Feature/OPED
African Challenges to African Development
By Ehiedu Iweriebor
The parlous story of African economic and social development since independence best expressed in the failure to achieve the autonomous capacity for self-actuated development and in particular to create conditions of national and continental modern mass production and prosperity is well known and need not be repeated.
It is enough to re-state that Africa’s development failure was because of the leaderships’ choice to retain, maintain and expand the inherited exocentric colonial system of development incapacitation, primary commodity export, import dependency and poverty generation.
The progressive efforts of some African states and leaders to change the system and create self-reliant economies were stymied by the leaderships’ ideological inadequacies and dependency, the balance of payment crises of the late 1970s and 1980s and the subsequent economic crises and decline.
This provided the avenue for Western multilateral imperialist agencies the World Bank and the IMF – to successfully infiltrate into Africa, re-colonize African states and convert them into neo-colonial out-posts of the so-called neo-liberal consensus.
This framework embodied in the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) with its destructives conditionalities: currency devaluation, trade liberalization, subsidy removal, deregulation and privatization, re-directed the African states to focus on expanded raw materials production and exports and to abandon industrialization and development capacitation.
The application of these anti-development SAP dogmas in the 1980s and 1990s ushered in two decades of deepening indebtedness, serious economic crises, de-industrialization, socio-economic decline, deepening impoverishment and political repression.
On the other hand, the period also saw the upsurge of popular democratisation struggles, civil rights campaigns, the restoration democracy, and the establishment of electoral democracy and the decline of military interventions in African politics.
In the economic sphere, there were innovative dependency-reducing responses. This was because among businesses there was an increased re-orientation toward local sourcing of well-known agricultural and mineral endowments to expand production.
This led to the emergence of new economic sectors and especially the expansion of cottage, small and medium scale consumer goods industries which were operationally autonomous due to the increased utilization of local resources for production and self-development.
In addition, there was relative political stability and policy and institutional the support for businesses through the creation of enabling environments for attracting investments.
It was partly because of these new domestic conditions and the economic self-activation, and the partly because of return of better commodity prices in the first decade of the 21st century that the Western media fabricated and propagated the new view of “Africa Rising”.
This became a very popular and re-assuring slogan among some African leaders, politicians and intelligentsia.
However, it was an insecure condition because a “Rising Africa” whose upsurge is generated by increased external demand for primary commodities is essentially insecure.
It does not represent genuine African development that is based on expansive domestic production and prosperity generation.
It merely reinforces African dependency on primary commodity export and its dependence on the importation of manufactured goods. It is evaporating with the speed with which it was proclaimed.
But there was a more consequential development story of this period that ushered in what this author describes as the Affirmative African Narrative phase of development. This is the progressive assumption by African businesses of the leadership role in promoting national and pan-African development.
This new trend of African self-development is captured by the new concept of “Africans Investing in Africa” This is the process by which African industrial, service, and commercial enterprises began to make large-scale investments in many different African countries.
The investments involve for example the expansion of Banks, telecommunication companies, trading companies and so on.
Examples of these include Nigerians Banks like UBA, Zenith, Access, First Bank; South African banks like Standard Bank and Moroccan Banks; Telecommunication companies such as MTN of South Africa, ECONET of Zimbabwe and GLOBACOM of Nigeria. Others are Shoprite, Coca cola and South African Breweries.
While Africans investing in Africa is becoming common and commendable, it is important to emphasize that NOT ALL African investments in Africa are of equal economic importance or strategic development value.
For example, African investments like Shoprite and similar companies which merely establish commercial or trading enterprises that do not add value to African economies are no different from traditional non-African FDI companies that are established to create captive markets for products from their home countries and thereby maximally exploit Africa.
On the other hand, African companies that make investments that are decisive and transformational are those that deliberately promote and advance African development capacitation, through local resource exploitation, mass industrialization, large scale industrial, agricultural and mineral production, and beneficiation for internal use.
In terms of investment for development capacitation through local resource utilization and valorization, the vanguard African company is the Dangote Group.
In order to ensure that Africa achieves self-sufficiency in the critically important infrastructure development requirement – CEMENT – Dangote embarked on a pan-African investment strategy to establish integrated plants, or grinding plants or cement terminals in African countries according to their resource endowments.
