Feature/OPED
How Africa Can Ensure Its Food Security
By Professor Maurice Okoli
At least, African leaders gradually recognise the need to work collectively to ensure food security. Food supply has seriously been exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Africa’s persistent internal ethnic conflicts and a series of natural disasters. But more fascinating are the latest arguments over the interconnection between utilising resources for increasing and improving food production and taking adequate measures toward shedding import dependency.
The month of June 2023 was a busy month for African leaders. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa headed the Africa Peace Initiative to Kyiv and St. Petersburg, famous cities in Ukraine and Russia. Then later, he joined his colleagues at the New Global Financial Pact summit in Paris, France. While these trips could not be considered ordinary, the most controversial issues inseparably relate to Africa’s economic development, trade and investment, and sustainable welfare of the population.
As a development economist and researcher, scanning through several reports, Ramaphosa and his colleagues raised one significant question, among others, during their discussions in Paris. And that is the issue of ensuring food security. In practical terms, it has been part of government policy on improving food production and supply to the increasing population, especially in Africa, which stands at an estimated 1.4 billion. Of course, the world’s population is growing, but Africa’s exponential growth has acute challenges, including healthcare, employment and food security.
By halfway through this century, that is, 2050, Africa’s population is estimated to be 2.5 billion, and urban or megacities across Africa will continue experiencing enormous stress or pressure due to massive migration from under-developed parts of African countries. With Russia’s special operation in Ukraine and the sanctions in the history of mankind slammed on Russia by Western and European states, these have sufficiently been acknowledged as drivers of skyrocketing commodity prices and, ultimately, the cost of living. In effect, it’s described as a terrible global instability.
With all these trends even ceaselessly occurring now, Ramaphosa’s preferential steps toward food security, as described in his presentation, that the war has a ‘negative impact’ on the African continent and many other countries. It is, however, an acceptable fact that Africa, which generally depends on massive food imports, has suffered from all-year-round supply interruptions — diverse discussions ceaselessly awash the media landscape over these. For most African leaders, it is the question of food supply or how to sustain or preserve food import dependency. There is no alternative to reconnecting to regular supplies from Russia and Ukraine for these African countries.
During the New Global Financial Pact summit in Paris, African leaders expressed sceptical sentiments, as Ramaphosa and other leaders vehemently reiterated that external pledges and funding have unsuccessfully supported sustainable development goals, including food security in Africa.
Ramaphosa raised the structure of financial institutions, global currency, climate change and economic poverty, that there should be more cooperation and coordination, no fragmentation. There should be reforms in multinational institutions to address development issues, especially in the Global South. Africa should not be treated as beggars but as equals. It does not depend on donations and generosity. Africa should be allowed to be a key player on the global stage.
In stark reality, the global geopolitical processes are now offering the grounds to re-initiate and seek suitable alternatives that depend on century-old approaches and methods to solve national questions. Therefore, development critics may argue how the changes bring it closer to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and how it will simultaneously bolster Africa’s role in the multipolar world.
Factors Influencing Food Production
Interestingly factors negatively influencing local production, including the agricultural sector, are commonly listed and extensively discussed. Researchers, academics and politicians already recognize them as retarding expected progress and making headways in attaining that status of food self-sufficiency. Some of these factors are drought and climatic extremes, low budget allocation and inappropriate agricultural policies in Africa, poor storage and preservation facilities, poor land tenure system and reduced soil fertilities, inadequate irrigation facilities and poor methods of pest and disease control.
Some aspects of traditional African culture related to food production have become less practised in recent years. But state attitudes are not stimulating either in this direction. Across Africa, the consumption culture is tied to foreign imported products as it is widely interpreted as status-symbol, considered as belonging to a well-defined upper class in the society. Thus this consumer culture becomes a driving factor towards continuity in importing food that fills modern shopping malls in Africa.
The most popular rhetoric, more or less chorus, is that although it has abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world’s poorest and least-developed continent, resulting from various causes that may include deep-seated political corruption. According to the United Nations Human Development Report in 2003, the bottom 24 ranked nations (151st to 175th) were all African states.
Thambo Mbeki, former South African President, has argued these aspects in his reports on illicit capital flows abroad. In a recently published analysis, Mbeki underlined that loans obtained for undertaking development infrastructure, including agricultural and related industrial sectors, are siphoned back to foreign banks for politicians.
