Connect with us

Feature/OPED

BRICS and the Global South Cooperation

Published

on

BRICS Global South Cooperation

By Professors Abdullahi Y. Shehu and Maurice Okoli

Introduction

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 ‘the tectonic plates of geopolitics have been shifting’ and with current geopolitical tensions, including the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Israeli-Hamas war, new alliances and potential rivalry among world powers seeking for influence in Africa and other regions of the world, ‘we may see the world becoming more multipolar’. Despite the plethora of multilateral institutions, multipolarity has become a cliché as member states forge new alliances to address perceived injustices in the existing system.

BRICS emerged from the Russia-India-China strategic triangle called RIC. The group that was promoted by Russia ostensibly to challenge the perceived monopoly or hegemony of the United States of America (USA), thus renewing old ties with India and fostering the newly discovered friendship with China. BRICS is the acronym denoting the emerging national economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The term was originally coined in 2001 as BRIC by the Goldman Sachs economist Jim O Neil in his report, Building Better Global Economic BRICs. (Global Economic paper No:66) then South Africa joined in 2010, leading to the transformation from BRIC to BRICS.

This paper examines the emergence and evolution of BRICS in the context of the current geopolitical situation and economic alliances for sustainable development. It reviews the objectives of BRICS and discusses the relevance and attraction of the bloc in the 21st century, especially within the framework of Global South cooperation. The prospects, opportunities and challenges for meaningful and constructive partnership within the framework of BRICS are also examined.

Our conclusion is that “the organization has struggled to have the kind of geopolitical influence that matches its collective economic reach. It also embodies a synergy of cultures and explores a model of genuine multilateral diplomacy. Its structure is formed in compliance with the 21st century realities. Efforts within its framework are based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and justice”. Furthermore, “while the BRICS bloc can have significant influence, it will not be sufficient to make a revolution in the existing international relations”.

The relevance of BRICS in the 21st century multilateralism

BRICS member countries share the desire for the world to accord them a larger role through their common platform for global reform. Although the framework of BRICS is more or less informal, that is, without a Secretariat as in the case of most multilateral organizations, the organization seems be assuming greater significance due to its philosophy and principles of equality. The major roles of BRICS are derived largely from statements issued at Summits.

Over the years, BRICS has focused on highlighting the need for emerging powers to have a greater voice in global governance. In the wake of the global financial crisis, the joint statement by BRICS leaders in 2009 contained strong declarations on the importance of coordinating financial policy through the G20 and the need to reform international financial institutions to create “greater voice and representation” for emerging economies, including a more transparent process for leadership selection.

In the joint statement at the end of the third Summit in 2011, China and Russia reiterated the importance they attached to the status of India, Brazil, and South Africa in international affairs, and underscored the importance of their aspiration to play a greater role in the UN. By the fourth Summit held in New Delhi in 2012, BRICS stressed that its member countries represent 43 percent of the world’s population, signaling clearly their concern for more representation in global institutions. This position has been echoed in many subsequent communications.

While in 2010, the group was at the infant stage of its formation and could be easily dismissed as yet another inconsequential global institution, today, it is harder to say that the BRICS does not matter. The five countries have rapidly used the BRICS platform to signal to the world that the old twentieth-century institutions have to change. This signal transformed into action from 2012 as its diplomatic calendar continues to expand yearly, with a host of interactions to both coordinate policy positions, as well as expand official and people-to-people dialogue, generally on non-contentious global issues – climate change, transnational organized crime, etc.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that what began with Summit-level gatherings and, separate meetings of Foreign Ministers, now include meetings Sectoral Ministers, Central Bank Governors, National Security Advisors, a Business Council, a Think Tanks Council, a Parliamentary Forum, a Cultural Festival, as well as a Friendship Cities and Local Governments Cooperation Forum.

Among all the structural frameworks of BRICS, the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB), along with a Contingent Reserves Arrangement (CRA) has been adjudged the most significant after long-pending reforms of IMF and the World Bank failed to materialize. The NDB has since become fully operational, and recently, Egypt has joined the bank as a new member, while other countries, including Turkey are warming to do the same.

In accordance with the Charter, each member having equal voice have also contributed equal share of the $50 billion initial subscription capital. Similarly, while the governance structure emphasizes equal and rotational representation, the NDB operates from its Headquarters in Shanghai under the leadership of K.V. Kamath, a former CEO of India’s ICICI Bank as its first President. In April 2017, just under five years after the idea of the NDB came out of the Delhi Summit, the bank signed its first development loan agreement with Brazil.

The BRICS countries indeed have deepened their partnership over the past years, developing a real organization out of a mere idea, to prove its capacity to create new financial institutions with equal opportunities. Resulting from the removal of Russia from the global SWIFT payment system, the BRICS are working towards a new financial infrastructure, an alternative payment and internet networks to assert the multipolarity of the world economy.

From all indications, the emergence of BRICS and the level of commitment it demonstrates in the pursuit of its goals of economic development among its members, has indeed, shown that BRICS has come to stay. Being founded on the principles of equality of member states, right of access to development funds, developing countries and emerging economies consider the relevance of BRICS as a global institution. Many countries will soon come to terms with BRICS due to the significant influence it commands on global socio-economic affairs in the build up to the emerging world order. One major characteristic identical to BRICS member countries revolves around their population, natural resource endowment and economic potentials.