The Group’s ultimate objective is become the ascendant cement manufacturing company in Africa. There is no question that the Dangotean strategy of development capacitation through local resource exploitation, mass industrial production and domestic prosperity-generation is what Africa requires to become the self-actuated mover of its own development and to create a secure development upsurge and continental prosperity that does not depend on the vagaries of external demand for primary commodities.
This Dangotean transformational mission and project is now been threatened by what seems like the unwillingness of African countries to respect and maintain carefully crafted legal investment agreements as sacrosanct documents and binding commitments.
Within the past year, the Group has faced major challenges as a result of the failure of some African states to keep their sides of the bargain or agreements concluded with Dangote Group.
This happened late last year in Tanzania when the government seemed to renege on some elements within the agreements reached with the Dangote Group to give it concessions and incentives for the massive investments of over $500 million dollars that the Group made in the construction of the monumental cement plant in Mtwara, Tanzania.
This Dangote Cement plant with its 3 million metric tonnes per annum capacity is the largest cement plant in Eastern Africa. In addition to the cement plant, other associated Dangote development projects include the construction of a coal power plant and a jetty. While these are primarily beneficial to the Groups business, they also represent important investments and permanent additions to Tanzania’s power and sea transport sectors.
Together these projects have generated significant direct employment opportunities and as they mature and attain full production capacity the multiplier effects in various sub-sectors would be expansive and extensive, thereby creating prosperity and income in the community as well as revenues for the local, regional and national the governments.
But due to the problems Dangote had to temporarily shut down the plant; and after negotiations and assurances that restored the original terms, the plant resumed production.
This Dangotean Tanzanian experience of government infidelity to the sanctity of agreements can only create profound doubts among business people on the readiness of African states and leaders to move Africa forward.
But the Group’s challenges in Africa are not over. Just recently, in Ethiopia, the regional government of Oromo Regional State where Dangote’s new over $400 million dollar, 2.5 million metric tonnes per annum cement plant is located came up with new conditions that are bound to disrupt the operations of the Dangote plant.
In what it claimed is an attempt to provide employment for jobless Oromo youth it decided to withdraw all mining licences and agreements already concluded with Dangote and similar other companies with mining concessions.
In its place the regional government claimed that it would create youth owned companies that would now supply the minerals required by the cement and other plants.
This action of the Oromo regional government in illegally annulling legally approved mining agreements with the Dangote Group and other companies raise major questions on the genuine preparedness of African states, politicians, and bureaucrats to foster Africa’s self-development through Africans investing in Africa.
Without question the action of these governments represents major challenges to Africans assumption of responsibility for their development and the emergent Affirmative Africa Narrative.
In fact at its core, these anti-investment actions are a repudiation of the long-standing aspirations of Pan-Africanism and its advocates, and the practical commitment of the continental organizations like the former Organization of African Union (OAU) and the current African Union (AU) to promote African-led development through investments, intra-African trade and exchange, as instruments for creating secure African development and domestic prosperity-generation.
This is a good example of how some African leaderships’ represent serious obstacles to African development. Quite clearly any aspiration for Africa’s take off through self-actuated development as represented by the transformational efforts of Dangote and similar committed pan-African economic revolutionaries is weakened by such leadership unfaithfulness, irresponsibility and lack of serious commitments to African investors.
Despite these set-backs, it is important for African states and the continental and regional economic groups to reaffirm their commitment to African-led transformational industrial development as the basis for Africa’s capacitation for self-actuated development.
In this light, it is imperative for the AU and its various economic agencies to design Continental Investment Protection Agreements that would commit African states to respect and uphold already approved agreements and avoid arbitrary nullifications of legally binding instruments.
An additional guarantor is for each African state to negotiate investment protection treaties with each other. In fact this is especially indicated for countries such as Nigeria where investors are increasingly embarking on Pan-African development investments.
Finally, pan-African transformational investors like Dangote should remain committed and not be discouraged by these clearly disruptive actions of hapless, backward and anti-African development leaders.
The Dangotes’ of Africa as continental transformational vanguards should remain firmly committed to their chosen paths of legal profit making and simultaneous contribution to Africa’s transformation, economic development, prosperity-generation, psychological liberation, and the restoration of Africans dignity and equality with others in the world.