Basic geography teaches us that Africa has enormous resources, encompassing the vast landmass, vegetation, and water resources, including the lakes and rivers. The Congo, Nile, Zambezi, Niger and Lake Victoria are among its rivers. Yet the continent is the second driest in the world, with millions of Africans suffering yearly from water shortages. It requires mechanising agricultural practices, offering specialised short training and adequate support for local farmers as aspects of measures and steps toward import substitution.
Addressing food security challenges in Africa
Economists argue that possibly adopting, to some degree, import substitution policies are not directed at escaping international trade. It is an attempt to utilise, at the maximum, the untapped available resources in the production sector and, secondly, redirect budgetary finances into needy significant economic sectors. Understandably, Africa depends on food imports to feed its population. It has become a common rules-based practice across Africa.
On the other hand, potential exporting foreign states generate revenues for their budget. This is also an undeniable fact as many countries around the world make conscious efforts to increase the export of commodities to foreign markets. According to Agriculture Ministry’s AgroExport Center, Russia targets $33 billion per year (annually) as revenue through massive export of grains and meat poultry to Africa.
By increasing grain exports to African countries, Russia aims to enhance the competitiveness of Russian agricultural goods in the African market. On the contrary, several international organisations have also expressed that African leaders must adopt import substitution mechanisms and use their financial resources to strengthen agricultural production systems.
At the G7 Summit in June 2022, President Joe Biden and G7 leaders announced over $4.5 billion to address global food security, over half of which will come from the United States. This $2.76 billion in U.S. government funding will help protect the world’s most vulnerable populations and mitigate the impacts of growing food insecurity and malnutrition by building production capacity and more resilient agriculture and food systems worldwide and responding to immediate emergency food needs.
U.S. Congress allocated $336.5 million to bilateral programs for Sub-Saharan African countries, including Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe and regional programs in southern Africa, west Africa, and the Sahel.
Using Zimbabwe as a Classical Example
Compared to food-importing African countries, Zimbabwe has increased wheat production, especially during the current Russia-Ukraine crisis. This achievement was attributed to efforts in mobilising local scientists to improve the crop’s production. Zimbabwe is an African country under Western sanctions for 25 years, hindering imports of much-needed machinery and other inputs to drive agriculture.
At the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) summit held from September 5 to 9, 2022, in Rwanda, President Emmerson Mnangagwa told the gathering that “we used to depend on importation of wheat from Ukraine in the past, but now we have been able to produce our own. To a considerable extent, the crisis in that country has not affected us. There is an urgent need to adopt a progressive approach and re-purpose food policies to address the emerging challenges affecting our entire food systems in Africa.”
As much as there are classical admirable lessons to learn from Zimbabwe, African leaders ignore these. Zimbabwe shares the same negative consequences of colonialism with many African countries. But in an additional case, it has struggled with sanctions imposed on the land, making conditions harder. Zimbabwe has been looking for foreign partners from other countries to transfer technology and industrialise its ailing economy in the southern African region.
While several African countries largely depend on Russia and Ukraine for their regular supply of wheat and grains, even despite the persistent geopolitical warring situation, Zimbabwe has recorded its highest wheat harvest during the last agricultural production in 2022. It emerges as one of the few African countries with an import substitution agricultural policy and strategically working self-sufficiency. Worth suggesting that African leaders have to learn from Zimbabwe – a landlocked southern African country.
Looking for Inside Solutions
At least over the past few years, even long before the Russia-Ukraine crisis, there have been glowing signs from two African banks calling for increased food production. African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) have gained increasing prominence for their work with the private sectors within Africa. These two banks support the agricultural sectors, but more is needed to meet the highest target.
At the Paris summit, AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina, African and European heads of government and representatives of development partners on the sidelines held discussions about the Alliance for Green Infrastructure in Africa. The key aim is accelerating the financing of transformational climate-resilient and greener infrastructure projects in Africa and attracting new partners and financiers. Adesina, formerly Nigeria’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, now the 8th President of the African Development Bank, has consistently been pushing for increased domestic agriculture to attain food self-sufficiency and ensure food security on the continent.
Of particular concern is that over 900 million people are still impoverished on the continent. Over 283 million Africans suffer from hunger, including over 216 million children who suffer from malnutrition. The situation is more serious due to climate change, including severe droughts, floods and cyclones that have devastated parts of Africa. Today, much of the Horn Africa and the Sahel last had rain several seasons ago. The resources Africa needs need to be there, explains AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina.
