Members of the House of Representatives from the northern part of the country have raised fresh concerns over the four tax reform bills currently under consideration in the National Assembly.

They spoke at an interactive session organised by the House of Representatives with the members of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms on Monday.

The bills, particularly the proposed amendment to the distribution of Value Added Tax (VAT) revenue, have sparked widespread debate.

The bills are: The Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, which is expected to provide the fiscal framework for taxation in the country; and the Tax Administration Bill, which will provide a clear and concise legal framework for all taxes in the country and reduce disputes.

The others are: the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Bill, which will repeal the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Act and establish the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill, which will create a tax tribunal and a tax ombudsman.

The National Economic Council (NEC) and state governors have urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withdraw the bills for further consultations.

Also, northern leaders, including traditional rulers and lawmakers, have expressed their opposition, saying the proposed reforms are skewed against the region.

Despite this, President Tinubu has maintained that the legislative process should proceed, emphasising that ongoing deliberations allow for inputs and amendments without the need to withdraw the bills.

During the session yesterday, lawmakers, including Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi (APC, Plateau), Rep. Ahmed Jaha Babawo (APC, Borno), Rep. Zainab Gimba (APC, Borno), and Rep. Zakariah Dauda Nyampah (PDP, Adamawa), expressed concerns about the bills’ potential impacts on the North.

They argued that the region’s economy, already weakened by insecurity and poor productivity, could suffer further under the proposed amendments.

But the presidential tax reform team allayed the fears, saying the current VAT distribution favours few states and is unfair to others. 

‘North’s economy plagued by insecurity’

The northern lawmakers raised concerns that the socio-economic vulnerabilities faced by states in the region, largely driven by insecurity, have not been adequately considered in the proposed tax reform bills.

The lawmakers called for a balanced approach to the tax reform process, one that considers the region’s security challenges and ensures fair treatment for all states.

Rep. Gagdi said insecurity has disrupted the previously vibrant economies of many northern states and questioned how conflict-displaced citizens in the North could benefit from VAT proceeds tied to consumption and other import-related taxes.

He noted that industries, factories, and other means of production in these areas have been severely impacted, with large portions of the productive population displaced or rendered less effective due to challenges such as Boko Haram insurgency and banditry.

Rep. Jaha said the timing of the proposed tax amendments is inappropriate given the current security situation in the North, which has significantly affected its economy.

He expressed reservations about the derivation-based revenue-sharing formula, which he said would unfairly disadvantage economically fragile states.

“There are regions, especially in the North, that are not economically viable due to security challenges. The proposed VAT allocation formula would treat these states unfairly,” Jaha said.

Rep. Gimba emphasised the plight of states like Borno, where insurgency has significantly hindered economic activities.

She called for a more equitable VAT-sharing formula that would account for the unique challenges faced by such states.

Similarly, Rep. Nyampah called for careful consideration of the controversial provisions in the reform bills that could adversely affect northern states, both individually and collectively.

We’ll prioritise constituents’ wishes – Senator Kawu Sumaila

The Senator representing Kano South, Abdurahman Kawu Sumaila, has assured that lawmakers, particularly those from the northern region, will align their decisions with the wishes of their constituents regarding the bills.

Speaking with Daily Trust on Monday, Senator Sumaila emphasised that the views of the people, as communicated through regional leaders, would guide their actions.

“We are studying the bill as usual and liaising with our constituents and relevant stakeholders to understand their feelings and views. It is the peoples’ views and will that will prevail in the end. This is what will happen,” he said.

When asked about his stance on the position advanced by northern governors and traditional leaders, Senator Sumaila said there was nothing unusual in the ongoing process. He highlighted that such deliberations are standard for all bills, although he acknowledged the heightened importance of this particular legislation.

“This bill will come to a debate in parliament, and we will debate it. We will not do anything against the interest of our people. We will ensure our actions align with their thinking. Nigeria is our constituency, and we will do justice to it, Insha’Allah. I am not far from the thinking of my constituency,” he added.

We’ll be guided by national interest – Doguwa

The Leader of the Northern Regional Caucus in the House of Representatives, Rep. Alhassan Ado Doguwa, has assured that lawmakers from the region will prioritise national interest in deliberating on the proposed tax reform bills.

Speaking to reporters after an interactive session on the bills, Doguwa emphasised the importance of a meticulous and inclusive legislative process.

He stressed that the caucus would ensure justice for Nigerians by carefully examining the bills before their passage.

“These proposed bills are fundamentally about fiscal federalism, focusing on the equitable sharing of resources among federating units and key government institutions,” Doguwa said.

He further explained that lawmakers would avoid rushing the legislative process to prevent enacting laws that fail to address the nation’s economic realities effectively.

“National interest will be our guiding principle. We will thoroughly study the bills clause by clause to ensure they serve the people and align with the country’s overarching needs.

“We will continue consultations at the state and regional levels to raise awareness among our members and other stakeholders. Ultimately, the law will reflect the collective good of the people,” he added.

Current VAT distribution favours few states, unfair to others – FIRS boss

The Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Dr. Zacch Adedeji, has criticised the current allocation of Value Added Tax (VAT) proceeds, which channels 70 per cent of the revenue to Lagos, Rivers, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

He described this arrangement as unfair to the remaining 34 states.

Adedeji disclosed that Lagos alone received 42 per cent of October’s VAT proceeds, while Rivers, Oyo, and the FCT received 16 per cent, 5.2 per cent, and 10 per cent, respectively.

