Feature/OPED
Sustainable Development is a Necessity for Every Society in the World
By Professor Maurice Okoli
For the majority of African leaders and delegates, it was a momentous achievement, to participate and contribute speeches with diverse themes at the podium during the 78th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. The UNGA traditionally meets in September, the highest global gathering to make several significant decisions on what the organization, consisting of 193 UN members, is generally expected to do. It has wrapped up its 78th annual session with another huge pack of commitments to engage in reshaping a better life for the entire population and Development paradigms in the world.
In the context of Africa’s Development, the extraordinary sessions combined with several top-level bilateral and multilateral meetings on the sidelines critically highlighted the existing multiple Development obstacles, the potential to reshape the continent’s priorities and bring to life the vision of African desires and the strategic pathways forward in the emerging future.
From the various perspectives and interpretations, African leaders have restated their longstanding fears of global South political dominance and hegemony, the shortfalls of a unipolar system, expressed support for some structural reforms within international organizations, and finally emphasized, as always, comprehensive and long-term Development plans for Africa that is already incorporated into the African Union’s Agenda 2063.
The idea of the UN’s sustainable development goals is nearing its extinction. In the experts’ views, especially among African politicians, intellectuals and development leaders during this period of pursuing the SDGs, to a large extent, the progress has been influenced by geopolitical enmity. And noticeably fierce confrontation between key global powers and multinational development banks have also slackened the expected financial pledges and commitments.
What Leaders Say at the General Assembly
United Nations chief António Guterres has stressed this point concerning the SDGs in different forms at several summits and conferences. At the opening of the meeting, he afresh called for a world that should be “more representative and responsive to the needs of developing economies” and added that the least developing world is persistently “trapped in a tangle of global crises.”
Without mincing words, Guterres has repeatedly called for sustainable and predictable financing for peacebuilding efforts. He also expressed concern about unconstitutional changes of government in parts of Africa and stressed the need for collaboration with the African Union to support peace efforts across the continent.
Now is the time to lift the declaration’s words off the page and invest in Development at scale like never before. The political statement includes a commitment to financing for developing countries and clear support for an annual SDG Stimulus of at least $500 billion.
A newly established ‘Leaders Group’ will develop clear steps to get funds flowing before 2024. The Leaders Group (LG) must turn commitments made at the Summit into concrete policies, budgets, investment portfolios and actions. In addition, LG should strengthen support for action across six key SDG areas: food, energy, digitalization, education, social protection and jobs, and biodiversity.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are tasked to recapitalize and coordinate an urgent additional re-channeling of $100 billion in unused Special Drawing Rights. The Special Drawing Rights is an international reserve asset developed by the IMF to supplement the official foreign exchange reserves of its member countries and help provide them with liquidity. The largest-ever allocation, worth $650 billion, was carried out in August 2021 in response to the economic crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nearly all African leaders have development-oriented complaints. Current Head of ECOWAS and Nigerian President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in a few words on behalf of Nigeria, on behalf of Africa, indicated that failures in good governance have hindered sustainable development in Africa. “But broken promises, unfair treatment and outright exploitation from abroad have also exacted a heavy toll on our ability to progress,” he said, and despite the underlying conditions and causes of the economic challenges, promised to make relentless efforts to re-establish democratic governance in West Africa, including the French-speaking states now under interim military administrations. The wave crossing parts of Africa does not demonstrate favour towards coups. It is a demand for solutions to perennial problems. The negative impact and related problems also knock on Nigeria’s door.
Bola Ahmed Tinubu, among other issues, said African nations would fight climate change but must do so on its terms. Continental efforts regarding climate change would register important victories if established economies were more forthcoming with public and private sector investment for Africa’s preferred initiatives. As for Africa, given its abundant land resources, the creative and dynamic people desire prosperity. Africa is not a problem to be avoided, nor is it to be pitied. Africa is nothing less than the key to the world’s future.