Indeed, the outcome of the XV BRICS Summit, held in South Africa from 22 to 24 August 2023, with the theme: “BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Multilateralism”, may have added impetus to the traction of the bloc based on its motivating ‘commitment to inclusive multilateralism, support for comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council; support for open, transparent, fair, predictable, inclusive, equitable and non-discriminatory rules-based multilateral trading system’

BRICS XVI Summit in Kazan, Russia

Russia currently assumes the leadership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa plus five (5) new members (Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia) that ascended unto the association in January 2024.

Until the forthcoming XVI summit next October, Russia has already lined up a comprehensive pack of activities aimed at building an appreciable image and direction, and creating a better future based on its historical developments and contemporary geopolitical realities for the association.

In an exclusive address to ….Russian President, Vladimir Putin outlined the main priorities for the Summit, with the theme: Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security. During the year, Russia plans to hold over 200 events in three key areas of BRICS cooperation: politics and security, economy and finance, as well as cultural and humanitarian contacts. The BRICS summit scheduled to take place in Kazan, the Russian Federation in October 2024, will be the culmination of Russia’s chairmanship.

One of the crucial tasks is to ensure the integration of new participants in the BRICS mechanisms without compromising their efficiency. To implement Johannesburg II Declaration, Russia will devise the modality of establishing the category of BRICS partner states and create a list of potential candidates to present the report at the Kazan summit.  In addition, Russia will contribute to the comprehensive implementation of the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership until 2025 and the Action Plan for BRICS Innovation Cooperation for 2021-2024.

As the first step, Russia plans to ensure that the decision adopted during the XV summit, held on August 22-24, 2023, in South Africa to expand BRICS membership becomes a reality, as a particularly important step to strengthen the position of BRICS which epitomizes the diversity of the multipolar world. Both Kremlin and the Foreign Affairs Ministry have indicated that more than 30 countries, have expressed interest in establishing close ties with BRICS.

The second step will see Russia hosting a number of major international cultural events, including the World Youth Festival, the Games of the Future which is a mix of physical sports and cybersports, and the sports games of the BRICS countries. Both games will be held in Kazan, capital of the Republic of Tatarstan (the Games of the Future in February, and the BRICS Games in the summer of 2024).

Already,  during a cabinet meeting on 26 January 2024, Putin had directed relevant government ministries and departments to draft proposals on expansion of cooperation with BRICS colleagues in the ‘climate area,  joint developments in the area of monitoring climatically-active gases and measuring the carbon balance of ecosystems, including the development of systems for collection and processing of data for estimation of human-caused and natural flows of greenhouse gases and other climatically-active elements’.

The cabinet is also to develop mutual recognition of tools and technologies in this field by BRICS nations. Another area of work is laying the groundwork for development of joint technical scientific solutions aimed at easing the human impact on the environment, climate and adjustment of economies and the population of member states to climate changes. The order should be executed by June 3.

Certainly, in order for the forum to expand its geography even further, with the need to use the most advanced technologies for possible remote participation from anywhere in the world. And approach for consolidating BRICS scope of activities and as an explicit indication of collective team work under Russia’s presidency, Federation Council (the upper house of the Russian Parliament) Speaker Valentina Matviyenko has added her voice to BRICS 2024.

For the first time within the Fourth Eurasian Women’s Forum from September 18 to 20 in St. Petersburg, Matviyenko proposed a special session on women – the BRICS Women’s Forum. She stated inter alia that “As part of the fourth forum, we plan to hold the BRICS Women’s Forum for the first time. This BRICS Women’s Forum will present both the results of existing projects and new initiatives, which will strengthen partnerships between the BRICS member countries, including on the women’s agenda,”

Prospects and Opportunities for BRICS Expansion

In the latest BRICS summit, some of the observations and objectives were spelled out in the declaration: “With the addition of six new members, BRICS now has 30 percent of the world economy within its collaboration, with a combined GDP of US$30.76 trillion. It also constitutes 40 percent of the world’s population. The necessity of expanding trade and investment among the BRICS member states and strengthening their relations was emphasized by the summit leaders. By 2050, leaders at the summit hope to account for 50 percent of the world’s GDP, which will fundamentally change the economic landscape.”

‘It is estimated that by 2040, the BRICS group will account for more than 50% of the global GDP, because enlargement within the BRICS plus framework through integration of a number of large countries will facilitate the achievement of about 50% of global production of goods and services’.And, ‘in March 2022 experts from the IMF had warned that the heavy financial sanctions imposed on could threaten to gradually weaken the dominance of the US dollar, lead to a more multilateral international systems and encourage the emergence of small currency blocks based on trade among a certain group of countries. Already, it is noted that the BRICS countries have established a contingency reserve arrangement (CRA), a mechanism aimed at ensuring liquidity for member-states when they are confronted by short term balance of payment crises’.

In this regard, BRICS offers a model that motivates countries to join. Scholars have argued that the use of a single currency that is being contemplated or local currencies in trade exchange among members could be an effective counter balance to the monopoly or dominance of the US dollar. It is assumed that the dollar system, with its great deal of volatility, systematically undervalues the currencies of Third World countries’.

