We are dismayed by the latest increase in the pump price of petrol. It looks like the only thing this government is known for is increase in the pump price of petrol without commensurate capacity of Nigerians or mitigatory measures.

Even following the logic of market forces , we find it an aberration that a private company (NNPCL) is the one fixing prices and projecting itself as a hegemonic monopoly.

We challenge the government to go to the drawing board and present us with a blueprint for an inclusive economic growth and national development instead of this spasmodic ad hocism and palliative policy.

It needs no stating the fact that the latest wave of increase has grossly altered the calculations of Nigerians once again at a time they were reluctantly coming to terms with their new realities.

It will further deepen poverty as production capacities dip, more jobs lost with multidimensional negative effects.

In light of this, we urge the government to immediately reverse this rate hike as previous increases did not produce any good result. People only got poorer.

But more fundamentally, the government should be bold enough to tell Nigerians in advance the destination it wants to take the country.

 Comrade Joe Ajaero

          President

As Professor Ishaq Oloyede turns 70 tomorrow, October 10, I pay a special tribute to this astute administrator, educator, author, and scholar, currently the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) Registrar.

As the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ilorin, Prof. Oloyede's invaluable contributions to the nation through academia and public-sector administration have significantly impacted the academic community.

His impactful tenure at the University of Ilorin, during which he introduced landmark ideas and innovations that helped the institution attain enviable heights, is on record.

Through patriotic dedication and commitment to his craft, Prof Oloyede imparted knowledge and character to thousands of students who underwent his teaching during his glorious and impactful academic career.

Indeed, the bedrock of development lies in education. Developing nations, including Nigeria, are in dire need of more scholars like Prof. Oloyede. His selfless sacrifices and innovative approaches to learning and leadership give hope for a brighter future.

Perhaps more remarkable is Prof. Oloyede's transformative leadership at JAMB. He pioneered and sustained a series of reforms and technological innovations that have made the admission process in Nigeria transparent and credible.

In his eight years of stewardship at the board, thus far, Prof. Oloyede has demonstrated an uncommon commitment to financial integrity and accountability in public service. He has also raised the bar in administration and management.

I am proud of Prof. Oloyede's accomplishments.

The nation owes the Professor of Islamic Jurisprudence a debt of gratitude for transforming JAMB, traditionally a non-revenue-generating government agency, into a consistent contributor to the national treasury through efficient financial management. His contributions to JAMB are invaluable and greatly appreciated.

On this occasion of his 70th birthday, I join members of the academic community, students, JAMB staff, and well-wishers in celebrating this scholar who, in words and deeds, has also done a lot to propagate the Islamic religion.

I pray that Almighty Allah will continue to honour the distinguished professor with health, wisdom and strength to serve the nation for many more years.

In Akwa Ibom state, the political climate is gradually evolving in a manner not seen since the creation of the state and the return of democracy in 1999. Under Gov. Umo Eno, the state is experiencing a more harmonious and cordial relationship between the government and members of opposition parties. It's quite unprecedented.

Politics in the state had always been a winner-takes-all in which the ruling party (PDP) ensured that the perks and lucre were shared only among its members .

There was always a wide gap in political and social status between those whose party was in power and those in opposition. The relationship so strained that attending social function organized by a member of the opposition party could attract sanctions from the party in power for such member(s).

That was the norm until the election of Pastor Umo Eno as the governor of Akwa Ibom state in 2023. Pastor Eno, who described himself as the least qualified for the exalted seat, faced many legal hurdles before a big relief came from the supreme court.

Determined to bring a new lease of life to the politics of the state, Eno publicly announced his desire to embrace every son and daughter of Akwa Ibom state who is ready to add value to the growth and development of the state, irrespective of his social or political inclination.

To match words with action, he personally extended olive branch to all those who worked against his ambition during the election, an invitation that rattled many members of the ruling PDP because it was a complete departure from the partisan politics of the past.

The high point of the governor's reach-out was when he, along with some members of his cabinet and stakeholders of his party, visited the Abuja residence of Chief Godswill Akpabio, shortly after he was elected Senate President.

At the reception party that followed, the governor pledged his readiness to work with Akpabio for the overall interest and development of the state.

Few weeks later, he formally received the Senate President, a prominent leader of the All progressives Congress, at the executive chambers of the government house and later feted the Senate President and his entourage to an elaborate dinner same evening at the banquet hall of Government House.This became a complete turning point in the politics of the state and, for the first time, Akwa Ibom people really understood the meaning of politics of inclusion.

In reverence to the Senate President, the governor ensures that his government gives full compliments to the Senate President anytime he visits the state.

Early this year, Gov. Eno attended the reception organized for the Senate President by the people of the Ikot Ekpene senatorial district with his retinue of commissioners, aides and supporters to add color to the event. An elated Akpabio praised the governor for the synergy he is building to ensure peace and development in the state. Umo Eno's predecessor has a very frosty relationship with Akpabio. 

On countless times either Senator Akpabio or his dear wife has attended events organized by the governor which was a complete departure to the politics of the past that was bedeviled by lack of tolerance and zero cooperation with opposition party members in the state.

Only recently, the governor lost his beautiful wife of over 38 years to the cold hands of death and Chief Akpabio was among the first sympathizers to visit the bereaved governor and consoled him.

Last week after months of preparations for the local government councils election in the state, political pundits predicted a possible clash of interest between the governor and the APC leader. Senator Akpabio, knowing the intrigues that involve local government councils election nationwide, had played down the expectations of his party on the outcomes of the vote.

Records show that its always a field day for the ruling party in each state and no compromise. However, Umo Eno's Political Inclusion saw a complete departure in Akwa Ibom state by surrendering the Senate President's local government council to him and further letting the Minister of State for Petroleum (gas), Ekperikpe Ekpo, to have some councillors in his Ika council area.

Political analysts see the latest compromise as a well designed strategy to further consolidate not just the relationship between the Senate President and the governor, but to pave way to the 2027 politics. Analysts now believe that both the governor and the Senate President should be reelected in 2027 so as to consolidate the new era of inclusion, harmony and development in the state.

Speaking recently on his relationship with the Senate President and APC at a press conference in Uyo, Pastor Umo Eno highlighted that the peace, growth and development of the state remain his priority. 

He maintained that partisan politics ends after election and governance must take centre stage if the state must make any meaningful progress, stressing his willingness to work with any son or daughter of Akwa ibom state irrespective of political inclination.

The political adviser to the governor Dr Godwin Ntukudeh who represented the governor during the 2024 birthday party of the immediate past State Chairman of Young Progressive Party (YPP) in Akwa state, Pastor Nyenime Andy, said the governor insisted that the opposition leader be honored on his day because he is a prominent Akwa Ibom son who has and still contributing his quota to the development of the state. The governor presented him with a beautiful birthday gift.

Mr Aniekan Umana, a former member House of Representatives and Media Consultant to the governor told Journalists in many of the venues where free foods were being distributed by the state government through Bulk Purchase Agency recently that the governor had warned that the food must cut across partisan party lines to every deserved indigene as hunger knows no party or association.

Mr. Iniobong Ekong, a Commissioner for lands and town planning in the state, described governor Umo Eno's style of leadership as very unique and outstanding, stressing that the governor puts the interests of the state far above any personal or partisan interest.