“I am excited about what the bank is doing to support farmers to adapt to climate change through our flagship program —Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT). It is a platform implemented through partnerships with national and regional agricultural research institutions and the private sector. It is the largest ever effort to get technologies at scale to millions of farmers across Africa,” he wrote in his report.
Over the past three years, TAAT delivered climate-resilient agricultural technologies to 25 million farmers or 62% of the 40 million farmer target. The depth of consistent work of this bank is to enhance food processing, value addition and competitiveness of agricultural supply chains across Africa. The bank is committing resources for the establishment of Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones. With its partners (including the Islamic Development Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development), the bank has invested more than $1.5 billion to establish these zones in eleven countries.
Africa’s ability to feed nine billion people by 2050 is not a foregone conclusion; it is a call to action. We must harness our strengths, confront challenges, and work relentlessly towards our shared vision. Therefore, let us rise to this grand challenge. Let us forge ahead, knowing that our efforts today will determine the future of food in the world. It is necessary to unlock Africa’s potential in agriculture. Africa must feed itself.
The Wake-Up Bell for Action
It may take us by surprise when we know that 81% of the sub-Saharan African population lives on less than $2.50 (PPP) per day in 2023, compared with 86% for India. China and India are populous but are moving faster than Africa. China has a more substantial global economic influence than India, but Africa still needs to progress in various economic sectors.
The latest economic trend is that Africa is now at risk of being in debt once again, particularly in sub-Saharan African countries. It receives the most external funds for its development from Development funding sponsors such as the United States, Europe, China, France and Britain or multilateral blocs such as G7 states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Other institutions and organisations, such as Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), also engage with Africa. In addition, the Asian and Arab Banks are showing practical actions. The cry for the National Development Bank of the BRICS has yet to think of Africa.
In this article, it is necessary in our discussions to appreciate the geographical facts that Africa is the world’s second-largest and second-most-populous continent, after Asia, in both aspects. Despite a wide range of natural resources, Africa is the least wealthy continent per capita and second-least wealthy by total wealth, behind Oceania. Scholars have attributed this to different factors, including geography, climate, tribalism, colonialism, neocolonialism, lack of democracy, and worse Africa-wide corruption. Despite this low concentration of wealth, recent economic expansion and the large and young population make Africa a crucial financial market in the broader global context.
In a nutshell, adopting measures for establishing food security is crucial to sustainable development. Addressing food security, therefore, is one of the keys for Africa in this 21st century. From the above perspectives, African leaders have to focus and redirect both human and financial resources toward increasing local production as the surest approach in ensuring sustainable food security for the estimated 1.4 billion population in Africa, and this most possibly falls within the framework of the Agenda 2063 of the African Union.
By 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
By Fola Baderin
By 2030, more than 25 billion devices are expected to be connected worldwide, each one a potential gateway for both innovation and risk. Already, 87% of companies identify AI as a top business priority, and over 76% are actively using AI in their operations. These numbers reflect a profound shift: technology is no longer a backstage support act but a strategic force shaping economies, societies, and everyday life.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) sit at the heart of this transformation. Together, they are redefining how decisions are made, how risks are managed, and how value is created across industries. From hospitals monitoring patients in real time to banks using predictive analytics to stop fraud before it happens, AI and IoT are moving from abstract concepts to everyday business tools.
Yet this expansion comes with complexity. As organisations embrace cloud platforms, remote work, and IoT‑enabled systems, their digital footprints grow larger, and so do the threats. Cybersecurity has become a frontline issue, no longer a technical afterthought but a pillar of resilience and trust.
The role of IT has changed dramatically. Once focused on maintenance and uptime, IT teams now sit at the centre of strategy and risk management. Cloud‑first architectures and interconnected networks have introduced new vulnerabilities, forcing IT leaders to act not just as problem‑solvers but as proactive partners in innovation.
AI is proving indispensable in this new environment. It can analyse vast datasets, detect anomalies, and automate responses at machine speed, capabilities that traditional approaches simply cannot match. Combined with IoT, AI delivers real‑time visibility across connected devices, enabling predictive maintenance, intelligent monitoring, and faster decision‑making. These are not abstract benefits; they are the difference between preventing a cyberattack in seconds or suffering a costly breach.
But the story is not only about opportunity. The rapid adoption of AI and IoT raises pressing questions about ethics, privacy, and governance. Automated decision‑making must be transparent, accountable, and fair. Organisations also face a widening skills gap, as demand for professionals who can responsibly manage advanced technologies outpaces supply.