In addition, ‘elevated interest rates and stronger dollar make it more expensive for for African countries to service dollar denominated debt, something that has pushed many countries into debt distress’. The fact that Egypt, Ethiopia and other countries of the Global South are joining BRICS could mean that they are gradually moving away from the dollar-based system of global trade, experts told the Jeune Afrique news magazine.  For Africa the use of the dollar in trade means that countries have no chance to trade with each other in local currencies, Elizabeth Rossiello, Chief Executive Officer of the Kenyan financial company AZA Finance, said. African nations are looking for new ways to raise money as global financial entities, such as the World Bank, fail to give sufficient attention to the continent, she stressed.

Characterized as a supra-global structure, BRICS “encapsulates the richness of multipolar world” and particularly embraces the developing Global South. BRICS is also attractive to developing countries because it can act as a buffer from US sanctions, Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, said. The countries of the global South see the association as a counterweight to the US-dominated global financial system, the analyst added.

That said, a number of experts note that the expansion of BRICS will not lead to the fragmentation of the global economy. Adam Slater, lead economist for the Oxford Economics company, believes that the integration’s total share in global trade stands at a mere 3%. Meanwhile, former employee at the White House and the World Bank Harry Broadman thinks that joining BRICS has more of a political and symbolic meaning, not economic.

Nevertheless, Yaroslav Lissovolik, a former Chief Economist and Head of Research in Deutsche Bank Russia and former Advisor to Russia’s Executive Director in the International Monetary Fund and now the founder of BRICS+ Analytics – a think-tank that explores the potential of the BRICS+ format in the global economy, also argues that there is the strong expectation that BRICS will consolidate its role within the emerging geopolitical processes and global competition for Africa. China and Russia are currently making efforts to assert influence more aggressively, despite the challenges and obstacles, in cooperating with Africa.

According to Lissovolik, there are not too many economic mechanisms created thus far by the BRICS — the main economic contribution of the BRICS has been the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). The BRICS NDB is set to expand its membership to include more developing economies.

There are also plans within BRICS to widen the mandate of the BRICS CRA to make it more effective in supporting member countries. What is lacking at this stage is a financial mechanism that would facilitate the payments in national currencies among the BRICS economies — discussions on the creation of such a mechanism (widely referred to as BRICS Pay) have been ongoing since 2017, but progress in this area has been moderate at best. Furthermore, the issue of the creation of a common currency or an accounting unit for all BRICS countries has also progressed slowly. (See BRICS+ Analytics website, October 2023)

Within BRICS, China and Russia will likely cooperate towards creating those financial and economic mechanisms that are lacking in the global economy. The purpose of BRICS is not to undermine any economy, as the leaders have made it clear that ‘they are not friends against someone but work in each other’s interests, to create alternative cooperative platforms for economic cooperation among countries.

In the longer term, the African Union (AU) could also participate in the reconstruction and the reform of the main global institutions and fora such as the WTO, the G20 and the UN Security Council. In 2023, the AU became a member of the G20, and since January 2021 has been successful in advancing the project of Africa’s regional integration via the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Again, the best way in which the BRICS could contribute towards the success of this regional integration project is via greater trade openness to African economies. The success of the AfCFTA would go a long way towards overcoming the limitations faced by Africa’s economy in terms of low intra-continental regional connectivity and trade.

Considered as the largest single continental market, the AfCFTA spanning 54 states over the next years has the huge potential to unite more than 1.4 billion people in a $2.5 trillion economic bloc. It is expected to boost intra-African trade by 52.3 per cent by 2025, increase Africa’s income by up to $450 billion by 2035, according to the assessment report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF supports expansion of BRICS to make use of the advantage of global integration, IMF Spokesperson Julie Kozack noted at a regular briefing for reporters. “We do welcome countries working together, finding ways to trade, to become integrated, so that more people can benefit from the gains of global integration.,” Kozack said. (See IMF briefings – Jan. 11, 2024)

Therefore, to a great extent, individual BRICS members and/or collectively would have direct focus on more integration and more global cooperation. It has the potential to generate a range of benefits through supporting trade creation, structural transformation, productive employment and poverty reduction. Further to that, the AfCFTA, without much doubts, opens up more various opportunities for both local African and foreign investors from around the world.

In the context of this article discussion, it is important to state that BRICS African members (Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa) could be used as the gateway into the vast markets. BRICS has to necessarily leverage unto this and to deepen Africa’s trade integration and effectively implement the agreement through policy advocacy and strategy development. It could possibly utilize trade integration processes in close collaboration with the Regional Economic Communities and specialized African trade chambers across Africa.

Despite profound challenges, the AU member states are continuing to stride towards continental unity. Understanding this necessity, the 15th Summit in South Africa noted in its proceedings, “The BRICS summit members agreed to extend their support for an African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA). The summit stressed the value of the political stability of the African continent in building market certainty.

Leaders at the summit also explored potential ways and methods to strengthen communication and cooperation to expand AfCFTA. If successful, and if implementation moves ahead, such a move by the BRICS countries will help foster new dynamics of engagement, and on several other contemporary issues such as drug trafficking and terrorism…. The summit also discussed increasing population in BRICS countries and their increasing food security concerns. In order to improve food security, lower costs, and to achieve a carbon neutral economy, BRICS leaders favored the role of modern technology in advancing agriculture. They also hoped to make Africa a global food basket.”