“This structure does not reflect Nigeria’s collective interest. VAT is derived from consumption, and 70 per cent of consumption occurs outside these states,” he said, noting that many revenue-generating companies are headquartered in Lagos and Rivers, skewing VAT distribution.

To illustrate the imbalance, Adedeji cited MTN, Nigeria’s leading mobile telecommunications provider, which contributes the highest VAT revenue to Lagos, despite offering services nationwide.

He highlighted the disparity in VAT allocations, revealing that states like Borno and Bauchi receive as little as 0.32 per cent and 0.4 per cent of proceeds, respectively.

“Every time I sign off VAT proceeds, it doesn’t feel like this structure represents our national values. This is why the president, in his wisdom, has proposed changes to ensure fairness,” Adedeji remarked.

The FIRS boss assured lawmakers that the proposed reforms aim to distribute VAT proceeds more equitably, focusing on consumption, rather than the location of corporate headquarters.

“Under this bill, all states—irrespective of their economic situations—would benefit. It’s about ensuring a fairer structure that aligns with the national interest,” he added.

Similarly, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Taiwo Oyedele, clarified that the proposed tax reform bills are designed to create equal opportunities for all states without favouring any region.

Speaking on VAT distribution, Oyedele explained that the current policy requires companies to remit VAT from their headquarters, disproportionately benefiting states where these headquarters are located.

He emphasised that the reforms aim to address this inequity.

“Under the current VAT Act, revenue is allocated as follows: 15 per cent to the Federal Government, 50% to states and the FCT, and 35 per cent to local governments.

“The proposed law seeks to reduce the federal government’s share and ensure companies remit VAT based on where taxable services are delivered,” Oyedele said.

He noted that the reforms are not intended to impact negatively on any region but to foster fairness and align VAT revenue allocation with economic activity across the country.

Regarding Nigeria’s broader fiscal structure, Oyedele highlighted the nation’s eight main revenue sources: personal income tax, property tax, stamp duties, value-added tax (VAT), and land-related taxes (primarily collected by states), alongside corporate income tax, customs duties, and petroleum and solid minerals revenue (shared among the federal, state, and local governments).

He lamented the underperformance of all these revenue streams but expressed optimism about their untapped potential.

“The unfortunate reality is that every one of these revenue sources is underperforming. However, the good news is that they all represent opportunities for significant improvement,” he said.

Oyedele also pointed out the inadequacy of Nigeria’s budget relative to its size, stressing the need for reforms to enhance revenue generation and financing capabilities.

The proposed reforms, he said, aim to recalibrate the fiscal framework, reduce imbalances, and promote sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all Nigerians.

[DailyTrust]

Nigerian economists and financial analysts say the recent drop in price of Premium Motor Spirit (Petrol) upon direct fuel purchase deal between Dangote Refinery and Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria may force inflationary pressures down in the coming months.

Former President of the Council of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, Prof. Segun Ajibola, and the CEO of SD & D Capital Management, Mr. Idakolo Gbolade, disclosed this to DAILY POST in separate interviews on Monday.

This comes as Nigeria’s headline and food inflation climbed for the second consecutive month to 33.88 percent and 39.16 percent in October 2024, according to the National Bureau of Statistics’ latest Consumer Price Index.

On a year-on-year and month-on-month basis, the country’s inflation grew by 6.55 percent and 2.64 percent, respectively.

A further analysis showed that urban and rural inflation stood at 36.38 percent and 31.59 percent for the period under review.

The development showed the worsening situation the majority of Nigerians faced in the past months, weakening purchasing power.

The inflationary pressures are not unconnected with surges in the prices of food items, transportation, pharmaceuticals, energy costs, clothing, and others in Nigeria.

CBN’s monetary policies can’t solve inflationary pressures in Nigeria — Ajibola

Reacting, Ajibola said that monetary policies such as interest rate cost by the Central Bank of Nigeria cannot solve Nigeria’s inflationary pressures because they are cost-induced.

He stressed that CBN over the years has been tackling inflation with the wrong medicine.

“Monetary policies cannot solve inflationary problems in Nigeria. The Central Bank of Nigeria has been fighting a battle that it cannot defeat because the country’s inflation pressures are cost-induced.

“It is because of a rise in demand or an increase in money supply.

“The landing cost of imported items is increasing due to the current exchange rate. Locally, there are pressures from all cost edges. So unless this is tackled, the challenges in Nigeria’s inflation will remain,” he stated.

Inflation: Nigeria yet to recover from fuel subsidy removal, Naira floating shocks – CPPE

The Executive Director of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Muda Yusuf, said the continued rise in Nigeria’s inflation showed that the country is yet to recover from the shocks of the fuel subsidy removal policy and the Naira floating policy by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government in June 2023.

“The rise in inflation is an indication that the economy is yet to recover from the shocks of the reforms in exchange rates and fuel prices.

“Hopefully, with some of the measures being implemented by the government or contemplated under the economic stabilisation plan, temporary import duty waivers, and other policies that will be fully implemented, we may see some reduction in the food prices,” he noted.

Nigerians suffering inflationary pressures for over 10 years — Idakolo slams CBN

Idakolo, on his part, said the CBN monetary policies such as the interest rate hike, which stood at 27.75 percent in October 2024, have not impacted the country’s inflationary pressures in the past 10 years.

“The CBN has tried various policies to stem inflation, but several other factors are making inflationary pressures increase.

“The economy has been experiencing inflationary pressures for the past 10 years,” he stated.

