By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In the last part of this intervention, we considered the options for reform including leadership, the Constitution and the status of local government areas, followed by peaceful separation and the public perception of public office holders. In this week’s episode, we shall continue where we stopped last week and further x-rays other factors- political corruption as well as the role of women and youths. Enjoy.

POLITICAL CORRUPTION

This takes us to another elephant in the room: political or official corruption. There is no use in reeling out any figures: we all know them. The challenge is how to make democracy a tool in fighting corruption. Does democracy itself aid or hinder corruption? That is the question. This question (which is at the heart of the often expressed opinion in some quarters that Nigerian-style democracy is ‘expensive’) is not misplaced, given the gross disparity in the cost of the just concluded Indian general elections ($250m) and our own, last year (over $650m).

Once again, perception is reality and everything. This huge disparity is certainly worrisome because Nigeria’s population is just about a quarter of that of India. The obvious question is: where did all that money go to? A lot of head-scratching (if not soul-searching) must accompany this question. We must be sincere with ourselves and tell ourselves the truth – some better, home truths.

By way of context, the most powerful woman in India, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, Finance Minister (since 2019) and is responsible for a US$4 trillion economy, US$5 trillion stock capitalization, US$700 billion foreign reserves, was recently pictured going to work on the New Delhi Metro.

This pales into insignificance compared to Nigeria, with a fleet of reportedly between 9-11 presidential aircraft, over 70 presidential automobiles, similarly humongous number of vehicles for the Senate President & Speaker of the House of Representatives and each of the 36 States governors; outrageous security votes of over $1bn, again for 35 State governors; at least 4 cars each for over 400 national legislators – all – at state expense (and changed every 4 years). This is just the tip of the iceberg of unconscionable profligacy by state actors in Nigeria, with a paltry US$300b GDP economy.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN

According to the National Population Commission and the Bureau of Statistics, women constitute half of Nigeria’s population. Yet, the glaring injustice of their unequal participation and representation in our public life is one of the regrettable highlights (or low points, depending on how you look at it) of the 25 years of uninterrupted democracy. This gap needs to be urgently addressed, as a situation where only 62 women were elected in the 2019 elections, prompted Maria Arena, the head of the European Union Election Observation Mission in Nigeria to remark that “Nigeria has the lowest rate of women in Parliament in Africa with the number decreasing in 2011.” Putting this in context, Nigeria’s National Assembly consists of a 109-member Senate as well as a 360-member lower Chamber, the House of Representatives. The situation is worse off today because only 21 women (8 in the Senate; and 13 in the House of Representative) exist in the NASS of 469 members. This is a painful 4.48% only.

The importance of this abysmal statistic is underscored by the fact that women are powerful tools in grassroots political mobilization – and, in the other direction, their representation at the highest level of decision-making has the potential (as observed by Ashindorbe and Danjibo) – positively influencing public policy especially in the area of reproductive health, education and children’s rights. Needless to say, tackling this imbalance will be a major feature of the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria and will be consistent with Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) not to mention our National Gender Policy which recommends a minimum of 35% of elective and appointive public positions for women.

YOUTH MOBILIZATION

I agree with Hoffman and Wallace “that even though the #ENDSARS movement showed the democratic dynamism of young Nigerians, it did not produce a political party, and that, in many ways, its separation from traditional politics was its power”. I also agree with them that, the phenomenon nonetheless, showed a hunger for more democracy, not less, among Nigerians and solidarity among our enormous population of young people – as well as their further postulation that we need more young people to engage with politics, offer new ideas and run for office on all the issues which affect all of us – from employment and security to climate and energy policy. It is true that we need our youth to be committed to the kind of long-term civic activism and community organizing which expands the narrow focus on electoral cycles, strengthens democratic institutions and delivers long-term change. The youth in the past wrote the history of Nigeria, whether pre or post – independence. Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Tarfawa Balewa, Okotie Eboh, Dennis Osadebey, Michael Okpara, Akanu Ibiam, Kessington Momoh, M. T. Mbu, Yakubu Gowon, Odumegwu Ojukwu, Olusegun Obasanjo, Alfred Diette – Spiff, et al were either in their twenties or thirties when they shouldered Nigeria’s multifarious challenges.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing is my humble take on the problems – and possible solutions – of democracy in Nigeria. As I candidly admitted, while I don’t profess to have all the answers, I honestly believe the future survival and deepening of democracy in Nigeria must take in at least a strand of some (if not all) the suggestions proffered above. The alternative, in my view, will be but a merry-go-round, a tale of a people (like the Borbons of European history) whose history taught them nothing – and who, moreover, forgot nothing. That would be a tragedy indeed, for a country with such promise, but which sadly, up till now, remains unfulfilled. I have discussed the genre of democracy we practice in Nigeria under different pseudo names corned from my OZEKPEDIA ideologism – Electionocracy; Judocracy; Executocracy; Legislatocracy, Selectocracy; etc.