William Ruto, President of Kenya, in a flowering speech also indicated that the time is up to pursue global peace and sustain positive changes for impoverished billion people in the world. “The tragic spectacle of young people from Africa boarding rickety contraptions to gamble their lives away on dangerous voyages in pursuit of opportunities abroad, as conflict, climate and economic refugees, is a testament of the failures of the global economic system,” he asserted at the gathering.
From diverse standpoints, there is no need to be trapped in a false choice: sustainable development is robust climate action and climate action is development. It is quite explicit that Africa’s potential is defined by abundant and diverse resources, ranging from a youthful, highly skilled and motivated population, immense renewable energy potential and mineral resources, including critical minerals, and extensive natural capital endowment, including 60% of the world’s unutilised arable land.
Capital and technology can find no better returns anywhere, than the tremendous investment opportunity in Africa’s potential. Such investment would drive green growth creating jobs and wealth while decarbonising global production and consumption. Therefore, to unlock financing at scale and create incentives for investments at scale in green opportunities, the Nairobi Declaration makes the reform of the international financial system a priority.
Moments like now place the nature and purpose of multilateralism under sharp scrutiny for history’s honest examination and judgement. If any confirmation was ever needed that the United Nations Security Council is dysfunctional, undemocratic, non-inclusive, un-representative and therefore incapable of delivering meaningful progress in the world.
Multilateralism has failed due to the abuse of trust, negligence and impunity. It is time for multilateralism to reflect the voice of the farmers, represent the hopes of villagers, champion the aspirations of pastoralists, defend the rights of fisherfolk, express the dreams of traders, respect the wishes of workers and, indeed, protect the welfare of all peoples of the world.
According to Ruto, the UN Secretary-General provided a graphic snapshot of the condition of the world and humanity, a situation that calls into question the state of multilateralism in terms of its founding aspirations, as well as its present agenda. The poverty, fear, suffering and humanitarian distress haunting the victims of conflict, drought, famine, flooding, wildfires, cyclones, deadly disease outbreaks and other disasters, are the outcomes of sustained violation of the most essential principles, and the systematic neglect of humanity’s dearest values, which lie at the very foundation of the UN charter since 1945.
President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, addressed the UN General. Assembly on September 19, while pointing to the fact that every human effort should be directed towards realizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development said, “Our energies have once again been diverted by the scourge of war.” While touching on several points including the need for inclusive, democratic, and representative international institutions, he also emphasized that “over millennia, the human race has demonstrated an enormous capacity for resilience, adaptation, innovation, compassion and solidarity … these qualities must be evident in how we work together as a global community and as nations of the world to end war and conflict.”
Referring assertively to the meeting held in early September by his country alongside Russia, India and China, and the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, in late August, President Ramaphosa urged all nations to demonstrate and resolve to secure a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable future for the world and, more importantly, for the generations that will follow. “Leaving no one behind – that is the duty that we all have,” he said, recalling the guiding promise made by the international community with the adoption in 2015 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Scanning further through reports, UN refugee chief Filippo Grandi insisted that the world had “the means and the money” to prevent every one of those deaths. He called for an end to the fighting and more financial support for the emergency response in the country. The UN agency pointed to a context of “increased epidemic risk” and challenges for epidemic control across Africa. UNHCR’s Chief of Public Health, Dr Allen Maina drew attention to acutely malnourished and millions of people requiring care for chronic diseases in war-torn and conflicting African regions.
Speakers have equally highlighted the importance of engaging the youth in the development strategy and the decision-making processes. Often said, the youth are vibrant and could play supporting roles, therefore, the focus should be directed on their training and be given the necessary guidance and directions. According to the African Development Bank, Africa’s youth population is experiencing rapid growth and is projected to reach 850 million by the year 2050. Furthermore, young individuals in Africa are anticipated to make up half of the 2 billion working-age population by 2063 – the continent being the world’s youngest region with a median age of 25 years.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Insights into the United Nations’ SDGs, as already stated, since its inception in 2015, there is still a lot to be done, especially in addressing the ongoing global challenges. Some notable facts included The number of people living in extreme poverty in 2022: 657-676 million vs. 581 million pre-COVID pandemic.
With steps to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. One in 10 people worldwide are suffering from hunger. Nearly one in three people need regular access to food (2020).
