Opinion

Reviewing Nigerian Content Policy

Published

3 years ago

October 25, 2023

The local content policy came into effect in Nigeria with the signing into law, on April 22, 2010, of the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (NOGICD) Act to enable greater, indigenous contributions in the Nigerian oil and gas industry, and thus boost national benefits from that sector of the economy. Perceived foreign dominance and dependency in the sector prompted agitations by Nigerians who claimed that greater local participation in the petroleum industry business would trap financial benefits homeward, as well as create industrial capacity-building for wider developments. The argument was strong, with less than 5 per cent in-country service contribution to the petroleum industry businesses as at 1990, with claim that Nigeria was experiencing capital flights to the tune of over $380 billion, coupled with an estimated loss of over two million jobs to countries where services were out-sourced. In 1990, as if to kick-start a response to these agitations, the then Minister of Petroleum Resources, Prof. Jibril Aminu, enabled the first award of oil blocks to 11 Nigerian companies. Prof Aminu was obviously convinced that Nigerians having worked for decades under the tutelage of International oil companies (IOCs), had acquired enough requisite experience and skills to run indigenous outfits.
Though that decision created some portfolio companies, it gave birth to indigenous companies like Atlas Petroleum and Cavendish Petroleum, who nurtured their Oil Prospecting Leases to points where they now operate Oil Mining Leases. Later awards and acquisitions from 1999 saw new generations of indigenous oil companies like Famfa Oil Ltd, Seplat Petroleum, Oando Energy Resources, Monipulo Energy, Emerald Energy Resources, Belema Oil, Sahara Energy Exploration, and so many others, becoming players in the oil and gas fields. As at year ending 2012, a total number of 109 Oil Mining Licenses (OMLs) and 92 Oil Prospecting Licenses (OPLs) had been granted indigenous operators. While these oil blocks are marginal fields, the figures represented just 11 per cent of the total leases with about 88 per cent still operated by the IOCs. To also empower local capacity in the oil services sector which is dominated by multinationals like Schlumberger, Haliburton and Baker Hughes, the federal government in 2003 enacted the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act. The act, in principle, restricted the use of foreign vessels in domestic, coastal services and was aimed at promoting the development of indigenous vessel services along and within the Nigerian coastal channels.
The climax so far in the litany of reforms came last year with the signing of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). But, of all the introduced acts the NOGICD, signed in 2010, promised to be more far reaching and for the grass-roots, in terms of skills development, jobs creation and business capacity building.13 years after signing the NOGICD Act in furtherance of previous initiatives to protect ‘national interests’, how has the industry fared? How do we compare the economy, skills acquisition, remunerations for the few jobs still available, working conditions, job security, environmental standards and safety, as well as the general security? The current poor oil production data compared with previous records, and the ominous invest decisions by IOCs that resulted in divestments from almost all onshore assets, are clear testimonies of an industry in retrogression. The federal government should be more circumspect in drafting policies in ways that do not draw bad sentiments and backlashes from international partners. One wonders why the current economic malaise and rapidly depreciating naira should mirrow those of the 1970s. Prior to 1972 when the federal government signed the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree (NEPD) a.k.a Indigenisation Decree, the US Dollar paired 1:1 with the Naira.
In less than a decade after NEPD, the Naira crashed to between N99 – N105 per Dollar. A flip to the present times shows that, while in 2010 when the NOGICD act was signed with similar ‘indigenisation’ reforms that culminated in the PIA of 2022, the Naira was N122.26 per Dollar, but has crashed to more than N1,000 per Dollar. A look at Nigeria’s oil production landscape might help our reflections. Of the 2.48 million barrels per day (mbpd) produced in 2012 during the years of high oil production records, 900,800 barrels per day (bpd) came from offshore, deepwater productions, representing 36.32 per cent of total production, while 1.5 mbpd came from the onshore and shallower water terrains. Of that 1.5 mbpd, local companies contributed only 276,000 bpd. It is obvious that the bulk of Nigeria’s oil production comes from onshore platforms, yet these are where the IOCs have divested from, and wherein local operators are supposedly waxing strong. What changed in the operations climate and why have production records not been sustained? While the production capacities of indigenous operators looked hopeful as at 2012, the expected revolution has not materialised to at least sustain the 2.48 mbpd of 2012. Meanwhile offshore production remains progressive.
Despite total production records dropping progressively to as low as 800,000 bpd last year, the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), claims Nigeria has attained 42 per cent total Nigeria content in the oil and gas industry with a 70 per cent target by 2027. Oil production is currently at 1.2 million barrels per day, a far cry from the 2.48 mbpd records of 2012, and Nigerians have lost jobs beyond 2010 levels even with rising population of youths. Apart from NCDMB’s Nigerian Content Development Fund assistance to part-finance onshore Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO) vessel integration facility, at the Lagos Deep Offshore Logistics Base (LADOL) which contributed to the EGINA FPSO construction, and the magnificent headquarters it built for itself at Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, the NCDMB has not initiated much transformations within the Niger Delta apart from a couple of training workshops and seminars. The NCDMB should roll out ambitious skills development programmes to create capacities that empower indigenous industries to create innovations and jobs. It should also investigate why the expected revolutions in the oil and gas industry which was to overspill into other industries, has not yet materialised, and instead there is retrogression occasioned by low oil production and job losses. The Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, a former bee-hive of oil and gas activities, has become a ghost layout.
While the initiatives to enable indigenous participation in the oil and gas industry is in the right direction, the environment should be made conducive for technologically advanced IOCs to operate as skills reference peers who create hard and soft skills transfer. The successes of Asian nations were attained by giving international technologies free hand to employ local labour and resources to make profits, while developing the nations in the process. The capacity to ensure security of personnel, production facilities and products, as well as the ethical skills strength to maintain transparent, accurate records, should be NCDMB’s focus as an aspect of content input to reverse the onshore losses, rather than eulogising itself in a time the entire economy is drowning due to unpresidented levels of corruption within its area of supervision. The wings of the NCDMB appears clipped however in the new PIA, which makes the minister of state for petroleum head of board, the latter being a direct errand boy to Nigerian presidents who have become penchant for doubling as petroleum ministers. For former President Muhammadu Buhari and his minister of state to have handled that portfolio amidst eight straight years of poor performance without a solution, is enough reason for introspection.

Opinion

One Attack Too Many

Published

2 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By: King Onunwor

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

2 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael Abraham

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s Outburst

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection.

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office