Fuel price cut: Experts speak on Dangote, IPMAN deal

Meanwhile, Ajibola and Idakolo agreed that the Dangote Petrol and IPMAN direct petrol sale deal could be the game changer during the festive period and January next year.

The assurance comes as Dangote Refinery and IPMAN signed an agreement on the purchase of 60 million litres of fuel weekly.

DAILY POST reports the price of petrol dropped between N5 and N50, selling around N1060 and N1150 per litre across filling stations in the last few days.

Speaking on the development, the renowned economist, Ajibola, said the recent drop in the price of petrol attributed to the Dangote Refinery and IPMAN deal may also force inflationary pressures down in the coming months.

“Good enough, the prices of petrol are reducing now because of the direct PMS purchase agreement between Dangote Refinery and the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria; this will have a ripple effect on the cost of doing business in the country,” he noted.

However, he said the fluctuations in the country’s foreign exchange as the Naira fell to N1690.37 per dollar at the official FX market have been major impediments for Nigeria because of its dependence on imports.

“Foreign Exchange has been so tough. It is a major cost item that may require time to address.

“Similarly, the cost of energy, fuel, and electricity will have a major impact on inflationary pressures.

“Reliance on local production, reduction of import duties for some consumables, we may have gradual improvements during this year if all that has been said is implemented,” he stated.

Idakolo further told DAILY POST that “the direct petrol sale deal between Dangote refinery and IPMAN is a welcome development because it will discourage importation of petroleum products and eliminate the cost associated with importation.

“The federal government concession to sell crude to local refineries in Naira is another way of sourcing the locally refined crude at a lower cost. These measures will go a long way to ease inflation in the long run if it is consistent”.

[DailyPost]

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has described Nigeria as a “failed state” due to the policies of both former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu.

Speaking during a paper presentation at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in the United States, Obasanjo criticised the leadership of both men, attributing Nigeria’s state of chaos, insecurity, and underdevelopment to their administrations. In his keynote address, titled “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” which was pre-recorded and played at the event, Obasanjo refrained from naming the leaders directly but referenced them using nicknames given by their critics—“Baba-go-slow” for Buhari and “Emilokan” for Tinubu.

“As we can see and understand, Nigeria’s situation is bad. The more the immorality and corruption of a nation, the more the nation sinks into chaos, insecurity, conflict, discord, division, disunity, depression, youth restiveness, confusion, violence, and underdevelopment. That’s the situation mostly in Nigeria in the reign of Baba-go-slow and Emilokan. The failing state status of Nigeria is confirmed and glaringly indicated and manifested for every honest person to see through the consequences of the level of our pervasive corruption, mediocrity, immorality, misconduct,

Obasanjo also accused Nigerian politicians of compromising the judiciary, contributing to what he called a widespread “state capture.” He criticised the common response to electoral disputes, “go to court,” suggesting it reflects the judiciary’s compromised state. According to Obasanjo, “the judiciary in Nigeria is a very pale version of its once internationally esteemed self.” He went on to say that politicians, after rigging elections, confidently tell their opponents to “go to court” because they know the judiciary has been bought. “A number of judges are in the pockets of wealthy politicians and individuals, making judgments not based on law but to the highest bidder. This, my learned audience, is one of the most effective strategies of state capture — and it must be excised from Nigeria like a surgeon cutting out a malignant cancer,” Obasanjo stated.

The former President also accused political elites of sabotaging Nigeria’s economy for personal gain, pointing to the acquisition of national assets at bargain prices and the allocation of resources—such as minerals, land, and human capital—to local and international actors. He called for robust local and international laws to prevent such practices, emphasizing that the purchase of national assets by political elites and their families must be prohibited.

Without naming individuals, Obasanjo criticised the ongoing control exerted by former governors over their states long after leaving office, singling out one such case of a former governor who continues to hold sway over his state 25 years after his tenure ended. Obasanjo also condemned Nigerian politicians for exploiting the poverty and hunger in the country through “stomach infrastructure” politics, where food items packaged with the image of political candidates are distributed to gain votes. He lamented that destitute citizens are more likely to vote for politicians offering handouts, often funded by looted public money, rather than those offering long-term solutions to the country’s problems.

He pointed out the high rate of out-of-school children, widespread insecurity, and systemic corruption, and urged Nigeria to adopt the virtues that have contributed to the progress of Southeast Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. The event, attended by figures such as Peter Obi, Governor Alex Otti of Abia State, and former Minister Obi Ezekwesili, also featured Obasanjo’s participation in discussions on “Leadership and Democracy in Africa” and “The Future of Leadership in Africa.”

[TheNation]

The Presidency on Monday attacked former President Olusegun Obasanjo over his claim that corruption has reached a fatal stage in the country.

The Presidency also faulted Obasanjo’s call for the sacking of the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, over his conduct of the 2023 election which he described as a travesty.

However, the Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and the New Nigeria Peoples Party backed the elder statesman on the issue of graft, the imperative of electoral reform and other issues he raised in his keynote address at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum, Yale University, New Haven, United States of America, on Sunday.

In his address, ‘Leadership failure and state capture in Nigeria,’ the ex-President canvassed for shorter tenures for INEC officials and a more rigorous vetting process to prevent the appointment of partisan individuals.

He criticised President Bola Tinubu’s performance in office, asserting that corruption continues to rank among the most important problems affecting Nigerians.

The elder statesman said, “More than N700 billion in cash bribes were paid by citizens to public officials in 2023. Most bribes are paid in the street or a public official’s office.