Dr. Srinivas Junuguru, an Associate Professor, and Abhinaya Rayee, Woxsen School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, Telangana co-authored an article in which they stated that the enlarged association now constitutes 46% of the world’s population and 29.6% of the world’s GDP. And that BRICS aims to defend the interests of developing nations amid attempts by developed nations to impose their standards.

With the potential for a new reserve currency, discussions within BRICS on settling international trade in local currencies are ongoing, challenging the dollar’s monopoly. The growth of BRICS is fostering a multi-polar world, creating opportunities for closer ties and collaboration between developing nations. However, concerns persist about the association’s cohesion, given the diverse allegiances of its members, particularly amid tense relations between India and China.

Challenges

The potentials and success story of BRICS notwithstanding, there are significant challenges towards actualizing its goals in a globalized economy. First, is the fact that the prosperity of the world is dependent on energy and market, and whereas BRICS has this comparative advantage to some extent because of Russia’s energy and India’s and Chinese markets, the growing rivalry between the United States and China, the two largest world economies poses significant challenge for the growth and prosperity of BRICS.

Secondly, the dominance of the US dollar in the global financial system constitutes a significant challenge to the BRICS group, especially when it comes to introducing its own currency in financial institutions worldwide. Besides, the US dollar is also the dominant currency in the global stock markets, as well as markets of goods, bank deposits, funding of development projects and loans.

Thirdly, apart from Russia, all the other BRICS members have a strong connection with the West including China, through trade. It would therefore be difficult for countries to severe their financial ties with the US and West in general. China is the biggest exporter in the group and has enormous surplus, however, its currency, the Yuan, cannot favourably compete with the US dollar because it is not on the global markets. Despite China’s significant power in global trade, the Yuan accounts for less 2.5% of global transactions, less than the dollar share of about 40% and the Euro, which is at the level of 36%’.

With respect to the group’s goal of creating a single/common currency, they may connect with the country which has a low inflation rate, which is China. The challenge, however, is that they would need also a common monetary policy and perhaps a common regulator, which may not be in tandem with Brazil and India’s overall policies. China and India have been historical rivals, as India is antagonistic to China’s expansion in the South-East Asia and Pacific and; while India is close to the US or the West, so to say, China is a real or potential rival of the US in the global economy. At some point, it was thought that India was opposed to the expansion of the BRICS group contrary to the positions of Russia and China, the two big partners.

Conclusion 

The BRICS, which academic experts referred to as a grouping of developing nations, initially focused on economic cooperation, has evolved into a significant player in global politics. The organization’s disposition as a competitor to the Western influence in the global economy and its pursuit of reforms align with the national interests of its members have gained traction and offered greater attraction and motivation for countries to join.

With substantial contributions to global GDP, strategic placement, and influence in international trade and security, BRICS plays a crucial role. However, challenges include the lack of a formal charter for admitting new members and existing conflicts, such as those between China and India, which may hinder the association’s development. A collaborative approach between major members is crucial for BRICS to overcome internal conflicts and achieve its objectives.

There are prospects, opportunities and challenges for such partnership within the framework of BRICS. However, “the organization has struggled to have the kind of geopolitical influence that matches its collective economic reach. It also embodies a synergy of cultures and explores a model of genuine multilateral diplomacy. Its structure is formed in compliance with the 21st century realities. Efforts within its framework are based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and justice”. Furthermore, “while the BRICS block can have significant influence, it will not be sufficient to make a revolution in the existing international relations”. Russian Federation has taken over the BRICS presidency for 2024 from South Africa and that will be a game changing incident in contemporary international relations.

AbdullahiY. Shehu is Professor of Criminology; former Director General of the ECOWAS Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa, and former Ambassador of Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Russian Federation. 

Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club.

As an academic researcher and economist with keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particulary in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: ma***********@***il.com

Professors Abdullahi Y. Shehu and Maurice Okoli are frequent contributors on BRICS.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Children Under Siege as Politics Trumps over Governance

Published

on

Tinubu Nigeria’s Children Under Siege

By Blaise Udunze

Chapter Two, Section 14 (b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) is explicit when it states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.  Hence, by every standard, the welfare of Nigerians should be the first priority of the government. What would be said if the same government had failed on this path? Judging by this rhetorical question and series of unfolding events, indications have shown that Nigeria is drifting into a dangerous territory where politics increasingly overshadows governance, and the amazing part of it is that insecurity, poverty and social despair continue to consume the very foundations of the state.

Surprisingly, this is eventually playing out when millions of Nigerians expect leadership, empathy and decisive action, the political class appears preoccupied with permutations for 2027, coalition-building, defections, endorsements and electoral calculations. Meanwhile, criminals are expanding their territory.

The horrendous, tragic kidnapping of pupils, teachers and school workers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State has become one of the most painful symbols of Nigeria’s deepening security crisis. Shamefully, it would be recalled that recently armed terrorists invaded three schools in Ahoro-Esinle and Yawota communities. Yes, this might not be the first time of abducting school pupils, but one thing that is more troubling in this case is that dozens of schoolchildren and teachers were abducted, as this includes toddlers barely old enough to understand what was happening around them.

Intently looking at the incident, one vicious act is that among those abducted were two-year-old Christianah Akanbi and three-year-old Sikiru Salami, who are also not exempt from the daily torture.

