Approaching the Enugu home of Professor Humphrey Nwosu, former czar of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), who died on 24 October 2024 at the age of 83 and who presided over the 12 June 1993 election that was annulled by the military president, Ibrahim Babaginda, one could not but be curious. It was the same anticipation exhibited by many young men when Nelson Mandela, the immediate past South African leader, was about to be released from the apartheid jail after 27 years. How would Mandela look? What a lot of young Africans were used to were photographs of the anti-apartheid fighter, with chubby cheeks, parted hair, infectious smile and the occasional cigarette dangling between his lips. It was a sharp contrast to the man who walked out of prison with a halo of grey.

Nwosu was, unlike Mandela, not in the slammer, but he kept himself out of public glare and rarely granted media interviews or delivered public speeches for years after the election he presided over was cancelled. How would the professor of political science look? Had he grown fatter or older? Had he jettisoned his penchant for theatrics, a usual feature on television where, as NEC Boss, he trenchantly explained his commission’s policies?

Mr Kunle Ajibade, Executive Editor, leader of our interview team had, a day earlier, booked an appointment with Nwosu and we were naturally excited at the opportunity to speak with the former NEC boss. As the the group alighted from their vehicle, a gardener materialized between the building’s black gate that was crying for a fresh coat of paint. That gate actually shielded the neatness, fine architecture and horticulture of Nwosu’s compound. Outside, a palm tree swayed over a row of flowers, a portion of carpet grass, a bough of an orange tree that rests from inside the fence and a metal plate warning intruders: “Danger! Wires Electrified.” The American barbed wires in their big spirals rested on the perimeter wall seemingly harmless but dangerous.

The gardener collected Ajibade’s complimentary card and disappeared inside. About three minutes later, the gate eased open and the man ushered in the team. The guests walked past a small roundabout where the roots of a mango tree had cracked the asphalted forecourt. In the distance is another palm tree, swaying over the sea of grass, an almost stunted orange tree and creepers. To the left is a bungalow with a surfeit of burnt brick decoration and an extended garage where a flat boot Mercedes car was parked. In the front of this small house, the first structure on the big compound built by Nwosu, there is a row of what looks like a car park with locked red metal doors. To the right is the big house where Nwosu holds court; a combination of four burnt brick-decorated structures, the chief of which is a semi circular architectural piece, with a red conical roof, facing the main (compound) road.

We were soon ushered into a large living room with three sets of sitting areas. The first was a set of grey settees-four single and one triple. On the low brown centre table was a pink synthetic flower and miniature porcelain images of angels, and the Virgin Mary. On the wall was an oil-on canvass portrait of a boy carrying a kid on his back. The second sitting arena was elevated and decorated with imported deep grey rococo furniture over which was a giant chandelier. A standing fan, a black television set, busts of historical figures and another wooden carving of a man whose hands are behind his back, complement this part of the big hall.

Ibrahim Babangida

Then a “cot-cot” sound approached from the staircase. A man dressed in green guinea brocade and a black Mahatma Gandhi cap walked past the dining area where a set of six rococo chairs was arranged beside a long table. “Who is Kunle Ajibade?” the man asked as he pumped the hands of his guests. With his average height, stature, deep accent and broad smile that could light up a dark tunnel, Professor Nwosu has not changed much over the years. “I attribute my youthfulness to the fact that I have a happy marriage, “Nwosu later told the journalists. He led his guest to the third sitting area, about three steps below the first, second and the dinning, separated with black metal works. It was here that Nwosu fielded questions on his tenure as NEC chairman and the elections he presided over, which culminated in the presidential one which was annulled by IBB.

Nwosu’s sack on 26 June 1993 was preceded by the annulment of the 12 June Presidential election of 1993, adjudged to be the fairest and freest conducted in the country. Aside this, one striking feature of that year’s election was that for the first time, a Yoruba, Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, won the election. Abiola, with his running mate, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, rode on the back of the then Social Democratic Party (SDP), to trounce Alhaji Bashir Tofa and Chief Sylvester Ugoh of the National Republic Convention (NRC). There were booby traps set by the military and their civilian collaborators to scuttle the transition programme. One of such groups was the infamous Association for Better Nigeria, ABN, led by the controversial Arthur Nzeribe, which had gone to court to stop the election from holding. Two days to the poll, precisely on 10 June, an Abuja High Court presided over by Justice Bassey Ikpeme, now deceased, granted interlocutory injunction to the ABN suit.

Nwosu disobeyed the injunction. He cited Section 19 (1) of Decree No 3 governing the presidential election for his action. The decree states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 17) as amended, or any other law, no interim or interlocutory order or ruling, judgement or decision made by any court or tribunal before or after the commencement of this decree….”

Though the election took place, almost mid-way through the announcement of results, another judge, Justice Mohammed Dahiru Saleh, granted a relief preventing NEC from announcing the remaining results and declaring the winner of the polls. This time, the former university teacher allegedly compromised, a development that fueled speculations that he was either heavily influenced or never believed in the tortuous course he was steering. Nwosu, however, fired back: “Absolute nonsense and lie. No one gave me anything. I challenge any person to come out with proof. There were dud cheques circulating and all that kind of nonsense. I never flirted with either of the contestants because it was an open, transparent election.”

Nigerians wanted explanations from the Ajali-born politician but it did not come until Saturday 4 July, almost a month after the poll. Nwosu appeared on NTA to justify his continued silence and absence from public glare. He denied being detained and attributed his absence to “my preoccupation with other matters”. Not many Nigerians would believe him, especially in the face of a strong rumor that IBB’s goons beat him up and detained him for days. A day after his NTA appearance, Nwosu delivered an unusually brief valedictory speech to his former staff. And since that day, nobody heard about Nwosu until 2001 when he dragged a kinsman to an Abuja court for libel. He had alleged, that his former student, Dr. Fidelis Okoli in a pamphlet entitled, “What do you know about Akpu and Ajali in Orumba South and North Local Government Area respectively of Anambra State of Nigeria, “accused him of influencing the sitting of Orumba North Council headquarters in Ajali, his home town.” Before his appearance in court, Nwosu was at the burial of his former teacher and predecessor at NEC, Professor Eme Awa in Amaekpu-Ohafia in Abia State.

These visiting journalists began firing their questions. They were eager to know those behind the annulment of 12 June 1993 election. But Nwosu kept saying “Wait for my book,”… which will be launched … at the Ladi Kwali Conference Centre, Abuja Sheraton Hotel and Towers.

To reach a compromise, they asked Nwosu to reveal the names of the “annullers” even if he did not say in specific terms what they did. He clammed up, again urging TheNEWS to wait for his book. Then Ajibade adopted another approach. Could Nwosu give us a copy of the book before the launch date? No dice. The interview drifted on, with Nwosu evading questions, scratching over the head of others while going full blast on those that touched on how well he performed as NEC chairman. He even admitted that the late Chief M.K.O Abiola won the election.

As the interview wound to a close, Nwosu asked the journalists whether they read what Dr. Reuben Abati wrote about him in The Guardian recently. At that point, Nwosu remembered that he had not invited the columnist to the book launch. He promised to give the journalists some invitation cards for Abati and other top journalists in Lagos.

