Editorial
G20: Resolving Global Crisis
Indonesia gathered the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies commonly referred to as G20 in its
island paradise of Bali for a two-day summit from November 15 to 16 to discuss how they could cooperate on building a more stable future. But while this year’s summit has a post-pandemic theme of “Recover Together, Recover Stronger,” geopolitical divisions are taking centre stage.
Unfortunately, this year’s G20 meetings attracted more international attention than in previous years. The summit took place against the backdrop of global political and economic crises: a challenging post-pandemic recovery, the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, soaring food and energy prices, and the worsening climate crisis. It was expected that the gathering would provide an opportunity for the world’s biggest powers to address those pressing global challenges.
The summit was preceded by a bilateral meeting between United States President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the first time the two had met since Biden became president. Although there were few tangible results, it was overall a positive meeting after relations between the superpowers plunged to near-historic lows earlier in the year. Conversely, Putin’s in-person absence spared the summit a major distraction and helped it focus on economic matters.
The G20 is a multilateral forum representing the world’s largest economies. It involves 19 countries – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States including the European Union. The forum represents more than 60% of the earth’s population, 75% of global trade, and 80% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).
This summit was organised as the world edges toward a global recession. Countries’ central banks have been hiking interest rates to curb inflation, but prices struggle to return to pre-pandemic levels. The World Bank reports that these hikes, coupled with financial market stress, could lead to global GDP growth slowing down to 0.5% next year, which would destabilise major economies and significantly slow poverty alleviation in developing countries.
During last week’s meeting, the world economic leaders adopted a declaration deploring Russia’s aggression in Ukraine “in the strongest terms” and demanding its unconditional withdrawal. They also recognised that while most members condemned the war in Ukraine, “there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions”.
On the global economy, the G20 nations agreed in their declaration to pace interest rate rises carefully to avoid spillovers and warned of “increased volatility” in currency moves, a sea change from last year’s focus on mending the scars of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reference to spillovers was a nod to emerging economies’ concerns about the potential for huge capital outflows if aggressive U.S. rate increases continue.
Also, the leaders pledged to take coordinated action to address food security challenges and applauded the Black Sea grains initiative. But the body has come under intense criticism by Global Citizen, a civil society group, for the absence of concrete steps on hunger. The group says, “Fifty million people are at the brink of starvation as we speak. There is no time for the G20 to issue calls to action, they are the ones who have to act.”
About climate change, leaders of the foremost economic countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, confirming they stood by the temperature goal from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. That could boost negotiations at the U.N. COP27 climate summit in Egypt, where some negotiators feared the G20 would fail to back the 1.5C goal — potentially thwarting a deal on it among the nearly 200 countries at the U.N. talks.
However, is the G20 not merely repeating old commitments from previous years or noting developments elsewhere, rather than taking on leadership themselves? When the forum last met in April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had just cut its global growth forecast to 3.6 per cent for this year and next and experts warned this could get worse given potential downside risks. Since then, several of those risks have materialised and the multiple crises facing the world have intensified.
The human tragedy of the war in Ukraine has worsened. So, too, has its economic impact, especially through commodity price shocks that are slowing growth and exacerbating a cost-of-living crisis that affects hundreds of millions of people and especially poor people who cannot afford to feed their families. And it is only getting worse.
Inflation is higher than expected and has broadened beyond food and energy prices. This has prompted major central banks to announce further monetary tightening, which is necessary but will weigh on the recovery. Continuing pandemic-related disruptions, especially in China, and renewed bottlenecks in global supply chains have hampered economic activity.
Indeed, the outlook remains extremely uncertain. Think of how additional disruption in the natural gas supply to Europe could plunge many economies into recession and trigger a global energy crisis. This is just one of the factors that could worsen an already difficult situation. It is already tough in 2022 and possibly going to be tougher in 2023, with an increased risk of recession. That is why we need decisive action and strong international cooperation led by the G20.
Therefore, the global economic body must practically tackle the root causes of hunger, extreme inequality and poverty, human rights violations, conflict, climate change, food, and energy price inflation. G20 must develop an economic and social rescue plan that protects the rights of the poorest people and tackles extreme inequality. If the group cannot come together and function at this time of real economic hardship, then it calls fundamentally into question its effectiveness and relevance. So, the challenge for the G20 is to prove that it is still fit for purpose coming out of these annual meetings.
Editorial
Checkmating ‘One-Chance’ Menaces In PH
Editorial
That Oshiomhole’s Call On FG’s Road Projects
There are moments in the life of a legislature when plain speaking becomes a public service. Senator Adams Oshiomhole provided such a moment on the floor of the Senate when he accused the Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi, of manifestly neglecting critical federal arteries in Edo and Delta States, and implored his colleagues to prevail on the Minister to adopt a more equitable and genuinely national approach to road infrastructure delivery. It was blunt, it was uncomfortable, and it was necessary.
The specifics of his complaint deserve restating. Drawing attention to the recent approval of some 20 new road projects despite the parlous state of existing ones, the former Edo State governor lamented that Nigerians cannot travel from Benin to Warri, Benin to Asaba, Benin to Auchi, or Auchi to Okene without encountering severe distress. He alleged a deliberate omission of these corridors from the national budget in the last three years, save for palliative interventions directed by President Bola Tinubu through tax credit arrangements. His question — “What have we done wrong?” — resonates far beyond the chambers of the National Assembly.