Senator Ekong Sampson who represents Akwa ibom south in the Senate said the political inclusion engendered by the governor has ensured not just peace in the state but rapid development as Akwa ibom people in both federal level and state work in synergy with the common interests of ensuring that the state soars in all ramifications.

Today Akwa ibom state under the leadership of governor Umo Eno has not only demystified government through unparalleled show of love and compassion to the vulnerable persons across the state and his desire to erode completely the barrier created by partisan politics after election which hinders good governance is glaring and receiving wide applause and commendations across party lines.

2027 is fast approaching and if his style of governance and the tempo at which he is copting every willing to work Akwa ibom indigene into his administration at different levels irrespective of political party affiliation is sustained, then his return to the hilltop mansion may be a mere walk over on his would be opponents.

The alarm in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry was first sounded by Mr. Tony Elumelu, the chairman of Heirs Holding.

In 2021, Elumelu invested over $1.1 billion to acquire a 45% stake in the OML 17 oil drilling asset, a venture in which Shell, Total, and Eni relinquished their shares, leaving the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPCL) with the remaining 55% on behalf of Nigerians.

To his dismay, in 2022, Elumelu discovered that only a small portion of the crude oil produced from his wells and fed into the Escravos pipeline actually reached its intended destination. The majority of the crude was being stolen by oil thieves who had mastered the technique of illegally tapping into the Escravos pipeline.

It is widely known that the criminal siphoning of our crude oil into vessels, which are then transported to unknown locations by thieves, is robbing Nigeria of desperately needed foreign exchange from oil sales. This theft has severe consequences for the country’s economy.

In a recent interview with the Financial Times of London, Tony Elumelu expressed his frustration that oil theft continues to account for about 18% of production. He emphasized the seriousness of the issue, saying, “This is oil theft, not something small like stealing a bottle of Coke. The government should know who is behind this and should inform us. In the U.S., when Donald Trump was shot at, the authorities quickly identified the assailant. Our security agencies should be able to tell us who is stealing our oil. How can vessels enter our territorial waters without our knowledge?”

In what seems like response to Elumelu’s challenge to Nigeria’s security agencies, a special task force was established by the Chief of Defense Staff, General Chris Musa, to combat the oil theft syndicate. The task force has achieved some success, allowing the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPCL) to project an increase in oil production from the current estimate of 1.3 million barrels to 2 million barrels next year.

Alhaji Aliko Dangote, another prominent investor in Nigeria’s oil industry, also voiced concerns about issues in the downstream sector. Dangote, who recently launched a $19.5 billion refinery with a capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, has faced difficulties due to a lack of crude oil supply. Mr. Davakumar Edwin, Vice President of Dangote Refinery, accused International Oil Companies (IOCs) of starving the refinery of crude oil feedstock, which has delayed the supply of petrol to the Nigerian market. Edwin stated, “Aside from Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), to date, we have only purchased crude directly from one other local producer (Sapetro). All other producers refer us to their international trading arms.”

He further explained, “For instance, in April, we paid $96.23 per barrel for a cargo of Bonga crude grade, excluding transport. The price included $90.15 for dated Brent, $5.08 for NNPC’s premium (NSP), and a $1 trader premium. Meanwhile, we bought WTI at a price of $90.15 for dated Brent plus a $0.93 trader premium, including transport. When NNPC later lowered its premium based on market feedback, some traders began asking us for a premium of up to $4 million over and above the NSP for a cargo of Bonny Light. Data from platforms like Platts and Argus shows that the prices offered to us are significantly higher than market rates. We had to escalate this issue to the NUPRC.”

Alhaji Aliko Dangote, President and Founder of Dangote Group, echoed Edwin’s concerns but clarified that the NNPC is doing its best. He noted, “Some of the IOCs are struggling to provide us with crude. Everyone is accustomed to exporting, and nobody wants to stop exporting.”

Also, as if in response, President Bola Tinubu has formed a committee led by Finance Minister Wale Edun. This committee has been tasked with developing a framework that will allow crude oil to be sold in naira to local refineries, starting with the Dangote Refinery. Following discussions with stakeholders, the committee has reportedly set a target for next month to begin producing petrol locally, which would help alleviate the pressure on the national treasury caused by the need to provide foreign exchange for petrol imports.

The expected output from the Dangote Refinery could also relieve Nigerians from the dual burden of not only paying high prices for petrol but also wasting valuable time queuing for fuel—an issue that many hope President Tinubu’s intervention will resolve permanently.

It is noteworthy that while Tony Elumelu is shocked by the brazen crude oil theft in the downstream sector, which is causing significant revenue loss to both his company and the country, Aliko Dangote is facing challenges from International Oil Companies (IOCs) that are withholding crude oil feedstock from his refinery. This ultra-modern facility is crucial for ending Nigeria’s reliance on petrol imports, which have long been a major component of the country’s import expenses, especially as the government has been subsidizing petrol prices for years.

These two significant challenges, which have caused sleepless nights for these two indigenous multi-billionaire investors in the oil and gas industry, are critical. If resolved, they have the potential to transform Nigeria’s socioeconomic development from a negative to a positive trajectory.

Fortunately, the outspoken criticism of industry irregularities by these two relatively new entrants into the oil sector is prompting much-needed reforms. The industry is currently undergoing what could be called a facelift through the strengthening of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which was passed into law in 2021 but has yet to be fully enforced.

These issues underscore why  understanding the toxic international petroleum politics in Nigeria, discussed in detail in this piece, should concern all Nigerians. Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the oil and gas sector is the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, and we must protect it fiercely. The high cost of living crisis triggered by President Bola Tinubu’s removal of the petrol subsidy on May 29 last year highlights the central role that crude oil and its derivatives play in our economy and daily lives.

A question likely on the minds of some readers is whether the current upheavals in the oil and gas industry are new issues. The reality is that these challenges have existed since crude oil was first discovered in 1957 and its exploration began in Oloibiri, now part of Bayelsa State. However, the reason these issues—such as crude oil theft and the allocation of oil for local refining—are now receiving more attention is because private investors, who place a high value on accountability, are now involved in the industry.

In the past, when the oil and gas business was solely a matter between the government and International Oil Companies (IOCs), efficiency was not a priority for those on the government’s side. But now, with private investors like Tony Elumelu and Aliko Dangote—who have invested $1.1 billion in oil exploration and $19.5 billion in refining, respectively—these entrepreneurs are determined to protect their investments and ensure a return on their bold ventures.

Faced with the harsh realities and absurdities of the industry, both Elumelu and Dangote became increasingly frustrated when their investment plans were threatened by unexpected saboteurs. Their concern for their investments contrasts sharply with the often indifferent attitude of public servants, who traditionally did not prioritize Nigeria’s 55% equity in joint ventures with IOCs, which Elumelu has now acquired the 45% hitherto held by the transnational oil corporation.This same lack of concern for protecting Nigeria’s interests in crude oil production sharing agreements is why there has been no proper metering system to accurately measure the volume of crude oil pumped into pipelines or shipped abroad until private investors like Dangote entered the scene with his refinery, capable of refining at least half of Nigeria’s present crude oil output.