Nwosu later excused himself and disappeared into one of his inner rooms. He returned with his chamberlain in tow, who carried two trays containing four glass cups, six cans of Star lager beer, two bottles of fruit juice, a bottle of brandy and a bottle of Coca-Cola. Tension in the room, thereafter, dissolved in gulped beer and soft drinks…

“Ajibade, how did you get my phone number?” Nwosu asked. He was apparently enjoying the drink or the new, tension-free drift of the conversation. Ajibade, with his penetrating look and ringing voice, replied: “I won’t tell you if you don’t reveal those who were responsible for the annulment of June 12 election.” Nwosu, with drink in hand, threw his head back and exploded with guffaw.

Interview completed, the guests rose to leave. As they waited outside, surveying the compound which Nwosu acquired when he was Commissioner for Agriculture and later, Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in the old Anambra State in the 1980s, the professor again excused himself to bring the invitation cards for Dr. Reuben Abati and his friends. When Nwosu returned, Ajibade called Abati on phone to speak with Nwosu. The two men spoke with the latter asking the columnist to attend his book launch by all means.

However, the invitation cards which Nwosu handed over contained some information which unsettled the visiting journalists. Curiously, those who worked against June 12, especially Babaginda, the annuler-in-chief and the unsurper, Chief Ernest Shonekan, head of the interim National Government, were invited. In fact, while Shonekan would chair the occasion, Babaginda was to be the guest of honour.

Nwosu is expected to be fearless and honest in his revelations on the June 12 crisis. But the old scholar avoided inviting intellectuals who could shred his book. Col. Abubakar Umar (retd), one of Babangida’s boys, will be the reviewer! The question is: why not an Odia Ofeimun? These, as the journalists reasoned, pointed to two possibilities. One, it could be that Nwosu wanted to demonstrate broad-mindedness that is an essential ingredient to lasting reconciliation. Nwosu showed this when he referred his guests to the 1 March 1993 edition of TheNews with the cover story titled Dirty Humphrey. The report narrated a contract scandal to which the former NEC boss was linked. “There was actually a contract like that, but you people got many facts wrong in that story. But if I have not forgotten the past, I would not have granted this interview,” he quipped. But the speed with which he accepted the interview proposal, as Nwosu admitted, was to help promote his book.

On the other hand, there is another strong feeling about why Nwosu invited anti-democratic elements to launch his pro-democracy book. Will the much-expected publication exonerate Nwosu’s principal, IBB and blame the annulment on those who pushed the dictator out of power? It is also curious that Nwosu invited Shonekan.

If the book turns out so, the political science professor should expect flaks from the media, civil society, the academic community and the general public. If it is otherwise, then Nwosu might have contributed his quota in setting the records straight and charting a course for the future.

Born in 1941, Nwosu attended Saint Michael’s Primary School, Enugu and later Presbyterian School, Abakaliki for his primary education. He proceded to Macgregor College, Afikpo, and was later admitted to the University of Nigeria, Nuskka, to study Political Science.

He graduated in 1966 with a first class honours and later, he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the same discipline from the University of California, Berkeley, USA. Thereafter, he returned to his alma mater and in 1979, was made Associate Dean, Faculty of Political Science. Four years later, he was appointed Professor of Political Science at the age of 41.

Before he got the NEC job on 7 March 1989, Nwosu had, at various times, served as Commissioner for Local Government and chieftaincy Affairs of Old Anambra State; Chairman, Technical committee on the Application of Local Government Services in 1987 and member of the Local Government Review Committee in Nigeria in 1988.

• Originally entitled “Echoes From The Past,” this Preface to Cover” (Nwosu’s cover interview) was published in the 16 June 2008 edition of TheNEW.

SOON after the disparate states of the Italian peninsula were unified to create a single nation on March 17, 1861, Massimo Taparelli, the Marquess of Azeglio, popularly called Massimo D’Azeglio, a Piedmontese-Italian statesman, famously remarked: “We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians.”

D’Azeglio, who was Prime Minister of Sardinia, was worried about the fate of Italy, which had just become a nation-state, but his famous quip aeons ago resonates loudly in today’s Nigeria.

It is easier to create a country than to unite the citizens around an overarching worldview that defangs rather than fan the embers of ethnic and religious discord.

In her book, “The Pinocchio Effect: On Making Italians, 1860-1920,” Suzanne Stewart-Steinberg, assistant professor of Italian studies and comparative literature at Brown University, explored all the ways that identity was constructed through newly formed attachments, voluntary and otherwise, to the young nation – Italy.

Taking as her guiding metaphor the character of Pinocchio — a national icon made famous in 1881 by the eponymous children’s book, Stewart-Steinberg argued that just like the renowned puppet, modern Italians were caught in a complex interplay between freely chosen submission and submission demanded by an outside force.

That is the same complex interplay that Nigerians are caught in today, so much so that 110 years after Nigeria came into being with the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by Lord Lugard, there are hardly Nigerians.

That is the country’s bane. The British made Nigeria but we have failed to make Nigerians. When it suits them, Nigerian leaders preach patriotism. Most times, they stretch their duplicity by quoting the historic words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” which challenged every American to contribute in some way to the public good and it was not difficult for Americans who perceived the sincerity of purpose to rally round their leader for common good.

But here in Nigeria, the leeches who masquerade as leaders even when they mouth such rhetoric fail to put their words into action. The inability of Nigerian leaders, across board, to walk their talk by practising what they preach is the primary reason why the country is plumbing the depths of misery.

Because Nigerian leaders talk the talk every time but don’t care a hoot about walking the walk, nothing is sacred. They manipulate the primordial cleavages and the country’s historic fault lines for personal aggrandizement even when they insist, as former President Muhammadu Buhari did in his August 21, 2017 national broadcast, that “Nigeria’s unity is settled and not negotiable.”

After an extended medical tourism in 2017, Buhari, unarguably the most divisive, blinkered and narrow-minded leader Nigeria has ever had, gave what was, perhaps, his most insouciant, divisive speech claiming a non-existent national consensus on Nigeria’s indivisibility.

“We shall not allow irresponsible elements to start trouble and when things get bad they run away and saddle others with the responsibility of bringing back order, if necessary with their blood,” he boasted.

Coming from a leader who elevated bigotry to an act explains why a century after, we have a Nigeria but hardly Nigerians. It is also important to remember what Buhari said on national unity in a 2021 television interview.

Asked how he intended to resolve the crisis in the South-East, Buhari’s answer was bloodcurdling.

“Well, South East em…. I was encouraged by what I heard, nobody told me, two statements from the South-South, one by elderly people – they said this time around, there will be no access to the sea. I am sure you will understand what they mean,” he told his interviewers.

“Again, the youth made the same statement and such encouraged me. So, that IPOB is just like a dot in the circle. If they want to exit, they will have no access to anywhere. And the way they are spread all over the country, having businesses, having property, I think IPOB doesn’t know what they are talking about.

“In any case, we say we will talk to them in the language they understand. We will organize the police and the military to pursue them. That is what we can do and we will do it,” he concluded leaving his interviewers dazed.

In saying that, Buhari was trying to be clever by half, pretending to be talking about IPOB when he was actually sending an unambiguous message to Ndigbo.

That was why in the eight years of his presidency, he unleashed mayhem on Ndigbo. Unfortunately, President Bola Tinubu has continued on the same trajectory, refusing to politically resolve the Nnamdi Kanu conundrum even when Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba nation agitator like Kanu, is a free man. He has even submitted a petition to the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to consider the creation of a Yoruba nation without as much as a whimper from those who have made Kanu a prisoner of conscience.    

