Southern Nigeria

By Abdulhaleem Ishaq Ringim

By Mukhtar Garba Maigamo

The trending video that surfaced after President Buhari attended the UNGA in New York, showing an unprovoked assault on some people that are considered “Hausa-Fulani” or “Northern Muslims” by their provocateurs on account of their facial countenance and, or the apparels in them, is a perfect example of the deep-rooted hatred, obsessions and insecurities bedevilling many people in some parts of this country which translated into this dismissive ‘othering’.

It is even very possible that these two or three people in the video who are being verbally assaulted with a barrage of racist abuses and the most opprobrious language, share no cultural or ethnolinguistic affinities with Fulani, but because of the fact the racialization of the Buhari/APC government has taken a firm root, the entire people of the North are lumped together as either Fulani or Hausa-Fulani (whatever that means) and demonized by many people in the South, including even the most educated ones. What a profoundly ignorant mischaracterization!

This sort of ignorance has historically also manifested in the ‘Aboki’ and ‘Gambari’ ethnic slurs these people used with profound contempt.

But the striking irony is that there are many people here in the North or even residents of Daura (hometown of Mr President) who might have felt disillusioned with the Buhari’s administration, who could also share cultural, ethnic and religious affiliations with him. Still, they are worst-off today, and there are those also who do not share these features with the president. Still, by their circumstances or by way of geography, they are lumped together and mischaracterized as Fulani or Hausa Fulani.

But the danger of this otherization and the racialization of APC is that it could provoke ethnic and religious sentiments during elections and make people rally around a maligned candidate- whether he is the right choice or not, in terms of capacity and ability to deliver.

When, because of your pathological hatred of a single person, his party or associations, you pigeonhole an entire stock of his ethnic nationality and derogate as dregs of the country, you are invoking his people’s consciousness to rise against you whether or not they love him.

This same thing happened during GEJ when some clannish zealots otherized the entire country, but south-south. Under GEJ watchful eyes, Edwin Clerk and his passengers went about with rhetorics and threatened fire and brimstone against anyone who raised eyebrows against their posturing.

His wife also went about demonizing the North as the habitat of almajiri (the almajiri that are menacing the North too, and whom many people in the North were campaigning against).

Her infamous diatribe, “our people no dey born shildren wey dem no dey count. Our men no dey born shildren throway for street. We no dey like the people from that side” was the final straw that galvanized the anger of people to rise and rally around ethnic solidarities to defeat GEJ.

The victory of APC in 2015 and 2019 was, therefore, a combination of many factors, including the idealization and evocation of sentiments for candidates put forward by the party.

And this will continue to play out if the antipathy like the one we’ve seen in this video continues.

Mukhtar Maigamo writes from Kaduna. He can be reached via mgmaigamo@gmail.com.

By Simbo Olorunfemi

Federalism is not a Nigerian creation, tempting as one might be led to assume it is. Federalism is a concept in Political Science, with a consensus on what constitutes its grundnorm and what its main features are. I had thought, as a student of Political Science, that I had a modest understanding of what federalism is, having taken a number of courses wholly devoted to it at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. But that was until Nigerians happened on the concept of federalism and I realised how little I knew about it. I have now come to accept that what Nigerians cannot happen to does not exist. Nigerians took hold of federalism, created the aberrant idea of ‘true federalism’, as if there is ‘false federalism’ in practice somewhere, and there has been no rest ever since.

Yet, even though dissensus over the definition of concepts is part and parcel of interrogation in the field of Political Science, there is, in fact, a broad consensus on the definition of Federalism. “What sets federal states apart from other national communities is not their values but a number of institutional design principles that include a division of legislative authority between two orders of government, each of which is elected directly by citizens, and each of which is sovereign in at least one legislative domain. This division of powers is set out in a written constitution that cannot be amended unilaterally by either order of government. In addition, federal states provide for the formal representation of their constituent communities (states or provinces) within the national legislature, although the means by which this is done range from direct popular election (Australia and the United States) to indirect election through constituent governments (Germany), and even to the appointment of friends and partisan colleagues of the prime minister (Canada)” (Watts,1998).

In simple terms, federalism is essentially about shared and self-rule is about sharing powers, functions and responsibilities, against the backdrop of forces of plurality and diversity pulling the people apart. In accordance with this principle considered by Political Scientists as the fundamental plank upon which the concept of Federalism rests, Watts (1996) submits that there are 23 federations in the world. “They vary widely, however, in the character of the underlying social diversity, in the form and scope of the distribution of legislative and administrative powers and financial resources, in the form and processes of the shared representative institutions, in the scope and role of the courts as constitutional umpires, in the character of intergovernmental relations, and in the processes for flexibility and constitutional adjustment”.

