Editorial
Learning From Kenya’s Protests
In an effort to consolidate the fiscal framework and strengthen Kenya’s economy, President William Ruto introduced a controversial bill laden with punitive taxes. This bill targets essential commodities, inflating the cost of living through increased fuel prices, imposing additional duties on exports, and controversially taxing sanitary pads, a move that is antithetical to gender equity. This legislative measure, intended as an economic panacea, instead thrusts the dagger deeper into the vitals of an economy already reeling from decadent living standards and systemic inequality.
The incremental taxes included in the bill are in line with Keynesian economic principles, where government intervention is required to regulate economic activity. However, such intervention is intended to be facilitative, not oppressive. In the case of Kenya, the controversial taxes would have reverberated through the socioeconomic strata, exacerbating unemployment, increasing inflation, and squeezing the already meagre incomes of the working class.
In the face of these oppressive measures, the streets have become a place where Kenyans are strongly protesting against the oppressive actions of the government. The youth, who represent the future of the country, are passionately exercising their democratic right to protest against the injustice they face. This is not just a reaction to economic troubles, but a powerful statement of their fundamental right to live with dignity and free from poverty.
Following weeks of peaceful demonstrations against the proposed legislation, protesters rampaged through the parliament in Nairobi. Subsequently, Ruto authorised the deployment of both police and military forces to suppress the unrest. Regrettably, it has been reported that 13 protesters were killed and many others injured by the police. Such excessive force against civilians is completely unjustifiable. Rather than engaging in finger-pointing, the security officials responsible should face appropriate sanctions.
In 2022, the Ruto’s administration emerged victorious in the general elections in Kenya, coming into power with a commitment to enhance the living standards of the underprivileged and improve the overall conditions of millions of citizens. Notwithstanding the initial promises made during the election campaigns, the government faced the stark challenges of limited financial resources, considerable debts, and the consequent inability to promptly execute its promised agenda.
Undoubtedly, the sombre economic conditions compelled the government to implement the financial bill last year, introducing a housing tax and elevating the top personal income tax rate. This action incited dissatisfaction among substantial portions of the population, leading to public displays of outrage, street demonstrations, and in some cases, legal challenges against the government’s policies.
This bill that caused a lot of public demonstrations and unrest may suggest that Kenya’s political system is not properly representing and including all groups in society. This also raises questions about the role of parliament in making sure proposed laws are thoroughly discussed and debated, to prevent protests from turning violent. However, attacking the seat of legislative power does not help the cause of protestations. Instead, it undermines the very structures that allow people to participate in the political process and seek change.
Despite the withdrawal of the bill by Ruto and his accusation towards security forces for inaccurate intelligence, the protests have continued without pause. This situation highlights the lack of genuine democratic principles in Africa. The crisis is primarily related to the economy, as the government, with a GDP of $113.4 billion and a population of 54.03 million, has acknowledged being in debt and facing financial constraints. To address its $78 billion debt, the government contemplated raising taxes.
The government said the country would have a $31.1 billion budget deficit if it cancelled the planned tax increase. This is made worse by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recommendation that the country should expand the number of people and businesses that pay taxes; improve how well people and businesses pay their taxes and have a stricter financial policy to reduce the country’s debt problems. Similar to numerous African nations, Kenya is closely connected to the IMF.
Regrettably, many African leaders exhibit poor management of their nation’s economies, resulting in appalling hardships for the populace. The citizens are left to bear the consequences of their irresponsible handling of both domestic and international loans. It is necessary that African citizens exercise their voting power to remove ineffective and incompetent governments from office.
Nigeria has faced challenges due to past IMF advisories, like the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in the 1990s. The actions taken based on IMF recommendations, such as removal of petrol subsidy and floating of the naira, have harmed the economy and led to negative impacts like job losses and poverty. African leaders should give priority to implementing locally-developed policies to drive economic growth rather than relying on external financial agencies like the IMF and World Bank.
Regardless of President Ruto’s concession, some protesters still insist on continuing demonstrations until the government collapses. This would be unwise as it could lead to a disproportionate use of force, escalating tensions and potential fatalities. Protesters should avoid creating conditions for anti-democratic forces to disrupt the democratic system that allows citizens to peacefully demonstrate. In a democratic society, political change can be sought through the ballot box in the next elections.
When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.