These are worthwhile and enduring ideals and challenges that transformational revolutionaries and societal game-changers are bound to encounter and overcome so as to create new worlds.
Ehiedu Iweriebor is a Professor and former Chair of the Department of Africana and Puerto Rican/Latino Studies, Hunter College, City University of New York, USA.
By Barr. Adefila Kamal
Football in Nigeria has never been just a sport. It is emotion, argument, nationalism, and sometimes heartbreak wrapped into ninety minutes. That passion is a gift, but it often comes with a tendency to shout down progress before it has the chance to grow. In the middle of this noise sits the Nigeria Football Federation under the leadership of Ibrahim Musa Gusau, a man who has chosen steady hands over loud speeches, structure over drama, and long-term rebuilding over chasing instant applause.
When Gusau took office in 2022, he understood one thing clearly: the only way to fix Nigerian football is to repair its foundations. He said it openly during the 2025 NNL monthly awards ceremony — you cannot build an edifice from the rooftop. And true to that conviction, his tenure has taken shape quietly through structural investments that don’t trend on social media but matter where the future of the game is built. The construction of a players’ hostel and modern training pitches at the Moshood Abiola Stadium is one of the clearest signs of this shift. Nigeria has gone decades without basic infrastructure for its national teams, especially youth and age-grade squads. Gusau’s administration broke that pattern by delivering the first dedicated national-team hostel in our history, a project that signals an understanding that success is not luck — it is preparation.
The same thread runs through grassroots football. The maiden edition of the FCT FA Women’s Inter-Area Councils Football Tournament emerged under this administration, giving young female players a structured platform instead of the token attention they usually receive. These initiatives are not flashy. They do not dominate headlines. But they form the bedrock of any footballing nation that wants to be taken seriously.
Gusau’s leadership has also focused on lifting the domestic leagues out of years of decline. The NFF has revamped professional and semi-professional competitions, working to create consistent scheduling, fair officiating, and marketable competition structures. The growing number of global broadcasting partnerships — something unheard of in the old NPFL era — has brought more eyes, more credibility and more opportunities for clubs and players. Monthly awards for players, coaches and referees have introduced a culture of performance and merit, something our domestic game has needed for years. These are reforms that reshape the culture of football far beyond one season.
Internationally, Nigeria regained a powerful seat at the table when Gusau was elected President of the West African Football Union (WAFU B). This is not a ceremonial achievement. In football politics, influence determines opportunities, hosting rights, development grants, international appointments and the respect with which nations are treated. For too long, Nigeria’s voice in the region was inconsistent. Gusau’s emergence changes that, and it places Nigeria in a position where its administrative competence cannot be dismissed.
His administration has also made it clear that women’s football, youth development and academy systems are no longer side projects. There is a renewed intention to repair the broken pathways that once produced global stars with almost predictable frequency. If Nigeria is going to remain a powerhouse, development must become a machine, not an afterthought.
Still, for many observers, none of this seems to matter because the yardstick is always a single match, a single tournament or a single disappointing moment. Public criticism often grows louder than the facts. Fans want instant results, and when they don’t come, the instinct is to blame whoever is in office at the moment. But this approach has repeatedly sabotaged Nigerian football. Constant leadership changes wipe out institutional memory and scatter reform efforts before they mature. No nation becomes great by resetting its football house every time tempers flare.
Gusau’s leadership is unfolding at a time when FIFA and CAF are tightening their expectations for professionalism, financial transparency and infrastructure. Nigeria cannot afford scandals, disarray or combative politics. We need the kind of administrative consistency that global football bodies can trust — and this is exactly the lane Gusau has chosen. He has not been perfect; no administrator is. But he has been consistent, measured and focused. In an ecosystem that often rewards noise, this is rare.
For progress to hold, Nigeria must shift from the culture of outrage to a culture of constructive contribution. The media, civil society, ex-players, club owners, fan groups — everyone has a role. The truth is that Nigerian football’s biggest enemy has never been the NFF president, whoever he might be at the time. The real enemies are impatience, instability and emotional decision-making. They derail strategy. They kill reforms. They weaken institutions. And they turn football — our greatest cultural asset — into a battlefield of blame.