The horror became even more devastating when a video emerged confirming the gruesome murder of Michael Oyedokun. He was a Mathematics teacher who had simply gone to work on a Friday morning to educate Nigerian children. He never returned home. The life of a teacher, a father and a mentor was cut short when beheaded in captivity by terrorists in Nigeria in May 2026.

His death is not merely a tragedy for his family. But the harrowing experience is that it is an indictment of a nation that appears increasingly unable to guarantee the safety of its citizens.

Let us consider the recent attack in Oyo State; this is not an isolated incident. It is part of a growing pattern that demonstrates the alarming deterioration of security across the country. And this is one harrowing and traumatic situation that might continue to heighten fear in the southwest: barely days after the Oyo school abductions, gunmen invaded Yashikira in Baruten Local Government Area of Kwara State, attacked the Emir’s palace, set parts of it ablaze and abducted ten residents. Also, of great concern is that just days earlier, worshippers had been killed and others abducted from a prayer ground in the same state.

Worst still, these nightmares have been the lived realities confronting Nigerians across Benue, Plateau, Katsina, Zamfara, Borno, Niger and other states. Stories of killings, kidnappings and displacement have become routine headlines.

The frightening reality is that Nigeria is gradually normalising the abnormal. Schools are becoming targets. Highways have become theatres of terror. Farms have become killing fields. Communities are becoming refugee camps. And citizens increasingly feel abandoned.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the growing perception that governance has been subordinated to politics.

This is to say that it has become glaring that while communities mourn their dead and families desperately search for abducted loved ones, the “sorry” situation is that public attention at the highest levels of government often appears focused on political calculations ahead of the 2027 elections.

This perception gained further traction following the Oyo school abductions. Nigerians watched grieving parents cry on television. Videos emerged showing abducted teachers pleading for help from captivity. This has triggered a negative notion, as many citizens felt there was insufficient urgency from the federal authorities in responding to one of the most horrifying school attacks in recent years.

Leadership is not measured only by policies and speeches. It is measured by empathy, responsiveness and the ability to assure citizens that their pain matters.

Section 14(2)(b) of Nigeria’s Constitution leaves no room for ambiguity. It states clearly that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Not politics. Not elections. Not defections. Not coalition building. Security and welfare.

Unfortunately, many Nigerians increasingly believe that the priorities of government no longer reflect this constitutional obligation. The consequences extend far beyond security. The educational sector is becoming one of the biggest casualties of the country’s security collapse.

The vicious incidents have brought the society to a standpoint whereby parents who once worried about examination results now worry whether their children will return home alive from school. Meanwhile, teachers who have continued to work tirelessly and still should be focused on learning outcomes are increasingly forced to think about survival.

One glaring adverse impact from all these abnormalities is that school enrolment in vulnerable communities is likely to decline as parents choose safety over education.

The long-term implications are frightening because the fact is that every child denied education today becomes a future economic liability. Every school abandoned due to insecurity creates another generation vulnerable to poverty, extremism and social exclusion. Every teacher lost to violence weakens Nigeria’s human capital.

Another aspect that is more of concern is that the abduction of children from schools represents more than a security challenge, but this is a thorough attack on Nigeria’s future. Perhaps the most heartbreaking and horrendous aspect of these attacks is the psychological damage inflicted on children. It must be established beforehand that when rescued, many victims may never fully recover from the trauma. This could be linked to, especially to the screams, the gunshots, the confusion, the separation from parents and the terror of captivity.

With the recent and past occurrences, without any iota of doubt, such experiences often leave invisible wounds that endure for years. Considering that the children who should be learning multiplication tables and nursery rhymes are instead learning fear.

The real question is, can a nation that cannot protect its children confidently speak about its future? Never! Emphatically, it should be understood that beyond education, insecurity is fueling a broader socio-economic epidemic.

Nigeria is already grappling with one of the worst affordability crises in its history, which also depicts the continued governance complacency. Talking of the removal of fuel subsidy and exchange rate liberalisation, inflation has eroded purchasing power, while food prices, transportation costs, rents and utility bills continue to soar, and worse off is the skyrocketing price of cooking gas.

Yet insecurity is making the crisis even worse. Farmers cannot access their farmlands. Harvests are disrupted. The country has witnessed the rural economies collapsing heavily. The resultant effect is that food production has continued to decline, and supply chains are increasingly vulnerable. The result is predictable because the simple arithmetic is that higher food prices, worsening hunger and deeper poverty.

The level of security collapse has shown that many northern farming communities, bandits now function as parallel authorities, imposing levies and determining who can farm and who cannot. This directly impacts food availability in urban centres hundreds of kilometres away.

Thus, insecurity is no longer merely a security problem; the truth is that it has become an economic problem, which is developmental, educational, and humanitarian. And ultimately, a governance problem.

The inability to effectively confront insecurity also raises difficult questions about institutional capacity.

As public affairs commentator Leonard Umunna recently observed, weak institutions produce weak outcomes. Corruption, poor accountability and ineffective governance structures have collectively undermined the state’s ability to deliver security and development.

Some of the terrifying truths Nigerians must take into cognisance are that when institutions become compromised, citizens lose confidence. Also, when accountability disappears, impunity flourishes, as the same applies when governance fails, criminality fills the vacuum. One truth that cannot be argued is that the vacuum is becoming increasingly visible across Nigeria.

