, the country also faced a surge in imports arising from an over-valued naira. Before the oil price collapsed, the enormous windfall accruing from oil revenue impelled the government to assume a greater role in the economic life of the country.

Thus as at 1986 there were about 6,000 public enterprises in Nigeria controlled by the Federal Government in which it had an investment of over N36 billion as equity, loans and grants/subventions.

Besides, these public enterprises with over 5,000 appointments into their managements and boards enjoyed transfers in form of subsidised foreign exchange, import duty waivers, tax exemptions and/or write-off of arrears, and unremitted revenues. And the various state governments also owned and controlled many public enterprises in which they invested billions of naira.

Sadly, the federal government realized less than N500 million annually from its huge investment and had to worry about the interest and principal repayments on the burdensome loans of these enterprises. Consequently, and as a condition for IMF and the World Bank’s support for President Ibrahim Babagida’s Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), the Federal Government decided to commercialise fully or partially some of its investments, fully privatised some others and terminate support for those which would be partially privatised.

Though the debate over privatisation as an instrument for national economic management has been raging among economies and across many countries for several decades, in Nigeria, the first categorical official statement of intent on privatisation was therefore that made by President Ibrahim Badangida in his January 1986 budget speech.

Privatisation is a complex issue. Frankly, it is a two-edged sword. It can make a country great. It can also destroy a country. Why? Because if not well conceived and handled, it can give rise to social, economic, and political turmoil.

Privatisation is a subject over which people tend to take extreme ideological positions. In Nigeria, while some people see the country’s privatiosation as a policy designed to correct distortions arising from past poor public investment decisions, others perceive it as a deliberate and conscious attempt by the power elite to  appropriate the national wealth to the detriment of the working people.

Public outburst against the sale of public enterprises and other national assets to few individuals rests on a number of fundamental economic, social, political, and institutional arguments. The arguments are complex but they are not new. Going into the arguments fully will take us beyond the concerns of this piece. But essentially they revolve around the issues of economic efficiency, equity, and ideology. Several studies carried out by scholars including Spann and Christenaan who compared the operations of voluntary, public, and profit making hospitals in the US and private and public railroads companies in Canada respectively found no significant difference between private and public provisions.

The inefficiency associated with public provision in Nigeria is due to downright “thievery” and indiscipline which are more pronounced in our public organizations than the private sector.

Considering the country’s low level of development and the imperfections both of structure and operation, government intervention is required to influence the distribution of wealth in a desired fashion. This is because private provision may not only be inequitable but may also be subject to economic inefficiencies.

The ideological arguments revolve around the perception that collective provision and finance cater for communal, rather than, self interest. Such communal provision reflects more correctly the pattern in our traditional societies before they were corrupted by western notions of private interests.

Therefore, even if we have committed ourselves to privatisation, it is imperative to openly discuss and come to terms with its overall philosophy and political economy, realizing that the exercise involves loss of jobs, greater distributional inequality, vesting the national assets in the hands of a few individuals and so on.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Fuel Subsidy Removal and the Economic Implications for Nigerians

Published

on

From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.

 

Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.

The Subsidy Question

The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.

While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.

A Critical Economic View

As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.

  1. Structural Miscalculation

Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.

  1. Neglect of Social Safety Nets

Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.

  1. Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives

Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.

Political and Public Concerns

Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.

This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.

Broader Implications

The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:

  • Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
  • Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
  • Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
  • Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
  • Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.

In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.

Missed Opportunities

Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:

  • Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
  • Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
  • Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
  • Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.

Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.

Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face

Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.

Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.

Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.

Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.

References

  • National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
  • National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
  • World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
  • World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
  • OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.

 