Gusau’s effort to reposition the NFF is a reminder that real development is rarely glamorous. It is slow, disciplined and often misunderstood. But it is the only route that leads to the future we claim to want: a football system built on structure, modern governance, infrastructure, youth development and global influence. Nigeria will flourish when we start protecting our institutions instead of tearing them down after every misstep.
If we truly want Nigerian football to rise, we must recognise genuine work when we see it. We must support continuity when it is clearly producing a roadmap. And we must resist the temptation to substitute outrage for analysis. Ibrahim Musa Gusau’s tenure is not defined by noise. It is defined by groundwork — the kind that elevates nations long after the shouting stops.
Barr. Adefila Kamal is a legal practitioner and development specialist. He serves as the National President of the Civil Society Network for Good Governance (CSNGG), with a long-standing commitment to transparency, institutional reform and sports governance in Nigeria
By Taiwo Olatunji, CFA
Nigeria’s infrastructure ambition is not constrained by vision, but by the financing architecture. The public sector balance sheet, which has been the primary source of financing, has become very tight, while financing from the private sector is available and increasing, with a focus on long-term, naira-denominated assets. Hence, the challenge lies in effectively connecting this capital to bankable projects at scale and with discipline. Project bonds, created, structured and distributed by investment banks, are the instruments required to bridge the country’s infrastructure needs.
The scale of the need is clear. Nigeria’s Revised NIIMP (2020–2043) estimates ~US$2.3 trillion, about US$100bn, a year is required annually for the next 30 years to lift infrastructure to 70% of GDP. Africa’s pensions, insurers and sovereign funds already hold over US$1.1 trillion that can be mobilised for this purpose, but they require new and innovative approaches to enhance their participation in addressing this challenge.
What is broken with the status quo?
Nigeria continues to finance inherently long-dated assets through the issuance of local currency public bonds, Sukuk and Eurobonds. This approach creates a heavy burden on the government’s balance sheet while sometimes causing refinancing risk and FX exposures, where naira cash flows service dollar liabilities. It has also led to the slow conversion of the pipeline of identified projects because many infrastructure projects have not been prepared, appraised and structured to attract the private sector.
Why project bonds and where they sit in the stack
Project bonds are debt securities issued by project SPVs and serviced from project cash flows, typically secured by concessions, offtake agreements, or availability payments. Unlike typical bonds (corporate or government), which are backed by the sponsor’s balance sheets, project bonds are backed by the cash flow generated by the financed project. They often have longer duration, are tradeable, aligned with the long operating life of infrastructure projects and best suited for pension and insurance investors.
Globally, this type of instrument has been used to finance major projects such as toll roads, power plants, and social infrastructure. For example, in Latin America, transportation and energy projects have been financed through project bonds from local and international investors, through the 144A market, a U.S. framework that allows companies to access large institutional investors without going through a full public offering. Similarly, in India, rupee-denominated project bonds have benefited from partial credit guarantees provided by institutions like Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, which help lower investment risk and attract more investors.
In practice, project bonds can be structured in two ways: (i) as a take-out instrument, refinancing bank or DFI construction loans once an asset has reached operational stability; or (ii) as a bond issued from day one for brownfield or late-stage greenfield projects where revenue visibility is high, often supported by credit enhancements such as guarantees.
In both cases, the instrument achieves the same outcome: aligning long-term, project cash flows with the long-term liabilities of domestic institutional investors.
The enabling ecosystem is already emerging
1. Nigeria is not starting from zero. Regulatory infrastructure is already in place. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued detailed rules governing Project Bonds and Infrastructure Funds, creating standardized issuance structures aligned with global best practice and familiar to institutional investors. The SEC is also mulling the inclusion of the proposed rules on Credit Enhancement Service Providers in the existing rules of the Commission.
2. Market benchmarks are already available. The sovereign yield curve, published by the Debt Management Office (DMO) through its regular monthly auctions, provides a transparent reference point for pricing. This curve serves as the base risk-free rate, against which project bond spreads can be calibrated to reflect construction, operating, and sector-specific risks.