We lend our full and unequivocal support to that call. The Auchi-Benin Road, for instance, has been in a deplorable and near-impassable condition for several years, turning what should be a two-hour journey into an all-day ordeal of broken axles, extortionate fares, and despondent commuters. The media have, on multiple occasions, chronicled the suffering of motorists, traders, and students who ply that route. To describe it as a federal road today is to stretch the meaning of the term beyond recognition.
This pattern of sidelining is not confined to Edo or Delta. Even here in Rivers State, the disposition of the Federal Ministry of Works has left much to be desired, particularly along the Eleme axis of the East-West Road. That road, which ought to be a flagship of federal presence in the Niger Delta, has remained in a wretched state for long. Those who use it daily — workers at the Eleme Petrochemical Complex, the two refineries, Onne Port, and the countless ancillary industries — can attest to its deterioration. Work has proceeded in fits and starts without the sustained urgency such a strategic road demands.
The Eleme stretch is not a mere intra-state byway. It is the gateway to the nation’s economic jugular. According to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing’s 2023 Highway Condition Survey, only about 35 per cent of the country’s 36,000 kilometres of federal roads are rated as being in good or fair condition, with the remainder classified as poor or very poor. The East-West Road, conceived in the 1970s to bind the entire Niger Delta, remains unfinished in critical sections more than four decades after. If it had been treated as a priority, the perennial gridlock, carnage, and economic loss on the Eleme-Refinery junction would have long been consigned to history.
The irony is as painful as it is glaring. The Niger Delta remains the goose that lays the golden eggs. Data from the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative [NEITI 2023 Oil and Gas Audit] show that the region still accounts for over 78 per cent of Nigeria’s federally collected export earnings and about 65 per cent of total government revenue. The National Bureau of Statistics [NBS Foreign Trade Report Q4 2024] similarly confirms that crude oil continues to dominate export receipts. By every metric of equity and economic logic, a region that sustains the national purse deserves first-rate consideration in the allocation of infrastructure, not afterthoughts and tokenism.
Road infrastructure is not largesse to be dispensed by favour; it is the skeleton upon which commerce, cohesion, and citizenship hang. When contracts are concentrated in one geopolitical zone while other zones are left to contend with craters, it erodes trust in the federation itself. The World Bank’s Nigeria Development Update [June 2023] estimated that poor transport connectivity inflates the cost of moving goods by up to 40 per cent and costs the Nigerian economy an estimated $1.5 billion annually in lost man-hours and vehicle maintenance. If we profess to be one country, then equity must be the compass that guides key institutions before any project is executed. Development must spread round, not pool in one place as though other regions do not matter.
There is also a grave security dimension that can no longer be ignored. The deplorable condition of federal roads has become a veritable enabler of criminality. The NBS Crime Experience and Security Perception Survey reported over 2.5 million incidents of kidnapping-related occurrences nationally, with transport workers identifying bad road spots as prime ambush points. When vehicles are forced to crawl at 10 kilometres per hour through failed sections at Auchi, Sapele Road, or Eleme, they become sitting ducks for armed gangs. Fixing bad roads, therefore, is not merely about convenience; it is about safeguarding lives.
By his intervention, Senator Oshiomhole has hit the nail on the head and reminded Minister Umahi of a fundamental constitutional truth: public office is held in trust. The Ministry of Works is not a personal estate where contracts are awarded according to whim or political convenience. It is a national institution funded by the collective resources of Nigerians, including the oil and gas rents from the very communities whose roads are now neglected. The Minister must demonstrate balance, transparency, and a pan-Nigerian outlook in the distribution of projects that impact the daily existence of citizens. Selective neglect breeds suspicion, and suspicion is corrosive at a time when the nation is preaching unity, oneness, equity, and justice.
Consequently, the National Assembly must go beyond rhetoric and assert its oversight powers with vigour. Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution [as amended] empower the legislature to investigate and expose any maladministration in the execution of federal projects. If an office holder is not acting rightly, it is the duty of the Senate and the House of Representatives to call him to order. Oversight must not be reduced to budget approval ceremonies; it must translate to field verification, public hearings, and insistence that the Federal Character principle, as enshrined in Section 14(3) of the Constitution, reflects in road awards.
Let the Auchi-Okene, Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, and Eleme East-West gangways be restored to motorable dignity. Let priority be given to completing existing, economically vital roads before embarking on new ones. If those who, through their resources, sustain the federation are sidelined in the distribution of tangible dividends, it tells poorly of our nationhood. Bad roads must be fixed, and they must be fixed now, with fairness as the guiding standard.
Editorial
Making Rivers’ 2026 Budget Count
-
News2 days agoRSG Targets Nine Million Residents in Mosquito Net Distribution Campaign
-
Oil & Energy2 days agoAiyedatiwa Signs New Electricity Bill
-
Maritime2 days agoMarine Minister Commends President Tinubu On NPERA Bill Assent
-
Oil & Energy2 days agoNLNG Commissions Research And Innovation Centre In RSU
-
News2 days agoKenPoly Holds Eight Convocations, August 29
-
News2 days agoRSG Begins Another Phase of Projects Commissioning Today
-
News2 days agoRMAFC Completes Revenue Sharing Review, Proposes New Pay
-
Maritime2 days agoNAGAFF Petitions IGP Over Alleged Maritime Police Harassment
