Connect with us

Column

For An Igbo President

Published

on

While accepting the surrender of Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s collapsed Biafran Republic on January 15, 1970, the then military Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, was said to have declared a ‘no victor, no vanquished’ end to the 30-month senseless hostilities. Surely, nothing could have served to better reassure a beleaguered Lt. Col. Phillip Effiong and the remainder of his rag-tag secessionist army.
Gowon’s post-war cabinet had comprised a number of Igbo personalities as did subsequent federal executive councils up till the military handover of power to an elected civilian government in 1979. Even when the lid was lifted on political activities, beginning with the experimental local council polls in 1976, there was no indication that Igbo people were deliberately hindered from contesting for the highest office in the land.
If my memory still serves me, the party presidential candidates at that time were Alhaji Shehu Shagari for the National Party of Nigeria (NPN); Chief Obafemi Awolowo for the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN); Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe for the Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP); Mallam Aminu Kano for the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP); and Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim for the Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP). I can also recall that Dr Alex Ekwueme, Dr K O Mbadiwe and Dr J O J Okezie slugged it out in the vice presidential primaries of the NPN; Awolowo literally hand-picked Chief Phillip Umeadi as his running mate; while GNPP’s Ibrahim shared his ticket with Dr B U Nzeribe – all from Igboland.
Shagari and Ekwueme did emerge victorious at the 1979 presidential poll and went ahead to rule the country for a little over four years before being ousted in a military coup. During their tenure, if any ugly fate had befallen Alhaji Shehu by way of resignation, impeachment, health incapacitation or even death, an Igbo man would have been constitutionally sworn in as Nigeria’s president as early as just a decade after the civil war. Or has this possibility not crossed the minds of those who claim that Igbo people are being denied the presidency?
Even though the clamour for a president of Igbo extraction had long been out there, I think it may have been shifted into the present overdrive after Dr Goodluck Jonathan from a minority tribe became president. I say so because generally, there seems to be this conception of a political pecking order where the three major ethnic groups in the country must first have their turns before any of the minority tribes is invited to the table.
But truth be told, the Nigerian nation has not been fair to the South East geo-political zone, particularly in terms of states creation. How can it be explained that of the six such zones in the country, only the South East has five states while the others have six each and the North West, seven? Here, the usual excuse of non-viability holds no water as only few states in the federation can be considered viable in the real sense of the word. The issue of population will not also suffice as the zone is already densely populated. Equally griping is the fact that late Dr Ekwueme, an Igbo, was among those who first nurtured the idea of splitting the country into such zones for equity sake and creation of better sense of belonging. Why then should his zone be the very one to be so short-changed?
Back to the jostling for who occupies the Aso Rock Villa, the Igbos certainly have a lot of work to do. This is regardless of the outcome of the 2023 polls. Like the Yorubas of Nigeria’s South West, they must learn to float and wholly support a big political party of their own rather than always dispatch some of their elites to hold nocturnal consultations with the Arewa leadership as to gauge the core north’s inclination during party formation seasons.
Aside the NCNC in the First Republic and perhaps the NPP which Dr Azikiwe was said to have hijacked from Alhaji Waziri in the Second Republic, the Igbos have not presented a formidable political party with which to run for elective offices in the country. Again, they hardly play the opposition when not successful at the polls. For instance, NPP’s accord with the NPN in 1979 fell apart even before the next general elections in 1983 with most of its ministers and advisers refusing to relinquish their positions in the Shagari cabinet – something that would be inconceivable in Awolowo’s UPN or any other serious Yoruba party for that matter!
Where they are unable to form their own strong party, Ndigbo can at least mold and roll themselves into any of the existing ones through a solid political association or movement while still retaining its structure for a possible future realignment. This is against the present scenario where they join parties individually. Not long ago, an ex-governor from the zone even crossed from a relatively small party to a major one without bothering to carry along the whole of his former party or any part thereof.
Even when forced into opposition in the present dispensation, the South East governors of PDP and APGA have not appeared as critical of the ruling APC as the late Imo State Governor, Chief Sam Mbakwe, was of the Shagari administration in the Second Republic. Frankly, if they have been raising their voices enough against Abuja, the secessionist IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, may not have attracted the kind of cult followership he currently enjoys in the zone.
Thank God there is also this growing, if belated, realisation among the Igbo elite that rather than sit and wish for party presidential tickets to be ceded to their zone in 2023, they had better start working for it by building bridges across ethnic and political divides. Already, some prominent and outspoken politicians from the other zones are beginning to consider the idea. All the South East needs to do at this point is push harder and try to avoid any further vitriolic while seeking ways to douse the prevailing separatist agitation in the region.
Of course, Igbos are widely acknowledged as a very ingenious, enterprising and mostly successful people in their chosen endeavours; hence they are regarded as the Jews of Africa. With all this, who said the messianic president Nigeria desperately desires cannot hail from anywhere in a zone that also comprises Abia as God’s Own State? I rest my case.