3. The National Pension Commission (PenCom) has revised its Regulation on the investment of Pension Fund Assets, increasing the amount of the country’s N25.9 trillion pension assets to be allocated to infrastructure.
4. InfraCredit has established a robust local-currency guarantee framework, supporting an aggregate guaranteed portfolio of approximately ₦270 billion. The portfolio carries a weighted average tenor of ~8 years, with demonstrated capacity to extend maturities up to 20 years. (InfraCredit 2025)
Why merchant banks should lead
Merchant banks sit at the nexus of origination, structuring, underwriting, and distribution, and they need to work with projects sponsors, financiers and government to develop a pipeline of bankable infrastructure projects. A pipeline of bankable infrastructure projects is important to attract investors as they prefer to invest in an economy with a recognizable pipeline. A pipeline also suggests that a structured and well-thought-out approach was adopted, and the projects would have identified all the major risks and the proposed mitigants to address the identified risks.
This “banks-as-catalysts” model, an economic framework that states banks can play an active and creative role in promoting industrialization and economic development, particularly in emerging markets, can be adopted to structure and mobilise domestic private finance into Infrastructure projects.
Coronation Merchant Bank’s role and vision
At Coronation, we believe the identification, structuring and testing of bankable infrastructure projects are the constraints to mobilization of private capital into the infrastructure space. We bring an integrated platform across Financial Advisory, Capital Mobilization, Commercial Debt, Private Debt and Alternative Financing to identify, structure, underwrite and distribute infrastructure debt into domestic institutions. The Bank works with DFIs, guarantee providers and other banks to scale issuance. Our franchise has supported infrastructure debt issuances via the capital markets, likewise Nigerian corporates and the Government.
From Insight to Execution
If you are considering the issuance of a project bond or you want to discuss pipeline readiness, kindly contact [email protected] or call 020-01279760.
Taiwo Olatunji, CFA is the Group Head of Investment Banking at Coronation Merchant Bank
By Blaise Udunze
At the Annual Bankers’ Dinner, when the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Yemi Cardoso, recently stated that Nigeria had “turned a decisive corner,” his remark aimed to convey assurance that inflation was decelerating with headline inflation eased to 16.05percent and food inflation retreating to 13.12 percent, the exchange rate was stabilizing, and foreign reserves ($46.7 billion) had climbed to a seven-year peak. However, beneath this announcement, a grimmer and conflicting economic situation challenges households, businesses, and investors daily.
Stability is not announced; it is felt. For millions of Nigerians, however, what they are facing instead are increasing difficulties, declining abilities, diminished buying power, and susceptibilities that dispute any assertion of a steady macroeconomic path.
The 303rd MPC gathering was the most significant in recent times, revealing policies and statements that prompt more questions than clarifications. It highlighted an economy striving to appear stable, in theory, while the actual sector struggles to breathe.
This narrative explores why Cardoso’s assertion of “restored stability” is based on a delicate and partial foundation, and why Nigeria continues to be distant from attaining economic robustness.
Manufacturing: The Core of Genuine Stability Remains Struggling to Survive
A strong economy is characterized by growth in production, increased investment, and competitive industries. Nigeria lacks all of these elements.
The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) expressed this clearly in its response to the MPC’s choice to keep the Monetary Policy Rate at 27 percent. MAN stated that elevated interest rates are now” hindering production, deterring investment, and weakening competitiveness.
Producers are presently taking loans at rates between 30-37 percent, an environment that renders growth unfeasible and survival challenging. MAN’s Director-General, Segun Ajayi-Kadir, emphasized that although stable exchange rates matter, no genuine industry can endure borrowing expenses to those charged by loan sharks.
The CBN’s choice to maintain elevated interest rates is based on drawing foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) to support the naira’s stability. However, FPIs are well-known for being short-term, speculative, and reactive to disturbances. They do not signify long-term stability. Do they represent genuine economic development?
Genuine stability demands assurance, in manufacturing beyond financial tightening. Manufacturers are expressing, clearly and persistently, that no progress has been made.