The irony being experienced today in Nigeria is that while political actors are preparing intensely for 2027, the very foundations required for democratic stability are being eroded.

The terror and anxiety are definitely obvious, and the fact is that democracy cannot thrive in an environment of widespread fear.

Citizens who cannot travel safely, farm safely, worship safely or send their children to school safely are unlikely to have confidence in democratic institutions.

Perhaps, some ought to translate these messages to those at the helm of affairs in Nigeria that security is the foundation upon which every other national aspiration rests. And, without security, economic reforms become ineffective. Without security, educational investments become vulnerable. Without security, foreign investment declines. Without security, national unity weakens. Also, another underlying fact is that without security, democracy itself becomes fragile.

The well-known truth, which is quite unfortunate today, is that Nigeria’s challenges are not insurmountable because the country possesses the manpower, resources and institutional structures necessary to reverse the tide.

What appears lacking is the political will, urgency and strategic focus required to confront the crisis comprehensively.

This moment demands more than condolences after attacks. It demands intelligence-driven operations. It demands stronger coordination among security agencies. It demands improved local intelligence networks. It demands accountability. It demands institutional reforms. Most importantly, it demands leadership that places governance above politics.

As Nigeria inches toward another election cycle, political leaders must recognise a simple truth, and that truth is that there may be little value in winning elections in a nation increasingly overwhelmed by insecurity, poverty and social fragmentation.

The pursuit of political power cannot become more important than the survival of the republic itself. The death of Michael Oyedokun should haunt the conscience of the nation. So should the tears of Christianah Akanbi. So, should every parent be afraid to send a child to school? So should the pain of every community living under the shadow of terror. Nigeria is at an intersection; it has reached a tough moment where important and critical decisions must be made.

One path leads to deeper insecurity, educational decline, economic hardship and national instability. The other requires courage, responsibility and a renewed commitment to governance. The choice should not be difficult.

For if politics continues to take precedence over governance, the greatest casualty may not be any political party or administration. It may be Nigeria itself. The country is redeemable, and there is still hope for a better Nigeria.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Facing the Reality of Inflation in Everyday Life

Published

on

Timi Olubiyi Reality of Inflation

By Timi Olubiyi, PhD

Currently, many are passing through one of the most difficult times due to inflationary pressures. From transportation to food, electricity, healthcare, school fees, rent, and communication, the rising cost of living has altered the daily experience of millions of households. What used to be considered necessities have now become luxuries for many families. Across the country, the average citizen is under enormous pressure to survive amid worsening inflation, shrinking purchasing power, and economic uncertainty.

While inflation is a global phenomenon, the Nigerian experience has become particularly severe because of the combined effects of fuel subsidy removal, exchange rate volatility, high transportation costs, insecurity in food-producing regions, and weak wage growth. The reality of petrol selling at nearly N1,400 per litre in some parts of the country has significantly changed household economics and business sustainability. The consequences are visible everywhere in markets, offices, homes, schools, hospitals, and on the streets.

In practical terms, transportation fares have more than tripled in many cities within a short period. Food inflation has equally become alarming. Bread, eggs, cooking gas, yams, tomatoes, beans, and other staple foods continue to rise beyond the reach of average Nigerians. Electricity tariffs and telecommunications costs have also increased, while rent in urban centres keeps climbing. Unfortunately, salaries and wages have not kept pace with these realities. This is perhaps the greatest crisis confronting workers and small business owners today. Many employees still earn wages negotiated several years ago under entirely different economic conditions. Yet the value of those salaries has been severely eroded by inflation. In real terms, many workers are poorer today despite remaining employed.

The truth is that the salary structure available now can no longer effectively support decent living standards for many households. Even professionals with stable employment now struggle to meet basic obligations. Civil servants, teachers, artisans, small traders, entrepreneurs, and even middle-income earners are feeling the weight of the economic squeeze.

For many families, survival now depends on borrowing, reducing consumption, postponing healthcare, or sacrificing savings and investments. More troubling is the psychological effect of this prolonged hardship. Economic pressure is increasingly and significantly affecting mental health, marriages, productivity, and social stability.

Anxiety, frustration, depression, anger, and emotional exhaustion are becoming common experiences among citizens trying to survive difficult conditions. Difficult times and hardship often fuel marital conflicts, domestic tension, and reduced emotional well-being. In workplaces, economic uncertainty lowers morale, concentration, and productivity as employees struggle to cope with transportation costs, food, and other basic needs.

In fact, many people now live permanently in survival mode, uncertain about what tomorrow may bring. Businesses are equally under pressure. Rising operational costs continue to threaten sustainability, especially for small and medium-scale enterprises. Diesel prices, transportation costs, imported raw materials, electricity bills, taxation, and weak consumer spending have reduced profitability across many sectors. Several businesses have downsized operations, reduced staff strength, or shut down completely. Others remain in operation but merely struggle to survive.

Consequently, the era when a single salary could comfortably sustain a family is gradually disappearing in Nigeria. One of the clearest lessons from the current economic climate is that relying solely on one source of income has become increasingly risky. Economic realities now require individuals and households to think beyond traditional salary structures and embrace income diversification. In fact, multiple streams of income are no longer optional; they are becoming a necessity for financial survival and resilience. Families that depend entirely on one monthly salary are highly exposed to economic shocks, inflation, job loss, or business disruptions. The harsh reality is that even regular employment no longer guarantees financial security.