I, once again, agree with Hoffman and Wallace that Nigeria’s democracy can be strengthened through, amongst others, a revolutionized political system, better quality political parties, more independent and diversified media, a stronger electoral management body and a well-resourced and incorruptible judiciary. In addition, law enforcement and security forces must be devoted to constitutional democracy rather than regime security and protecting elites. Furthermore, entrenched networks of patronage and privilege need to be weakened.

Finally, it is true that while democracy has not yet considerably enhanced the living standards of most Nigerians, it remains the only system of government which can offer the hope of reconciling the diversity of religions, ethnicities and political traditions of our burgeoning population. It may be time to consider whether we must continue with this expensive presidential system of government or change to less expensive West Minister parliamentary system.

Permit me to conclude with the words of one of our foremost contemporary political economists, Prof. Pat Utomi, who recently characteristically pithily observed thus:
“We have walked a familiar road again. The mood and mode becomes recursive for the economy and depressing for the citizen. Shall we just throw up our arms and lament? Grit in pursuit of the different must be the patriot’s loin cloth. But what shall we do? How shall we seek salvation?

Disputed over power grabs often leave a country divided as Nigeria currently is. Deep freeze comes between friends that despoils bonds thicker than bloodlines, and the legitimacy needed by public authorities to execute the common cause runs dry making governing far from optimal in effectiveness.

Those who are wise find truth in reconciling contentions, creating new shared values and inspiring new leadership more broadly appreciating of how to solve the problems confronting all, in ways considered just and fair.

Those who play raw power games and glorify realpolitik scorn talk of healing and renewal but their harvest has continued to be underperformance and Nigeria being the laughing stock of the world.

Those who thought differently have as their legacy the post-civil war reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation and the scattered growth spurts of our national journey. Social and cultural intelligence have become imperatives of leadership effectiveness.

Why is their supply so low to the powerful in nigeria, causing their watch to deliver so much misery? The same leaders who use emotion to mobilize support over reason and rational public conversation, the meeting of democracy and modernity, cannot turn to the same emotions that created the chasm between us and them to heal and elevate human solidarity. I guess this is a new problem for centers of moral cognition.

The bottom line is that it is the weak who assume they are strong and are digging in with typical fascist methods. What the truly strong should be doing now in Nigeria is to stop pretending that things are okay or can be managed.

Not to act with courage now may leave anarchy as our heritage. The cost of doing nothing is too high to play the Nigerian game with”. (The end).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”. – Winston Churchill.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The first part of this treatise commenced appropriately enough with a diagnosis of the problem, with an analysis of how we ‘lost it’ after which we considered the depth of the challenge, the critical situation which presently confronts us. Today, we shall x-ray the prognosis – poor leadership, lack of an autochtonous Constitution and the ambiguous status of local governments. We shall then consider whether peace separation is a solution or not. Please read on.

PROGNOSIS

So, what is the way forward? How do we achieve the Nigeria of our dreams? How can we make democracy work for us? To be sure, there is no fail-safe or fool-proof prescription which, when applied, will suddenly transform Nigeria into an Eldorado or utopia overnight. The cliché might be well-worn, but it is nevertheless, apposite: democracy is a journey, not a destination. Therefore, the challenge – our challenge, all of us collectively – is to commit to imbibing, applying or adopting time-tested ethical values or ethos which have worked for more successful democracies across the world, including some (like the Asian Tigers, Singapore, Hongkong, South Korea, and Taiwan) which – like Nigeria – were once (not too long ago) classed as developing or third-world countries. Indeed, at independence, some of them were arguably less developed than Nigeria. So, what did they get right and we got right? That is the question.

