Connect with us

Opinion

The Privatisation Debate

Published

15 years ago

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Time and Season Can Tell

Published

6 days ago

on

February 16, 2026

By

Quote:”In matters of the heart, seasons expose what emotions try to hide.”
There is a silent crisis unfolding in modern relationships—one that many people endure quietly but rarely articulate. It is the experience of emotional attachment without clarity. Unlike betrayal, which announces itself loudly, or conflict, which forces confrontation, this crisis creeps in softly. It begins with warmth, grows through shared vulnerability, and then dissolves into silence. In my observation, some of the deepest emotional wounds are not inflicted by harsh words or dramatic endings. They are caused by something far subtler: the gradual withdrawal of affection without explanation. Silence in relationships is often mistaken for neutrality, but it is not neutral. Silence communicates—only it does so in a language of confusion. When someone slowly retreats without offering clarity, they leave the other person suspended between hope and reality.
There is no clear goodbye, no decisive closure—only distance. The unanswered messages. The reduced enthusiasm. The subtle shift in tone. Emotional ambiguity can be more painful than open rejection because it denies finality while sustaining expectation. It leaves the heart in limbo. In today’s world of instant communication and digital closeness, emotional intensity is frequently mistaken for love. When someone gives us attention, listens attentively, checks in consistently, and offers companionship during vulnerable moments, it is natural to assume that something meaningful is forming. After all, connection feels like commitment. But attention is not always intention. Closeness is not always clarity. In emotionally complicated relationships, there is often an imbalance that goes unnoticed at first. One person invests deeply—emotionally, mentally, even spiritually—while the other remains cautiously detached.
The connection may feel mutual, but the level of commitment is not. And when investment is unequal, pain eventually follows. One of the most dangerous consequences of such relationships is how subtly we lose ourselves in them. It does not happen overnight. It begins with small shifts. We check our phones more often. We rearrange our schedules. We replay conversations in our minds. Gradually, our emotional world begins to orbit around one person. Friends grow distant. Personal goals lose urgency. Self-worth becomes tied—quietly but firmly—to someone else’s presence and validation. When that person withdraws, the collapse feels catastrophic. Yet the devastation is not solely because love has ended. It is because identity has been shaken. We are not grieving only the person; we are grieving the version of ourselves that depended on them.
Silence, I have come to believe, can function as a form of power. When one person controls communication through distance—responding selectively, appearing and disappearing unpredictably—they unintentionally gain emotional dominance. The other person is left waiting, interpreting, hoping. They analyze every word, every delay, every change in tone. This imbalance may not always be intentional. Sometimes it arises from emotional immaturity or fear of confrontation. Yet its impact is undeniable. It reveals an uncomfortable truth: emotional availability is not guaranteed simply because connection exists. Chemistry does not equal commitment. Attraction does not equal accountability. With time, I began to understand that not every relationship is meant to last. Some people enter our lives not as permanent partners, but as temporary teachers.
 They are not there to complete us, but to confront us—with our vulnerabilities, insecurities, and unmet needs. At first, this realization felt discouraging. It seemed to reduce love to a series of lessons. But eventually, it felt liberating. Emotional loss stopped looking like failure and started looking like revelation. Each experience—especially the painful ones—exposed areas where I needed growth. Where I needed stronger boundaries. Where I needed deeper self-awareness. Boundaries, I have learned, are not barriers against love; they are protections for it. Love without boundaries is not love—it is emotional exposure. Connection without clarity is not intimacy—it is uncertainty. Affection without commitment is not partnership—it is illusion. Healthy love requires mutual understanding, transparency, and intentionality. It demands that both individuals stand on equal emotional ground. Where one speaks, the other listens.
 Where one invests, the other reciprocates. Where one withdraws, the other communicates. Time, more than emotion, reveals truth. In the beginning, feelings are loud. They rush, they excite, they overwhelm. But time tests what emotions promise. It exposes inconsistency. It clarifies intention. It separates temporary attraction from sustainable partnership. Seasons, too, teach us something essential about relationships. No season lasts forever. Some bring growth. Others bring pruning. Some relationships stay long enough to build a foundation; others stay just long enough to teach resilience. Neither is wasted. When we accept that relationships operate in seasons, we release the need to force permanence. We stop chasing clarity from those unwilling to give it. We stop romanticizing inconsistency. We stop equating intensity with depth.
Instead, we begin to value emotional safety over emotional excitement. We learn that peace is more sustaining than passion without direction. We recognize that self-worth must never depend on someone else’s attention.In matters of the heart, time and season always tell.They reveal who is consistent and who is convenient. They expose what is genuine and what is temporary. They show whether a connection is rooted in intention—or merely in circumstance. And perhaps the greatest wisdom is this: not every silence deserves to be decoded. Some silences are answers. When we understand that, we stop fearing endings. We begin trusting timing. We stop clinging to uncertainty and start choosing clarity.Because in the end, the heart may feel quickly—but time always tells the truth.
By: Isiocha Kate
Continue Reading