Striking the right balance between innovation and control is essential. Security‑by‑design principles, strong governance frameworks, and continuous risk assessment are no longer optional extras. They are the foundation for trust in a digital economy.
Looking ahead, IT will continue to evolve as AI and IoT become embedded in everyday operations. Success depends not only on adopting advanced technologies, but on aligning them with business goals, regulations, and culture.
For Nigeria, this transformation is both a challenge and an opportunity. With its vibrant fintech sector, growing digital economy, and youthful workforce, the country is well‑placed to harness AI and IoT for growth. Lagos alone hosts hundreds of startups experimenting with AI‑driven financial services, while smart city initiatives in Abuja and other urban centres are exploring IoT for traffic management, energy efficiency, and public safety.
At the same time, Nigeria faces unique vulnerabilities. The country has one of the fastest‑growing internet populations in Africa, but also one of the most targeted by cybercriminals. Reports suggest that Africa loses over $4 billion annually to cybercrime, with Nigeria accounting for a significant share. As more devices and systems come online, the stakes will only rise.
Government policy will play a decisive role. Nigeria’s National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020–2030) already highlights AI and IoT as critical enablers of growth. But translating policy into practice requires investment in infrastructure, stronger regulatory frameworks, and public‑private collaboration. Without these, the promise of AI and IoT could be undermined by weak security and poor governance.
Education and skills development are equally vital. Nigeria’s youthful population which is over 60% under the age of 25 represents a massive opportunity if properly trained. Universities and technical institutes must integrate AI, cybersecurity, and IoT into their curricula, while businesses should invest in continuous upskilling. Otherwise, the skills gap will widen, leaving organisations vulnerable and innovation stunted.
Ethics and trust must also remain central. Nigerians are increasingly aware of data privacy concerns, from mobile banking to health records. Embedding transparency and accountability into AI systems will be critical for public acceptance. Leaders must ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fairness or human rights.
Real‑world examples already show the potential. Nigerian hospitals are beginning to explore AI‑enabled diagnostic tools, while logistics companies use IoT to track deliveries in real time. These innovations demonstrate how technology can improve lives and strengthen businesses, but they also highlight the need for robust safeguards.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s digital future will be shaped not only by technology but by leadership. IT leaders, policymakers, and entrepreneurs who embrace AI and IoT responsibly with a clear focus on security, ethics, and long‑term value creation. This will be best positioned to navigate an increasingly complex threat landscape. The question is no longer whether to adopt these technologies, but how to do so in a way that builds resilience, trust, and sustainable growth for Nigeria’s digital economy.
Fola Baderin is a cybersecurity consultant and AI advocate focused on shaping Nigeria’s digital future
By Blaise Udunze
When the federal government approved the write-off of about $1.42 billion and N5.57 trillion in legacy debts owed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) to the Federation Account, it was rightly described as a landmark decision. After years of disputes, reconciliations, and contested figures, Nigeria’s most important revenue institution was, at least on paper, given a cleaner slate.
The approval, contained in a report prepared by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) and presented at the last year November meeting of the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), effectively wiped out 96 percent of NNPC’s dollar-denominated obligations and 88 percent of its naira liabilities accumulated up to December 31, 2024. It resolved long-standing balances arising from crude oil liftings, joint venture royalties, production-sharing contracts, and related arrangements.
Judging it critically, the decision carries both promise and peril, but can be viewed from the perspective of a country desperate to restore confidence in public finance management. It offers an opportunity to reset relationships, clean up accounting records, and move forward under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). Yet, it also exposes deep structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s oil revenue governance, weaknesses that, if left unaddressed, could turn today’s debt relief into tomorrow’s fiscal regret.
Context matters. The debt write-off comes not during a period of revenue abundance, but at a time when Nigeria’s upstream revenue performance is under severe strain. According to the same NUPRC document, the commission missed its approved monthly revenue target for November 2025 by N544.76 billion, collecting only N660.04 billion against a projected N1.204 trillion.
Royalty receipts, the backbone of upstream revenue, tell an even starker story. It is alarming that against an approved monthly royalty projection of N1.144 trillion, only N605.26 billion was collected, leaving a shortfall of N538.92 billion. Cumulatively, by the end of November 2025, the revenue gap stood at N5.65 trillion, with royalty collections alone falling short by N5.63 trillion. These figures underscore how fragile Nigeria’s fiscal position remains, even as trillions of naira in historical obligations are being written off.