THE BANE IS LEADERSHIP

The answer to this all-important question lies in the socio-political environment in which those seeming miracles took place. While, virtually all those countries had their fair share of military dictatorships and non-democratic (or unelected) central governments, the unmistakable common thread or denominator that they all share is that their leaders were able to galvanize their people to focus on and pursue a common goal: national unity as a bedrock for economic prosperity and sustainable growth. In other words, LEADERSHIP is key. It might also be axiomatic, but a truly effective and pan-Nigerian, selfless, patriotic and committed leadership has been the single most problematic factor behind our nation’s woes. Without such leadership, any talk of transformation is simply a mirage.

Indeed, democracy itself might even be imperiled. This self-evident fact requires little elaboration, as it takes a patriot – a genuine, committed patriot – who prioritizes that nation’s well-being above petty, partisan, political or ethnic/religious interests to deliver on Nigeria’s promise and potential. In other words, a statesman who can see the big picture and envision a country that thrives on the basis of the supremacy of the rule of law.

THE LACK OF AUTOCHTHONOUS CONSTITUTION

This takes us to the next most important ingredient in the tool-kit: legal and/or constitutional reform, and its sub-text: electoral reform. I have spoken extensively about my belief in the shortcomings of the present Constitution. Those views have not changed. Let me reiterate my position that nothing short of a total overhaul of the military-bequeathed contraption called “the 1999 Constitution” (a mere Schedule attached to Decree 24 of 1999) will have the credibility and legitimacy needed to secure the legitimacy, credibility and acceptance (if not obedience) of the overwhelming majority of Nigeria.

We must fashion a brand new Constitution in the style of the independence (1960) Constitution which was negotiated by the then three regions, North, East and West through their elected leaders; as did America between May and September, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, military adventurists did not allow that experiment to stand the test of time before truncating it along with the 1st Republic. A corollary to this constitutional overhaul is the (arguably even more important) issue of Electoral Reform. The tradition or practice of a 4-year review of our Electoral Act has not stemmed the incidence of pre-election and post-electoral disputation in courts and tribunals – and even violence. The challenge in his regard (like the other aspects of our multidimensional ills) has been – more than anything else – attitudinal: our political class and their foot soldiers should adopt and internalize the culture of good sportsmanship.

Electoral contests should cease being so bitterly disputed and, should, instead be replaced with the spirit of the winners being magnanimous in victory while the losers are gracious in defeat. Elections are not do-or-die affairs. No. Even in a party democracy where the winner takes it all, our electoral outcomes ought to reflect the spirit of our old-new national anthem so that its revival will be meaningful.

This prescription (coupled with the often-suggested establishment of an Electoral Offences Court as well as the reduction in electoral cases which go up to the Supreme Court) ought to ensure a perceptible (if not quite dramatic) drop in election-related cases – at least those which directly challenge the outcome or results of elections.

AMBIGUOUS STATUS OF LGAs

Still on legal/constitutional reform, a related issue is the ‘ambiguous’ status of the lowest tier of government: local governments. While the Constitution (under Section 7) has always recognized their autonomy, the experience (to everyone’s knowledge) is that they have always been hostage to State Governors who stage-manage their elections and – when the tenures of their ‘elected’ officials expire – replace them with hand-picked cronies who will do their bidding and condone the non-remittance of their statutory allocations directly to them.
To his credit, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has interviewed boldly through the pending case at the Supreme Court, which for that very reason, I will say no more.

PEACEFUL SEPARATION?

On a larger level, yet another elephant in the room, is the possibility of peaceful separation from those who desire it. I prefer a big, prosperous, united and stable Nigeria. However, where peaceful co-existence is not possible, what do we do? Kill ourselves? No. this is where I borrow the analysis of a commentator (Aminu Sa’ad Bali – amazingtimesng.com, June 19, 2021), who opined that separation is not necessarily about war. He cited the following as examples of Peaceful Separations:

 In 1776, the USA split from the UK.
 In 1830, Belgium separated from the Netherlands.
 In 1965, Singapore split off from Malaysia.
 In 2002, East Timor got split off from Indonesia.
 In 1921, Ireland split off from the United Kingdom, and (possibly in the future) there will be secession of Scotland.
 In 1944, Iceland split from Denmark with remarkable ease.
 In 1905, Norway split from Denmark.
 In 1905, Norway and Sweden also peacefully split ways.
 In 1947, the British India Dominion was partitioned into India and Pakistan.
 In 1971, Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan.
 In 1992-93, the two parts of Czechoslovakia agreed to each go their own way, leading to two separate countries – the Czech Republic and Slovakia after what’s been named the “Velvet Divorce”.
 About the same time, another kind of separation occurred, in Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by bloodshed.
 In 1965, Singapore split from Malaysia for reasons, which included religion (Malaysia is majority Muslim, Singapore isn’t), ethnic/racial (Singapore has a very large majority Chinese population) and concerns over the Malaysian Bumiputra policy, which was (and is) basically a form of “Affirmative Action” for Muslim Malaysians – who make up the majority population in Peninsular Malaysia.
 Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan are now separate countries.
 The old USSR (Soriet) is now broken down into several independent countries.

To the foregoing, I can agree only to the extent that separation is an avenue for healthy competition for development, as in the case of Singapore and Malaysia, India and Pakistan, Norway/Denmark/Switzerland, etc; but not for the sake of it.

In the case of Nigeria, I foresee a healthy rivalry among the original component parts, the North, West and South, each making useful progress while competing with the others. Accordingly, it is not about war; after all, there is nothing wrong for one to decide he is no longer comfortable with the union and wanting to opt out. We call it self determination – a concept recognized by the UNO Charter.

PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS

Related to the question of attitude is public perception at the seeming insensitivity of our public officers. In this regard, a lot of disquiet (if not anger) was generated by the news of legislators earmarking the humongous sums of ₦160m to purchase SUVs for each member of the National Assembly. This development was particularly irksome against the backdrop of the lingering (often contentious) issue of a national minimum wage for public workers with government conceding a mere non-living wage of N60,000. This, coupled with other news of more humongous amounts of money – a minimum of ₦500m reportedly earmarked (in some cases, actually collected/received – as so-called constituency allowances by the legislators, contributes in no small measure in eroding public confidence in democracy – or at least our peculiar brand, if not practice, of it. What about two new presidential jets said to have cost a bleeding country like Nigeria a whopping billions of naira. Nigerians believe that the president and legislators should embrace the somber mood of the country and avoid lawlessness and ostentation.

Once again, it is a question of trust or perception that our leaders are either insensitive or simply out of touch with our common reality: the daily grind which is the reality of the common man, given the sheer (and rising) cost of living, rampant inflation and the ever falling nature of the Naira. So this is another issue that needs to be tackled if democracy is to remain attractive to the average Nigerian as a viable governance model: the insensitivity of our elected representatives to the public perception of their lifestyles and incomes/emoluments/perks of office as being out of sync with the hardship which is their lot, and which, has indeed become a new normal.

Our elected leaders must look inward, and do serious introspection and soul-searching by making conscious, deliberate choices which project them as considerate, frugal and sensitive to the economic realities of the time. They must address the popular belief that part of the pressure on the Naira is caused by their demand for foreign currencies (especially the dollar) which is publicly–perceived to be the currency of choice of the political elite, particularly public office holders. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way”. – Franklin D. Roosevelt.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

A quarter of a century is a long time in the life of any nation. Nigeria is not an exception. In our case, it has been the longest period of sustained uninterrupted democracy. During that time, children have been born, come of age and become parents themselves. Democracy is the only form of government they have ever known in Nigeria. Their knowledge of military coups has only been gained from stories told by their parents, history books and news from around the world; and in our case, from neighbouring countries in the West African sub-region.