The variety out there again reinforces the argument against the ‘Nigerian’ assumption of one Federalism as true and another false. It is absolutely erroneous. As I have repeatedly argued, every federal arrangement is a work in progress, each with its imperfections, with no finishing line for any to arrive at, that it might be adjudged as having attained perfection. On account of constant friction and collision by what Tekena Tamuno described as ‘centre-seeking’ and ‘centre-fleeing’ forces, federations are often under stress and in a constant state of flux, coming under pressure to undergo recreation and adaptation.

In North America, Canada has been struggling with what Ronald Watts described as “three decades of political and constitutional crises, rooted deeply in its fundamental cultural cleavages”. Her neighbour, United States has her issues to deal with as the national and state governments clash. Mexico has its own issues, just like Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela in South America. The situation is the same in Australia, countries in Europe, India and of course, in Africa as well.

While the nature of the stress in Nigeria, as to be expected, does differ from that of other places, that does not in any way vitiate the position that what is in practice in Nigeria is federalism, contrary to what some argue. It is simply a confirmation of the fact that federalism is a coat of many colours, with our green-white-green been one of the variants.

I recall that it was in the course of our conversations around federalism five years ago, that the distinguished Prince, Adekanmi Ademiluyi anchored his submission around a statement he attributed to the former Canadian Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker that ” Federalism means that you eat what you kill”. I disagreed with his position then and I, obviously, still do now. I don’t even think the essence of Federalism is about pulling apart, as the statement seems to suggest, as it is about pulling together. I do not think the essence of the coming together is that each might farm with the mind of self, by eating on the strength of the kill, rather I would suggest that it is more about broadening the collective base, that there might be enough for the collective good.

I have, however, only just decided to check up on the statement by John Diefenbaker to gain insight into the context in which he might have made it. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track it. Well, what does it matter? The statement provoked enough curiosity in me to have inspired this interrogation. Taking a second look at it, I cannot find grounds to agree with it. I would even argue that Diefenbaker must have been misled about what federalism to have made such a statement. What will be the point of a federation if it is all about self? Why will anyone want to be a part of a federation if the fundamental plank upon which a group, diverse in culture and other respects, is just to “eat what you kill”?

As I have repeatedly argued, federalism is primarily about pulling together, with accommodation for the interests and peculiarities of the component parts, with a view to widening the pool and leveraging on opportunities that come with size and other factors.

Indeed, there is the economic component embedded in the political shell of federalism and for some, it is about the political component tucked inside an economic shell, especially for federalist arrangements that started out as ‘customs unions’. I do not even think that the primary essence of federalism is about eating. Eating what one kills is not and cannot be the driver for federalism. Fundamental to the concept is shared duties and responsibilities with governance.

As we have come to see, the Nigerian elite has managed to make the arrangement here about eating, the same way everything else is reduced to food. That misunderstanding of the essence of Federalism is at the root of a lot of the crises – real, imagined or contrived. It is what is fueling the confusion around VAT. It is behind the divisive and bigoted positions increasing dominating the civic space. It is about people assuming themselves to be better endowed arguing that it should be about “eat what you kill”. If only the mentality can change from that to “eat what you need”.

The argument about eating what you kill is largely about revenue allocation. On that, I had this to say in 2017:

“Much has been made of the revenue allocation system which many see as rather lopsided in favour of the FG and have called for a review. One Senator declared the formula being used by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) illegal’ by some weird deduction.

There is really nothing new to the debate as finding the most appropriate revenue allocation formulae, just like the debate, is an age-long one. Some recommendations have been made, just as reviews have taken place over time, especially In the last 40 years.

Before independence, there was the Phillipson Commission set up in 1946, the Hicks-Phillipson Commission of 1953, the Raisman Commission in 1958 and the Binn’s Commission of 1964, even after independence, all with the mandate to work out an acceptable formula, to no satisfaction of any group.

There was the Dina Commission in 1968, the Aboyade Technical Committee of 1977 and there was the Okigbo Commission which largely influenced the 1981 Revenue Act which allocated 55% to FG, 30.5% to State Governments, 10% to LGs and 4.5% for Special funds.

Modifications were further made in 1984 and 1992 which allocated 48.5% to FG, 24% to State Governments, 20% to LGs and 7.5% for Special funds, of which 1% for mineral-producing states on the basis of derivation.