By: Ibelema Jumbo

Continue Reading

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

on

Despite a discouraging political climate and unprecedented uncertainty in the United States clean energy sector, low costs of wind and solar energy continue to drive growth of the domestic clean energy sector.
However, while market forces continue to support the expansion of renewable energy capacity, the sector faces critical challenges extending beyond the antagonism of the Trump administration.
The continued growth of solar and wind power risks being hampered by several mitigating factors, including (but not limited to) intensifying competition over increasingly scarce suitable land plots, stressed and volatile global supply chains, lengthy and unpredictable development processes, Complex and overlapping permitting processes, and a critical talent gap.
The renewable energy labor shortage has been years in the making, but is no less closer to resolution. The issue spans both white collar and blue collar positions, and threatens to kneecap progress in the booming sector.
Between the years of 2011 and 2030, it is expected that global levels of installed wind and solar capacity will quadruple. Analysis from McKinsey & Company concludes that “this huge surge in new wind and solar installations will be almost impossible to staff with qualified development and construction employees as well as operations and maintenance workers.
“It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future,” the McKinsey report goes on to say.
He continued that “There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”
The solar and wind industries are suffering from a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities, despite their well-established presence in domestic markets.
Emergent clean energies face an even steeper uphill battle. Geothermal energy, for example, is poised for explosive growth as one of vanishingly few carbon-free energy solutions with broad bipartisan support, but faces a severe talent gap and punishingly low levels of awareness in potential talent pools.
But while the outlook is discouraging, industry insiders argue that it’s too soon to sound the alarms. In fact, a recent report from Utility Drive contends that “solutions to the energy talent gap are hiding in plain sight.”
The article breaks down those solutions into four concrete approaches: building partnerships with educators, formulating Registered Apprenticeship pathways, updating credential requirements to reflect real-world needs, and rethinking stale recruitment strategies.
Targeting strategic alliances with educational institutions is a crucial strategy for creating a skilled workforce, particularly in emerging sectors like geothermal energy.
Businesses can, for example, partner with and sponsor programs at community colleges, creating a pipeline for the next generation of skilled workers. Apprenticeships serve a similar purpose, encouraging hands-on learning outside of the classroom. Such apprenticeships can apply to white collar positions as well as blue collar roles.
“If we can figure out a way to educate the younger generation that you can actually have a career that you can be proud of and help solve a problem the world is facing, but also work in the extractive industry, I think that could go a long way,” said Jeanine Vany, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Canadian geothermal firm Eavor, speaking about the geothermal energy talent gap.
These approaches won’t solve the talent gap overnight – especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector. But they will go a long way toward mitigating the issue.
“The clean energy transition depends on a workforce that can sustain it,” reports Utility Drive. “To meet the hiring challenges, employers will benefit from looking beyond the next position to fill and working toward a strategic, industry-wide vision for attracting talent.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Is It End For Lithium’s Reign As Battery King?

Published

on

Lithium-ion batteries power the world around us. Their prevalence in our daily life is growing steadily, to the extent that lithium-ion batteries now power a whopping 70 percent of all rechargeable devices.
From electric vehicles to smartphones to utility-scale energy storage, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly forming the building blocks of innumerable sectors.
But despite its dominance in battery technologies, there are some serious issues with lithium supply chains that make it a less-than-ideal model upon which to base our world.
Not only is extracting lithium often extremely environmentally damaging, it’s deeply intertwined with geopolitical pressure points. China controls a huge portion of global lithium supply chains, rendering markets highly vulnerable to shocks and the political will of Beijing.
China’s control is particularly strong in the case of electric vehicle batteries, thanks to a decade-long strategy to outcompete the globe.
“For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” reports EE Times.
The effect functions as “almost a moat” around Chinese battery production, buffering the sector against international competition.
The multiple downsides and risks associated with lithium and lithium-ion battery sourcing is pushing EV companies to research alternative battery models to power the electric cars of the future.
There are a litany of lithium alternatives in research and development phases, including – but not limited to – lead, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, sodium nickel chloride, lithium metal polymer, sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid state batteries.
Solid state batteries seem to be the biggest industry darling. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as a barrier and conductor between the cathode and anode.
These batteries don’t necessarily do away with lithium, but they can eliminate the need for graphite – another critical mineral under heavy Chinese control. Plus, solid state batteries are purported to be safer, have higher energy density, and recharge faster than lithium-ion batteries.
While solid-state batteries are still in development, they’re already being tested in some applications by car companies. Mercedes and BMW claim that they are already road-testing vehicles powered by solid-state batteries, but it will likely be years before we see them in any commercial context.
Subaru is on the verge of testing solid-state batteries within its vehicles, but is already employing a smaller form of the technology to power robots within its facilities.
However, while solid-state batteries are being hailed as a sort of holy grail for battery tech, some think that the promise – and progress – of solid-state batteries is overblown.
“I think there’s a lot of noise in solid state around commercial readiness that’s maybe an exaggeration of reality”, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said during an interview on this week’s Plugged-In Podcast.
Sodium ion batteries are also a promising contender to overtake lithium-ion batteries in the EV sector. Sodium is 1,000 times more abundant than lithium.
“It’s widely available around the world, meaning it’s cheaper to source, and less water-intensive to extract”, stated James Quinn, the CEO of U.K.-based Faradion. “It takes 682 times more water to extract one tonne of lithium versus one tonne of sodium.That is a significant amount.”
Bloomberg projections indicate that sodium-ion could displace 272,000 tons of lithium demand as soon as 2035.
But even this does not signal the death of lithium. Lithium is simply too useful in battery-making. It’s energy-dense and performs well in cold weather, making it “indispensable for high-performance applications” according to EV World.
“The future isn’t lithium or sodium—it’s both, deployed strategically across sectors…the result is a diversified, resilient battery economy.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Why Oil Prices Could See Significant Upside Shift