Twenty-five years is certainly enough time for stock-taking and reflection: are we better off today than we were twenty-five years ago under military rule? Has the experience been worthwhile, or is it a catalogue of missed opportunities? Could we or should we have fared better? What did we do wrong or where did we go wrong? How can we improve going forward? Let us attempt some answers, but first a brief look at the past and its challenges which we inherited in 1999.

DIAGNOSIS

Few analyses of Nigeria’s sustained 25 years of democratic rule are more apposite than its comparison by Ashindorbe and Danjibo with the third of three distinct but overlapping processes of democratisation identified by Nic Cheeseman, as follows: First, the transition, when a country adopts multi-party politics (as we did in 1999). The second phase is the reconstitution of a new political order; and the third phase which consolidates the gains of democracy. I agree with them that “two decades after the reintroduction of civilian rule, Nigeria seems to be stuck in the final phase of the democratization process”.

This is because, notwithstanding the undoubted big strides made since then, Nigeria’s democracy is still very fragile; the dividends of democracy are still not immediately tangible. There is increasing inequality between a tiny affluent minority and the overwhelming majority. “Dividends” being a word borrowed from the corporate world to signify distribution of profits or surplus as dividends to its shareholders, we must begin to ask the question whether Nigeria’s peculiar democracy has actually yielded profit from which dividends are expected by the people. For reasons which I will anon outline, I agree with them that the shift from the transition to the consolidation stages of the democratization continuum will require a deliberate public policy framework directed at, amongst others, addressing the ravages of debilitating poverty and penury; the sanitization of the electoral process; deepening fundamental rights and the rule of law and enhancing inclusion of women and the youth in governance.

HOW WE LOST IT

By way of statistics, it will be helpful to contextualize the economic realities of our not-so-distant history in order to see whether democracy has improved our lot or otherwise. In this regard, the following are undisputed facts:

Nigeria developed rapidly in the seventies and eighties. We were a productive and exporting country. We literally swam in crude oil. Nigeria used to have National Development Plan (NDP), e.g, the 1962 – 1968 NDP. Do we plan even for 4 years now, when all our Politicians do is to think about the next elections? Before our tragic fall, we excelled in all economic indices.
i. We had the Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd; the Delta Steel company; Steel Companies in Onitsha, Asaba and Owerri; Kano and Katsina Steel Rolling Companies; the Oshogbo, Ikeja, Ikorodu and Ibadan Steel Companies; etc, etc.
ii. We wore clothes at that time which were produced from the United Nigeria Textile Mills in Kaduna and Chellarams in Lagos. They were produced, not from any imported cotton, but from cotton grown in Nigeria, especially in the North and the West.
iii. The Oku Iboku Pulp and Paper Mill supplied our newsprint from its 16,000 hectares tree plantation.
iv. Nigerians cooked with LPG gas stored in gas cylinders that were produced at the NGC factory in Ibadan.
v. Nigerians were mainly flying our airways (the Nigerian Airways) to most places in the world. The Nigeria Airways was about the biggest in Africa at the time. I personally used to fly it to London and USA in the eighties with less than N500 trip.
vi. Nigerians used refrigerators, freezers and air-conditioners produced by Thermocool and Deboo Industries right here in Nigeria.
vii. Bata and Lennard Stores produced our needed shoes from locally tanned leather made in Kaduna.
viii. We drank clean pipe-borne water through pipes locally produced by Kwalipipe based in Kano and Duraplast located in Lagos.
ix. Nigeria was a net exporter of refined petroleum products. Today we import all our refined petroleum products from other countries. We are operating what late Prof Claude Ake once described as a disarticulate economy – an economy where we produce what we do not consume (crude oil), and consume what we do not produce (refined petroleum products).
x. In the eighties, the naira was stronger than the dollar, exchanging between 40k and 80k to one dollar (compared to N1,500 to one dollar today).
xi. We rode in locally assembled cars, buses and trucks. Peugeot cars were produced in a plant based at Kakuri, Kaduna under a joint venture agreement with Peugeot of Paris on 11th August, 1972. Volkswagen cars in Lagos were produced in Lagos, Nigeria (the Beetle) since 1975, until they ceased operations in 1990.
xii. Leyland Company established in Ibadan in 1976 and ANAMCO in Enugu incorporated on 17th January, 1977, but commissioned in January 1980 in agreement with Daimler AG, produced trucks and buses for our use without resort to importation of vehicles (new or “tokunbo”).
xiii. Steyr in Bauchi produced our agricultural tractors and it was not just assembling, we were producing many of the components.
xiv. We had Vono products in Lagos that produced the vehicle seats used by our vehicle plants.
xv. Exide Company in Ibadan produced batteries, not just for Nigeria, but for the entire West African sub-region.
xvi. IsoGlass and TSG also based in Ibadan produced the windshields used by such vehicles without any imports.
xvii. We had Ferodo a British brake company in Ibadan came on song to produce brake pads and discs used by the said vehicles.
xviii. Dunlop established since 1961 in Lagos and Michelin established in the fifties and based in Port Harcourt produced the tyres needed by the vehicles. And these tyres were produced directly from rubber plantations located in Ogun, the then Bendel (now Edo and Delta) and Rivers State.
xix. The radio and television sets were listened to and watched were assembled in Ibadan by Sanyo.
xx. Our toilets were fitted with WC produced in Kano and Abeokuta.
xxi. Nigeria generated her electricity through cables produced by the Nigerian Wire and Cable, Ibadan; NOCACO in Kaduna and Kablemetal in Lagos and Port Harcourt.
xxii. We grew plants that produced our food locally.