Such double standards are a recipe for disunity, hence the instability in Nigeria. Unity helps a society stay strong and deal with challenges better. But Nigerian leaders deliberately promote disunity and conflict, thereby failing the people who they claim to lead.

Do Nigerians want to stay together? Maybe! But that is in a country where there is equity, fairness and justice, a society that does not deliberately promote discrimination as a governance art. The reality here is that on the issue of unity, Nigerian leaders have refused to walk their talk.

Luckily, some Nigerians have taken the initiative of uniting where leaders divide, loving where leaders hate and promoting inclusiveness where leaders exclude.

And that is exactly what Mr. Lekan Ogunbanwo, a veteran broadcast journalist, who retired from the Lagos State civil service after serving as a permanent secretary for 13 years is doing with his radio station, Kwenu 93.9FM.

Penultimate Saturday, the radio station which is known for delivering a unique blend of Igbo and Pidgin content through both digital and traditional platforms, marked its one year anniversary – a celebration of its role in fostering cultural integration.

That occasion afforded Ogunbanwo, a bona fide Lagosian from Ikorodu, an opportunity to share the inspiration behind Kwenu 93.9FM, which is to promote unity and give the Igbo community a voice in Lagos.

“Before Kwenu 93.9FM, there were no stations dedicating up to seven hours daily to the Igbo culture and business in Lagos,” Ogunbanwo noted.

“Research shows that Igbos control about 60% of distributive trade in Nigeria, with 70% of this trade centred in Lagos. Today, there are between four and six million Igbos living in the state.

“We wanted to give the Igbos a platform to ensure there is no fear of Igbos ‘taking over’ Lagos… This is our country, and we must focus on what unites us rather than what divides us. Nigeria binds the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, and others as one people. We all have a responsibility to maintain peace and avoid misunderstandings, as chaos hampers business and growth. Promoting oneness is crucial for our progress.”

This is all it requires to make Nigerians after the British made Nigeria decades ago, a task that Nigerian leaders have refused to carry out since Independence in 1960, particularly since the end of the 30-month fratricidal war in 1970.

It is worth noting that Ogunbanwo, an authentic Lagosian, is creating maximum impact by amplifying Igbo voices, not just in Lagos but across the country, at a time when some people, most of whom are not from Lagos and cannot point at their fathers’ graves anywhere in this cosmopolitan state are ratcheting up their Igbo must quit rhetoric as an existential imperative, a desideratum of sort. 

What Lekan Ogunbanwo has done with his Kwenu 93.9FM is to walk his talk on the challenging issue of national unity. If only the leaders, including President Tinubu, can toe the line knowing full well that no amount of gaslighting, cajoling and inveigling can guarantee unity.

Nigeria, Africa, and indeed the world face a critical juncture. Energy systems are evolving remarkably, shifting from fossil fuel dominance to renewable sources, and this transition fundamentally reshapes economies and the environment. In this transformation, we are tasked with an essential question: How do we harness the energy-economy-environment nexus to foster good governance and achieve sustainable development?

To explore this, we must first acknowledge the complexity of the nexus. The energy sector fuels economies, creates jobs, and drives industrialisation but also contributes to environmental degradation if not properly managed. On the other hand, environmental preservation is essential to long-term economic stability but requires carefully planned energy policies. This balancing act necessitates robust governance frameworks that ensure transparency, accountability, and effective resource management. Energy is the backbone of economic development. In Africa, energy access is critical to unlocking the potential for industrialisation, innovation, and improved livelihoods. However, many across the continent, including Nigeria, remain energy-poor. According to the 2022 Energy Access Report from the World Bank, Nigeria has one of the most significant energy deficits in the world. Also, as of 2021, 85 million individuals – more than 4 out of 10 Nigerians, do not have access to power from the national grid.

The empirical literature is unanimous on the importance of energy to human development. Chien et al. (2023), and Luan et al. (2023) argue that energy is a fundamental element for sustaining human survival and development. Thus, excessive energy poverty may hinder sustainable human development. Energy poverty stifles economic growth, education, healthcare, and gender equity. Similarly, studies like Pachauri et al. (2004), Sesan et al. (2013), and Belaïd (2022) identified energy poverty as one of the critical developmental challenges faced by developing and emerging economies.

The nexus of energy generation and consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation revolves around three significant hypotheses: the growth hypothesis, conservation hypothesis and feedback hypothesis. The growth hypothesis studies claimed that economic growth depends on energy consumption (Adams et al., 2018; Zafar et al., 2019). The conservation hypothesis was the opposite: economic growth fuels energy consumption (see Destek & Aslan, 2017). However, a feedback hypothesis is upheld where a two-way causality exists among these three variables (i.e., energy, economy and environment) (Aydin, 2019; Tugcu et al., 2012).

In Africa, some research has been conducted to ascertain the extent, causality and implications of energy consumption. One such example is the work of Acheampong (2018), who found that a positive shock to GDP increases energy consumption and carbon emissions in the short run but also increases stability in the long run. This finding corroborates with Paramati et al. (2018), who noted that industrialisation enhances energy saving for most African countries. On the contrary, Awodumi and Adewuyi (2020) discovered that CO2 emissions across African economies remained highly unstable, with Algeria being the leading carbon emitter due to the dominance of non-renewable energy consumption.

Therefore, energy consumption apparently promotes economic growth but contributes to higher carbon emissions. This raises some pertinent questions: To what extent do production and consumption of energy resources contribute to economic growth and carbon emissions in African economies? Should policy focus more on growth than reducing carbon emissions arising from energy resource consumption? These are policy-relevant questions.

Regarding the nexus between energy and good governance, pioneering studies have shown that the empirical side of the nexus aligns with economic theories. Fredriksson et al. (2004) analysed 12 OECD countries. They concluded that corruption reduces the effects of energy policy: increasing corruption leads to increased energy intensity and, implicitly, a decrease in energy efficiency. Stern (2012) discovered that the decline in corruption directly leads to increased energy efficiency. Further, Nicolli and Vona (2015) concluded that increased corruption indirectly affects renewable energy policy through its impact on the regulation of the energy products market.

The African continent is energy-poor, the poorest in the world. About 600 million Africans lack access to electricity, while over 900 million rely on traditional biomass fuels, such as wood and charcoal, for cooking and heating. These fuels lead to deforestation and indoor air pollution, contributing to an estimated 600,000 premature deaths annually (WHO, 2022).  Limited access to electricity hampers economic development, educational opportunities, and healthcare services, further perpetuating poverty and inequality.

Moreover, an estimated three billion people worldwide still lack access to clean energy technologies for cooking (IEA, 2022). In the IEA’s most recent Global Energy Outlook report, global energy demand will increase by around 33% by 2050. This implies that energy, and sustainable energy for that matter, will remain central to our daily lives, the lifeblood that enables us all to function and prosper.

There is no doubt that the world needs more energy, but this need must be met ever more efficiently and sustainably, considering the challenges posed by climate change to our future. However, Africa needs even more energy. Its population is set to increase from 1.4 billion people today to around 2.5 billion by 2050. Its economic output is expected to triple, and energy demand will increase by 82%. It would increase even more, by 150%, if its GDP per capita doubled to 5,000 dollars in 2050 (World Bank, 2021).