By virtue of the current formula, about 52.68 % is allocated to the federal government from the Federation Account, 26.70% to the 36 states and 20.60% to the local government councils in the Federation.

Please note that sharing revenue among State governments and local governments were done on the basis of 4 principles, with different weights attached to each – population; equality of states or LGs, as the case might be; social development factor, revenue factor.

Also note how the allocation to Local Governments, in terms of percentage, going from 10% to 20%, even when many argue that the LGs are mostly non-functional, delivering very little in value.

So, by and large, there have been only marginal reviews in the structure of the allocation formula, over the years, especially the vertical aspect of it.

That, in spite of the fact that experts like Prof Okigbo and others have worked on it. So, when some reduce this to a North-South thing or hide behind the finger of restructuring to push it, it is obvious that they are not as guided on process or details behind some of the issues they pick up or simply echo”.

So, am I saying that there is nothing wrong with the system as it is? Far from it. The point I make is that Federalism is a work in progress and that as the journey goes on, what people do is engage in the process of negotiation to navigate into a more acceptable arrangement. It is not about seeking to bring the roof down. Our undue obsession with who eats what, when and how, makes our conversations convoluted and unhelpful. How we redirect the conversation to enlarging the pot, rather than wanting to have a bigger spoon or even making away with the pot should be of greater concern, as I think that is what federalism is supposed to foster.

There is nothing to suggest, either from the historical, ideological or philosophical premise, that federalism is supposed to be a closed shop arrangement, which locks one variant in and a different type out. It makes allowance even for hybrids, with quasi-federalist arrangements as well receiving the nod, as fundamental to the adoption of federalism is the desire to seek accommodation for forces seeking to pull and push. That being the case, where each federation finds its solution and how it adopts it will be up to it, as long as it is democratic, for Adele Jinadu maintains that “democracy is a condition of federalism”.

The challenge with some of our conversations is not just a defective recollection of history but the tragedy of assumptions about a number of things. This time, it is about what federalism is. I would suggest that the real essence of Federalism is in the traditional motto of the US – “e pluribus unum” which means “out of many, one. At the end of the day, we must remember the words of J.J. Linz that “federalism can only assure that nobody could be fully unhappy but certainly not that everybody will be happy with the solution.”

In Football, not everyone in the squad can make the team, not everyone in the team makes the field at once. Perhaps, there is something there as a cue. It should always be about what is in the best interest of the collective. As someone says, federalism can be a flexible system if the partners themselves are capable of flexibility.

Simbo Olorunfemi can be reached via simboor@yahoo.com.

By MA Iliasu

The chart showing the performance of Nigerian State governments in internal revenue generation has done its part in unveiling the mixed performances of the state economies. As expected, the public reactions, which to me are warranted, carry both the weight of reason and emotion. And maybe for the first time in the history of the Nigerian political economy debates aren’t taken over by regionalism and ethnic jingoism. Instead, it seems that consciousness has succumbed after realising how laziness and incompetence have been fairly distributed among both the northern and southern ruling classes, governors mainly.

Having learnt the flow of sentiments from the day the revenue rankings were released to date, I conclude that the discussions around Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) and Value Added Tax (VAT) are more skewed toward the search for self-actualisation rather than exclusive state independence. For which I’m hoping to be correct. Because if I’m wrong, that’ll mean most of the commentaries are not more than unwarranted emotional outbursts on how the economy really works.

Critical observation will tell that states like Kano are painfully underachieving. Possibly because the government ignores countless taxable entities and many other revenue streams, or it doesn’t care to investigate the conduct of the revenue agencies, it’s very self inclusive. For it’s a fact that the government source massive revenue not only from taxation but from the sales of valuable assets, among others.

On the other hand, without even mentioning Lagos that no economy has come close to compete with, you’ve Kaduna and Rivers states. The economies that can quickly be agreed to be of similar strength if not inferior to Kano’s. Yet with the astronomical difference in IGR. The defining factor in that dilemma lies in their respective self-actualisation and economic competence. The same can be said on the other high-earning states against their low-earning counterparts. And where that’s concerned, questions are right to be asked on why should a state enjoy a sizable share of other state’s hard work when in itself it’s in a unique position to contribute as much if not more.

The way I see it, that’s where the conversation becomes critical. The high-earners think every state should enjoy as it earns. While the low-earners think the economic union should not be dissolved because they’re geographically and industrially rigged by nature. The indigenes of high-earners agree with their state’s notion. As do that of low-earners who think isolating their state expenditure with its earned revenue will awake them from the shameless slumber and make them more creative. The important of all is, does the economy work that way?