Experts say that quality education and gender equality are progressing steadily, but it would take another 40 years for women and men to be represented equally in national political leadership.
Affordable and Clean Energy: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. Progress in energy efficiency needs to speed up to achieve global climate goals.
Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: In an assessment, there is still the necessity to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
And the need to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Issues persistent relating to climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Climate Action: take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
With partnerships for the goals: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalization of the global partnership for sustainable development. As Secretary-General António Guterres remarked on September 18 at the UN General Assembly, the SDGs need a global rescue, which includes stimulus support of at least “$500 billion a year as well as an effective debt-relief mechanism that supports payment suspensions, long lending terms and lower rates.”
Arguably, having a clearer understanding of these development goals is highly noteworthy. It would encourage global leaders to reassess current policies and practices and explore ways to enhance commitments towards their realization further.
BRICS, G20 and G77+China
Fundamentally, all these questions mentioned above and many others have predominantly featured during the past few years but have risen to greater heights recently during the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) meeting in Johannesburg, the G20 in New Delhi and G77+China summit in Cuba. At these high-level meetings, there were passionate appeals to rapidly address development gaps and disparities, to ‘change the game’s rules’ between the North and the South.
But then, those organizations (BRICS, G20, G77+China and others) are steadily recognizing the basic facts about global re-configuration, economic competitiveness and emerging new multifaceted relations between nation-states. Most of these states in the South, especially Africa is de-alienating away from some countries in the global North, entities further considered them as the primary sources of their under-development and causes for their internal conflicts, resulting in Economic deficiency.
In retrospect, BRICS held its 15th Summit in Johannesburg. There were two significant questions: first, new members joined the Group, and second, China rolled out another phase of industrial support program for Africa. It is noteworthy to say here that Russia and China are actively contributing to the transformation of the Group into a new geopolitical and economic block.
Noticeably, other key global powers are also scrambling to Africa. The dominating trend is that China, for instance, has, over the past two decades, demonstrated a sufficiently deep understanding of Africa’s Infrastructural development needs. In practical terms, China’s significant-scale contributions and active growing influence worry the most Developed nations of the world, especially the United States.
Quite recently, the G20 also held its traditional Summit in New Delhi. In spite of various divergent arguments during the Summit, however, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva strongly called for focusing on unity, rather than attempts to oppose the G7 group, and the G20 group. India also expressed concerns regarding the enlargement process, considering it a method to amplify the influence of China is the state with the largest economy in the Group.
“Therefore, the Brazilian presidency of the G20 has three priorities,” Luiz Lula told the meeting. “The first one is social inclusion and the fight against hunger, energy transition and sustainable development … and thirdly the reform of global governance institutions.” All these priorities are part of the Brazilian presidency’s motto: ‘Building a fair world and a sustainable planet.’ Two task forces will be created – the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty and the Global Mobilization Against Climate Change.
In this context, India did powerfully and strategically well in controlling and leading groups from all camps to negotiate to have a unified compromise. BRICS leaders reached agreements around global debt, reforms to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, climate financing and the adoption of a worldwide green development pact, with the latter two are expected to be critical features of the G20 presidency in 2024.
Records show that the G77+China, a group of developing and emerging countries representing 80 per cent of the world’s population, held its Summit in Cuba. Likewise, it was held amid widening geopolitical differences, the fight against climate change and solid calls for reforms of the global economic system. In short, it sought to “change the rules of the game” of the worldwide order.
“After all this time that the North has organized the world according to its interests, it is now up to the South to change the rules of the game,” Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel said at the opening of the Summit.
Diaz-Canel said that developing nations were the primary victims of a “multidimensional crisis” in the world today, from “abusive, unequal trade” to global warming.
The G77+China bloc was established by 77 countries of the global South in 1964 “to articulate and promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity,” according to the Group’s website. Today, it has 134 members, among which the website lists China, although the Asian giant says it is not a full member. Cuba took over the rotating presidency in January.