At the same time, Africa suffers significantly from the effects of climate change despite being the least responsible for it. Africa’s cumulative Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are very low, and even today, Africa accounts for only 3 to 4% of the world’s total GHG emissions despite being home to 17% of the world’s population.

Given the evident developmental challenges confronting the African continent, it is clear that the narrative that Africa should abandon the development of its natural resource base for environmental protection is misguided. A wealthier Africa would be better positioned to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts while addressing its energy security and socioeconomic development needs.

By leveraging the continent’s abundant natural resources, African nations can bolster their economies, lift millions out of poverty, and create the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the adoption of renewable energy technologies in the future. However, harnessing the potential of natural resources in Africa is not without challenges. One of the primary obstacles is the lack of infrastructure capacity to transport and distribute natural gas, for example. Constructing pipelines, liquefaction plants, and other infrastructure requires significant investments and long-term planning. My company, Green Energy International Limited, is already leading the way here in Nigeria by constructing the first indigenous terminal in Rivers State.

As Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria’s wide range of livelihoods, agricultural practices, and commodities are threatened by climate change. Rising sea levels increase vulnerability to flooding and waterborne disease. Additionally, drought and increasing flooding hinder agricultural production and fishing, reducing food security and negatively impacting health and nutrition in our dear nation. Drought, reduced rainfall and rising air temperatures inhibit the country’s hydropower systems. The energy sector, deforestation, and land-use change are the most significant contributors to Nigeria’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (USAID report, 2023).

About 70% of Nigeria’s primary energy supply is derived from biomass. Poor on-grid power supply, which rarely exceeds 5 gigawatts, forces Africa’s largest economy to rely on more than 14 gigawatts of inefficient petrol and diesel backup generators across the country, contributing to around 30% of the fine particulate matter emissions from the continent (USAID report, 2023). According to the United Nations, Nigeria has the highest rate of deforestation worldwide, losing about 3.7% of its forest yearly.

All hands must be on deck to address the existential challenges of climate change. As responsible citizens of the globe, we must recognise that there is no ‘Plan B’ in addressing climate change. Today, it is more important than ever to drive forward the global energy transition in the interest of climate change mitigation, energy security, and economic diversification and development.

We are already witnessing the global energy landscape changing dramatically, as seen in the succeeding United Nations-organized Conference of Parties. Countries and regions have developed energy transition plans. However, it is important to stress that energy transition in developing countries, including Africa, must involve transitioning out of poverty, transitioning towards growth, transitioning towards development, and transitioning sustainably.

Global investment in renewable energy reached a record high in 2022—at USD 0.5 trillion—, but this represented less than 40% of the average investment needed each year between 2021 and 2030, according to World Bank statistics, to meet the sustainable development goals and limit global warming to 1.5°C. More striking than the absolute numbers is that sub-Saharan Africa received less than 1.5% of the global investment in renewable energy.

The disparity in renewable energy financing received by developed versus developing countries has increased significantly over the past six years. For this reason, we must be creative and develop new approaches to ensure that no one is left behind regarding sustainable and affordable energy for all by 2030 and beyond.

African governments must prepare energy transition plans considering the reality of green growth. These plans are critical policy and investment tools to deliver affordable, reliable, and clean energy while expanding energy services for all. Many African countries have demonstrated a willingness to be leaders and equal partners in the energy transition, with countries like Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and others developing world-class whole-economy transition plans (ETPs).

These ETPs are very important, and I may use the example of the Nigeria ETP, which Former President Buhari launched at COP26. The ETP in Nigeria is backed by law. The ETP covers all sectors of the economy, including the power sector, transport, housing, agriculture and forestry, and clean cooking. The ETP gives a price tag of USD 1.9 Trillion for Nigeria to reach net zero by 2060, of which USD 410 billion will be above business-as-usual spending. These figures are definitely beyond Nigeria’s ability alone. The Advanced Economies must come to her aid.

While energy drives economic growth, we must not ignore its profound environmental impact. Carbon emissions from energy production and industrial activities have escalated the climate crisis, leading to more frequent natural disasters, rising sea levels, and extreme weather conditions that disproportionately affect the poorest populations. We have a collective responsibility to act. Africa, while contributing the least to global carbon emissions, remains one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change impacts. This paradox compels us to think critically about our development pathways. 

Meanwhile, renewable energy offers a beacon of hope. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 per cent of the world’s electricity will come from renewable energy by 2050. This is an opportunity we must seize. In Africa, it is likewise projected that 76% of the continent’s energy could come from renewable sources by 2040. If harnessed efficiently, Africa is endowed with abundant solar, wind, and hydropower resources that can power our industries, rural areas, and fast-growing cities. The energy transition presents a path to prosperity for millions of Nigerians and Africans, but only if we prioritise infrastructure, innovation, and research investments to ensure the transition is inclusive and equitable. Africa needs help to achieve the energy finance and advanced technology needed to achieve this.

Sustainable development demands that we embrace renewable energy solutions that reduce our carbon footprint. Adopting solar energy, wind farms, and energy-efficient technologies is no longer a choice but a necessity. Moreover, Africa’s vast forests, wetlands, and ecosystems must be protected as carbon sinks, vital for mitigating climate change. However, achieving this will require more than just good intentions. We must build the institutional capacity to monitor and enforce environmental regulations, ensuring that our natural resources are preserved for future generations. Robust governance frameworks that integrate environmental sustainability into economic planning will be essential.

Good governance lies at the heart of this nexus. The glue holds the energy, economy, and environment together in harmony. Without sound governance, policy fragmentation occurs, leading to inefficiencies, corruption, and, ultimately, failure to achieve sustainable development. Governance in the energy sector requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Governments must lead with clear, long-term strategies but cannot act alone. Private sector investments, international cooperation, and the involvement of local communities are crucial. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be encouraged to accelerate energy infrastructure projects, and innovative financing mechanisms should be explored to support renewable energy adoption.

Furthermore, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. Citizens must be informed and involved in decision-making, particularly regarding resource allocation, environmental management, and policy implementation. Open dialogue and inclusive governance foster trust and drive the effective execution of policies that benefit the economy, the environment, and society.

The energy transition is a global challenge; no single nation can solve it alone. International cooperation is essential, particularly for African nations. Technology transfer, capacity building, and financing are areas where partnerships with the international community can support Africa’s energy transition and climate resilience efforts.

We must also recognise that Africa’s energy and environmental issues are not isolated. Africa must be a key player as global energy systems move toward renewable dominance. This means engaging with international bodies, leveraging global best practices, and ensuring that Africa’s voice is heard in global forums, from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The nexus between energy, the economy, and the environment is the cornerstone of sustainable development. We need bold leadership, sound governance, and an unwavering commitment to sustainability to harness this nexus. Let us focus on actionable strategies to address Africa’s energy challenges, promote economic growth, and protect our environment.

What we do today will determine the legacy we leave for future generations.

Sustainable consumption is not necessarily about consuming less. It is about consuming better—in an intelligent and environmentally sustainable way.