To be fair, the debts forgiven were not incurred overnight. They are the product of years of disputed remittances, lacking transparent accounting practices, and overlapping institutional roles, particularly under the pre-PIA regime. As petroleum economist Prof. Wumi Iledare has repeatedly observed, the former Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation combined regulatory, commercial, and operational functions, making revenue reconciliation cumbersome and frequently contested.
That legacy continues to haunt the system, as witnessed with the ongoing dispute between NNPC Ltd and Periscope Consulting, the audit firm engaged by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, over an alleged $42.37 billion under-remittance between 2011 and 2017, which illustrates how unresolved the past remains. Though NNPC insists all revenues were properly accounted for as claimed, Periscope maintains that significant gaps persist, forcing FAAC to mandate yet another reconciliation exercise. This recurring pattern of audits, counterclaims, and stalemates has weakened trust in the federation revenue system and eroded confidence among states that depend on oil proceeds for survival.
Crucially, the debt write-off does not mean NNPC has turned a corner financially. Statutory obligations incurred between January and October 2025 remain on the books, amounting to about $56.8 million and N1.02 trillion. Although part of the dollar component was recovered during the period under review, the accumulation of new liabilities so soon after reconciliation raises uncomfortable questions about whether old habits are being replaced with genuine fiscal discipline.
More troubling still is what NNPC’s own audited financial statements reveal about its internal financial health. Despite recording a profit after tax of N5.4 trillion on revenues of N45.1 trillion in 2024, the company’s inter-company debts ballooned to N30.3 trillion, representing a 70 per cent increase within a single year. This is not debt owed to external creditors but largely obligations between NNPC and its subsidiaries, effectively the company owing itself.
Records show that of 32 subsidiaries, only eight are debt-free, and the rest, particularly the refineries, trading arms, and gas infrastructure units, remain heavily indebted to the parent company. There was a recurring cycle where profitable units subsidise chronically underperforming ones, and accountability steadily erodes because cash that should fund maintenance, expansion, and efficiency improvements is instead trapped in internal receivables.
The refineries offer a stark illustration whereby the Port Harcourt Refining Company alone owed N4.22 trillion in 2024, more than double its 2023 figure, while Kaduna and Warri refineries followed closely, with debts of N2.39 trillion and N2.06 trillion respectively. Despite the repeated failed turnaround maintenance with many years of rehabilitation spending, none have operated sustainably at commercially viable levels. Their continued dependence on financial support from the parent company highlights the cost of postponing difficult restructuring decisions.
And, for this reason, international observers have long warned about these structural weaknesses. One of the critics, the World Bank, has repeatedly flagged NNPC as a major source of revenue leakages. It further noted that the persistent gaps between reported earnings and actual remittances to the Federation Account. Even after the removal of petrol subsidies, the bank observed that NNPC remitted only about 50 per cent of the revenue gains, using the rest to offset past arrears. Such practices, while perhaps defensible in internal cash management terms, undermine fiscal transparency and weaken Nigeria’s macroeconomic credibility.
This is why the central issue is not the debt write-off itself, but what follows it because debt forgiveness is not reform. Without firm safeguards, it risks entrenching the very behaviours that created the problem in the first place. As Prof. Omowumi Iledare has warned, the scale and pace of the inter-company debt build-up represent a governance test rather than a mere accounting anomaly. Allowing subsidiaries to operate indefinitely without settling obligations is incompatible with the idea of a commercially driven national oil company.
The fact remains that if NNPC wants to function as a true commercial holding company under the PIA, it must enforce strict settlement timelines, restructure or divest non-viable subsidiaries, while clearly separating legacy debts from new obligations. With this, it holds subsidiary leadership accountable for cash flow and profitability. Independent, real-time audits and transparent reporting must become routine features of governance, not emergency responses triggered by controversy.
There is also a broader national implication. At a time when Nigerians are being asked to accept higher taxes, reduced subsidies, and fiscal tightening, large-scale debt write-offs without visible accountability risk undermining the legitimacy of the entire revenue system. Citizens cannot be expected to bear heavier burdens while systemic inefficiencies in the country’s most strategic sector persist.
Of a truth, the cancellation of NNPC’s legacy debts could mark a turning point in Nigeria’s fiscal governance, but only if it is not treated as its conclusion but the beginning of reform.
If discipline, transparency, and commercial accountability follow, the decision may yet help reposition NNPC as a profitable, credible, and PIA-compliant institution. If not, today’s clean slate will simply defer the reckoning until the next reconciliation, the next audit dispute, and the next fiscal crisis.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]
By Dr Austin Orette
The grandiosity of Nigerians when they discuss events and situations can be very funny. If the leaders use this kind of creativity in proffering solutions, we may be able to solve some of the problems that plague Nigeria perennially.
