Opinion
NEPAD And Growth In Africa
The incidence of development arising from globalisation and democratisation has made European states to grow beyond expectation.
Africa, it is commonly said is the second largest continent in the world after Asia and besides is the cradle of civilisation.
This is coupled with its vast natural endowmel and land mass good for all kinds of agricult production.
In fact, the rate of oil exploration in Africa al exportation to European markets has facilitat the developmental process of European natioru
This is fuelled by the fact that a greater numli of the oil exploration firms in Africa are owned the European countries.
From the early days of colonialisation to the of independence, the right kind of development expected in Africa has been far from sight.
This, in fact, results from incongruous policies that characterise African leadership and governments.
Armchair leadership among African states does not only affect the development of human persons and structures but also undermine formidable institutions put in place to chart the course of development in Africa.
While European states celebrate economic and political stability, African states are always engrossed in crisis.
Where it is not corruption, it is tenure elongation among African states and governments.
Today, as it is, civil disturbances is said to have pinned its root in Darfur, Rwanda, Somali, Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia among others.
The crises had no doubt resulted in the disruption of policies and programmes intended to move African states forward.
It has also resulted in the destruction oflives and properties, thus creating an environment of bloodbath.
While this malfeasance takes the toll, African states and governments are busy celebrating flag independence even when it is glaringly difficult to provide the required environment for economic and political development.
Abuse of human rights and freedom and unemployment seem to be the order ofthe day in the African continent.
These unhealthy situations, no doubt, have remained the lifestyle among African states and governments.
The ugly situation created by poor economic and political development among African states, in fact, led to the inauguration ofthe New Partnership for African’s Development (NEPAD).
In 2001, for instance, New Partnership for African’s Development with is secretariat in Pretoria, South Africa was formally put in place as a pledge by African leaders with common vision to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively on the path of sustainable growth and development so as to meet the challenges posed by the world economy.
As a programme of action, it intends to ehance sustainable development in the 21 st century and also ensure peace, security, true democracy and Political governance.
It is expected that NEPAD should be enhanced orporate governance in both sub-regional and sub-regional approaches to development.
In fact, years after the establishment of NEPAD to Abuja by the committee of Africa Heads of States chaired by the Former President Olusegun basanjo, the objectives ofthe initiative are yet I be achieved.
Sectoral priorities such as infrastructural and Human resources development, agriculture, Environment, culture, science and technology nong African-srat s is yet to be given desired tention.
This apart, capital flow and industrial evelopment of African states is on the low rungs of the economic and political ladder.
Africa, no doubt, has come of age and the need arises for NEPAD to put A frica on the right tract of development basically to save it from its present Political and economic woes.
Africa, as a continent needs to be at par with European states arising from the abundance of Economic and human resources available to it.
The gross under-development of Africa should our the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to the challenges by insuring that African states swim in the same direction with European countries.
Omah is of the Radio Rivers, Port Harcourt
Obed Omah
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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