By: Amarachi Amaugo

Continue Reading

Opinion

Betrayal: Vice Of Indelible Scar

Published

on

The line that separates betrayal and corruption is very thin. Betrayal and corruption are two sides of the same coin. Like the snail and its shell they are almost inseparable. They go hand-in-globe. Betrayal and corruption are instinctive in humans and they are birthed by people with inordinate ambition – people without principles, without regard for ethical standards and values. Looking back to the days of Jesus Christ, one of his high profile disciples-the treasurer, was a betrayer. Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for just 30 pieces of silver. One of the characteristics of betrayers is greed.
So, when on resumption from his  imposed suspension, the Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminilayi Fubara threatened to bring permanent secretaries who were found complicit in “defrauding” the State during the days of Locust and Caterpillar regime, he did not only decry a loot of the Treasury but the emotional trauma of betrayal perpetrated by those who swore to uphold the ethics of the civil service. Governor Siminilayi Fubara had least expected that those who feigned loyalty to his administration would soon become co-travellers with an alien administration whose activities were repugnant to the “Rivers First” mantra of his administration. The saying that if you want to prove the genuineness of a person’s love and loyalty feign death, finds consummate expression in the Governor Fubara and some of the key members of the State engine room
Some of those who professed love for Governor Siminilayi Fubara  and Rivers State could not resist the lure and enticement of office in the dark days of Rivers State, like Judas Iscariot.  Rather, they chose to identify with the locusts and the caterpillars for their selfish interest. Julius Caesar did not die from the stab of Brutus but by his emotional attachment to him, hence he exclaimed in utter disappointment, “Even you Brutus”. The wound of betrayal never heals and the scar is indelible. Unfortunately, today, because of gross moral turpitude and declension in ethical standards and values, betrayal and corruption are celebrated and rewarded. Corruption, a bane of civil/public service is sublime in betrayal. The quest to get more at the expense of the people is the root of betrayal and sabotage.
This explains why Nigeria at 65 is the World’s capital of poverty.
Nigeria is not a poor country, yet, millions are living in hunger, abject poverty and avoidable misery. What an irony. Nigeria, one of Africa’s largest economies and most populous nation is naturally endowed with 44 mineral resources, found in 500 geographical locations in commercial quantity  across the country. According to Nigeria’s former Minister for Mines and Steel Development, Olamiekan Adegbite, the mineral resources include: baryte, kaolin, gymsium, feldspar, limestone, coal, bitumen, lignite, uranium, gold, cassiterite, columbite, iron ore, lead, zinc, copper, granite, laterite, sapphire, tourmaline, emerald, topaz, amethyst, gamer, etc. Nigeria has a vast uncultivated arable land even as its geographical area is approximately 923, 769 sq km (356,669 sq ml).
“This clearly demonstrates the wide mineral spectrum we are endowed with, which offers limitless opportunities along the value-chain, for job creation, revenue growth. Nigeria  provides one of the highest rates of return because its minerals are closer to the suffer”, Adegbite said. Therefore, poverty in Nigeria is not the consequences of lack of resources and manpower but inequality, misappropriation, outright embezzlement, barefaced corruption that is systemic and normative in leaders and  public institutions. According to the World Poverty Clock 2023, Nigeria has the awful distinction of being the world capital of poverty with about 84 million people living in extreme poverty today.
The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data also revealed that a total of 133 million people in Nigeria are classed as multi-dimensionally poor. Unemployment is a major challenge in the country. About 33 percent of the labour force are unable to find a job at the prevailing wage rate. About 63 percent of the population are poor because of lack of access to health, education, employment, and security. Nigeria Economic Summit Group (NESG) speculated that unemployment rate will increase to 37 percent in 2023. The implications, therefore, is increase in unemployment will translate to increase in the poverty rate. The World Bank, a Washington-based and a multi-lateral development institution,  in its macro-poverty outlook for Nigeria for April 2023 projected that 13 million Nigerians will fall below the National Poverty line by 2025.
It further stated that the removal of subsidy on petroleum products without palliatives will result to 101 million people being poor in Nigeria. Statistics also show that “in 2023 nearly 12 percent of the world population of extreme poverty lived in Nigeria, considering poverty threshold at 1.90 US dollars a day”.Taking a cursory look at the Nigerian Development Update (NDU), the World Bank said “four million Nigerians were pushed into poverty  between January and June 2023 and 7.1 million more will join if the removal of subsidy is not adequately managed.” These startling revelations paint a grim and bleak future for the social-economic life of the people.The alarming poverty in the country is a conspiracy of several factors, including corruption. In January, 2023 the global anti-corruption watchdog, Transparency International, in its annual corruption prospect index which ranks the perceived level of public sector corruption across 180 countries in the world says Nigeria ranked 150 among 180 in the index. Conversely, Nigeria is the 30th most corrupt nation in the ranking. It is also the capital of unemployment in the world.
Truth be told: a Government that is corruption-ridden lacks the capacity to build a vibrant economy that will provide employment for the teeming unemployed population. So crime and criminality become inevitable. No wonder, the incessant cases of violent crimes and delinquency among young people. Corruption seems to be the second nature of Nigeria as a nation . At the root of Nigerians’ poverty is the corruption cankerworm.How  the nation got to this sordid economic and social precipice is the accumulation of years of corrupt practices with impunity by successive administrations.  But the hardship Nigerians are experiencing gathered momentum between 2015 and 2023 and reached the climax few days after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who assumed power as president of Nigeria, removed the controversial petroleum subsidy. Since then, there is astronomical increase in transport fares, and prices of commodities. Living standard of most Nigerians is abysmally low, essential commodities are out of reach of the poor masses who barely eat once a day.
The Dollar to Naira exchange rate ratio at one dollar to N1,000, is the most economy-unfriendly in the annals of the history of Nigeria. The prohibitive prices of petroleum products with the attendant multi-dimensional challenges following the removal of the subsidy, has posed a nightmare better to be imagined than experienced. Inflation, has been on the increase, negatively affecting the purchasing power of  low income Nigerians. Contributing to the poverty scourge is the low private investment due to.unfriendly business environment and lack of power supply, as well as low social development outcomes resulting in low productivity. The developed economies of the world are private sector-driven. So the inadequate involvement of the private sector in Nigeria’s economy, is a leading cause of unemployment which inevitably translates to poverty.