So, rather than viewing the disruptions caused by the agitations by Elumelu and Dangote as problematic, I see them as opportunities. Their involvement signals a positive shift in the industry as they justifiably questioned what could have happenned to their substantial financial commitments in oil exploration and refining, if the sector was not properly sorted by government. In my view ,Elumelu and Dangote can be seen as catalysts for change in an industry long plagued by complexities and absurdities. Indeed their efforts are beginning to help clean up or sanitize the industry, reinforcing the idea that private sector involvement introduces greater efficiency compared to government-driven operations burdened by bureaucracy.

Most Nigerians would likely be shocked to learn that the lack of ownership mentality among officials responsible for national assets—an attitude reflecting a deep-seated lack of patriotism—is partly to blame for the fact that four federal government-owned refineries have been non-functional for nearly two decades. Equally alarming is the finding by a National Assembly committee that, despite the federal government investing up to $25 billion in public funds over the past decade for the turnaround maintenance of these four refineries, not a single liter of petroleum product has been produced. This situation is appalling, scandalous, and regrettable.

The same lack of accountability and ownership is also why crude oil theft continues to flourish, despite the NNPCL’s claim in its 2023 financial report to have spent around N1.8 trillion on securing its extensive oil and gas assets. Yet, millions of barrels of crude oil are still being stolen in massive ocean-going vessels without detection, contributing to Nigeria’s recent inability to meet its OPEC production quota.

It may surprise some readers to learn that the dysfunction of these four government-owned refineries is also due in part to sabotage, carried out by international organizations in collusion with Nigerian public servants embedded in the crude oil exploration and export value chain, particularly within the NNPC Ltd., which is responsible for importing petrol into Nigeria.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s revelation adds another layer of complexity. He shared that during his presidency, he urged International Oil Companies (IOCs) to establish refineries in Nigeria, but they refused, citing rampant corruption in the sector. Obasanjo recounted that Shell, for example, declined his offer to take equity participation and manage Nigeria’s refineries, arguing that the refineries had not been properly maintained. Shell’s reasoning was clear: “There’s too much corruption with the way our refinery is run and maintained. And they didn’t want to get involved in such a mess.”

While Obasanjo viewed the IOCs’ rejection as an indictment of Nigerian corruption—a narrative often pushed by the Western world to make Africans blame themselves for the continent’s underdevelopment—I would argue that this refusal was actually a strategic move by the IOCs. As agents of imperialist interests, their primary goal has always been to extract crude oil and other raw materials from Africa, particularly Nigeria, for the industrialization of their home countries, rather than genuinely supporting African industrialization—a promise they frequently make but seldom fulfill, often deceiving those who are unaware of their true intentions.

Most Nigerians would likely be shocked to learn that the lack of ownership mentality among officials responsible for national assets—an attitude reflecting a deep-seated lack of patriotism—is partly to blame for the fact that four federal government-owned refineries have been non-functional for nearly two decades. Equally alarming is the finding by a National Assembly committee that, despite the federal government investing up to $25 billion in public funds over the past decade for the turnaround maintenance of these four refineries, not a single liter of petroleum product has been produced. This situation is appalling, scandalous, and regrettable.

The same lack of accountability and ownership is also why crude oil theft continues to flourish, despite the NNPCL’s claim in its 2023 financial report to have spent around N1.8 trillion on securing its extensive oil and gas assets. Yet, millions of barrels of crude oil are still being stolen in massive ocean-going vessels without detection, contributing to Nigeria’s recent inability to meet its OPEC production quota.

It may surprise some readers to learn that the dysfunction of these four government-owned refineries is also due in part to sabotage, carried out by international organizations in collusion with Nigerian public servants embedded in the crude oil exploration and export value chain, particularly within the NNPC Ltd., which is responsible for importing petrol into Nigeria.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s revelation adds another layer of complexity. He shared that during his presidency, he urged International Oil Companies (IOCs) to establish refineries in Nigeria, but they refused, citing rampant corruption in the sector. Obasanjo recounted that Shell, for example, declined his offer to take equity participation and manage Nigeria’s refineries, arguing that the refineries had not been properly maintained. Shell’s reasoning was clear: “There’s too much corruption with the way our refinery is run and maintained. And they didn’t want to get involved in such a mess.”

While Obasanjo viewed the IOCs’ rejection as an indictment of Nigerian corruption—a narrative often pushed by the Western world to make Africans blame themselves for the continent’s underdevelopment—I would argue that this refusal was actually a strategic move by the IOCs. As agents of imperialist interests, their primary goal has always been to extract crude oil and other raw materials from Africa, particularly Nigeria, for the industrialization of their home countries, rather than genuinely supporting African industrialization—a promise they frequently make but seldom fulfill, often deceiving those who are unaware of their true intentions.

Before delving deeper, it’s important to recall that oil and gas were discovered in commercial quantities in Oloibiri, modern-day Bayelsa State, in 1957. For years, Nigeria exported crude oil exclusively until the first refinery was established in Port Harcourt in 1965. Back then, all refineries were government-owned, and it was within the government’s prerogative to allocate 445,000 barrels per day (bpd) for local refining at the NNPC-operated facilities.

At the time, everything was managed within the government framework, which only required setting aside the 445,000 bpd needed by the four refineries located in the Niger Delta and Kaduna. Two of these refineries are in Port Harcourt with a combined refining capacity of 210,000 bpd, one in Warri with a 125,000 bpd capacity, and the fourth in Kaduna with a 110,000 bpd capacity.

Initially, the allocated crude oil came from the volume produced by International Oil Companies (IOCs), whose parent companies are based in Europe and Asia. However, today, there are multiple indigenous crude oil producers with significant capacity, as well as a growing number of local private refineries with substantial capacity, making the 445,000 barrels set aside for local refining insufficient.

Isn’t it remarkable that, aside from the persistent issue of crude oil theft, another challenge has been the shortage of crude oil for local refining? Yet, if all goes well, these two long-standing and seemingly insurmountable challenges in the oil and gas industry may soon be relegated to history.

In truth, the primary mission of the IOCs has always been to extract natural resources from Africa to fuel the industrial revolution in Europe, which began with the invention of the loom machine by Jeane-Marie Jacquard in 1804 and the steam engine by James Watt in 1765. Extracting crude oil for refining abroad is part of the agenda set during the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, where Africa was partitioned into territories for European powers under the guidance of Otto Von Bismarck, the German Prime Minister.

As these newly created territories were exploited for raw materials in the past, the current practice of exporting crude oil and other resources to Europe is an old habit that IOCs are reluctant to abandon. This resistance is evident in their opposition to President Bola Tinubu’s directive to sell oil to local refineries in naira. The IOCs seem intent on sabotaging efforts to achieve energy independence, citing commitments to overseas buyers as an excuse.

Given that the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) took nearly two decades (13 years) to materialize and the Dangote Refinery took about seven years to build, why did the IOCs not anticipate that exporting all of Nigeria’s crude oil would no longer be viable? It’s telling that the multinational corporations were aware of the PIA’s implications, as evidenced by their divestment from onshore assets in favor of offshore operations. Yet, they continued to forward-sell Nigeria’s crude oil to foreign buyers, fully aware that the country had committed, through the PIA, to becoming more energy independent.