Therefore, Nigerians must begin to intentionally explore additional income opportunities that can complement existing earnings. This does not necessarily mean abandoning primary jobs or businesses, but rather creating alternative sources of income that can provide support during difficult times. Technology and digital platforms have made this more possible than ever before. Social media, e-commerce, freelancing, online consulting, digital content creation, virtual training, and remote services now offer opportunities for additional income generation.

Many professionals can monetise their knowledge, experience, or talents through side engagements without compromising their primary employment. In a way, passive income opportunities such as agriculture, cooperative investments, real estate, dividend-paying stocks, mutual funds, and small-scale trading can help cushion economic shocks over time. Land acquisition, for instance, remains one of the most reliable long-term stores of value in Nigeria despite current economic challenges. Assets that appreciate over time can provide financial protection against inflation. More so, living below one’s means may no longer be a matter of choice but a practical necessity under present realities. The culture of excessive social competition and pressure to maintain appearances despite declining income can worsen financial stress. Economic survival today requires financial honesty, discipline, and strategic planning.

In conclusion, the current economic realities in Nigeria demand a shift in mindset, financial behaviour, and survival strategies. Fuel at N1,400 per litre is not merely an energy issue; it affects transportation, food prices, school fees, healthcare costs, business operations, and overall quality of life.

Inflation has redefined daily living for millions of Nigerians. Therefore, building multiple streams of income, improving financial literacy, embracing prudent spending, and investing for the future are no longer luxury ideas but necessary responses to economic realities.

The truth is simple: depending solely on salary income in today’s Nigeria may no longer be sufficient for financial stability. The earlier households adapt to this reality, the better positioned they may be to survive and thrive despite the challenges ahead. Good luck!

How may you obtain advice or further information on the article? 

Dr Timi Olubiyi is an expert in Entrepreneurship and Business Management, holding a PhD in Business Administration from Babcock University in Nigeria. He is a prolific investment coach, author, columnist, and seasoned scholar. Additionally, he is a Chartered Member of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (CISI) and a registered capital market operator with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He can be reached through his Twitter handle @drtimiolubiyi and via email at dr***********@***il.com for any questions, feedback, or comments. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr Timi Olubiyi, and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Booming Banks And A Collapsing Economy

Published

on

CBN Gov & new Bank logo(1)

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s banking industry appears to be booming, largely driven by the policies of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), under Governor Olayemi Cardoso, while the real economy continues to suffocate.

At a time when millions of Nigerians are sinking deeper into poverty, when inflation continues to erode household incomes, when businesses are collapsing under unbearable operating costs, and when migration has become a survival strategy for many young professionals, Nigerian banks are announcing staggering profits, stronger capital positions and unprecedented liquidity growth.

According to the bank’s financial statements, the financial system appears healthy. In reality, the economy where citizens work, trade and survive is gasping for breath.

This growing disconnect between financial sector prosperity and economic suffering now represents one of the gravest threats to Nigeria’s long-term economic stability and its ambition of building a $1 trillion economy.

The numbers are indeed impressive. Nigerian banks’ shareholders’ funds reportedly surged to about N27 trillion following the recapitalisation exercise. The top five banks now command balance sheets estimated at over N164 trillion. Tier-1 banks collectively generated trillions in profits within the first quarter of 2026 alone, while the sector-wide recapitalisation exercise raised over N4.56 trillion.

Ordinarily, such figures should inspire confidence about the future of the economy. Stronger banks are expected to translate into stronger businesses, more jobs, industrial expansion and wider economic opportunities. But Nigeria’s experience is proving otherwise.

Instead of serving as engines of productive growth, banks are increasingly becoming custodians of liquidity trapped within the financial system itself. That is the real danger.

Even as banking liquidity expands sharply, lending to the productive economy remains weak and constrained. Reports indicate that banks parked a record N24.13 trillion with the CBN, while simultaneously increasing investments in government securities and treasury bills because these avenues are safer, more profitable and less risky than lending to businesses operating within Nigeria’s harsh economic climate. This reality exposes a dangerous contradiction.

A developing economy desperately in need of industrialisation, manufacturing growth, infrastructure expansion and job creation cannot afford a banking system that prefers financial safety over productive economic risk.

A sustainable economy cannot thrive where the real sector is starved of funds. Yet this is exactly where Nigeria now stands.

Despite the massive liquidity in the banking system, growth in lending to the private sector continues to lag behind the pace of liquidity expansion. The implication is clear. Financial sector strength is no longer translating into real economic development. This is not how healthy economies function.

Ordinarily, banks in developing economies are expected to operate as catalysts for economic transformation. Across successful economies, commercial banks finance manufacturing, agriculture, innovation, infrastructure and entrepreneurship because those sectors generate jobs, productivity and national wealth.

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), especially, are globally recognised as the backbone of grassroots economic development. Nigeria is no exception.

SMEs account for over 70 per cent of registered businesses, contribute nearly half of Nigeria’s GDP and generate between 84 and 90 per cent of employment opportunities. Yet despite their overwhelming importance, SMEs reportedly receive barely between 0.5 per cent and one per cent of total commercial bank lending. That is not merely a policy failure. It is an economic tragedy.