Opinion

Why Adaeze Deserves A Second Chance 

Published

6 days ago

on

February 16, 2026

By

Quote:”If performance is the standard, then continuity in Rivers’ health sector is not a favour — it is a necessity.”
When the executive council was dissolved and political permutations began to dominate conversations across Rivers State, one sector stood out in the public debate,  Health.  In a state where access to quality healthcare remains both a social necessity and political responsibility, performance has become the most persuasive argument. And in those conversations, the name of Adaeze Chidinma Oreh consistently resurfaces. Her tenure as Commissioner for Health was marked not by ceremonial appearances but by visible system reforms that ordinary residents could measure in improved service delivery. From the outset, she placed primary healthcare at the centre of the state’s health strategy, reinforcing the idea that sustainable reform begins at the grassroots.  Primary Health Centres across several local government areas witnessed structural upgrades, improved staffing coordination, and better supply chain management for essential medicines.
Under her supervision, Rivers State deepened participation in the Basic Healthcare Provision Fund, ensuring that federal health allocations translated into tangible services at community level. Health insurance enrolment expanded significantly during her time in office, broadening access to affordable care for civil servants, informal sector workers, and vulnerable populations.  Public opinion often cites this expansion as one of the most impactful interventions of her administration. HIV service delivery also experienced notable scaling. More facilities were equipped to provide testing and treatment services, reducing travel burdens for patients and strengthening continuity of care. Her administration strengthened disease surveillance mechanisms, an important safeguard in a post-pandemic era where preparedness is as critical as response.Beyond expansion of services, she demonstrated regulatory firmness. Illegal and unlicensed medical facilities were shut down, sending a strong message that patient safety would not be compromised.
This crackdown on quackery earned her both commendation and resistance, but public health advocates widely supported the stance as long overdue. Emergency medical response systems received renewed attention. Ambulance coordination and referral systems were reviewed and strengthened, improving response time in critical cases. Maternal and child health programmes gained renewed emphasis. Immunisation campaigns were intensified, and advocacy for respectful maternal care became more pronounced within state facilities. Health workers frequently described her leadership style as consultative. Stakeholder meetings were not mere formalities; they were platforms for problem-solving and accountability. She engaged development partners strategically, aligning donor support with state priorities rather than allowing fragmented programme implementation.International partnerships brought in technical assistance, equipment upgrades, and training opportunities for healthcare personnel.
Transparency also became a visible feature of her administration. When misinformation circulated — particularly around admissions into health training institutions — she addressed the public directly, clarifying facts and protecting citizens from fraud. Within professional circles, she was regarded as technically sound, able to interpret data and translate policy into operational strategy. Her public briefings were often data-driven, reflecting measurable indicators rather than abstract promises. The Primary Healthcare Leadership Challenge saw Rivers State earn recognition during her tenure, reinforcing claims of structured reform. Community outreach was not neglected. Rural communities reported increased supervision visits and closer monitoring of local health facilities. Civil society organisations in Rivers State frequently acknowledged improved responsiveness from the Ministry of Health during her administration.
She maintained visible engagement with frontline workers, visiting facilities and interacting directly with staff and patients. Her approach to governance balanced policy reform with human engagement — a combination many observers believe strengthened trust in the health system. Under her watch, health insurance awareness campaigns improved public understanding of pre-paid healthcare models. She supported integration of technology into health administration, enhancing data reporting and accountability systems. Persons living with HIV/AIDS, women in rural communities, and economically disadvantaged families became central to programme targeting. In public discourse, she was often described as performance-driven rather than politically flamboyant. Awards and recognitions followed, but more importantly, measurable system improvements formed the basis of those honours. Healthcare professionals credited her with restoring a sense of direction to policy implementation.
Her tenure reflected continuity in reform rather than abrupt, cosmetic changes. Critics of political reshuffles argue that the health sector, more than many others, benefits from sustained leadership to consolidate gains. Many residents believe that reform in healthcare requires consistency, institutional memory, and steady administrative hands. As conversations around reappointments intensify, health stakeholders continue to emphasise competence over political balancing. In markets, professional associations, and community meetings, her name surfaces in discussions about measurable impact. The argument is less about sentiment and more about outcomes — expanded insurance coverage, improved primary healthcare structures, firmer regulation, and strengthened partnerships. Rivers State’s health sector remains a work in progress, but public opinion suggests that her administration laid foundations that require continuity rather than disruption.
In a political climate where appointments are often influenced by calculations beyond performance, her tenure stands as a case study in technocratic leadership. If governance is ultimately about service delivery, then health remains one of its clearest tests. And if performance, regulatory courage, grassroots impact, insurance expansion, strengthened disease control systems, and improved public trust are the criteria, then let Adaeze Chidinma Oreh be the person.
By: King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

Empowering Youth  Through Agriculture 

Published

2 weeks ago

on

February 9, 2026

By

Quote:”While job seeking youths should  continuously acquire skills and explore opportunities within their immediate environment as well as in the global space through the use of digital platforms, government, corporate/ multinational organizations or the organised private sector should generate skills and provide the enabling environment for skills acquisition, through adequate funding and resettlement packages that will provide sustainable economic life for beneficiaries”.

The Governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, recently urged youths in the Rivers State to take advantage of the vast opportunities available to become employers of labour and contribute meaningfully to the growth and development of the State. Governor Fubara noted that global trends increasingly favour entrepreneurship and innovation, and said that youths in Rivers State must not be left behind in harnessing these opportunities. The Governor, represented by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr Benibo Anabraba, made this known while declaring open the 2026 Job Fair organised by the Rivers State Government in partnership with the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) in Port Harcourt. The Governor acknowledged the responsibility of government to create jobs for its teeming youth population but noted that it is unrealistic to absorb all job seekers into the civil service.
“As a government, we recognise our duty to provide employment opportunities for our teeming youths. However, we also understand that not all youths can be accommodated within the civil service. This underscores the need to encourage entrepreneurship across diverse sectors and to partner with other stakeholders, including the youths themselves, so they can transition from being job seekers to employers of labour,” he said. It is necessary to State that Governor Fubara has not only stated the obvious but was committed to drive youth entrepreneurship towards their self-reliance and the economic development of the State  It is not news that developed economies of the world are skilled driven economies. The private sector also remains the highest employer of labour in private sector driven or capitalist economy though it is also the responsibility of government to create job opportunities for the teeming unemployed youth population in Nigeria which has  the highest youth unemployed population in the subSahara Africa.
The lack of job opportunities, caused partly by the Federal Government’s apathy to job creation, the lack of adequate supervision of job opportunities economic programmes, lack of employable skills by many youths in the country have conspired to heighten the attendant challenges of unemployment. The challenges which include, “Japa” syndrome (travelling abroad for greener pastures), that characterises the labour market and poses threat to the nation’s critical sector, especially the health and medical sector; astronomical increase in the crime rate and a loss of interest in education. While job seeking youths should  continuously acquire skills and explore opportunities within their immediate environment as well as in the global space through the use of digital platforms, government, corporate/ multinational organizations or the organised private sector should generate skills and provide the enabling environment for skills acquisition, through adequate funding and resettlement packages that will provide sustainable economic life for beneficiaries.
While commending the Rivers State Government led by the People First Governor, Sir Siminilayi Fubara for initiating “various training and capacity-building programmes in areas such as ICT and artificial intelligence, oil and gas, maritime, and the blue economy, among others”, it is note-worthy that the labour market is dynamic and shaped by industry-specific demands, technological advancements, management practices and other emerging factors. So another sector the Federal, State and Local Governments should encourage youths to explore and harness the abounding potentials, in my considered view, is Agriculture. Agriculture remains a veritable solution to hunger, inflation, and food Insecurity that ravages the country. No doubt, the Nigeria’s arable landmass is grossly under-utilised and under-exploited.
In recent times, Nigerians have voiced their concerns about the persistent challenges of hunger, inflation, and the general increase in prices of goods and commodities. These issues not only affect the livelihoods of individuals and families but also pose significant threats to food security and economic stability in the country.  The United Nations estimated that more than 25 million people in Nigeria could face food insecurity this year—a 47% increase from the 17 million people already at risk of going hungry, mainly due to ongoing insecurity, protracted conflicts, and rising food prices. An estimated two million children under five are likely to be pushed into acute malnutrition. (Reliefweb ,2023). In response, Nigeria declared a state of emergency on food insecurity, recognizing the urgent need to tackle food shortages, stabilize rising prices, and protect farmers facing violence from armed groups. However, without addressing the insecurity challenges, farmers will continue to struggle to feed their families and boost food production.
In addition, parts of northwest and northeast Nigeria have experienced changes in rainfall patterns making less water available for crop production. These climate change events have resulted in droughts and land degradations; presenting challenges for local communities and leading to significant impact on food security. In light of these daunting challenges, it is imperative to address the intricate interplay between insecurity and agricultural productivity.  Nigeria can work toward ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and fostering sustainable economic growth in its vital agricultural sector. In this article, I suggest solutions that could enhance agricultural production and ensure that every state scales its agricultural production to a level where it can cater to 60% of the population.
This is feasible and achievable if government at all levels are intentional driving the development of the agricultural sector which was the major economic mainstay of the Country before the crude oil was struck in commercial quantity and consequently became the nation’s monolithic revenue source. Government should revive the moribund Graduate Farmers Scheme and the Rivers State School-to-Land agricultural programmes to operate concurrently with other skills acquisition and development programmes. There should be a consideration for investment in mechanized farming and arable land allocation. State and local governments should play a pivotal role in promoting mechanized farming and providing arable land for farming in communities. Additionally, allocating arable land enables small holder farmers to expand their operations and contribute to food security at the grassroots level.
Nigeria can unlock the potential of its agricultural sector to address the pressing needs of its population and achieve sustainable development. Policymakers and stakeholders must heed Akande’s recommendations and take decisive action to ensure a food-secure future for all Nigerians.

By: Igbiki Benibo

Continue Reading

Trending