The primary reason for this situation is that it’s more profitable for the International Oil Companies (IOCs) to export crude oil to their home countries, where it is refined into products like PMS, DPK, AGO, and NAFTA. These products are then sold back to Africa at significantly higher prices. This practice has been the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the colonial powers for a long time. As a result, they find it difficult to change their approach and sell crude oil to Nigerian refineries instead.

This continued extraction and export of raw materials from Africa aligns with the imperialist agenda of European countries. However, this long-standing practice (regarding crude oil refining) has been disrupted by the establishment and commissioning of the Dangote Refinery in Lagos last year, much to the dismay of these colonial exploiters.

To better understand the challenges Nigeria is facing, consider the following scenario: IOCs extract crude oil from Nigeria and export it to their home countries at relatively low prices (ranging from $37 per barrel in the 1980s to the current $80-$100 per barrel). There, the crude is refined and then sold back to Nigeria at several times the original cost per barrel. This process not only creates jobs and boosts the economies of the IOCs’ home countries, but it also leaves Nigeria with high unemployment among its youth and environmental degradation due to oil and gas exploration. This dynamic is why Nigeria often experiences a trade deficit, benefiting the home countries of the IOCs.

To further illustrate this point, let’s do a bit of math to compare the price of exported crude oil with the cost of imported petroleum products in Nigeria. A barrel of crude oil, which is equivalent to 42 U.S. gallons or 159 liters, is priced between $80 and $100. In contrast, the current landing cost of a liter of refined petrol imported into Nigeria is at least N1,117 per liter. Although comparing these figures can be challenging due to the different units of measurement—crude oil in barrels and refined products in liters—it highlights the significant markup and the opaque nature of the pricing, making the disparity between crude oil prices and refined product costs difficult to fully grasp.

For those willing to dig deeper, let’s compare the selling price of a barrel of crude oil—currently just $80, the price at which we export it overseas—with the N1,117 per liter landing cost at which we import the 159 liters contained in that same barrel. A quick comparison reveals that, as a net exporter of crude oil, Nigeria is at a significant disadvantage.

This comparison helps explain why our economy is struggling and why it can no longer sustain the burdensome petrol subsidy. It’s clear that the scenario outlined above is a major factor behind Nigeria’s financial deficit, which exceeds N120 trillion.

Given this reality, it’s crucial for us to support and encourage Aliko Dangote not to sell his refinery to the NNPCL, despite his threat to do so. This came after Alhaji Farouk Ahmed, CEO of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDRA), a subsidiary of NNPCL, wrongly accused Dangote Refinery of attempting to replace the national oil giant as a monopoly.

Moreover, we should encourage other business leaders, such as Chief Mike Adenuga of Conoil, Mr. Femi Otedola of Geregu, (who has been involved in and out of the oil industry), Sahara Energy’s Kola Adeshina, Aiteo’s Benedict Peters, Nestoil’s Ernest Azudialu, and other well resourced Nigerians, to invest more significantly in the sector. This would ensure that Nigerians are fully involved in the entire value chain—from exploration to refining, shipping, and even gas processing, where Julius Rone is making strides with his UTM Offshore.

Remarkably, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, owner of BUA cement, is also reportedly constructing a refinery of considerable scale. This could lead to a situation where Nigeria has the capacity to process crude oil into petrol in excess, much like how the country has become a net exporter of cement, with Dangote Cement and BUA Cement, dominating the African market and keeping foreign competitors like Lafarge and Flour Mills Cement on their toes.

Already , it is a tribute to the entrepreneurship of Nigerians that about five (5) Nigerian banks have spread their footprints into the African landscape with thriving subsidiaries in full bloom.

At this point, I believe that continuing to present additional facts and figures to  justify the need for Nigeria, nay Africa’s independence from being an appendage to other economies and regions would be unnecessary. Rather readers should reflect on the situation and realize that, despite the challenges, our country is on the brink of a significant transformation in the oil and gas sector. So, it should be clear that halting the export of our crude oil and increasing local refining capacity is crucial for job creation, boosting foreign exchange earnings, and enhancing our GDP.

Currently, there are five fully operational modular refineries: Aradel in Port Harcourt, WalterSmith in Imo

State , Edo Refinery and Duport Midstream in Edo State, and OPAC in Delta State, with a combined processing capacity of less than 20,000 barrels per day. These smaller refineries are expected to benefit from President Bola Tinubu’s new directive to sell the 445,000 barrels per day of crude oil reserved for local refining in naira. It is the crude oil reserrve referenced above that was providing the supply for the four NNPCL refineries, which have been non-functional for over a decade despite consuming over $25 billion in turnaround maintenance, without producing even a single liter of petrol.

Hopefully , the present administration would see the wisdom in my  advocacy for the sale of the ailing government refineries to private sector players who would operate them more efficiently as canvassed  in my numerous media interventions over the past decade.

After providing a historical background to connect the past with the current state of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria, including the international factors exacerbating the local refining capacity crisis, it’s time to address the way forward.

As already underscored, International Oil Companies (IOCs) seem to struggle with changing their longstanding business model of extracting raw materials from Africa and processing them into finished products in Europe or Asia. This situation reinforces the theme of my upcoming book, “Africa Exporting Wealth, Importing Poverty,” with the subtitle: “Are Africans Thinking or Sinking?” The book details how the West has systematically underdeveloped Africa by exploiting its natural and human resources, from the era of the slave trade to colonialism, neo-colonialism, and the ongoing practice of imperialism encapsulated in unfair trade practices with Africa as the underdog and victim.

The current conflict between Aliko Dangote, NNPCL officials, and IOCs has exposed how Africa continues to be stripped of its resources. This confrontation represents one of the final struggles of African entrepreneurs with the awareness and determination to resist the ongoing exploitation by Western powers.

The environmental devastation caused by irresponsible resource exploitation in Africa, such as the irreversible damage in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) due to mining, is well-documented. Belgium, the colonial ruler, left the DRC in a blighted state, a situation that persists today. It’s within this broader intellectual framework that I analyze the dispute between NNPCL executives, IOCs, and Dangote Refineries over Nigeria’s control of its petroleum resources.

Through this lens, I hope Nigerians will gain a deeper understanding of the conflict surrounding local petrol refining, which has been oversimplified by some analysts as a lack of planning by Dangote Refinery. In reality, it also stems from a rivalry between two Kano State natives—Aliko Dangote and Samad Rabiu—that has spilled over into the oil industry and society. Though a simplified view, it remains a valid observation.

Rather than engaging in buttonh  heads, the two illustrious kano indigenes Aliko Dangote and Samad Rabiu need to start collaborating and stop sabotaging each other.

In recent times, Nigeria’s economic landscape has been far from promising. With the rising cost of living, increasing inflation, and the general hardship felt by the masses, citizens are growing impatient. Yet, amid this deepening economic crisis, a familiar refrain has emerged from politicians, public figures, and even religious leaders: “Be patient with Tinubu.” This phrase seems to have become the golden ticket for those seeking to curry favor with the president, serving as a passport to earning his goodwill.

The question that remains is whether this call for patience is born out of genuine concern for the nation or a strategic move by political opportunists. In a country where political loyalty often translates into personal gain, it seems that advocating patience has become the new currency for positioning oneself favorably with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Over the past months, we have witnessed a surge in politicians and influential voices stepping forward with similar messages. From cabinet members to public figures, the script is almost identical: “Nigerians should be patient; Tinubu has a plan, and the results will come.” These individuals present Tinubu as a visionary whose long-term strategy requires sacrifice and endurance. Yet, to the average Nigerian grappling with hunger and economic instability, such messages can feel far removed from reality.

It is no coincidence that these voices are predominantly those of individuals with a vested interest in aligning with the government. Pleading for patience in the face of national hardship seems to be the latest badge of loyalty, a strategic move that signals unwavering support for Tinubu’s leadership.

For instance, several top officials, including governors and ministers, have taken to the media to urge Nigerians to remain hopeful, often portraying Tinubu as the man with the right solutions to Nigeria’s problems. Whether it is during a public address or through media interviews, this narrative of patience has become an essential talking point for those looking to solidify their position in the president’s good books.

Nigeria’s political history is rife with instances of similar calls for patience during challenging times. From military regimes to civilian administrations, leaders have often asked the people to “tighten their belts” or “endure” for the sake of future prosperity. Under such regimes, however, the promised prosperity rarely materialized, leaving Nigerians disillusioned and discontented.

The Tinubu administration, despite entering office with significant public support, is now grappling with similar challenges. Economic reforms, the removal of fuel subsidies, and other policies meant to stimulate growth have instead resulted in widespread suffering. This has left many questioning when the promised benefits will materialize. The growing frustration of the masses is met with a wave of loyalists urging for more patience, a familiar playbook.

In fact, this strategy closely mirrors tactics used by previous administrations, where political figures leaned on patience as a buffer against growing unrest. But with Nigeria’s economic landscape worsening, the call for endurance rings hollow for many who are unable to feed their families, afford basic necessities, or access adequate healthcare. The patience many politicians are asking for may not be a viable option for ordinary citizens bearing the brunt of the government’s policies.

In Nigerian politics, being aligned with the government of the day often translates to political and economic rewards. Appointments, contracts, and other forms of patronage are distributed to those who show loyalty and support. It is within this framework that we can understand why so many individuals are eager to be seen as champions of Tinubu’s leadership. For many politicians, pledging loyalty is not just about political survival, it is a path to personal gain.

Publicly urging the people to be patient with Tinubu is a calculated move, designed to showcase loyalty while downplaying the real concerns of the populace. However, the message often comes across as disconnected from the everyday struggles of Nigerians. It is one thing to ask for patience, but it is another to fully understand the depth of the suffering Nigerians are currently enduring.

Political figures calling for calm are often insulated from the worst of the economic turmoil. They do not face the same struggles with rising food prices, soaring transportation costs, or a depreciating naira. Many of them live in a bubble, far removed from the realities on the ground. To these elites, patience may seem like a reasonable request, but for ordinary Nigerians, patience has a breaking point.

It is important to ask whether these calls for patience are truly genuine or simply a political tactic. Are these leaders genuinely concerned about the well-being of the masses, or are they more interested in maintaining their proximity to power? For many Nigerians, the repeated promises of future prosperity are beginning to sound like empty platitudes.

What Nigerians are craving is not just patience but transparency and tangible progress. They want to see clear, concrete steps toward economic recovery. They want the government to acknowledge their suffering and take swift action to alleviate it. Empty calls for patience, without corresponding action, only serve to deepen the frustration of the populace.

In contrast, a government that responds to the needs of its citizens and communicates its plans clearly would likely find that people are more willing to endure hardship if they feel included in the process. Right now, that connection between the government and the people seems to be fraying.

For President Tinubu, the challenge is not just one of economic policy but one of trust. He must navigate the fine line between asking for patience and delivering results. While loyalists may continue to push the narrative that “patience is needed,” the president’s ultimate legacy will be shaped by his ability to address the urgent needs of Nigerians. Political favor may be won through calls for patience, but the hearts of the people can only be won through action.

If Tinubu’s administration is to weather the storm, it will need to do more than lean on loyalists to pacify the public. It must demonstrate a clear and decisive path forward. And it must show that patience, if asked for, is accompanied by real progress that benefits the masses, not just the elites.

While patience has become the passport to currying favor with Tinubu, for many Nigerians, the question is: How long can they afford to be patient? For those struggling to make ends meet, patience feels like a luxury they can no longer afford. And if the government does not act swiftly to alleviate their suffering, the reservoir of patience may soon run dry.

Ultimately, the success of Tinubu’s administration will not be determined by how many politicians call for patience, but by how effectively the government addresses the mounting economic challenges. Patience may be a virtue, but for a country in crisis, it cannot be the only answer.

In Nigeria, the story of political leadership is one that has been told and retold, but each time with greater intensity and a more devastating impact on the common man. With each passing political dispensation, we are introduced to new political actors who come to the scene as heroes and messiahs, armed with lofty promises and grandiose manifestos. However, their eventual exit from power leaves the people worse off than they were before. This vicious cycle of false hope, economic plunder, and political deceit continues to thrive, with Nigerian politicians already eyeing the 2027 elections while the people suffer in untold hardship.

It is a bitter reality that Nigerian politicians, upon gaining power, often proceed to dismantle the very foundations of the economy they swore to uplift. Promises made during campaigns, which resonate with a struggling populace yearning for change, are rarely fulfilled. Instead, we are faced with a pattern of economic mismanagement, embezzlement, and a blatant disregard for the welfare of the people.

From independence till now, Nigeria has witnessed countless political leaders who, rather than being the saviors they promised to be, have only enriched themselves and their cronies, leaving the country in a state of poverty and despair. The rich get richer, while the poor sink deeper into poverty. This plunder is done in plain sight, yet politicians continue to spin the narrative, telling lies that sustain the vicious cycle.

At every electoral cycle, politicians are celebrated as the ultimate solution to Nigeria’s economic and developmental woes. They come in waving the banner of hope and renewed hope, promising to fix the country’s many ills. Yet, once in power, they perpetuate the same corrupt practices that have plagued the nation for decades. The people, still reeling from the lies told by previous administrations, are subjected to more hardship and suffering.

In Nigeria, there is a saying, “It is the same old wine, just in a new bottle.” This describes the continuous recycling of the same political elite, who, despite their failures, continue to find ways to retain their grip on power. Whether under the guise of political godfatherism, nepotism, or the manipulation of the electoral process, these politicians find ways to cling to power, their focus always on their political survival and personal gain rather than the betterment of the nation.

As Nigeria approaches 2027, many politicians have already begun positioning themselves for the next election. Even though we are only halfway through the current administration’s tenure, the race for political dominance in the next election is already underway. This shift in focus, however, comes at a great cost to the people.

While these politicians scheme, strategize, and vie for relevance in the 2027 race, Nigeria’s economic condition continues to deteriorate. Inflation is at an all-time high, unemployment rates are soaring, and the cost of living is becoming unbearable for the average Nigerian. The ongoing fuel subsidy removal, for example, has led to a spike in transportation costs, food prices, and utilities, pushing millions further below the poverty line.