Prof. Anthony O. Adegbulugbe, FNAEE, FNES is the Chairman/CEO, Green Energy International Limited

Nyesom Wike may have misplaced many passes during his time as the Minister of the FCT, but on his planned removal of street beggars from Abuja, the intense and indefatigable former Rivers State governor seems to have hit the mark with uncanny accuracy. It is simple: beggars cannot be allowed to hang around Abuja anymore. Their wretched existence and enterprise deface Nigeria’s capital. The irritants they have become disgust Nigeria’s establishment to no end.

If this position appears elitist, there is very only very little wrong a country that should be doing everything to rid itself of begging can do in the society. To be clear, begging is a symptom and not a cause of Nigeria’s problems. A country where begging is lucrative employment for many is a country that is not getting something right.

For Wike, moving the beggars out of Abuja is a priority, but where will they be moved to? Most importantly, what can be done to urgently wean them of a habit, hobby, and handiwork that they are prepared not only to do all their lives but pass on to their children like some cherished heirloom?

The government must go beyond the crater to seek the cure. Why are there so many beggars in Nigeria? It is worth remembering that those referred to as “beggars” by Wike are only a fraction of the beggars in Nigeria. There are more beggars elsewhere and on the streets of social media than any street in Nigeria can contain. All of them form Nigeria’s humiliated horde, those who have been dehumanized by Nigeria, dumped on the streets and forced to eat from hand to mouth.

There are many who tired of their wretched existence in their rural villages find their way to cities to beg. Begging from morning to night in strategic locations, they soon begin to make enough money to send back home. Encouraged by how lucrative the venture is, some of their relations soon join them in the city to join the begging business.

How about the almajiri children who clog many public spaces in Nigeria, unwashed and unkempt, with ringworm and eczema battling over every inch of space on their skin? The trauma caused to innocent children of that age range in the name of Islamic religious education is simply unthinkable. It is heartbreaking that it is religion that enables that kind of systemic dehumanization of kids that emphasizes begging, child neglect and child poverty.

As president until 2015, Goodluck Jonathan floated and sunk billions of public funds into building schools in the North in a bid to take almajiri children off the street, rehabilitate them and prepare them for a better future. Today, the schools lie moribund, suffocated by a poisonous cocktail of religion, superstition and poor maintenance culture. Many of them celebrated his defeat in the 2015 elections not minding that they were celebrating the end of their hopes.

Northern Nigerian beggars

A country where children who should be in school are begging for a living is one with unaccountable problems. A country where women spread helpless toddlers like rags under the sun and thrust out bottomless begging bowls to passersby right in the heart of its capital city is a country sitting on a time bomb.

Many of the children reduced to begging by poverty and neglect now form the prolific pool into which terrorists dip to recruit conscripts. Yet, Nigeria wonders why its war against terror refuses to end.

Wike said that the beggars were a source of embarrassment as well as security threats in the FCT. He was not far from the truth. His method of dealing with the menace is what appears to be far from effective.

Experience has shown that once removed, these beggars find a way to return or simply reinvent themselves and transport their begging bowls to different locations as long as those locations are lucrative.

What Nigeria needs is a permanent solution to the menace of street begging, which will be no simple task. Its root causes of systemic poverty and inequality must be addressed firstly.

Already, those who beg are dehumanized by the poverty of their chosen enterprise. Many of them are left with no choice in the face of life’s raging hardships. Restoring their dignity should be at the core of finding any solutions aimed at rehabilitating them.

The Nigerian political landscape is often fraught with controversy, intrigue, and speculation, especially when significant changes occur in government positions. The recent removal of Hon. Uju-Kennedy Ohaneye as the Minister of Women Affairs has sparked considerable debate across the nation. Some argue that she was dropped because of her non-conformist stance on various national issues, while others believe it was due to her perceived non-performance in office. The question on everyone’s lips is: Was Ohaneye dropped for being a non-conformist or a non-performer?

Ohaneye, a vibrant politician and lawyer, was among the few women nominated for ministerial positions by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu earlier this year. Her nomination was seen as a symbol of progress, representing the effort to include more women in Nigeria’s decision-making corridors. With her impressive background in law and public service, many Nigerians were optimistic about what she would bring to the table. However, her time in office was abruptly cut short, leaving the public puzzled about the reasons behind her dismissal.

From the onset of her appointment, Ohaneye was seen as a bold and assertive figure, unafraid to challenge the status quo. Her outspoken nature and willingness to speak truth to power earned her both admiration and criticism. In a political climate where conformity is often rewarded and dissent suppressed, Ohaneye’s refusal to play along with traditional political norms likely rubbed many of her colleagues the wrong way.

One of the key instances where Ohaneye displayed her non-conformist attitude was her stance on the subsidy removal policy. As many politicians within the ruling party rallied around the government’s decision to remove fuel subsidies, Ohaneye publicly questioned the timing and implementation of the policy. She argued that while subsidy removal might be a necessary step, the government had not put in place adequate measures to cushion the impact on the poor and vulnerable. This position placed her at odds with the pro-subsidy removal camp within the administration, which may have contributed to her being sidelined.

Ohaneye also took a firm stand on the need for comprehensive electoral reforms. She was one of the few ministers who openly advocated for the implementation of recommendations made by civil society groups for free and fair elections. While some saw this as a principled stance, others within her party felt that she was too critical of a system that had put them in power. In a country where political loyalty is often prioritized over principles, her unwillingness to toe the party line could have led to her removal.

While Ohaneye’s non-conformist nature might have raised some eyebrows, it is essential to consider whether her performance as a minister also played a role in her dismissal. Government critics have pointed out that during her time in office, there were several areas where she failed to make a significant impact.

The ministry under her supervision, Ministry of Women Affairs, is no doubt a portfolio that is crucial for addressing the needs and rights of women in Nigeria. Critics argue that during her tenure, there was little to no progress in advancing policies that directly impacted the lives of Nigerian women. Issues like gender-based violence, access to education for the girl-child, and economic empowerment for women were reportedly not given the attention they deserved under her leadership.

Ohaneye also faced criticism for her handling of budgetary allocations. Some reports suggest that there were delays in disbursing funds meant for key programs under her ministry. These delays, according to insiders, hampered the execution of projects that could have had a tangible impact on women’s lives, further cementing the perception that she was not delivering results.

Moreover, there were allegations of poor coordination within her ministry. Staff members reportedly complained about a lack of clear direction, with many initiatives stalling due to indecision at the top. This inefficiency, critics argue, reflected poorly on her managerial capabilities and ultimately contributed to her removal.

Adding fuel to the ongoing debate about Ohaneye’s removal were reports of an unusual reaction within her former ministry. Not long after the news of her dismissal broke, media outlets reported that staff members within the Ministry of Women Affairs were seen celebrating her departure. According to these reports, some staff even described her removal as a relief, hinting that working under her leadership had been challenging.

This reaction raises questions about her relationship with the ministry’s staff. While it is not uncommon for tensions to exist between leadership and subordinates, the fact that her removal was met with open jubilation suggests that her management style may have contributed to discontent within the ministry. The staff’s response has fueled speculation that her leadership approach may have led to inefficiencies and internal friction, potentially justifying her removal on grounds of non-performance.

In Nigerian politics, the performance of a public official is not always the sole determinant of their fate. Power dynamics and political maneuvering often play a significant role. Ohaneye’s fall from grace may also have been the result of political calculations within the ruling party.