Oil Output and Revenue: The Engine Behind Nigeria’s Stability Is Misfiring
Nigeria’s oil sector, which is the backbone of its fiscal stability, is underperforming. The 2025 budget presumed:
- $75 per barrel oil price
- 2.06 million barrels per day production
Both objectives have fallen apart. Brent crude lingers near $62.56 under the benchmark. Contrary to the usual explanations, experts attribute the decline not mainly to external shocks but to poor reservoir management, outdated models, weak oversight, and delayed technical decisions.
Engineer Charles Deigh, a regarded expert in reservoir engineering, clearly expressed that Nigeria is experiencing production losses due to inadequate well monitoring, obsolete reservoir models, and technical choices lacking fundamental engineering precision. These shortcomings result directly in decreased revenue. By September 2025:
– Nigeria had accumulated N62.15 trillion from oil revenue
– instead of the N84.67 trillion budgeted.
– In September, the Federal Inland Revenue Service reported a startling 49.60 percent deficit in revenue from oil taxes.
A nation falling short of its main revenue goals by 50 percent cannot assert stability. Instead, it will take loans. Nigeria has taken loans.
A Stability Built on Debt, Not Productivity
Nigeria is now Africa’s largest borrower, and the world’s third-biggest borrower from the World Bank’s IDA, with $18.5 billion in commitments. By mid-2025, the total public debt amounts to N152.4 trillion, marking a 348.6 percent rise since 2023.
From July to October 2025, the government secured contracts for: $24.79 billion, €4 billion, ¥15 billion, N757 billion, and $500 million Sukuk loans. Nevertheless, in spite of these acquisitions, infrastructure continues to be manufacturing remains limited, and social welfare is still insufficient.
Uche Uwaleke, a finance and capital markets professor, cautions that Nigeria’s debt service ratio is “detrimental to growth.” Currently, the government spends one out of every four naira it earns on servicing debts. Taking on debt is not harmful in itself, provided it finances projects that pay for themselves. In Nigeria, it supports subsistence. A country funding today, through the labour of the future, cannot assert restored stability.
The Naira: A Currency Supported by Fragile Pillars
The CBN contends that elevated interest rates and enhanced market confidence have contributed to the naira’s stabilisation. However, this steadiness is based on grounds that cannot endure even the slightest global disturbance. The pillars of a stable currency are:
– Rising domestic production
– Expanding exports
– Reliable energy supply
– Strong security
– A thriving manufacturing base
None of these is Nigeria’s current reality. What Nigeria actually receives is capital from portfolio investors, and past events (2014, 2018, 2020, 2022) have demonstrated how rapidly these funds disappear.
Unemployment: “Stable” Figures Mask a Rising Youth Crisis
The CBN touts a reported unemployment rate of 4.3 percent. However, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), along with economists, cautions that the approach conceals more serious issues in the labour market.
Youth joblessness has increased to 6.5 percent, and the Nigerian Economic Summit Group cautions that Nigeria needs to generate 27 million formal employment opportunities by 2030 or else confront a disastrous labour crisis. The employment crisis is a ticking time bomb. A country cannot maintain stability when its youth are inactive, disheartened, and financially marginalized.
FDI Continues to Lag Despite CBN’s Positive Outlook
During the 2025 Nigerian Economic Summit, NESG Chairman, Niyi Yusuf stated that Nigeria’s efforts to attract direct investment (FDI) continue to be sluggish despite the implementation of reforms. FDI genuinely reflects investor trust, not portfolio inflows. FDI signifies enduring dedication, manufacturing plants, employment, and generating value. Nigeria does not have any of this as of now. An economy unable to draw long-term investments lacks stability.
139 Million Nigerians in Poverty: What Stability?
The recent development report from the World Bank estimates that 139 million Nigerians are living in poverty, and more than half of the population faces daily struggles. This is not stability. It is a humanitarian and economic crisis.
Food inflation continues to stay structurally high. The cost of a food basket has risen five times since 2019. Low-income families currently allocate much, as 70 percent of their earnings to food. A government cannot claim stability when its citizens go hungry.
A Fragile, Failing Power Sector
The power sector, another cornerstone of economic stability, is failing. Over 90 million Nigerians are without access to electricity, which is one of the highest figures globally. Even homes linked to the grid get 6.6 hours of electricity daily. Companies allocate funds to generators rather than to technology, innovation, or growth. Nigeria has now emerged as the biggest importer of solar panels in Africa, not due to environmental goals but because the national power grid is unreliable.