Yet, despite these harsh realities, politicians continue to amass wealth, build mansions, buy luxury cars, and send their children abroad for education and medical treatment, while the common man grapples with the everyday struggles of survival. It is a classic case of the privileged few thriving while the masses starve.

The Nigerian economy has been in a tailspin for years, largely due to the greed and incompetence of the political class. While campaign promises often include vows to fix the economy, create jobs, and reduce poverty, these pledges remain unfulfilled. Instead, politicians embark on large-scale looting of public funds, often with little or no accountability.

Recent administrations have borrowed extensively from international lenders, plunging the country into debt. However, instead of using these loans for developmental projects that would improve the lives of Nigerians, the funds have often been misappropriated. A significant portion ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and their allies. The country is left to shoulder the burden of debt repayments, while the benefits of the loans are nowhere to be seen.

It is this plundering of the economy that has left the country with crumbling infrastructure, inadequate healthcare, poor educational facilities, and a populace that is increasingly disillusioned with the political system. As each new administration takes office, it blames its predecessors for the problems it inherited, only to replicate the same pattern of corruption and incompetence.

To sustain their hold on power, Nigerian politicians have become masters of deception. They continue to tell lies, manipulating the masses with empty promises and false narratives. Election campaigns are filled with flowery speeches, grand economic blueprints, and claims of new-found empathy for the plight of the common man. But as history has shown, these promises rarely translate into action.

Once in office, politicians are quick to abandon the people who voted them in, turning their attention instead to amassing wealth and securing political patronage. They surround themselves with sycophants who shield them from the realities of the suffering masses, creating an echo chamber of false success stories. Meanwhile, the people are left to fend for themselves in a country where access to basic amenities like electricity, clean water, and healthcare remains a luxury.

Nigeria’s political elite have effectively held the country hostage, using their positions of power to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. The question now is: How long will this continue? How long will Nigerian politicians plunder the economy while the people remain impoverished? How long will the cycle of deceit, corruption, and economic mismanagement persist?

With the 2027 elections on the horizon, it is imperative for Nigerians to reflect on the choices they make at the polls. The promises made by politicians must be scrutinized more carefully, and voters must hold those in power accountable for their actions. There must be a shift from the old practice of electing leaders based on ethnicity, religion, or political party, to a system where competence, integrity, and a genuine desire for public service are the primary criteria for leadership.

The time has come for Nigerians to break free from the vicious circle of political deceit. The 2027 elections should not be another opportunity for politicians to plunder the economy and impoverish the people. Instead, it should be a turning point, an opportunity for the electorate to demand real change and elect leaders who have the vision and the integrity to rebuild the nation.

The future of Nigeria depends on the choices we make today. If we continue to allow the same politicians who have plundered our economy to hold the reins of power, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. It is time for Nigerians to rise and take a stand for their future. It is time to end the plunder and hold our leaders accountable.

Nigeria deserves better, and the people must demand it. The 2027 elections must be the beginning of a new era, one in which politicians are held to a higher standard, and the welfare of the people is placed above personal gain. The time for change is now. Let us not wait until it is too late.

Since the return to civil rule in 1999, Rivers State, the acclaimed treasure base of Nigeria, has had five governors namely Peter Odili, Celestine Omehia, Chibuike Amaechi, Nyesom Wike, and now Simnalayi Fubara. The first major political crisis in the state happened in 2006 during the Peoples Democratic Party governorship nomination for the 2007 election. Ameachi had won the primary but ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo said his victory had k-leg–whatever that means–and as such, Ameachi was denied the party nomination, and the ticket was unjustly given to Celestine Omehia who did not participate in the PDP primary election. The Supreme Court nullified Omehia’s election on October 25, 2007, and asked that Amaechi be sworn in as governor.

It was what the lawyers call locus classicus. It was unprecedented for someone who did not campaign to be declared winner of the election and be asked to be sworn in ‘immediately’. The apex court reasoned that when people vote at elections, they are not voting stricto sensu for the candidate but the political party that sponsored them. This same principle of law was upheld by the Supreme Court in September 2016 when it ruled that the votes cast by the Kogi electorate purportedly for Prince Abubakar Audu who died before the conclusion of the November 2015 governorship election were cast for All Progressives Congress, and not for the dead candidate and as such Yahaya Bello who was eventually declared winner of the poll ‘inherited’ the votes.

During the tenure of Amaechi, Wike served as the Chief of Staff to the governor between 2007 – 2011. That was after he served as the Chairman of Obio-Akpor Local Government in Rivers State between 1999 – 2007.  Wike became Minister of State for Education between 14 July 2011 – April 2014. He had a bitter feud with his former principal; Ameachi, during this time, until Ameachi left PDP to join APC on November 26, 2013. Wike with the support of former President Goodluck Jonathan and his wife, Patience Jonathan won the PDP governorship primary and went on to win the governorship poll in 2015. He later served the mandatory two terms as governor of Rivers State and left office on May 29, 2023. In the lead-up to the 2023 governorship election, Wike pulled all the strings to make his former Accountant-General of Rivers State, Fubara, governor.

It is widely rumoured that Wike bankrolled the elections of most of the elected political officeholders in Rivers State during the 2023 general elections. Little wonder he has the firm control of the Rivers State House of Assembly to date. Wike also nominated a sizeable number of commissioners in Fubara’s cabinet. At least nine of those who resigned their portfolios in May this year headed key ministries in the state such as Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Finance, Education, Housing, Social Welfare, Environment, and Transport.

Governor Fubara only enjoyed about four months of peace after his inauguration as governor on May 29, 2023. The first sign of trouble took place on the night of Sunday, October 29, 2023, when an inferno gutted the assembly complex due to explosives purportedly ignited by unknown arsonists; by the dawn of Monday, October 30, the majority members of the assembly commenced impeachment proceedings against Fubara. They said he committed gross misconduct.

In the course of time, two factions of the House of Assembly emerged, both laying claim to be the authentic faction and having parallel sittings. The judiciary was dragged into the fray with both sides getting ex-parte orders and several court injunctions in their favour in Port Harcourt and Abuja. On Tuesday, December 12, Justice Monina Danagogo of the Rivers State High Court in Port Harcourt ruled that the authentic Speaker is Edison Ehie. The judge also restrained Martin Amaewhule and Dumle Maol from parading themselves as Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively, or interfering with the activities of Ehie as the Speaker of the Assembly. This emboldened Fubara as he hurriedly presented the state’s N800bn 2024 Appropriation Bill to a four-member Assembly on Wednesday, December 13, and signed same into law the following day.

Fubara ordered the demolition of the House of Assembly. The same day he presented the budget to the minority House, excavators, wheel loaders, and other earth-moving equipment moved to the Rivers State House of Assembly, not to refurbish the torched complex, but to level the structures to the ground. On Monday, December 11, twenty-seven Rivers State lawmakers loyal to Wike defected to the All Progressives Congress citing division within the Peoples Democratic Party as well as the refusal of the state governor to pay their salaries and allowances.