“Private sector bribery is increasing but continues to be less prevalent than in the public sector. Corruption goes with power; therefore, to hold any useful discussion of corruption, we must first locate it where it properly belongs – in the ranks of the powerful.

“Corruption in Nigeria has passed the alarming and entered the fatal stage, and Nigeria will die if we keep pretending that she is only slightly indisposed.’’

He added, “Ranked 150 out of 180 countries in the Transparency International 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index,1 Nigeria’s ranking places it in the bottom 20 per cent of the comity of nations and illustrates how systemic and embedded corruption is in the country. It is, in my opinion, and those of many, the most serious developmental challenge to the nation.”

He insisted that the nation would continue to sink into chaos, insecurity, conflict, discord, division, disunity, depression, youth restiveness, confusion, violence, and underdevelopment as long as it is embedded in corruption.

However, in a pushback on Monday, Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the former President had no moral grounds to criticise INEC, having presided over what he called “the most fraudulent election held in Nigeria since 1960.”

In a statement titled, ‘Former President Obasanjo was not an ideal leader to emulate,’ Onanuga said, “It is hypocrisy writ large when a man who presided over the worst election in Nigeria demands the sack of the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

He added, “After wasting billions of naira on a failed third-term project in 2007, Chief Obasanjo hurriedly organised a sham electoral process that would go down in history as the most fraudulent election held in Nigeria since 1960.

“The beneficiary of the sham election, Umaru Yar’adua, admitted that the election was seriously flawed and, as Justice Muhammed Uwais’ panel recommended, worked towards electoral reforms.”

The Presidency argued that the former leader’s habit of casting aspersions on every subsequent administration overshadowed the expectations from an elder statesman to join a constructive dialogue on attaining national progress.

“In his latest critique of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, whom he pejoratively called ‘Baba Go Slow’ and President Bola Tinubu, who he tagged ‘Emilokan’, Chief Obasanjo used the platform provided by Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University to unfurl his latest treatise on leadership and public morality. He also used the forum to write off Nigeria as a failing country.’’

“The irony of Chief Obasanjo using the platform that celebrates Achebe to sermonise on the ideals of good governance, statecraft, economic management, and corruption should be apparent to discerning minds.

“When he was alive, Chinua Achebe was a universally acclaimed moral, cultural and literary icon with scant regard for Obasanjo,” the statement added.

The Presidency cited Achebe’s rejection of the third highest national honour bestowed on him by the Obasanjo-led administration in 2004 on the grounds of the prevalence of abuse of power, corruption, poor leadership, and, in particular, “state-sponsored brigandage endorsed by Chief Obasanjo in Achebe’s home state of Anambra.”

“In rejecting the 2004 national honour by the Obasanjo administration, Achebe declared: ‘Nigeria’s condition today under your watch is…too dangerous for silence. I must register my disappointment and protest by declining to accept the high honour awarded me in the 2004 honours list,’” the statement read.

The Presidency also cited the unconstitutional impeachment of four Peoples Democratic Party governors – Joshua Dariye of Plateau, Rasheed Ladoja of Oyo, Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa.

It argued, “A man under whose watch all of these egregious infractions occurred should certainly not be the one to give any lecture on leadership and corruption.

“He should not be taken seriously as he reeks of profound hypocrisy of the worst form.”

Onanuga also suggested that Obasanjo’s self-acclaimed reputation as an economic reformer did not align with his record in office.

 The statement pointed out that many challenges Obasanjo highlighted in his Yale address remain unresolved legacies of his administration.

It noted Obasanjo’s admission that his administration failed to prioritise gas development, a sector now receiving attention under the Tinubu administration.

It also acknowledged that Obasanjo’s tenure benefited from rising crude oil prices, which peaked during that period.

Still, it argued that poor economic decisions, including the hasty repayment of $15bn in Paris Club debt while neglecting critical infrastructure, laid the foundation for subsequent economic challenges.

Furthermore, Onanuga faulted Obasanjo for failing to address Nigeria’s infrastructural decay, including federal roads such as the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and the Lagos-Abeokuta Road.

The presidential aide also accused him of undermining public universities by capitalising on their deficiencies to establish private institutions.

The Presidency contrasted this with the security sector, where it credited the Buhari administration with modernising the Armed Forces through substantial investments in equipment and strategy, a trend it claims President Tinubu has sustained.

It also linked the rise of militancy and kidnapping to Obasanjo’s administration, asserting that his tenure allowed such security issues to take root and expand.

On matters of integrity, honesty, and morality in public leadership, it said Obasanjo is “certainly not a paragon of virtue for anyone to model after.”

“Nigerians can still remember the messy public spat between Chief Obasanjo and his then-vice president, Atiku Abubakar, over PTDF money that led to a Senate Public Hearing in 2004.

“The sordid details of the public hearing included unsettling evidence of how Obasanjo instructed his Vice President to buy Sport Utility Vehicles for his mistresses with PTDF funds.

“There was also the Halliburton bribe scandal, which the US Congress probe revealed. Bribe payments were made to the highest political authorities at the Villa while Obasanjo was in charge,” the statement read.

It said Nigerians would also remember how the Obasanjo administration invested $16bn in electricity, which left the country in utter darkness.

The Presidency added, “The colossal amount spent on power was so embarrassing that President Umaru Yar’Adua, Obasanjo’s successor, ordered a probe. Similarly, Obasanjo’s privatisation programme was scandalous. It did not deliver real value for the country.

“His administration cheaply sold national assets to cronies who stripped the assets of the state-owned enterprises. A case in point was the aluminium smelter company ALSCON in Ikot-Abasi, Akwa-Ibom State, built by the military government at the princely sum of $ 3.2bn. It was sold for 130 million dollars.

“Obasanjo also sank money into Turn Around Maintenance of our refineries, which never worked, leading to the massive importation of refined petroleum products.”

Onanuga referenced accusations of gross abuse of office during Obasanjo’s tenure, pointing to a petition filed by former Abia State Governor Orji Uzor Kalu, a member of Obasanjo’s political party, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

He added, “If Chief Obasanjo had addressed the many problems he critiqued in his poorly written Yale lecture when he ruled Nigeria for eight years, President Buhari and President Tinubu would have had a much lighter burden of fixing the country.

“While the Tinubu administration diligently works to overcome the country’s economic challenges, it would be better and more advisable for former President Obasanjo to temper his self-righteousness in his public discussions regarding our nation’s temporary difficulties.

“Instead, his remaining years would be better spent reflecting on the missed opportunities during his own time in leadership, both as military head of state and civilian president.”

Speaking in the same vein, the National Publicity Director of the All Progressives Congress, Bala Ibrahim, said he found it ridiculous that the former President could recommend some measures he didn’t deploy during his eight-year tenure.

As much as the former President is entitled to his opinion, Ibrahim said he could raise the issues he highlighted before the National Council of State where he is a member.

 “Such suggestion can best be tabled before the National Council of State of which he is a member. It would be subjected to scrutiny and a decision would be taken in the best interest of the country.

“In his own time, he was a leader and his election was declared by INEC. Obasanjo was not known to be erratic in changing the leadership of INEC during his time. So, it would be unfair for him to suggest such changes, more so when he is gradually turning himself into an opposition.

“If it’s an issue that is of national concern, Obasanjo may have his reason. But issues like that can best be handled at the National Council of State, where he is a member,” the ruling party spokesman noted.

Corroborating the former leader, the opposition parties demanded the dismissal of the INEC boss and an overhaul of the electoral system.

The PDP said beyond the call for his sacking, people like Yakubu and other INEC officials ought to apologise to Nigerians for dashing their hopes at the polls.

In an interview with The PUNCH on Monday, the PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, asked the anti-corruption agencies to investigate the commission’s staff for alleged mismanagement of resources.

According to hìm, Obasanjo’s comments are a reflection of the demands of Nigerians.

He stated, “In a more honourable society, the INEC chairman would have humbly resigned on his own and apologised to Nigerians, whose trust, hopes, and expectations he dashed through his negligence and inexperience. When he was appointed, Nigerians had high expectations and truly believed he was a breath of fresh air.

“But now, after witnessing his administration’s handling of the affair within INEC, Nigerians are not only disappointed, but they also feel as though they’ve stepped back into the dark ages, where elections were sold to the highest bidder and were neither credible, free, nor fair.

“So, President Obasanjo is not saying anything new. He is simply reflecting the sentiments of Nigerians—well-meaning Nigerians—who understand that what INEC is doing now is a threat to our democracy and a recipe for anarchy if not addressed. I would advise the INEC Chairman to take this admonition seriously if he has any honour left in him.”

The National Publicity Secretary of the New Nigeria People’s Party, Ladipo Johnson, argued that Obasanjo’s comments had some merits.

“He is thorough and must have his reasons for saying what he said. In any event, it behoves Nigerians to look at the performance of INEC since 2015. Are we on an upward trajectory or are we on a downward trajectory?

“The answer is there for everybody. Except we want to continue to fool ourselves. But when an elder statesman makes a call like that, everyone has to revisit the issue and chart a way forward,” Johnson stated.

His counterpart in the Labour Party, Obiora Ifoh, equally said Obasanjo was expressing the minds of the masses, who he said had long given up on INEC.

Ifoh added that ‘’despite being given N1 billion taxpayers money’’ ahead of the 2023 poll to invest in election technology through iREV (INEC Result Viewing portal) and BVAS ( Bimodal Voter Accreditation System),  Nigerians found it appalling that the facilities were not effectively deployed for the elections.

 He said, “It is a crime against the Nigerian masses. Obasanjo is someone who speaks truth to power. He is also known not to mince his words. He lives among the poor in his Ota farm settlement. So, he understands what people are going through.

 “Those men at the leadership of INEC are still in office because this is Nigeria. In a developed democracy, they would have resigned a long time ago. But look at them just sitting in their offices comfortably.

 “To make things worse, the judiciary is supporting them. Even in this last election in Ondo State, the President was telling those who were not content with the result to go to court. They are now making our courts look pedestrian because they know if you go to court, they will buy out the judgment.”

 “So, the former President has said it all. I don’t think INEC has done well at all. They have done a disservice to this nation. The ridiculous economy we are having today is as a result of their action,” he stated.

[Punch]

Appointments of ambassadors or high commissioners by the President is a constitutional obligation. There should not be any delay in such appointments. Section 171 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states that:

“(1) Power to appoint persons to hold or act in the offices to which this section applies and to remove persons so appointed from any such office shall vest in the President.

(2) The offices to which this section applies are, namely – (a) Secretary to the Government of the Federation; (b) Head of the Civil Service of the Federation; (c) Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Principal Representative of Nigeria abroad; (d) Permanent Secretary in any Ministry or Head of any Extra-Ministerial Department of the Government of the Federation howsoever designated; and (e) any office on the personal staff of the President. 