 

Igbiki Benibo

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dangers Of Unchecked Growth, Ambition

Published

on

In today’s fast-paced, hyper-competitive world, the pursuit of success and growth has become an all-consuming force. Individuals, organisations, and nations alike, are locked in a perpetual struggle to achieve more, earn more, and surpass their rivals. Yet, beneath this relentless drive for progress lies a silent danger—the risk of self-destruction. This perilous pattern, which I call the self-destruct trajectory, describes the path taken when ambition and growth are pursued without restraint, awareness, or moral balance. The self-destruct trajectory is fueled by an insatiable hunger for more—a mindset that glorifies endless expansion while disregarding the boundaries of ethics, sustainability, and human well-being. At first glance, it may appear to promise prosperity and achievement. After all, ambition has long been celebrated as a virtue. But when growth becomes the only goal, it mutates into obsession.
Individuals burn out, organisations lose their soul, and societies begin to fracture under the weight of their own excesses. The consequences are everywhere. People pushed beyond their limits face anxiety, exhaustion, and disconnection. Companies sacrifice employee welfare and social responsibility on the altar of profit. The entire ecosystems suffer as forests are cleared, oceans polluted, and air poisoned in the name of economic progress. The collapse of financial systems, widening income inequality, and global environmental crises are all symptoms of this same relentless, self-consuming pursuit. To understand this dynamic, one can turn to literature—and to Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. In one of the novel’s most haunting scenes, young Oliver, starving in the workhouse, dares to utter the words: “Please, sir, I want some more.” This simple plea encapsulates the essence of human desire—the urge for more. But it also mirrors the perilous craving that drives the self-destruct trajectory. Like Oliver, society keeps asking for “more”—more wealth, more power, more success—without considering the consequences of endless wanting.
The workhouse itself symbolises the system of constraints and boundaries that ambition often seeks to defy. Oliver’s courage to ask for more represents the daring spirit of human aspiration—but it also exposes the risk of defying limits without reflection. Mr. Bumble, the cruel overseer, obsessed with authority and control, embodies the darker forces that sustain this destructive cycle: greed, pride, and the illusion of dominance. Through this lens, Dickens’ tale becomes a timeless metaphor for the modern condition—a warning about what happens when ambition blinds compassion and growth eclipses humanity. Avoiding the self-destruct trajectory requires a radical rethinking about success. True progress should not be measured solely by accumulation, but by balance—by how growth serves people, planet, and purpose.
This calls for a more holistic approach to achievement, one that values sustainability, empathy, and integrity alongside innovation and expansion
Individuals must learn to pace their pursuit of goals, embracing rest, reflection, and meaningful relationships as part of a full life. The discipline of “enough”—knowing when to stop striving and start appreciating—can restore both mental well-being and moral clarity. Organisations, on their part, must reimagine what it means to succeed: prioritising employee welfare, practising environmental stewardship, and embedding social responsibility in the core of their mission. Governments and policymakers also play a vital role. They can champion sustainable development through laws and incentives that reward ethical practices and environmental responsibility. By investing in education, renewable energy, and equitable economic systems, they help ensure that ambition is channeled toward collective benefit rather than collective ruin.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provides a tangible pathway for this transformation. When businesses take ownership of their social and environmental impact—reducing carbon footprints, supporting local communities, and promoting fair labour—they not only strengthen society but also secure their own long-term stability. Sustainable profit is, after all, the only kind that endures. Ultimately, avoiding the self-destruct trajectory is not about rejecting ambition—it is about redefining it. Ambition must evolve from a self-centred hunger for more into a shared pursuit of the better. We must shift from growth at all costs to growth with conscience. The future will belong not to those who expand endlessly, but to those who expand wisely. By embracing restraint, compassion, and sustainability, we can break free from the cycle of self-destruction and create a new narrative—one where success uplifts rather than consumes, and where progress builds rather than burns.
In the end, the question is not whether we can grow, but whether we can grow without losing ourselves. The choice is ours: to continue along the self-destruct trajectory, or to chart a more balanced, humane, and enduring path toward greatness.

 

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Continue Reading

Trending