It is no exaggeration to say we were producing all of the above and many more at the dawn of democracy in 1999 or at any rate, just before then. How have we fared since then and has democracy made a positive difference or not? That is the question which I shall present and attempt to answer.

THE CRITICAL SITUATION NOW

Multinationals’ exit is said to cost Nigeria about N94tn in five years
The exodus of multinationals from the Nigerian economy is said to have cost the country a N94tn loss of output in five years, according to an economist and former Director of Research and Advocacy at the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Nigeria, Dr Vincent Nwani.

Multiple multinationals have left Nigeria by either scaling down operations, transferring ownership or selling their stakes, the most recent being the sale of beverage company Diageo’s 58.02 per cent shareholding in Guinness Nigeria to Tolaram Group on June 11, 2024.

Over 10 companies shut down operations in 2020, most notably: Standard Biscuits Nigeria Ltd, NASCO Fiber Product Ltd, Union Trading Company Nigeria PLC and Deli Foods Nigeria Ltd.

In 2021, more than 20 companies exited, including Tower Aluminium Nigeria PLC, Framan Industries Ltd, Stone Industries Ltd, Mufex Nigeria Company Ltd and Surest Foam Ltd.

In 2022 alone, over 15 known brands left Nigeria, including Universal Rubber Company Ltd, Mother’s Pride Ventures Ltd, Errand Products Nigeria Ltd and Gorgeous Metal Makers Ltd.

More than 10 major companies left in 2023, notably Unilever Nigeria PLC, Procter & Gamble Nigeria, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria Ltd, ShopRite Nigeria, Sanofi-Aventis Nigeria Ltd, Equinox Nigeria and Bolt Food & Jumia Food Nigeria.

In the first six months of 2024, five listed major companies had left Nigeria, including Microsoft Nigeria, Total Energies Nigeria (affected by its divestment), PZ Cussons Nigeria PLC, Kimberly-Clerk Nigeria and Diageo PLC.

Most alarming is a statement credited to the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria (MAN) to the effect that 767 manufacturing companies shut down operations in Nigeria, while 535 experienced distress in 2023 alone.

Procter and Gamble, a household goods manufacturer is restructuring to become a mere importer, while Bolt, a very user-friendly, a ride-sharing and goods delivery app which only opened shop in Nigeria in 2021 to give Uber a run for its money, is also affected.

The divestment gale is also evident in the oil industry, the very live wire of our economy. No fewer than 26 oil companies and investments pulled out and sold their stakes to domestic investors. These include influential oil mining multinationals such as Shell, ExxonMobil and ENI. These companies are going away mainly because of heightened insecurity in the Niger Delta and inability of the Nigerian government to provide their counterpart funds to enable the joint venture agreements to explore and exploit new oilfields. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way”. – Franklin D. Roosevelt.