Developing Nations’ Debt Trap
Far ahead of the New York meetings at the United Nations, academic researchers Vitor Gaspar, Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro and Jiae Yoo have argued that global debt recorded another significant decline in 2022; it is still high, with debt sustainability remaining a concern. Referencing the Global Debt Database, the researchers made an explicit case that the total debt stood at 238 per cent of global gross domestic product last year, nine percentage points higher than in 2019.
In US dollar terms, debt amounted to $235 trillion, or $200 billion above its level in 2021. China played a central role in increasing global debt in recent decades as borrowing outpaced economic growth. Debt in low-income developing nations also rose significantly in the last two decades.
Several reports also note, with authenticity, that Africa’s debt to China surpassed $140 billion as of September 2021. However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says about $285 billion would be required by African countries to finance major infrastructural projects from 2021-2025. China has risen to become a top global lender with significant stakes that exceed more than five per cent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The COVID-19 pandemic’s economic effects and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have made it more difficult for many African states to pay their Debts. Now, 22 low-income African nations are either already experiencing a debt crisis or are at significant risk of experiencing it. In fact, the top 10 African states with the highest debt to China include Angola, Ethiopia, Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, DRC, Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire.
In contrast, generally, more than half of low-income developing nations are in or at high risk of debt distress, and about one-fifth of emerging markets have sovereign bonds trading at distressed levels. Policymakers will need to be unwavering over the next few years in their commitment to preserving debt sustainability.
Some are advocating for genuine reforms at G20, suggesting further the possibility for well-refined and coordinated cooperation between the North and the South. Of course, a more excellent representation of the Global South would create a paradigm shift. For instance, Yaroslav Founder of BRICS+ Analytics Yaroslav Lissovolik argues that during the 15th BRICS in August, apart from the more excellent representation of Africa and the Global South in the G20 forum, another significance of AU’s admission to the Group of 20 is that it creates greater scope for synergies and closer cooperation between globalism (global institutions and platforms such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, G20) and regionalism (regional integration blocs, regional development banks and regional financing arrangements). If other regional blocs do become part of the G20 platform, there will then be scope for these blocs to work more closely with the WTO, while regional development institutions could coordinate their operations with the IMF and the World Bank.
With the world facing a challenging economy, geopolitical tensions, and the deepening effects of the climate and nature crises, achieving the SDG targets set out in 2015 currently needs to be on track. According to the UN, progress on more than 50% of the targets must be more substantial, stalled, or backsliding. The private and civil sectors must play a key role, alongside governments, in supporting and accelerating sustainable Development.
“To achieve the SDG targets by 2030, significant innovative efforts are still required,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. “Through the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, which bring together governments, business and civil society, we aim to make a tangible contribution to creating a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient world.”
In the course of writing this article and reading through the UN General Assembly reports, one thought appeared that after decades of restrictive IMF and World Bank loans, poverty, hunger, and conflict persist throughout the continent. While many attribute this to Africa’s governance challenges, in reality, a deliberate imperial agenda has also hindered the continent’s Development in the political, economic, and security sectors.
The rise of a new global pole to challenge the old unipolar order has had a notable impact across sub-Saharan West Africa, which, in recent years, has seen a surge in military coups, shifting power away from regimes that had long prioritized the interests of Western corporations. These coups occurred in Chad (April 2021), Mali (May 2021), Guinea (September 2021), Sudan (October 2021), Burkina Faso (January 2022), Niger (July 2023), and Gabon (August 2023) – all very resource-rich but with abnormally poor living conditions. These African states have to pursue development-oriented policies to uplift their vigorous status out of abject poverty.
Therefore, it is commendable that participants at UNGA in New York have critically reviewed a series of carefully curated discussions to advance work on specific areas of the 17 SDGs. The robust programme includes key areas such as accelerating the reskilling revolution, harnessing artificial intelligence for better jobs, improving access to nutrition, advancing the energy transition, responding to the climate and nature crises, supporting the social economy, advancing gender equality, and promoting digital and data-driven health.