(3) An appointment to the office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation shall not be made except from among Permanent Secretaries or equivalent rank in the civil service of the Federation or of a State. (4) An appointment to the office of Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Principal Representative of Nigeria abroad shall not have effect unless the appointment is confirmed by the Senate.

(5) In exercising his powers of appointment under this section, the President shall have regard to the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity.

(6) Any appointment made pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2) of this section shall be at the pleasure of the President and shall cease when the President ceases to hold office;

Provided that where a person has been appointed from a public service of the Federation or a State, he shall be entitled to return to the public service of the Federation or of the State when the President ceases to hold office.”

The delay in appointing ambassadors mirrors the way this government thinks of the roles of ambassadors. Ambassadors actively manage and maintain diplomatic relations between the home country and the host. They engage in political and economic negotiations, promote bilateral cooperation and safeguards the home country’s interest in the host country. Additionally, they supervise the functioning of consulates within their jurisdiction.

They are not just mere desk officers or protocol officers whose schedule is only to hire uber vehicles for President, their relatives and other top officials. They are an integral part of government. 

Ambassadors also engage in delicate negotiations, representing their country’s policies while understanding others’ perspectives. This balancing act is crucial for successful international relations. Their work includes advocating for their home country’s political, economic, and cultural agendas abroad. Ambassadors are the voice of their nation in foreign lands, aiming to foster global partnerships. 

How can we be chasing foreign investments when ambassadors who are to play prominent roles in such negotiations have not been appointed? 

If ministers could be appointed and sworn-in three months after presidential inauguration, why delay the appointments of ambassadors?

At the 79th General Assembly of the United Nation, Nigeria made a legitimate demand for a permanent seat at the United Nations security council. At the time we made the demand, we had no permanent representative in the United Nations. What a contradiction. We undervalue the position of ambassadors in this country. We starve their embassies of funds and we pay little attention to their needs.  

We acknowledged the efforts of Mr. Walter Carrington (24 July 1930-11 August 2020), the American ambassador to Nigeria between 1993-1997 and the role he played in standing for human rights during the General Sani Abacha years. He stood firm by his principles and he was resolute in defending human rights. 

In other countries of the world, the ambassadorship is the training ground for leadership.

To be concluded…

“We eagerly anticipate the coming on stream of the Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt refineries before the end of this year, as promised by the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of NNPCL, Mele Kyari. This milestone will not only end baseless rumours of monopoly but also position Nigeria as a refining hub for petroleum products in Africa.”

 Dangote Group, VANGUARD, November 6, 2024. 

“Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth and falsehood, for the good or the evil side.” — J. R Lowell, 1819-1891, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ p 254.

I deliberately led off this article with the last statement by the Dangote Group in their rejoinder Press Release issued, incredibly on the very next day after the PINNACLE OIL & GAS issued its own Press Release in our paper – Vanguard.

Permit me to start by expressing my appreciation to the two companies for patronising our paper. We need every advert we can get; but Vanguard remains the most objective newspaper in Nigeria irrespective of whether the issue is politics, economics, business, religion or social. All the stakeholders – companies, government regulators, NNPCL, NGOs, activists, lawyers and, of course, the final consumers of petroleum products — engaged in the strife for truth and falsehood on the literally burning issue of fuel will have unfettered access to this paper. The ultimate fate of our country hangs on our individual and collective ability to make the right choices on this combustible matter. We have no choice.

Dangote Press Release interrogated

“An [organisation] is the lengthened shadow of one man.”

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882. VBQ p 105, available online.

 Every company in the Dangote Group, including those quoted on the Stock Exchange, is essentially a one-man business masquerading as something else. Even the Annual General Meetings, AGMs, amount to Alhaji Dangote holding a meeting with himself. Nothing that anybody else says, or thinks, matters. All the proposals, decisions, amendments to the Articles of Association etc, have already been approved before the other shareholders gather for the ritual. The control is absolute. That can sometimes carry unintended consequences for minority shareholders whenever Alhaji decides to bail out.

Since he controls virtually every important aspect of a company’s operations, including external communications, it can reasonably be inferred that he approved of the Press Release cited above. In that case, the last sentences , which would be regarded as “the punch line” for the rest of the rejoinder were very unfortunate. Rather than strengthen Dangote Refinery’s position, they damaged it beyond redemption. Permit me to start from “We eagerly anticipate the coming on stream of the Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt refineries by the end of this year…”.

 Certainly, only the people at the Dangote Refinery can possibly believe that drivel. Even if they have limited their anticipation to the Port Harcourt refinery, keen observers of the petroleum sector, since June 2023, would have been sceptical. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, had promised to start supplying fuel from that refinery by December last year. Three other deadlines have been missed; and the most reliable information indicates that there might be no fuel from PH this year. The same is true of the Warri refinery. Kaduna is the worst case. The Turn-Around-Maintenance, TAM, on that one has barely got started; and, probably is stalled. Altogether, we are confronted with a huge scam perpetrated by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, NNPCL and the contractors assigned to undertake the TAMs. Dangote Refinery people can wait, if that is their choice, but the rest of Nigerians are sick and tired of waiting for NNPCL fuel this year.

“To murder one’s reputation is a kind of suicide; a detestable and odious vice. —Henry Fielding, 1707-1754, in TOM JONES, VBQ p 213. available online.

 Calling the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of NNPCL, Mele Kyari, as his only witness was perhaps the worst blunder the Dangote Group could have committed. Bluntly stated, Mele Kyari “ has made so many false statements; failed to fulfil so many promises with regard to fuel supply from the four NNPCL-owned refineries that the man has murdered his reputation. It is simply amazing that the Dangote Group will base its rejoinder on the words of someone who has no reputation left to protect. Was it not the same Kyari who, in July this year, told a House of Representatives Committee that NNPCL would be producing 2 million barrels of crude oil by December this year? Is the country anywhere close to that output level now in November?

When the Press Release ended with the assertion that “This milestone will not only end all baseless rumours of monopoly…”,  I really felt bad for the Dangote Group; which appeared like the drowning man grasping at every water hyacinth. The truth is, there will be no milestone to end rumours about monopoly because there are other facts which buttress the charge that Dangote Refinery is gunning for monopoly for reasons too numerous to disclose here; but which go beyond the dispute with PINNACLE OIL & GAS.

Dangote at war with everybody

“War is hell.” — General Sherman, 1820-1891. VBQ p 268.

The US Army General spoke the minds of everyone who has ever been involved in armed or brand conflicts. Troubled days and sleepless nights become more frequent. Peace of mind is lost as long as it lasts.

My worst experience of brand warfare occurred in 1982; when the Board of Directors of North Brewery Limited, Kano, called me; and after thanking me for a wonderful job done with DOUBLE CROWN lager beer and increasing my remuneration package by 25 per cent, announced that they have a new assignment for me. According to the Chairman, “The Board has decided to launch a Stout brand to rival GUINNESS STOUT – which has close to 95 per cent of the market share. We want you to embark on the assignment from this minute; prepare a plan and budget. You will receive all the financial support you need.” As a professional Marketing manager, member of the American Marketing Association, AMA, at the time, I knew better than everybody in that room that I had been asked to start a war against one of the most powerful brands, in its sector, in the world. GUINNESS STOUT had for years held at least 92% of market share in any country in which it was distributed; and the Board was expecting 10 per cent share in two years. I didn’t know whether to rejoice or cry. Here was opportunity and danger wrapped up in one assignment. It was too painful to laugh; but, I was too old to cry.

Dangote might not have realised it when he embarked on building the world’s largest single train refinery in Nigeria, purportedly capable of processing 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day and supplying most of domestic needs for fuel. But, he was embarking on war because the ambition threatened other companies’ plans for expansion and survival. Certainly, no firm would abandon its own plans just because a bigger enterprise had moved to monopolise the market. The truth is, the Dangote Refinery can only survive if it operates without any competition locally….

In my column last week, I discussed how Trump’s victory could impact on Africa, noting that his presidency might not be as bad for Africa as generally thought.  This week I will explore further how his election as the 47th President of the United States could possibly affect the Russo-Ukraine war. The war has been going on since February 2022.

The general assumption is that Trump would pursue a somewhat isolationist policy within the framework of his campaign slogan of Make America Great Again, MAGA, and that he would more likely pull all the funding for Ukraine. During the campaign, Trump had derisively called Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, the greatest salesman in history, implying that he had through sheer marketing skills got more than he deserved from the US and other NATO members who had been supporting his war efforts.

Trump had also suggested that he could impose a blanket 20 per cent tariff on all goods imported into the U.S., with a tariff of up to 60 per cent for Chinese products and one as high as 2,000 per cent on vehicles built in Mexico. For the European Union, meanwhile, Trump has said the 27-nation bloc will pay a “big price” for not buying enough American exports.

Zelensky himself reinforced this belief that the second coming of Trump might be bad news for Ukraine when, after a telephone conversation with Trump following the latter’s electoral victory over Kamala Harris, he told his countrymen and women that he was certain that the war with Russia would “end sooner” than it would have been once Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States in January 2025. “It is certain that the war will end sooner with the policies of the team that will now lead the White House. This is their approach, their promise to their citizens,” he was reported to have said in an interview with the Ukrainian media outlet, Suspilne. He added that Ukraine “must do everything so that this war ends next year, ends through diplomatic means”.  

It should be noted that the US has been the biggest arms supplier to Ukraine in the course of the war. For instance, between February 2022 when the war began to the end of June 2024, it delivered or committed to deliver weapons and equipment worth $55.5bn (£41.5bn), according to the German research organisation, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. At present the momentum in the war seems to be with the Russians. For instance, Russia is reportedly winning significant swathes of territory in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s recent seizure of the strategically important city of Vuhledar appears to have cleared the way for possible Moscow’s advances deeper into Ukraine.

It is also reported that Moscow is preparing for an offensive using about 10,000 North Korean soldiers and about 40,000 Russians in the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces have been struggling to defend the territory they captured during the summer. With this picture in mind, it is understandable why there are apprehensions among Ukrainians and their supporters in the war. The thinking appears to be that the country should use the remaining part of the supportive Biden presidency to do whatever they can to push back the Russians and strengthen their bargaining position before Trump becomes the substantive President in January 2025 and forces them into a negotiating table. Recently, it was announced that the Biden administration has allowed Ukraine to use long-range American missiles against targets in Russia in a move that would mark a new round of tension in the war. 

There is no doubt that Trump would like to reduce or drastically cut funding to Ukraine in keeping with his campaign promise of America First. There are however other considerations that might influence his decisions on the Ukraine war:

The first is that Trump, who regards himself as the ultimate dealmaker, is a very transactional politician – and might be open to be influenced by Ukraine or the Europeans depending on the sort of ‘deal’ he is offered. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who spoke with Trump after the US election, alluded to this when he reportedly told the German media that the incoming US leader had a “more nuanced” position on the war than was commonly assumed. It has been suggested that Zelensky could offer two ‘deals’ to Trump: The first will be for Ukrainian troops to replace some American units in Europe after the war in order to reduce the cost of America’s commitment to NATO. The second could be opening up some of Ukraine’s resources to the US and other Western allies. Offers such as these would, however, be contingent upon Ukraine winning the war and being admitted into NATO – which at present is far from certain.