Published

on

The 9th OPEC International Seminar was held in Vienna recently, wherein participants discussed energy security, investment, climate change, and energy poverty, with a particular emphasis on balancing these competing priorities.
According to commodity analysts at Standard Chartered, the summit, titled “Charting Pathways Together: The Future of Global Energy”, featured significantly greater engagement from international oil companies and consuming country governments, with discussions converging on a more inclusive shared agenda rather than non-intersecting approaches seen in previous years.
However, StanChart reported there was a clear mismatch between what energy producers vs. market analysts think about spare production capacity.
Unlike Wall Street analysts, who frequently talk about spare capacity of 5-6 million barrels per day (mb/d), speakers from several sectors of the industry noted that spare capacity is both limited and very geographically concentrated.
StanChart believes this erroneous assumption about spare capacity has been a big drag on oil prices, and the implications for the whole forward curve of oil prices could be potentially profound once traders realize that roughly two-thirds of the capacity they thought was available on demand does not actually exist.
This makes the analysts bullish about the general shape of their forecast 2026 price trajectory (Figure 32), i.e., a set of significant upward shifts as opposed to the flat trajectory seen in the market curve and in analyst consensus.
In other words, oil prices could have as much as $15/barrel upside from current levels.
StanChart is not the only oil bull here. Goldman Sachs recently hiked its oil price forecast for H2 2025, saying the market is increasingly shifting its focus from recession fears to potential supply disruptions, low spare capacity, lower oil inventories, especially among OECD countries and production constraints by Russia.
GS has increased its Brent forecast by $5/bbl to $66/bbl, and by $6 for WTI crude to $63/bbl, slightly lower than current levels of $68.34/bbl and 66.24/bbl for Brent and WTI crude, respectively.
However, the Wall Street bank has maintained its 2026 price forecast at $56/bbl for Brent and $52 for WTI, due to “an offset between a boost from higher long-dated prices and a hit from a wider 1.7M bbl/day surplus.’’ Previously, GS had forecast a 1.5M bbl/day surplus for the coming year.
Further, Goldman sees a stronger oil price rebound beyond 2026 due to reduced spare capacity.
EU natural gas inventories have climbed at faster-than-average clip in recent times. According to Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) data, Europe’s gas inventories stood at 73.10 billion cubic metres (bcm) on 13 July, good for a 2.31 bcm w/w increase.
Still, the injection rate is not enough to completely fill the continent’s gas stores, with the current clip on track to take inventories to about 97.9 bcm, or 84.3% of storage capacity, at the end of the injection season.
Europe’s gas demand remains fairly lacklustre despite extremely high temperatures across much of the continent in recent weeks.
According to estimates by StanChart, EU gas demand for the first 14 days of July averaged 583 million cubic meters/day, nearly 3% lower from a year ago but a 10% improvement from the June lows.
However, StanChart is bullish on natural gas prices, saying the market is likely underestimating the likelihood of more Russian gas being taken off the markets.
Back in April, U.S. senators Lindsey Graham (Republican) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat), introduced “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025”, with the legislation enjoying broad bipartisan support (85 co-sponsors in the Senate out of 100 senators).
In a joint statement on 14 July, the two senators noted that President Trump’s decision to implement 100% secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas if a peace agreement is not reached within 50 days but pledged that they will continue to work on “bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas”.
StanChart has predicted that the Trump administration is unlikely to take actions that risk driving oil prices higher. However, Russian gas remains in the crosshairs, with U.S. LNG likely to see a surge in demand if Russian gas exports are curtailed.
StanChart estimates that the EU’s net imports of Russian pipeline gas averaged 79.8 million cubic metres per day (mcm/d) in the first 14 days of July, with all non-transit flows into the EU coming into Bulgaria through the Turkstream pipeline, with Hungary and Slovakia also receiving Turkstream gas.
There was also a flow of about 65 mcm/d of Russian LNG in the first half of July, with Russia providing 18.6% of the EU’s net imports. StanChart has predicted that we could see a strong rally in natural gas prices if Washington slaps Moscow with fresh gas sanctions.
By: Alex Kimani
Continue Reading

Trending