Admittedly, we are in a highly critical period. There are many obstacles to Africa’s political stability, economic development and integration, and building trust and credibility. One major success was the African Union’s ascension into G20, giving it a louder voice. But that’s not all to it; AU needs to sort out the potential controversies and contradictions in the geopolitical landscape. Alternative to the rules-based order, BRICS and its new members, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have extensive interests across Africa, prioritizing Africa Agenda 2063 without vacillating the pendulum.
In a modest conclusion of this discussion, African leaders have to face the existing challenges and emerging opportunities within the context of geopolitical changes. In addressing these, African leaders need to understand that the current developments in Africa have pronounced hyperbolic anti-colonial and anti-western rhetorics that threaten the logical appeal for technological transfer and external financial support for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Therefore, African leaders have to acknowledge humbleness while putting order first in their own homes in terms of reforming the political system, uprooting deep-seated corruption, working towards good governance, transparency and accountability, and rules of law as well as ensuring the effectiveness of institutions of power. From the pragmatic perspective of new diplomacy, it is crucial to underline that there should be a geopolitical balance of power rather than uttermost accusations and outright confrontation in the emerging multipolar world.
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 a 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, particularly in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: markolconsult (at) gmail (dot) com
By Blaise Udunze
Daily, the world watches Nigeria through a familiar lens in what appears to be a gory situation. Especially in cases when the news headlines tell stories of farmer-herder clashes, bandit attacks, kidnappings, villages reduced to ashes or deserted by the dwellers, as thousands of Nigerians have been displaced across states such as Zamfara, Plateau, Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Nasarawa. Subliminally, this is about to become a similarly ugly occurrence in southwestern Nigeria, which is fast becoming obvious if not nipped in the bud quickly.
Recorded data have shown that bandits, Boko Haram, and others killed over 190,000 Nigerians in 17 years and displaced 3.7 million people.
A human rights organisation, the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), in its fearful revelation, has said that no fewer than 190,150 Nigerians have been killed by bandits, Boko Haram insurgents, and suspected armed herdsmen between July 2009 and March 19, 2026, as this calls for concern.
The dominant explanations often point to ethnic tensions, religious divisions, climate change, shrinking grazing routes or weak security institutions. No doubt, those factors are certainly part of Nigeria’s complex security crisis. Yet another question deserves serious examination.
What if, in some locations, the violence is also serving another purpose? What if some of the territories experiencing repeated displacement are the same places sitting atop some of Nigeria’s most valuable mineral deposits? More importantly, if such a pattern exists, who benefits when communities disappear?
Of a truth, these questions are uncomfortable, but undeniably they deserve careful investigation rather than dismissal.
For ages, Nigeria has been naturally endowed, and it is estimated to be rich in enormous significant reserves of gold, lithium, uranium, tin, columbite and other strategic minerals increasingly sought after in the global transition to clean energy technologies. As international demand for battery minerals continues to rise, these resources have become far more valuable than they were only a decade ago.
If one overlays publicly available geological information with maps showing persistent violence, some observers argue that striking geographical overlaps appear in several regions. Such overlaps alone cannot establish causation. Correlation is not proof of conspiracy. However, they raise questions worthy of independent scrutiny.
One issue attracting increasing attention and adequately yearns for answer is whether prolonged insecurity may inadvertently or deliberately create conditions that make mineral extraction easier.
Under Nigeria’s Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007, mineral resources belong to the Federal Government, while mining rights are granted through licences and leases. Community engagement and land access are expected to form part of the licensing process, although implementation varies depending on circumstances. This raises an important policy question.
What happens when the communities expected to participate in those processes have already fled because of violence?
Displacement changes the dynamics of land ownership, consent and access. While no evidence automatically proves that attacks are orchestrated to facilitate mining, the sequence of violence followed by renewed commercial activity in some locations deserves closer examination by regulators, lawmakers and investigative journalists.
In conflict studies, researchers have long observed that wars often generate economic winners alongside humanitarian losers. Could elements of Nigeria’s insecurity also be producing economic beneficiaries?
Reports over the years have documented concerns about illegal mining operations across parts of northern Nigeria. Government agencies themselves have repeatedly acknowledged that criminal networks profit from the country’s vast mineral wealth. The unresolved question is whether isolated criminality has, in some instances, evolved into more sophisticated alliances involving political influence, financial interests and international supply chains. If so, the implications extend far beyond Nigeria.
Invariably, it is clearly known that lithium has become one of the world’s most strategic commodities, powering electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage systems. Gold has always remained one of the safest global investment assets during periods of uncertainty. Meanwhile, it is well confirmed that the global appetite for these minerals creates enormous financial incentives.
Suppose violent displacement reduces resistance to extraction. Suppose shell companies subsequently acquire mining interests. Suppose minerals then leave Nigeria through legitimate-looking export documentation while their true value remains understated.
These scenarios remain allegations unless supported by verifiable evidence. Yet they outline a framework that investigators may wish to test rather than ignore. Financial crime experts frequently identify trade mis-invoicing as one of the most common methods of illicit financial flows worldwide.
Could Nigeria’s solid minerals sector be vulnerable to similar practices? If valuable lithium ore is deliberately but inaccurately described as lower-value material on export documents, substantial wealth could potentially leave the country without reflecting its true market value. Likewise, if unrefined gold exits through privileged channels with limited scrutiny, questions naturally arise about oversight, transparency and accountability over criminal activities which have continued to stunt and disrupt the country’s socio-economic growth and at the same time cause carnage.
Such possibilities are not accusations against any particular institution or company. Rather, they illustrate why stronger monitoring systems are increasingly essential. Another question concerns logistics.
With the high level of criminal activities, industrial mining requires heavy machinery, diesel supplies, transportation networks and specialised personnel. These are not operations that can remain invisible indefinitely.
If certain territories are genuinely too dangerous for security agencies, how do industrial-scale extraction activities reportedly continue in some remote locations? If they do, who protects those operations? Who authorises their movement? Who verifies what is extracted? Who ensures royalties and export revenues reach public coffers? These are governance questions that demand institutional answers.
Equally important is the international dimension. Minerals extracted in Nigeria ultimately enter global supply chains. Gold may pass through international refining hubs before entering financial markets. Lithium may become part of battery manufacturing destined for electric vehicles, which are being sold across Europe, North America and Asia.
One known fact is that consumers purchasing products containing these minerals rarely know the full story of where they originated.
Increasingly, however, investors and governments are demanding ethical sourcing standards that trace minerals from extraction to final manufacture.
A critical factor that must be taken into cognisance is that if insecurity is creating opportunities for illegal or unethical extraction anywhere in the world, multinational companies have responsibilities alongside national governments, of which the onus falls on the Nigerian government.
Transparency cannot stop at the mine gate. Nor should accountability end at national borders. Another issue requiring attention concerns beneficial ownership.
Across many jurisdictions, shell companies can obscure the identities of individuals ultimately controlling commercial assets. If politically exposed persons or powerful business interests are hidden behind complex corporate structures registered offshore, identifying beneficiaries becomes significantly more difficult. This challenge is hardly unique to Nigeria.
Findings showed that from Latin America to Central Africa and Southeast Asia, resistant corporate networks have frequently complicated efforts to combat corruption and illicit resource extraction. That is precisely why open corporate registries, beneficial ownership databases and transparent mining licence disclosures are becoming global governance priorities. For Nigeria, the stakes could hardly be higher.
The country stands at the centre of the world’s emerging critical minerals economy. The Nigerian government can’t feign ignorance of the fact that, when handled transparently, these resources could finance infrastructure, education, healthcare, and industrial development for generations.
In no way would the government claim not knowing that when handled poorly, they risk becoming another chapter in the well-documented “resource curse,” where extraordinary natural wealth coincides with persistent poverty, insecurity and institutional weakness.
The ultimate challenge, therefore, is not simply about mining. It is about governance. It is about whether public institutions possess both the independence and capacity to ensure that natural resources benefit citizens rather than narrow interests. It is about whether conflict zones receive genuine peacebuilding efforts instead of becoming forgotten frontiers. And it is about whether international markets demand accountability with the same enthusiasm they demand raw materials.
None of these questions should be answered through speculation. They require rigorous investigations, forensic financial analysis, satellite imagery, mining license audits, customs records, beneficial ownership disclosures and courageous journalism.