The second consideration for Trump  is geopolitical and geo strategic. South Korea, an American ally, has reportedly supplied hundreds of thousands of artillery shells to Ukraine via the United States and had also pledged a $2.3bn low-interest loan to Kyiv. South Korea is the world’s 10th-largest arms exporter and its clients already include four nations that border Russia – Poland, Estonia, Finland and Norway. The South Korean systems are meant to supplement Patriots, the advanced American air defence systems.  It is said that the South Korean laser needs nothing but electricity – and could be deployed to the Ukrainian cities that have no Patriots or similar Western or Taiwanese air defence systems. A crucial question is whether Trump would be insensitive to deals entered with Kiev by its ally South Korea in his decision on how he wants the Ukrainian war to end or even in any decision to stop funding Ukraine’s war efforts. 

Related to the above  is the report that around 10,000 North Koreans, USA’s historical enemy, has joined the war on the Russian side, with the possibility of Belarus also joining. Following the axiom that the friend to my enemy is my enemy or at least not to be trusted, the increasing collaboration between North Korea and Russia is also a factor to be taken into consideration by Trump in his decision on the Russo-Ukraine war. Similarly, claims by Ukraine’s Western allies in September 2024 that Iran, another enemy of the West, has sent short-range ballistic missiles to Russia in a major escalation – a claim Tehran has rejected as “completely baseless and false” –  will be another consideration.  

A third major consideration that could influence Trump’s decision is the Truman Doctrine that makes it an article of faith during the Cold War for the US to seek to contain Soviet expansionism. There have been signs of America’s revival of the Truman Doctrine since the Putin presidency, especially after Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014. Russia has not hidden its desire to create a multipolar world in a bid to overthrow or whittle down the influence of the current Western dominated security and governance systems around the world.  Irrespective of the nature of the personal relationship between Putin and Trump, it is unlikely that Trump would not respond to a resurgent Russia’s attempt to whittle down its global influence.

As a dealmaker, Trump is likely to be looking for a deal which would reduce the US military presence in Europe, drastically cut the military assistance to Ukraine, and give Kiev a long term hope of joining NATO in exchange for territorial concessions to  Russia. In this way, Trump would be able to publicly claim that he won the peace without undermining NATO  and without  making Russia appear the outright winner in any diplomatic negotiations to end the war.

However the war ends, it will be a mixed bag for the world and Africa globally. For instance, African countries that benefit from the current Western sanctions against Russia would have to re-adjust if Western sanctions are eased while those that have been hurt by the sanctions, especially importers of wheat and fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine, may heave a sigh of relief. 

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

Fela Durotoye, a Nigerian public speaker, says he worked in the administration of President Bola Tinubu for just six months without receiving a salary.

In October 2023, Tinubu appointed Durotoye as senior special assistant on national values and social justice.

Following Tinubu’s appointment of Daniel Bwala as special adviser on public communications and media, on Friday, some Nigerians on social media criticised the president for appointing a plethora of media aides without considering the cost of governance.

In a 13-man list that went viral on social media, Durotoye was named as one of the media aides to the president.

In an opinion piece published on Monday, Durotoye said his appointment as aide to the president ended in March 2024.

He added that throughout the six months of his appointment as the president’s aide, he didn’t receive any salary, allowance, or upkeep as a government official.

“Like many other issues in the public discourse, social commentary often has the tendency to overgeneralise; and broad assumptions may sometimes lead to errors of misconceptions, misstatements and misinformation,” Durotoye said.

“One of such errors is in a recent case study that went viral on social media regarding the current media team of the president, where my name was listed as one of the president’s media aides. Unfortunately, this statement needs to be updated to accurately reflect the current media team of the president.

“For clarity, I served briefly in the role of Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Values and Social Justice (SSA-NVSJ) for a tenure of six months, from October 2023 to March 2024.

“When I was invited to serve in this administration, I expressed, as a condition for accepting the call, my desire to NOT receive a salary from the government, as I considered this to be my service to my nation.

“When I finally accepted the role in October 2023, it was on the condition that I would not receive any salary or allowances. During my six-month tenure, I did not accept any government funds for my service, expenses, or upkeep.

“I rented my apartment and took my personal car to Abuja. My utility cost, fuel cost and upkeep were all borne by me and I never requested a reimbursement from the government for any expenses I incurred. Everything I contributed—time, effort, and resources—was paid for by me and my family.”

[TheCable]

President Bola Tinubu has re-designated the positions of two recently appointed officials in the State House media and communications team to enhance efficiency within the government's communication machinery.

The restructuring is as follows:

1. Mr. Sunday Dare – hitherto Special Adviser on Public Communication and National Orientation is now Special Adviser, Media and Public Communications.

2. Mr. Daniel Bwala – announced last week as Special Adviser, Media and Public Communication, is now Special Adviser Policy Communication.

These appointments, along with the existing role of Special Adviser, Information and Strategy , underscore that there is no single individual spokesperson for the Presidency.

Instead, all the three Special Advisers will collectively serve as spokespersons for the government.

This approach aims to ensure effective and consistent communication of government policies, decisions, and engagements.

Bayo Onanuga
Special Adviser to the President
(Information and Strategy)