Every denied SME loan is a denied employment opportunity. Every failed business represents another frustrated entrepreneur. Every frustrated entrepreneur becomes another Nigerian contemplating migration.

This is how economic dysfunction transforms into human displacement. The so-called “Japa” phenomenon did not emerge in isolation. It is deeply connected to economic hopelessness. When productive citizens lose faith in their country’s economic future, migration stops being a lifestyle choice and becomes a survival mechanism.

Unbeknownst to the policymakers is that Nigeria cannot realistically build a $1 trillion economy while productive sectors remain financially suffocated.

A closer glance at the trend of events helps to reveal that the danger becomes even more severe when viewed against the backdrop of the recent outcome of the 305th Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, where the CBN retained the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) at 26.5 per cent in its bid to sustain disinflation and macroeconomic stability.

It is understandable and certain that inflation control is important, but the fact is that at 15.69 per cent, inflation remains painfully high and continues to weaken purchasing power. Food prices remain elevated. Transportation costs remain unbearable. Consumer demand is weakening. The middle class is shrinking rapidly.

But maintaining elevated interest rates also comes with painful consequences. Simple arithmetic tells us that higher interest rates mean higher lending costs. Higher lending costs mean higher production costs. Higher production costs worsen inflationary pressures and weaken business survival rates.

Invariably, this also tells us that for Nigerian manufacturers and corporates already battling a weak naira, volatile exchange rates, expensive diesel, energy insecurity and declining consumer demand, access to affordable credit is becoming almost impossible.

Many businesses are no longer borrowing to expand production or employ workers. They are borrowing merely to survive. This is economic suffocation.

Meanwhile, banks continue to profit massively from high-yield government securities and treasury investments. Reports indicate that major Nigerian banks generated over N6.68 trillion from investment securities and treasury bills instead of financing productive enterprises capable of stimulating growth and employment.

The government’s appetite for borrowing itself shows no sign of slowing down. Public borrowing reportedly climbed above N39 trillion. Historically, excessive government borrowing crowds out private sector investment because banks naturally prefer lending to the government rather than exposing themselves to risks associated with businesses operating in unstable economic conditions.

The result is predictable. The real sector weakens while speculative and non-productive financial activities flourish. This explains why Nigeria increasingly resembles a financial system disconnected from the realities of ordinary citizens.

While banks celebrate rising profits, poverty and hunger worsen visibly across the country. Unemployment continues to rise. Small businesses are dying quietly. Household purchasing power is collapsing under inflationary pressure.

Yet the financial system appears more liquid than ever. That contradiction should alarm policymakers. The recapitalisation exercise itself now raises difficult questions.

What exactly is the purpose of stronger banks if stronger banks do not strengthen national productivity?

If recapitalisation merely empowers banks to deepen investments in government debt instruments while manufacturers, farmers, exporters and SMEs remain starved of affordable credit, then the exercise risks becoming financially impressive but economically hollow.

Indeed, the current monetary environment appears to reward financial conservatism over productive risk-taking.

The stringent Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR), elevated interest rates and broader macroeconomic uncertainty continue to discourage aggressive lending to the private sector. Banks understandably seek safety. But nations do not industrialise through excessive financial caution.

No economy develops when capital circulates primarily within treasury bills and government securities instead of flowing into factories, farms, logistics, housing, innovation and production.

This is the larger danger confronting Nigeria today. Economic crises rarely begin with recession statistics alone. Sometimes, they begin when financial institutions become detached from the suffering realities of the wider economy. They begin when growth exists only within banking balance sheets but disappears from households, factories and streets.

Without productive credit expansion, economic growth becomes artificial and exclusionary. Without affordable financing, businesses cannot scale. Without business expansion, jobs cannot emerge. Also, it must be noted that without jobs, insecurity, poverty and migration inevitably worsen. The implications for social stability are enormous.

One painful fact is that citizens already burdened by inflation, debt pressures and widespread distrust now face a system where economic opportunities continue shrinking despite apparent financial sector prosperity. One of the lurking dangers is that this deepens resentment, weakens confidence in institutions and threatens long-term economic cohesion.

The CBN’s inflation fight may be necessary, but monetary stability alone cannot substitute for productive economic expansion. Financial stability without inclusive growth eventually becomes unsustainable.

The real economy matters more than banking optics. Nigeria urgently needs policies that incentivise real sector lending, reduce structural risks facing manufacturers and SMEs, strengthen credit infrastructure, lower production bottlenecks and redirect liquidity toward productive economic activity.

As a matter of fact, it is high time for Nigeria to start rethinking the growing dependence on debt-driven fiscal management that continues to crowd out private investment. Development cannot occur when government borrowing consumes the financial oxygen needed by businesses.

Ultimately, banking profitability should not become an isolated island of prosperity surrounded by a collapsing productive economy.

A nation cannot celebrate trillion-naira banking profits while millions of citizens sink deeper into economic despair. No society sustains such a contradiction indefinitely.

If Nigeria truly hopes to build a resilient and inclusive economy, then the banking sector must once again become a vehicle for national development rather than merely a beneficiary of government debt and monetary tightening.

Otherwise, the country risks creating a contradictory economy where banks grow richer while citizens grow poorer and where financial prosperity exists only on paper while economic hardship defines everyday life.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Trending