They require governments willing to open their books. They require international cooperation capable of tracing money across borders. Most importantly, they require asking questions that have too often remained unasked.
Perhaps Nigeria’s security crisis is exactly what it appears to be: a tragic convergence of historical grievances, weak institutions, criminality and environmental pressures. Or perhaps, in some places, another layer of economic incentive deserves closer scrutiny.
Until those questions are thoroughly investigated, one possibility will continue to linger. Maybe the world’s attention has been fixed on the blood spilt above ground, while too little attention has been paid to the extraordinary wealth lying beneath it.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com
Feature/OPED
What Does Nigeria’s $51bn Reserves Milestone Mean if Most New Foreign Money Can Leave Quickly?
Nigeria’s foreign reserves have climbed to about $51 billion, a decade-plus high, according to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). EBC Financial Group (EBC) notes that this reflects stronger investor confidence, but the second half may show whether it holds, as the build rests on three cyclical drivers: oil earnings, short-term foreign money and a narrowing official-to-street naira gap.
Reserves rose from about $32 billion in April 2024, during a dollar shortage, to about $51 billion now, near the CBN’s target. Much came from two cyclical sources, strong oil earnings and money chasing high-yielding naira assets, so EBC expects the pace to slow or reverse. Fitch Ratings, a major international credit rating agency, expects a marginal decline to about $47 billion by the end of 2026, citing higher spending and external pressures.
David Precious, Senior Market Analyst at EBC Financial Group, said, “Nigeria’s reserve build is real but may not be durable yet, because nearly all of the new money is the kind that can leave quickly. Of the $10.37 billion that came in over the first quarter, the overwhelming majority was short-term portfolio funds rather than long-term investment, so a shift in oil prices, global interest rates or confidence in the naira might pull a large part of it straight back out.”
Most New Money Can Still Leave Quickly
The composition of the foreign inflows explains the caution over how long the build can last. The country attracted $10.37 billion in foreign investment in the first quarter of 2026, up 83.83 per cent year-on-year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Of that, $9.86 billion or 95.09 per cent, was portfolio money, largely short-term naira debt such as Treasury bills that investors can sell at the next auction, while foreign direct investment, the long-term kind that builds factories and jobs, was $135.08 million, or 1.30 per cent. Put simply, of each dollar coming in, about 95 cents can leave quickly, and barely one cent stays.
That money supports reserves while it stays. Dollars brought in to buy naira assets add to market supply, letting the CBN hold more reserves and steady the naira. It leaves when conditions change. Nigeria earns most of its export dollars from oil and gas, so lower oil prices mean fewer dollars, and as a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it cannot simply produce more, output capped by quota and reduced by theft and ageing fields. Higher global interest rates draw money toward safer returns abroad, and a weakening naira prompts investors to sell early. When oil fell in 2016 and 2020, foreign investors withdrew and could not convert naira to dollars as supply dried up, leaving the CBN to clear more than $7 billion in trapped obligations into 2024.
The Oil Boost is No Longer Certain
Oil looked like a dependable source of the dollars behind the reserves only months ago. Earlier in 2026, concern over disruption around the Strait of Hormuz lifted crude prices, and stronger receipts flowed in, with crude oil export earnings of $8.11 billion in the first quarter in the CBN’s balance-of-payments data. That support is now easing. The tension has subsided, and Brent traded near $72 on June 29, down about 24 per cent over the month, back to pre-conflict levels. With the price boost gone and output constrained, reserves are more exposed, leaning on non-oil earnings and investor patience rather than oil.
The Naira Still Trades at Two Prices
The naira has traded at two prices, an official rate and a higher parallel-market rate, and closing that gap into one trusted price is what many investors might watch most. Before committing funds, they may want assurance they can convert naira to dollars at a fair rate when they exit, and a wide gap revives the fear of being trapped that lingers from earlier shortages. The gap has narrowed to roughly N20 to N30, with the CBN’s official rate near N1,380 per dollar on June 26 against parallel-market quotes around N1,400. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2026 Article IV review urged Nigeria to depend less on this fast-moving portfolio money and to keep phasing out its multiple exchange-rate practices. The CBN’s Foreign Exchange Manual, in force from 1 June, is intended to make the market clearer, though such rules build confidence only once investors can freely trade dollars at the posted rate.
What could Make the Build Durable
A few signs that may show the build turning durable include a smaller gap between the official and street naira rates, more long-term foreign investment, and steadier oil earnings. A gap that stays small, now roughly N20 to N30, may mean investors trust the official rate and no longer need the street market. A clear rise in foreign direct investment, only $135 million last quarter against $9.86 billion of short-term money, might mean lasting capital is replacing funds that can leave at the next auction. Oil earnings that hold up, rather than sliding from the low $70s, should help keep reserves steady, since oil and gas bring in most of Nigeria’s export dollars.
“Reserves built on money chasing high yields can fall as fast as they rose, as they did after the last two oil shocks, when investors left, and the CBN spent years clearing a foreign-exchange backlog,” Precious added. “What holds through a downturn is slower money, direct investment, steady oil and non-oil export earnings and one credible naira rate, and that is the shift Nigeria has yet to make.”
By Olajumoke Bello
Across Nigeria, small and medium enterprises remain the backbone of economic activity. They drive trade, create jobs, and sustain millions of livelihoods. Yet, despite their importance, many SMEs continue to operate below their full potential due to persistent structural challenges.
Access to finance remains one of the most cited constraints. However, the issue today goes beyond the availability of capital. Many businesses struggle with financial readiness, weak documentation, and limited understanding of what lenders require. This often leads to missed opportunities, even when funding options exist.
At the same time, SMEs face gaps in market access and visibility. Business owners operate in highly localised environments, with limited exposure to broader networks that can unlock partnerships, new markets, and growth opportunities. This isolation can constrain scalability and reduce long-term competitiveness.
Equally important is the capability gap. Many entrepreneurs grow through resilience and experience but lack structured knowledge on critical areas such as financial management, export readiness, and digital adoption. Without this, even well-capitalised businesses can struggle to sustain growth.
These challenges point to a clear need for a more practical and integrated approach to SME support. It is no longer sufficient to offer standalone solutions. SMEs require ecosystems that combine knowledge, access, and direct engagement in ways that reflect how they actually operate.
A key shift is the move from centralised interventions to localised engagement. SMEs are deeply influenced by their immediate environments, whether markets, industrial clusters, or trade corridors. Solutions must therefore be brought closer to where these businesses function, allowing for more relevant support and stronger relationships.
Another important shift is from awareness to action. Business owners do not only need information; they need insights that they can apply immediately. This includes understanding how to structure their finances, how to access trade opportunities, and how to connect with the right partners to scale their operations.
There is also a growing need for continuity. Many SME-focused initiatives deliver strong initial impact but lack follow-through. For support to be effective, it must extend beyond one-off engagements into sustained relationships, with clear pathways for onboarding, advisory, and growth.
For financial institutions, this presents both responsibility and an opportunity. Supporting SMEs now requires moving beyond transactional banking to deeper partnership models. It requires understanding businesses at a granular level and co-creating solutions that evolve with their needs.
At Stanbic IBTC, this perspective continues to shape our approach to SME development. Our focus is on delivering practical support that translates into real business outcomes, helping enterprises grow, compete, and contribute more meaningfully to the economy.
As part of this commitment, we are extending our SME engagement to the regions through the Nigeria Business Summit Regional Tour. The tour will take structured, on-ground activations into key commercial hubs, where SMEs can access funding guidance, trade insights, advisory support, and direct engagement with financial experts.
The regional tour will take place across five strategic locations, bringing these solutions closer to business owners in Aba, Onitsha, Ibadan and Kano.
This approach reflects an important principle. When support moves closer to businesses and when solutions are delivered in ways that are practical and continuous, SMEs are better positioned to grow sustainably. In turn, this strengthens not only individual enterprises but the broader economy.
Olajumoke Bello is the Head of Enterprise Banking at Stanbic IBTC Bank