President Tinubu mediated the crisis. The content of the eight-point resolution signed by the mediators and warring parties in the Rivers State crisis on Monday, December 18, 2023, stated as follows: Governor Fubara and his allies will withdraw all court cases related to the crisis. The state House of Assembly will drop impeachment proceedings initiated against Fubara.  The leadership of the House, under Speaker Amaewhule, will be recognised, along with the 27 lawmakers who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party. Governor Fubara will re-present the 2024 budget to the Amaewhule-led Assembly. Others are; Salaries and benefits for all Assembly members and staff will be restored. The assembly will have autonomy to choose its location and conduct business without interference from the executive. The governor will resubmit the names of resigned commissioners for approval and the dissolution of local governments is declared null and void.

While Governor Fubara implemented most of the resolutions, he did not re-present the state budget to the Speaker Amaewhule faction. When the tenure of the 23 Local Government chairpersons and councillors ended in May 2024, the Amaewhule faction of the State House of Assembly extended their tenure by six months. However, in a May 21, 2024   judgment, Justice Daketima Kio declared that the new law was inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and Section 9 (1) of Rivers State Law No. 5 of 2018, which fixed the tenure of Rivers LG chairmen and councillors at three years. Governor Fubara in June 2024 appointed caretaker committees to oversee the affairs of the 23 LGAs in the state pending the time the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission would conduct proper election into the councils.

However, the Supreme Court judgement of July 11, 2024, which granted financial autonomy to local governments in Nigeria also made it contingent for all local councils in Nigeria to be democratically governed in accordance with section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as altered. This newspaper in its August 13, 2024 edition reported that the federal and state government agreed on a three-month moratorium on the judgment of the Supreme Court. This is what Governor Fubara premised his willy-nilly conduct of October 5, 2024 Rivers State local government elections on. He claimed that if he did not conduct LG elections in the state before October 31, 2024, the Federal Government would seize the state allocation to LGAs.

Meanwhile, in the recently conducted Ward, LGA, and State PDP congresses held in the state, the Rivers State governor’s camp lost to his political godfather, Wike. Fubara therefore urged his supporters to move to Action Peoples Party to contest last Saturday’s election. At the end of the exercise, RSIEC chairman, Justice Adolphus Enebeli declared that APP won chairmanship in 22 of the 23 LGAs and 314 out of the 319 councillorship seats. Action Alliance won the Etche LGA chairmanship position. Ahead of the LG polls, there was a series of litigation and protests from the Wike’s camp to prevent the elections from being held. The newly elected council heads were inaugurated on Sunday, October 6, 2024.

The situation however took the turn for the worse when protests and arson rocked several of the council secretariats. As of last Monday, Ikwerre, Emourha, and Eleme council secretariats were torched by arsonists. A section of the Nigerian media also reported some deaths. This tragic situation is all about a power tussle on who controls the political structure in Rivers State. While president Bola Tinubu has urged calm and has asked the aggrieved party to go to court. If firm actions are not taken to curb the brewing violence in the state, it can sound the death knell of this Fourth Republic.

Recall that a similar operation ‘wetie’ happened during the post-election western region electoral crises in 1964 and 1965. This led to the first military takeover on January 15, 1966. President Tinubu should call his Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesome Wike to order to allow for peace in his home state. It is widely believed that his foot soldiers are behind the ongoing arson in the state given that they have been the ones protesting the conduct of the local government elections before, during, and after the polls. Rivers State produces a significant quantum of Nigeria’s oil and gas; to allow it to be engulfed in political crisis is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

NIGERIA is currently grappling with a rapidly escalating food insecurity crisis, a matter that has unfortunately been overlooked by both federal and state governments. This issue, with its severe implications for national security and economic stability, is not one that can be delayed.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO, as of 2023, approximately 25 million Nigerians are facing moderate to severe food insecurity, a number that prioritises due to inflation, insecurity, and climate change. The nation risks more profound instability and economic decline if government does not act swiftly to prioritise food security.

Several factors contribute to food insecurity in Nigeria, including lack of access to affordable capital for farmers, insecurity in agricultural regions, and rising inflation. The agriculture sector, which employs over 70 per cent of the rural population, struggles under high interest rates, with commercial banks charging between 30-40 per cent, making it nearly impossible for farmers to secure loans for investment in modern techniques. Consequently, agricultural productivity has been declining, with a 15 per cent drop in output reported by the National Bureau of Statistics, NBS, between 2016 and 2021. Without intervention, this decline will lead to more significant food shortages.

Violence and insecurity are exacerbating the problem. Banditry, farmer-herdsmen conflicts, and kidnappings have forced many farmers from their land, particularly in Northern regions. According to the 2023 Global Terrorism Index, Nigeria ranks sixth globally for terrorism, and Zamfara State, once a major agricultural producer, has seen a 50 per cent drop in output due to these conflicts. The violence not only discourages investment but also forces farmers to abandon their fields, leading to reduced agrarian production and higher food prices.

Inflation exacerbates food insecurity, with Nigeria’s inflation rate reaching over 33 per cent in June 2024. Rising food prices have increased by 26.98 per cent between 2022 and 2023, pushing millions into deeper poverty in a country where over 40 per cent of the population already lives below the poverty line. Energy costs also play a role. The 2023 removal of fuel subsidies led to sharp increases in petrol and diesel prices, making it more expensive to power machinery and transport goods. Transportation costs alone increased by nearly 50 per cent, adding to the burden on farmers.

Nigeria’s poor infrastructure further worsens food insecurity. Bad roads, lack of rail systems, and insufficient storage facilities cause high post-harvest losses, estimated at 40 per cent by the World Bank in 2022. As a result, food becomes scarcer and more expensive, making it harder for Nigerians to afford proper nutrition.

To meet domestic food demand, Nigeria has increasingly turned to food imports. In 2023, the country spent over $5 billion on rice, wheat and maize imports. However, this reliance on foreign food threatens national security by making the country vulnerable to external shocks, such as global supply chain disruptions witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war. These events led to shortages and price hikes, highlighting the fragility of our food supply. Additionally, heavy food imports undermine local agricultural industries, contributing to job losses and stifling rural development.

Nigeria must address these challenges to a sustainable agricultural system. This requires significant investments in mechanisation, infrastructure, and agro-processing. The country has one of the lowest levels of mechanisation in Africa, with tractors per 1,000 hectares of arable land, far below the global average. Increased mechanisation would boost productivity  and make farming more attractive to younger generations. Fertiliser shortages, which contribute to lower yields, also need urgent attention. A 2023 report from the International Fertiliser Development Centre estimated a 40 per cent shortfall in fertiliser supply, further reducing crop yields.

Technology has the potential to revolutionise Nigerian agriculture. Innovations like precision farming, drone-assisted monitoring, and agrotech platforms could revolutionise farming practices. Nigerian startups like Thrive Agric and Farmcrowdy have already begun modernising farming, but more investments and support are needed to scale these efforts nationwide.

Efficient logistics and marketing systems are essential for moving produce from farms to markets. Poor transportation networks, especially in rural areas, impede agricultural trade. Agro-producing industries, which can add value to Nigeria’s agricultural products, hold immense potential for boosting exports and creating jobs. States like Niger, Kwara, Edo, and Enugu have already invested in agricultural development and agro industrialisation.

Addressing food insecurity requires strong leadership and political will. The government must articulate a clear vision with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, SMART, goals to transform agriculture. While short-term measures like food imports may temporarily ease the crisis, they do not address the underlying causes. Sustainable long-term strategies that improve agricultural productivity and self-reliance are essential to safeguarding Nigeria’s future stability.