A country cannot achieve stability if it is unable to supply electricity to its residences, industrial plants, or medical centers.
Insecurity: The Silent Pillar Undermining All Economic Policy
Banditry, terrorism, abduction, and militant attacks persist in agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, and investment. Nigeria forfeits $15 billion each year due to insecurity and resources that might have fueled industrial development.
Food price increases are mainly caused by instability, and farmers are unable to cultivate, gather, or deliver their products. Nevertheless, the MPC approaches inflation predominantly as an issue of policy. In a country where insecurity fundamentally hinders the economy tightening policy cannot ensure stability.
Inflation Figures Under Suspicion
Questions have also emerged regarding the reliability of inflation data. Dr. Tilewa Adebajo, an economist, affirmed that the CBN might not entirely rely on the NBS inflation figures, highlighting increasing apprehension. A sharp decrease to 16 percent inflation clashes with market conditions.
Families are facing the food costs in two decades. Costs, for transport, housing rent, education fees, and necessary items keep increasing. Food prices cannot decline when farmers are abandoning their farmlands and fleeing for safety. If inflation figures are manipulated or partial, the stability story based on them becomes deceptive. There is, quite frankly, a significant disconnect between governance and the lived experience of ordinary Nigerians.
Foreign Reserves: A Story of Headlines vs Reality
Even Nigeria’s celebrated foreign reserves require scrutiny. The CBN reported $46.7 billion in reserves. However, a closer examination shows:
– Net usable reserves are only $23.11 billion
– The remainder is connected to commitments, swaps, and debts
Gross reserves make the news. Net reserves protect the currency. The difference is too large to assert that the naira is stable.
Nigeria’s Economic Contradiction: Stability at the Top, Volatility at the Bottom
In reality, Nigeria is caught between official proclamations of stability and lived experiences of volatility. The disparity between the CBN’s account and the actual experiences of Nigerians highlights a reality:
– Macroeconomic changes have failed to convert into improvements in human well-being.
– Nigeria might appear stable officially. Its citizens are experiencing instability in truth.
– Taking on debt is increasing
– Poverty is worsening
– Manufacturing is contracting
– Jobs are scarce
– Authority is breaking down
– Feelings of insecurity are growing stronger
– Inflation is undermining dignity
– Companies are struggling to breathe
– Capital is escaping
– Misery, among humans, is expanding
A strong economy is one where advancement is experienced, not announced.
What Genuine Stability Demands
To move from paper stability to real stability, Nigeria must:
- Support domestic production. Cut interest rates for manufacturers, reduce borrowing costs, and provide targeted credit.
- Fix oil production technically. Revamp reservoir engineering, implement surveillance. Allocate resources to adequate technical oversight.
- Prioritize security. Secure farmlands, highways, and industrial corridors.
- Reform the power sector. Invest in grid reliability, renewable integration, and private-sector-led transmission.
- Attract real FDI. Streamline rules, enhance the framework, and maintain consistent policy guidance.
- Anchor debt on productive projects. Take loans exclusively for infrastructure projects that produce income.
- Prioritize reforms in welfare. Adopt crisis-responsive, domestically funded safety nets.
- Improve transparency. Ensure inflation, employment, and reserve data reflect reality.
Stability Is Not Given; It Has to Be Achieved
The CBN Governor’s statement of “renewed stability” is hopeful. It remains unproven. The inconsistencies are glaring, the statistics too. The real-world experiences are too harsh. Nigerians require outcomes, not slogans. Stability is gauged not through statements on policy but by whether:
– Manufacturing plants are creating (factories operate at full capacity),
– Food is affordable,
– Young people have jobs
– The naira is strong without artificial props,
– Electricity is reliable,
– Security is assured,
– Poverty rates are decreasing.
Unless these conditions are met, Nigeria is not experiencing a period of restored stability. Instead, it is going through a phase of recovery, one that will collapse if the actual economy keeps worsening while decision-makers prematurely applaud their successes. The CBN must rethink its approach. Nigeria needs productive stability, not statistical stability.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos, can be reached via: [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism9 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking7 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy2 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn