Opinion
NDDC Can Do Better
NDDC has become a political institution…” These were the exact words of Chief Nyesom Wike, the governor of Rivers State, when the Professor Nelson Brambaifa-led board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) paid him a courtesy visit at the Government House in Port Harcourt, recently. On a similar visit to Professor Ben Ayade, the governor of Cross River State, by the NDDC management, Ayade slammed the commission for treating his state “unfairly”. According to him, the story of NDDC and Cross River State has been that of “melancholy”. He lamented that the people of Cross River State “have been reduced to want in body, soul and spirit”.
The experience of Rivers and Cross River States, put together, will not equate the disservice of NDDC to Abia State. Even before the Brambaifa-led board was appointed, Abia State had been victim of the dual misfortunes of “unfairness” and “melancholy”. At least, Rivers and Cross River States have had the honour of a courtesy visit! Abia State, on the other hand, has neither received “courtesy”, talk less of a “visit” ! Indeed, there is scarcely any significant evidence of NDDC’s presence in Abia State, but for some subpar projects located in few communities within the State.
Agreed that the collegiality needed in the management of the NDDC is lacking in most of the States, however, the Abia story, in all ramification, is a sorry state that should be addressed with dispatch.
For benefit of hindsight, NDDC is a creation of an Act of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Section 58 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Act, cited as the Niger Delta Development Commission Act 2000, repealed the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission Decree 1998. Among other things, the NDDC Act 2000, is established to ensure an effective use of the sums received from the allocation of the Federal account. The fund is meant to tackle both the ecological and the infrastructural problems arising from oil explorations in Niger Delta areas and for “connected purposes”.
By virtue of section 2(1) (b) (i) of the Act, Abia State, as well as Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and Rivers States are members of the NDDC. It was for this Act that Abia State was privileged to have the pioneer chairmanship of the Governing Board, in the person of Chief Onyema Ugochukwu, in line with the rotational clause of Section 4 (a), going by alphabetical order.
Also provided in the Act, 11(1) (a) is that an Advisory Committee, which shall consist of the governors of the member states of the Commission and two other persons as may be determined from time to time, shall be formed by the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. According to the Act, the primary functions of the Advisory Committee are to advise the board and monitor the activities of the commission and make rules regulating its own proceedings.
It is pathetic that many years down the line, the governors have not been allowed to either perform their statutory advisory functions to the board, or monitor the projects allocated to their respective states. In most cases, the governors are denied fore-knowledge of the projects earmarked for execution in their states until such projects are awarded and the contractors mobilised to the site! Most often, some of these projects are either abandoned or poorly executed for lack of proper monitoring.
Professor Brambaifa-led NDDC board should prove that his board means well. Let him convince Nigerians that the non-constitution of the statutory advisory committee , which ordinarily should consist of the governors of the NDDC states, is not pre-meditated to sideline majority of the PDP-controlled South South-States, as alleged by Gov. Wike. He should not only make haste to advise the president to do the needful, he and his board should also be seen to have done the needful.
As an intervention agency, the primary duty of the NDDC is to assist the state governors develop the states. As such, the programs and projects of the commission should be seen to compliment, rather than, contradict the good intentions of the states who albeit strenuously, are doing their best to alleviate the sufferings of people. Any attempt, therefore, by the authorities of NDDC, to portray the commission as political or partisan will be counter productive and could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the Act institutionalising NDDC. On that note, Governor Ayade’s caveat will be applicable: “As governor, I have the superintending and overriding power over the land in Cross River, which I hold in trust for the people. Therefore, by the provisions of the law, I have the powers to stop any project in the state. It is part of the constitutional provisions under the NDDC Act that the NDDC will have regular meetings with the various stakeholders including the governors that form part of the governing board”.
There is no gainsaying that the states making up the NDDC are in dire need of accelerated development in various facets of their economies, hence, there ought to be a concerted effort, by the Ag. Managing Director and CEO of NDDC, Professor Brambaifa and his board, to urgently reach out to the governors to discuss terms and modalities needed to stimulate growth and stability in the region.
Given that the states are also critical stakeholders of NDDC, the current board should look inwards and identify some key projects and programs of the states that are in line with the visions of the Commission. Projects that are meant to bequeath long lasting legacies should be supported. Uppermost in mind are projects on human capital development, road infrastructure, industrialisation and Power.
Abia, like many other states, is indeed ripe for this collaboration. The Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s administration has set the framework for a prosperous economy. He is working his talk of transforming Aba into the economic hub of Eastern Nigeria as well as the China of Africa. Considering where Aba was, prior to his assumption of office in 2015, one can attest to the fact that remarkable progress has been made in Abia State and Aba, in particular. No wonder Vice President Yemi Osinbajo branded Aba as the SME capital of Nigeria.
Indeed, states like Rivers and Abia are already making reasonable progress. The least the present NDDC board can do is to support them.
Given an equitable distribution of the resources available to the commission, coupled with robust synergy among its key stakeholders, greater success in the economic development of the states, is surely imminent.
By collaborating with the Niger Delta governors, regardless of party affiliations, the NDDC will have another opportunity to right her wrongs and possibly redress the distrust and despondency arising from long years of inaction and neglect by the commission.
Onyenma, a public relations practitioner, wrote in from PH.
Kennedy Onyenma
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
-
Oil & Energy5 days agoEkpo, , Mshelbila Elected Gas Exporting Countries Forum Chiefs
-
News5 days agoTinubu commissions seven new projects at Unilorin
-
Business5 days agoNAICOM Tasks New NCRIB President On Innovation, Professionalism
-
Nation5 days agoOgoni Cleanup Programme, Enabling Pathways To Development Of Ogoni – Zabbey
-
Niger Delta5 days ago
Tompolo’s Visit To Bayelsa Bothers Coalition … As Stakeholders Want Security Checks
-
Oil & Energy5 days agoMonarchs Task FG On Host Communities’ Welfare ………As PINL Targets 2000 Women For Empowerment
-
Opinion5 days agoDon’t Kill Tam David-West
-
Business5 days ago“W’Bank To Invest $14bn In Agric Transformation