In conclusion, Nigeria’s vast arable land and young population provide a strong foundation for agricultural growth, yet food insecurity remains a pressing issue. Food security is integral to national security, and hunger, in many ways, equates to warfare. To avoid a deepening crisis, Nigeria must invest in its agriculture sector, enhance productivity, and ensure efficient distribution and processing of food. The time to act is now before the ticking time bomb of food insecurity explodes, threatening the nation’s stability and prosperity. This is a call to action for all Nigerians, as everyone’s choices and actions can contribute to the solution.

The trouble with Nigeria is leadership

The late literary icon Chinua Achebe popularised this notion in his slim booklet, The Trouble With Nigeria, originally published in 1983 where he declared emphatically that the “trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership”. One of the problems with the ‘failure of leadership’ argument is the neglect of the influence of environmental variables – or what some would call the ‘Nigerian factor’ or political scientists would call ‘system dynamics’.

There is also a wrong belief that the followership is necessarily virtuous. Adherents of this perspective equally fail to explain convincingly how this ‘good leader’ would emerge, especially as it is commonly believed that a country often gets the leader it deserves or that the quality of the leadership is a reflection of the quality of the followership. 

In Nigeria, where the leadership recruitment system is structured in such a way that only those with deep pockets and rough edges have realistic chances of being elected as President or Governor(or in fact for most political positions), how will ‘nice’ fellows with impeccable credentials, manners and moderate views have any chance?  Even if such people win elections, will they be able to retrieve their mandate from the system?

People who believe that the trouble with Nigeria is “squarely” that of leadership will also often  talk about the “transformational” leadership examples of Lee Kuan Yew,  the Singaporean statesman and lawyer who served as the first prime minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990; Mahathir bin Mohamad, a Malaysian Doctor and politician  who served as the Fourth (1981 to 2003) and Seventh ( 2018 to February 2020) Prime Minister of Malaysia; and Paul Kagame of Rwanda who has been President of the country since 2000).

In fact, before becoming President in 2000, Kagame was considered Rwanda’s de facto leader when he was Vice President and Minister of Defence under President Pasteur Bizimungu from 1994 to 2000 after which the vice-presidential post was abolished. A crucial question here is: would these leaders have succeeded in Nigeria? Lee Kuan Yew ruled for 31 years; Mahathir Mohamad ruled for  a total of  24 years, while  Kagame has been ruling Rwanda effectively for over 30 years. Would Nigerians, in our context where our ethnic and religious identities are  more of ideologies, allow anyone of any ethnic background to dominate the polity for so long without this country being set literally on fire?

The trouble with Nigeria is corruption

It has become almost a mantra for many Nigerians to say that the problem with Nigeria is simply corruption, and some will add that if we do not kill corruption, corruption will kill the country. While I accept that corruption is a serious issue, my personal opinion is that it is merely the symptom of a more fundamental malaise. Corruption is a systemic problem that is exacerbated in climes where the nation-building process has manifestly failed – as in Somalia – or engulfed in deep crisis – as in Nigeria and several other African countries.

The best way (methodologically speaking) to assess the effectiveness of any fight against corruption is to use the ‘before’ and ‘after’ benchmark – that is to pose the question: what was the situation before the beginning of the ‘fight’ against corruption and what happened after the ‘fight’ started and afterwards? Procedural issues like how much money a financial crime buster succeeded in confiscating from people or how it has forced public figures to find other avenues of concealing their loot, are really mere details. If we have been right about corruption and the way to fight it, why has the incidence of corruption appeared to be increasing rather than declining despite the EFCC and ICPC? Why has ‘fighting corruption’ been a cornerstone policy of all the post-independence regimes in the country?  

Africa needs strong institutions, not strong men

In his speech on July 11, 2009 to the Ghanaian Parliament at the Accra International Conference Centre, then President Obama declared that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions”. Since Obama’s famous speech, a new song emerged, and for a while dominated the political ecosystem:  “what Africa needs are strong institutions, not strong men”. What is easily discernible when people brandish the new mantra is the tendency to equate ‘institutions’ with structures, organisations or public bodies such as the civil service, the police, the parliament and contraptions that fight corruption like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in Nigeria. This manner of understanding ‘institutions’ is at best only partially correct because institutions are also rules, conventions, ethos that have endured over time. Even individuals, to the extent that they purvey a certain brand, which is consistent over time, can also be called institutions. Since institutions necessarily have to be built by people, and since the environmental variables seriously constrain leaders who will want to encourage such, how will strong institutions then be built in a country like Nigeria?

Insecurity is the major problem of the country

With the wave of kidnappings, terrorism, banditry and armed robberies in the country, several analysts have argued that insecurity is indeed “the trouble with Nigeria”. For people who argue within this framework, insecurity inhibits foreign direct investments and scares away Diaspora Nigerians from returning home to invest in the country.

I will argue that while insecurity is a problem, especially in terms of discouraging farmers in heavily affected areas from going to their farms, it is not the fundamental trouble with Nigeria. In fact, some of the purveyors of the security challenges in the country such as the Boko Haram and separatist agitations, are often responses to other perceived grievances.  Without trying to trivialise the current security challenges, I also believe that it is an overstatement to say that insecurity inhibits foreign direct investment. The truth is that capital smells opportunity for accumulation and often moves into areas where it can reproduce itself – often regardless of the security situation there. Sometimes it moves into highly volatile areas like Iraq with its own security arrangements. This is why we see that in mineral-rich countries investments in those sectors continue despite insecurity – hence the evolution of such terminologies as “conflict diamonds” or “war diamonds”, meaning diamonds mined from war zones.

The fundamental problem of the country is the crisis in the nation-building argument

This has been my pet argument since February 2012 when I was invited by the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria South Africa to develop a theoretical framework for understanding the Boko Haram phenomenon, after the group attached the United Nations Office in Abuja via a suicide bomber on August 26, 2011, killing 23 people and injuring more than 80 others. My argument was that the past efforts and projects at building unity in diversity were unravelling and that the crisis in Nigeria’s nation building feeds into the crisis of underdevelopment to create an existential crisis for many Nigerians. I contended that for many people and groups, a way of resolving the consequent sense of alienation appears to be to delink from the Nigerian state into primordial identities – often with the Nigerian state as the enemy. I called this a “de-Nigerianisation” process. Under the above situation, no leader or institution enjoys legitimacy across the major fault lines because people’s perception filters often coincide with their location in the fault lines. 

I argued that unless the crisis in the country’s nation-building process is resolved, any solution thrown at the country’s myriad problems will quickly become part of the problem. 

I have moderated my views on this:  A crucial question, therefore, is how do we re-start the stalled nation-building process in a highly polarised and low-trust country like ours where the action of every leader is likely to be viewed with deep suspicion? Also how can the nation-building process be re-started when leaders and their in-groups seem to assume that once they are in power, it is their turn and their in-groups – ethnic, religious and friends? Remarkably, the fear that a person who wins or captures state power will use that power to privilege himself or herself and the associated ethnic and religious in-groups and deliberate disadvantage others, is a major reason for the anarchic character of our politics.

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.