It is worth noting that Ohaneye’s appointment was seen by some as an attempt to appease certain interest groups within the political landscape. As a member of the southeast, a region that has historically been marginalized in Nigeria’s power distribution, her inclusion in the cabinet was expected to balance regional representation. However, her removal has led to renewed accusations of marginalization by southeastern leaders, who see this as yet another instance of the region being shortchanged in national appointments.

There is also the possibility that Ohaneye became a victim of factional infighting within the ruling party. Nigeria’s political parties are often divided along various interest groups, with different factions vying for influence and control. It is possible that Ohaneye’s removal was the result of her alignment with a particular faction that found itself on the losing side of an internal power struggle.

Without a doubt, Public opinion on Ohaneye’s removal is divided. Her supporters argue that she was a victim of her non-conformist approach, which did not sit well with the political elite. They view her as a principled leader who was unwilling to compromise her values for political gain. Many Nigerians, especially women’s rights activists, have expressed disappointment over her removal, arguing that she was one of the few female voices in a male-dominated cabinet.

On the other hand, her critics believe that her removal was justified, pointing to her perceived lack of performance in office. They argue that while she may have been vocal on certain issues, her inability to deliver tangible results was ultimately her downfall. The jubilation within the ministry following her removal only adds weight to these claims.

It is likely that Ohaneye’s removal was the result of a combination of factors, including her non-conformist attitude, perceived non-performance, and political maneuvering within the ruling party. In a political system as complex as Nigeria’s, it is rarely one factor that determines the fate of public officials. Instead, it is often a delicate balance of performance, loyalty, and political survival.

In Ohaneye’s case, her boldness and refusal to conform may have alienated her from key figures within the government. At the same time, her critics could point to her lack of results in office as justification for her removal. Ultimately, her dismissal serves as a reminder of the delicate tightrope that public officials in Nigeria must walk, balancing their principles, performance, and political alliances.

Chinyere Ohaneye’s removal as a minister raises important questions about the criteria used to evaluate public officials in Nigeria. Was she dropped because she dared to challenge the status quo, or was it because she failed to deliver on her promises? While the exact reasons may never be fully known, her case highlights the complex interplay of performance, principles, and politics in the Nigerian government.

The jubilation within her former ministry after her removal adds an additional layer to the discussion, suggesting that her leadership style may not have been well-received by those she worked with. Whether her downfall was due to being a non-conformist, a non-performer, or a mix of both, Ohaneye’s case serves as a reflection of the broader issues facing governance and accountability in Nigeria. As the country continues to grapple with political challenges, the case of Ohaneye will likely remain a point of reference in discussions about governance, leadership, and representation.

The news that Akwa Ibom State Government is considering creating a savings account in the 2025 fiscal year to put away money for the rainy is perhaps the most heartwarming report that I have heard this year. According to Gov. Umo Eno, who was speaking at the State Executive Council session, the idea of the savings scheme is to progressively build ‘’compulsory savings for projects that we may not foresee immediately and for the next generation’’. It would be the first time a state government would create a savings plan in Nigeria, and is coming 14 years after the federal government established the Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority in 2011 to manage the nation’s sovereign wealth fund. The benefits of savings for individuals, households and businesses are well known, but for a government, it ensures long-term financial stability and enhances development. By building reserves, avoiding debt, attracting investment and providing stability to the economy, the state government will be able to meet its obligations and provides for the needs of its citizens over the long term. A savings programme also encourages the government to be frugal, prudent and wise in managing our resources. I commend the governor for this and I encourage him to go ahead with the plan, irrespective of contrary suggestions that he might receive from ‘’stakeholders’’.

 I have been very critical of past administrations in the state for their wastefulness and reckless spending. Previous governors spent billions of our resources to buy houses, cars and expensive gifts for their friends and political associates. They wasted our resources on sponsorships of pilgrimages and leisure trips. Many emirs from the North have benefitted from the reckless generosities of the past. I know of one of our former governors who built a ranch in Kaduna State for his friend from that State. Yes, a big cattle ranch. This same governor also gave a whopping £1 million to the sitting president that time as his own contribution to the president to furnish his new London apartment. The governor had heard that the President had just acquired a new residence in London, and our governor, in his typical outrageousness, felt compelled to make the donation. The President did not ask for it, but he did not decline the offer either. I would have expected that a responsible president would not accept such a gift from a governor! There are many other cases past gubernatorial indiscretions in our state. Other state governors are no less frivolous. Even in these hard times, offensive displays of luxurious lifestyle are going on in the state capitals at the expense of the people. A governor in a poverty-stricken North West has just purchased a 2025 BMW! There seems to be a widely held notion that state governments are not supposed to save money. It’s the reason many governors indulge in flagrant abuses of resources which, in turn, lead to widespread borrowings to fund budget deficits. I ask Gov. Eno not to go on that route. It’s time to turn the page from the thoughtlessness of the past.

 While we are still waiting for the details of Eno’s savings scheme, here are a few suggestions that may be helpful. The scheme should be christened ‘’Akwa Ibom State Wealth Fund’’, backed by law and designed in a somewhat similar fashion as the sovereign wealth Fund of the federal government. It would be funded by the state government and managed by people of integrity and a wealth of experience in finance and investment. It should operate independently of the bureaucracy and be insulated from political interferences. The enabling law should stipulate where the fund could invest and under what conditions it can exit such areas. The law shall also specify the proportion of the fund’s resources that would be held in current and capital assets; and indicate under what conditions the governor may access monies therein to meet difficult and unexpected challenges. There are many investment avenues in the money and capital markets as well as the property subsector that the fund may consider to invest in. So, why can’t every state government take up a long-term savings programme for their people?

A lot of countries, especially the oil-rich nations, have since created wealth funds to save for their future generations. They had long known that crude oil is a diminishing resource. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund is worth $925 billion, with its assets jumping by 29% last year – and domestic investment being a major driver. Another oil-rich nation, Norway is renowned for the huge reserves in its wealth fund. It was worth $1.715 trillion in August. A tiny country of less than six million people, Norway provides generous welfare scheme for its people, yet its leaders have been wise and prudent to save for the future. The fund was created in the 1990s by an act of parliament, and today the fund has become one of the world’s largest investors, and to date, it has put money in 8,700 in over 70 countries around the world. The Nigerian Wealth Fund was created with a $1 billion seed capital in 2011. In 2023, it’s grown to $2.3 billion in assets, the third largest in sub Saharan Africa, after Botswana and Angola. I thank President Jonathan for his foresight. If Gov. Umo Eno starts the Akwa Ibom Wealth Fund next year, we can expect its portfolio to grow above N300 billion in the next few decades. Future generations of Akwa Ibom citizens will look back with pride and say: ‘’There was a governor’’!

President Bola Tinubu has restricted Ministers, Ministers of State, and Heads of Agencies of the Federal Government to a maximum of three vehicles in their official convoys.

No additional vehicles will be assigned to them for movement.

The cost-cutting measure was announced today in a statement signed by the President.

In January this year, President Tinubu took significant steps to reduce government expenditure, by reducing his entourage on foreign trips from 50 to 20 officials. For local trips, he reduced it to 25 officials.

He similarly reduced the Vice President’s entourage to five officials on foreign trips and 15 for local trips.

In the directive issued today, President Tinubu also ordered all ministers, ministers of state, and heads of agencies to have at most five security personnel attached to them.

The security team will comprise four police officers and one Department of State Services (DSS) officer.