There seems to be a sublime affectation for new lingos when the system is being set to punish Nigerians. It is a kind of Orwellian speak.
Recently, there was no electricity throughout the country. The usual culprit and government spoke; people came out to tell us the power failure was due to the collapse of the National grid. Does it really matter what is collapsing? This is just an attempt by some government bureaucrats to sound intelligent.
Intelligence is becoming a borrowed commodity from the IMF or World Bank. What does it mean when you tell Nigerians that the national grid collapsed? Is that supposed to be a reassurance, or it is said to give the assurance that they know something about the anemic electricity, and we should get used to the darkness. This is a language that is vague and beckons the consumer to stop complaining. Does that statement mean anything to Nigerians who pay bills and don’t see the electricity they paid for? If they see it, it comes with an irregular voltage that destroys their newly purchased appliances. Just tell or stay quiet like in the past.
Telling us that a grid collapse is a lie. We have no national grid. Do these people know how silly their language sounds? Nigeria produces less than 10,000 megawatts of electricity for a population of 200 million people. How do you permutate this to give constant electricity to 200 million people? It is an insult to call this low output a national grid. What is so national about using a generator to supply electricity to 200 million people? It is simple mathematics. If you calculate this to the minute, it should not surprise you that every Nigerian will receive electricity for the duration of the blink of an eye. They are paying for total darkness, and someone is telling them they have an electricity grid.
If you can call the 10,000-megawatt national grid collapsed, it means you don’t have the mind set to solve the electricity problem in Nigeria.
To put it in perspective is to understand the basic fact that the electrical output of Nigeria is pre-industrial. Without acknowledging this fact, we will never find solutions as every mediocre will come and confuse Nigeria with lingos that make them sound important.
It is very shameful for those in the know to always use grandiose language to obfuscate the real issues.
South Africa with a population of sixty million produces about 200,000 megawatts of electricity daily. Nigeria produces less than 10,000 megawatts. Why South Africa makes it easy to lift the poor from poverty, Nigeria is trying to tax the poor into poverty.
The architects of the new tax plan saw the poor as rich because they could afford a generator.
A non-existent subsidy was removed, and the price of fuel went through the roof. Now the government says they are rich. What will they get in return for this tax extraction? Why do successive Nigerian governments always think the best way to develop Nigeria is to slap the poor into poverty? What are the avenues for upward mobility when youth corps members are suddenly seen as rich taxpayers? Do these people know how difficult it is to start a business in Nigeria?
After all the rigmarole from Abuja to my village, I cannot get a government certificate without a-shake down from government bureaucrats and area boys. The government that is so unfriendly to business wants to tax my non-existing businesses. Are these people in their right state of mind? Why do they think that taxing the poor is their best revenue plan? A plan like this can only come from a group of people who have no inkling of what Nigerians are going through. People can’t eat and the government is asking them to share their meager rations with potbellied people in Abuja.
Teach the people how to fish, then you can share in their harvest. If an individual does what the government is doing to Nigerians, it will be called robbery, and the individual will be in prison. When the government taxes people, there is a reciprocal exchange. What is being done in Nigeria does not represent fair exchange.
Nigerians have never gotten anything good from their government except individual wealth that is doled out in Abuja for the selected few.
The question is, will Nigerians have a good electricity supply? NO. Will they have security of persons and properties? No. Will they have improved health care? NO. Will there be good roads? No. Will they have good schools and good education? No.
Taxation is not good governance. A policy like this should never be rushed without adequate studies. Once again, our legislators have let us down. They have never shown the people the reason they were elected and to be re-elected. They are not playing their roles as the watchdog and representatives of the people. Anyone who voted for this tax bill deserves to lose their positions as Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
We are not in a military regime anymore. Nigerians must start learning how to exercise their franchise. This taxation issue must be litigated at the ballot box. The members of the National Assembly have shown by their assent that they don’t represent the people.
In a normal democracy, taxation without representation should never be tolerated. They must be voted out of office. We have a responsibility and duty to use our voting power to fight unjust laws. Taxation without representation is unjust. Those voted into power will never respect the citizens until the citizens learn to punish errant politicians by voting them out of office. This responsibility is sacred and must be exercised with diligence.
Dr Austin Orette writes from Houston, Texas
-
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
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 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