No additional security personnel will be assigned, he ordered.

President Tinubu instructed the National Security Adviser to engage with the Military, Paramilitary and Security Agencies to determine a suitable reduction in their vehicle and security personnel deployment.

All affected officials are expected to comply with these new measures immediately, underscoring the urgency and seriousness of these changes.

Bayo Onanuga

Special Adviser to the President

(Information & Strategy)

Three – maybe three and a half – stories go to the heart of why Nigeria appears stuck in a rut. And for some strange reason, all of them are rooted mainly in energy and power. 

The first is about a project, the Mambilla Hydroelectric Project. If you live in Nigeria – except you’re the Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu – there’s a good chance you would have heard about this project, which is located in Gembu, Taraba State. 

In that case, there’s a chance you might also have heard that the national power grid, more in the news for collapsing than for generating power, collapsed three times last week, plunging most parts of the country into darkness. The Minister of Power is too busy making excuses to notice. 

Mambilla, rolling grid collapse

But he doesn’t have to worry. Others are counting the number of grid collapses for him. In its lead story on October 21, PUNCH reported that the national grid has collapsed 105 times in 10 years despite the government’s $1.4 billion in loans to fix the problem. If we still have the appetite for more loans to waste, the report said an additional $2.9 billion from the World Bank could indulge our irresponsibility. 

But that’s just the beginning of the Mambilla story. I’d be foolish to claim there’s one single Mambilla story. There isn’t. But this is a version from several trusted, ringside sources. Sometime in 2003, President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest power station in China, with an installed capacity of 22,500 MW. 

He liked what he saw and wanted the company to replicate something on a smaller scale in Mambilla. At the time, it was estimated that the dam would generate an additional 3,050 MW for Nigeria, a chronically underpowered country struggling to generate 2,500MW for over 200 million people. The project was divided into three lots at a contract sum of roughly $6 billion to be delivered in five years.

Sunset on a contract

Since the word “contract” and Nigeria are made for trouble, trouble started. Sunrise Power and Transmission Company, promoted by Leno Adesanya, teamed up with North China Power and China Hydroelectric to make a bid for Mambilla. It seemed, however, that that was not the original plan, which was to have China Three Gorges Corporation, the China state-owned power company that built Three Gorges, build Mambilla.

One thing led to another, and the Minister of Power at the time, Dr. Olu Agunloye, who said he believed he was acting on behalf of the Nigerian government, awarded the contract at $6 billion to Sunrise through “a letter of intent” in 2007. 

Sunrise and its Chinese partners turned up at Mambilla, as did China Three Gorges, based on Obasanjo’s invitation: two significant contractors, two separate invitations, one task, and one divided government. But the government soon changed hands. Obasanjo was out, and President Umaru Yar’Adua was in. 

Sorry, we can’t pay

In 2009, Yar’Adua cancelled the Sunrise contract. Adesanya was furious. He went to Arbitration in Paris and was awarded $400 million for the government’s alleged breach. Meanwhile, China Three Gorges backed off at the first smell of trouble, leaving Nigeria to stew in its misery. 

In 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari came in. Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami, doing what he did fantastically well, renegotiated the penalty with Adesanya from $400 million to $200 million. Buhari refused to pay, and as Adesanya headed back to Arbitration, the EFCC dragged him and Agunloye, charging the latter with seven counts of forgery, contract award without approval, disobedience to presidential orders, etc. 

Long story short, 12 years after Mambilla was supposed to have been completed with all its transformative promises in power, rail, roads, infrastructure, and jobs (not to mention the missing N30 billion Obasanjo left in the project account), we’re still in a rut, stewing deeper and deeper in the misery of rolling blackouts and collapsing grids.

Isn’t it possible, for God’s sake – and the sake of the bigger picture – for this government to end the drama around the project and save Baby Mambilla from the stale, disposable bathwater?

Wilbros war

This second story illustrates how such a missed opportunity never ends well. It’s the story of Wilbros, one of the biggest things in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, in its heyday. In 2008/2009, when the ego war between Obasanjo and his former deputy, Atiku Abubakar, was at its peak, the EFCC, never missing a chance to outdo itself, said Wilbros senior officials had paid $6 million in bribes to top members of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). 

A director of the company pleaded guilty to the charge in a US federal court, and the EFCC pounced. Fair enough, but what was the company, Wilbros, doing, and was it not possible to prosecute the errant directors without destroying the company? At the time of the blowout, Wilbros, a US-Nigerian-based company, was building the West African Gas Pipeline. 

Dream deferred

It was Nigeria’s biggest oil and gas construction company, competing with Saipem and having over 3,000 workers. The gas pipeline was massive. According to the World Bank, completion of the project would have improved the competitiveness of the energy sectors in Ghana, Benin, and Togo by promoting cheaper and environmentally cleaner gas from Nigeria instead of solid and liquid fuels for power generation and other industrial and commercial uses.  

Wilbros was at 80 percent completion of the gas pipeline project when the EFCC struck. The matter dragged and dragged. By 2013, Wilbros’s massive pipeline coating plant was rotting, among other valuable assets worth billions of naira. The company was wrecked by its inability to finish the project, yet nothing emerged from the prosecution of the big names bandied about as suspects, including former GMDs of NNPC. Wilbros sold off its remnant to Ascot, and the rest is history. 

Pan Ocean’s troubled sea

Pan Ocean is the third story. Pan Ocean, an Indigenous oil and gas exploration company, embarked on one of the most audacious projects of its life. Under Dr. Festus Fadeyi, its chairman at the time, the company invested over $500 million in a gas project to feed the Escravos-Lagos Pipeline System and the West African Gas Pipeline. 

It was supposed to have an impact similar to what Wilbros attempted to do. But there was a problem. The chairman, also a significant shareholder in Skye Bank at the time, had allegedly overborrowed from the bank, forcing it to over-leverage. He had reportedly borrowed about N240 billion, over half of the bank’s total debt.

When President Muhammadu Buhari’s government pounced in 2015, some of the funds had found their way into oil mining leases, including OML 98 managed by Pan Ocean, which was among the seven revoked. The critical point is that all asset leases that reverted to NNPCL, ostensibly in the public interest, have served neither the public interest nor those of the original owners. They have become NNPCL’s ATM. 

Mother of them all

The half of the three stories, actually the mother of them all, is the Ajaokuta Steel Company. It’s the story of a wasting N4 trillion asset for another day. It competes with the four state-owned refineries in demonstrating how ego, primordial greed, and monumentally poor judgment could lead to state collapse.

Yet, carefully and thoughtfully managed, these cases could have helped lessen our current misery. 

One man willing to go on the record on this matter, Dan D. Kunle, power and energy expert and professional of over 30 years, told me last week, “It’s an irony that Nigeria is suffering amid these great opportunities when presidential intervention could turn the page and bring this country the relief it needs badly.”

Three stories, one message: Who will bell the cat?

Between 1967 and 1970, Nigeria prosecuted a blood civil war, one of the bloodiest in the annals of modern history. And at the center of that terrible national tragedy is that man of destiny, General Yakubu Gowon, the head of the military administration—the second in the history of Nigeria’s chequered post-independence political history. After the deep euphoria of independence, the 1966 coup and the aftermath of civil war were too disjunctive for a state that was aiming for the status of a key player on the continent and on the globe; a nation state that was supposed to reverse the ills of colonialism and increase the well-being of her citizens. These series of national events were also something that no national leader should be saddled with. And this is because the position General Gowon was meant to defend—upholding the postcolonial status of one Nigeria even in the face of gross national inconsistencies --- one which led to the 1967-70 civil war. But then, who would want to be associated with the dissolution of a state that destiny has called on one to protect? 

General Gowon’s entry into the trajectory of Nigeria’s national project implies that he was called upon to supervise the direction Nigeria would go right from the commencement of nation-building. The responsibility to channel the political development of the Nigerian state was thrusted on his unwilling head, and from a critically debilitating point of extreme disunity. And it is in this sense that we can regard General Yakubu Gowon as the grand personification of the resilient Nigerian spirit. It is very difficult not to believe that Providence had a hand in inscribing Gowon’s life with a very unique purpose that came to finally intersects Nigeria’s. From the face-off with the late General Odimegwu Ojukwu to the crafting of the Aburi Declaration which broke down eventually because of contrasting interpretation of what the accord demands of the federal and Eastern regional governments. The entire trajectory of incidences and events constitute quite an interesting field of study not only for political scientists, but also political psychologists. For instance, what mix of political ego was responsible in tilting the critical situation into a pissing contest between the two national gladiators? 

War is always a terrible business. In the Nigerian case, the variables involved are all too multiple and complex to make any coherent sense. From external business interests to the internal social and ethnic cleavages whose fissiparous tendencies were the primary causes of the conflict. And yet, that war had to be fought, and Gowon had to supervise the looming disintegration of a national project that had barely taken off. If we agree that Providence had thrusted this national destiny on Gowon, we should also know that it is not deterministic. He could have capitulated in following through with the divine responsibility. He did not. He accepted it as God’s will even if he might not have had that spiritual understanding at the time, and he brought Nigeria as far as he could with a mixture of sound and unsound decisions and judgments. Let me highlight just two that speak to how contradictory leadership decisions can sometimes be. 

On October 1, 1970, General Gowon promised to set in place a political and electoral process that will lead to the handing over of the rein of authority to a civil government by October 1, 1976. Unfortunately, the Supreme Military Council was forced to renege on its promise. And the reason was that the political class did not seem ready to take up the great task of moving forward a state that was still reeling from the consequences of the civil war, and the ethnic bitterness that attended it. That decision could be approached from multiple interpretive perspectives. One could ask what gave Gowon the messianic audacity to legislate on the future of Nigeria. After all, the political behavior of Nigerian politicians has not changed since then. Others could point at a key patriotic sensibility that did not want to scuttle the progresses made since the end of the civil war. No one who went through the gruesome war would want to ever have a repeat of it.      

One of the infamous moments of the Gowon administration is the lost opportunity of transforming the public service system in Nigeria through the adoption of the Udoji Commission report and the implementation of its grand managerial paradigm shifting recommendations. The report was initiated as a result of a global managerial revolution that insisted that the old Weberian administration must give way to a new public service that will be flexible, economical, lean, effective and efficient in the achievement of service delivery. The new public service is meant to be modernized and boosted for an output-oriented performance that increase Nigeria’s productive base within a grand architecture of a developmental state – one with a hold on the ‘commanding heights’ of the national economy. Udoji was motivated in its critical assessment of the Nigerian public service by the Fulton Commission Report of 1968 that also took on the British Civil Service and the urgency of its institutional reform. The Udoji Commission was at once inaugurated to deal with the protracted wage and incentives issues that the civil service had been dealing with before independence and which final resolution the Adebo 1971 report passed on to the Udoji Commission for a holistic systemic reconsideration. Unfortunately, the Gowon administration (presumably as concession to the sentiments of his super-permanent secretaries) cling on to the wage components of the Udoji Report and left off the more fundamental dimensions of institutional reform that would have radically improved the capability readiness of the public service system. How could an administration that balked at handing over power to a bunch of unprepared political class not see the significance of preparing the public service system as a condition for national productivity and good governance? Professor Lars Konlind’s perspective on why institutions enter into irredeemable decline, attributed this sense to what happens when an organization shun changes at the peak of its success. Consequently, leaders (political and administrative) develop selective deafness, one which in the Nigeria’s case over-glorifies the ‘I am directed’ Weberian bureaucratic tradition by disregarding the innovations that managerialism portend, one that has earned Nigeria the reputation of the “hesitant reformer”. 

And yet, without being flippant or hagiographic, General Gowon is in my assessment one of the most heroic of Nigerian leaders. He represents a sense of statesmanship that stands in sharp contrast to the intense sense of gratification that characterizes politics today. The trajectory of his statesmanship is significantly defining. To be born before the founding of such a combustible nation as ours, and to have matured to receive a calling to fight a war to elevate an artificial creation of the British colonialist—‘a mere geographical expression’, to quote Chief Obafemi Awolowo—to the status of a state worth preserving, is nothing less than a defining trajectory. When as a nation we were confronted with a “to be or not to be” dilemma in our evolution, General Gowon chose Nigeria. With that choice, General Gowon brought a significant dimension to the importance of the minority ethnic groups in crystallizing the Nigeria Project. That being a clarion call to the majority ethnic groups that Nigeria did not only belong to all of us; it is God’s divine project. 

Despite the faux pas concerning the Udoji Commission Report and its momentous recommendations, the Gowon administration still left an indelible administrative example that replicate the Awolowo-Adebo administrative model in the old western region. The corps of the super-permanent secretaries significantly backstopped the Gowon administration in the policy space that was stampeded during the years of the civil war. I can hypothesize that without that fundamental model as a crucial fulcrum, the civil war would have been worse that it was. And so, as a testament to the possible greatness of the Nigerian state, we already have two versions of the politics-administration model that could be reinvented to stimulate good governance.

Besides, General Yakubu Gowon was not just a normal run-of-the-mill soldier. He was an officer and a gentleman. At a time when the figure of the solider or the image of the Nigerian army has dipped significantly in reputation, Gowon embodied the very essence of military professionalism and reputation for excellence. As a commissioned officer, he was minded about the educational and training extent so much so that he was ready to go the full lengths to prove his thirst for learning to be more and more professional. General Gowon was not content with his prestigious training at Sandhurst, Camberley and Latimer. He just had to eventually undergo the academic rigor of adult education to earn a doctorate degree at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. That might have been a personal vision of fulfilment, but it elevated the public perception of what and who an officer should be. With that accomplishment, Officer Gowon became a composite image of a true military professional that is not defined by his brawn or capacity to wield the gun, but by intelligence, intellect and humaneness in a profession defined by its unique masculinity. 

In all, General Yakubu Gowon believes in Nigeria. Only the most wrong-headed critique would not take that as a consequential fact. Indeed, after he had left the corridors of power, General Gowon still holds on to a spiritual responsibility to keep up the Providential imperative that Nigeria is on a divine course to greatness. For being so politically, professionally and spiritually involved in the courses of Nigeria’s nation-building efforts, there is no other way to see General Yakubu Gowon order than as a patriot, and one of Nigeria’s eternal heroes. And there is no other way to cap his many efforts as seeing Nigeria fulfill her divine mandate than to explore his political and nationalist legacies while he is still with us. At ninety, our nonagenarian statesman and general deserves more than national accolades. He deserves to see the Nigeria of is dreams and aspirations.