To begin with, governors who believe nature hinders their income stream must know that geography in an economic context is either an advantage or a symbol of unique opportunity. For example, it’s a fact that Lagos and Rivers, as the custodians of Nigerian ports, have found it easy, therefore, advantageous to source revenue. But it’s the same with Jigawa, that’s strategically positioned to be a massive tech-hub and schooling environment across Sahara, Yobe that’s agriculturally equipped to grow the most unique seeds and Delta that’s attracted to the non-fossils industry. Therefore, using nature as an excuse is beyond lazy.

Nevertheless, no matter what any state does to achieve economic supremacy, one state must earn more than another. Thus, one state must record a deficit in trade with another. It’s a simple law of nature that’s very sensitive in economic policy, especially in accounting internal trade.

For instance, it makes sense that Kano, the largest textiles market and importer in Africa, pays more to Lagos and Rivers, who are the custodians of ports than it receives. Likewise, if Kano, as the distributor of the shipment, receives more from Bauchi, a retailer, than it pays. The same line of argument can be asserted to the states that own what other states need more than it needs from them. And so, recording deficit by the paying state is inevitable because needs and economies of scale can never be the same.

Due to that vivid notion, the famous British economist John Maynard Keynes argued that economies must be bound together to solve the inevitable rigidities that’ll be caused by the unavoidable deficit bred by such economic interdependence. According to Keynes, crises can be redemptive and non-redemptive crises. The redemptive crisis is the type of crisis that’s capable of becoming its own medicine. In short, any problem that can paradoxically become its own solution qualifies as redemptive. While the non-redemptive crisis is the type of crisis that can’t solve itself.

For example, the ever prophetic General Theory explained how a trade-off exists between inflation and unemployment. That’s to say, by compromising inflation, unemployment often rises, which give rise to another wave of cyclical negativity. Meanwhile, inflation can be risked to reduce the level of unemployment. And the lower level of unemployment means higher employment which can help eliminate inflation. That way, inflation has laid the very foundation of its demise. The very redemptive crisis that Keynes had explained concisely.

The phenomenon with our state economies is that the internal trade between those respective states records deficit in the books of payers and surplus in the books of the receivers. The receivers are often the highest-earning in the ranking of VAT, while the payers are mostly the low ranking. And the intriguing dilemma is that where deficit and surplus are concerned, a serious tension occurs to the market flexibility that’ll need cohesive effort by those states to be released. And if they’re isolated from one another by warranting each state only to enjoy as it earns, it won’t be possible.

It’s like two siblings in a family of three. The older is a farmer who therefore is discharged with buying food and consumables. While the younger is an engineer, who’s charged with water and electricity bills. It was agreed that none should interfere with any’s responsibility. Interestingly a period of bumper harvest keeps taking place for the older. But sadly, the younger hasn’t been able to secure a job. Food has been available. But no water and electricity. The family eats, but it reaches the level where there’s neither the water to boil the food nor the electricity to power the oven. The bathrooms are inept too. Their mother becomes worried. Things begin to fall apart because the house has gone insane, and a family meeting gets summoned. A tension of similar magnitude will happen if state economies are left to their own mercy.

Firstly, in an economic context, Nigeria is a single-family because the states are bound by a single currency and enjoy free trade with one another. Secondly, the states must collectively pay for one another’s incapabilities like beloved siblings because they live within the same family. The flaw of one can devastate the situation of the other. Just like what happened when the above younger sibling couldn’t secure a job while the older enjoyed bumper harvests. Thirdly, all that has been mentioned doesn’t need to be accepted or agreed upon but must be complied with, whether one side is lazy or hardworking because it poses a direct threat to the economic stability of Nigeria. Moreover, it’s compensation for inflicting deficit in the event of a trade, which was why the US and its dollar have been more stable than Europe and its Euro; all because the same currency binds them.

It’s from that, therefore, that I learnt when Gov. Wike of Rivers suggested exclusive state supremacy on VAT, he was totally ignoring or ignorant of how the remittances among those states become what enables the highest-ranking states to record the surplus that they’re boasting about. It’s simple logic. As the lowest in the ranking, Bayelsa State is isolated with its small Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), its purchasing power would decline severely. And state’s purchasing power is the consumer’s purchasing power. If it drops, it’ll mean no buyers for the available commodities in the Bayelsa market, which will hinder restocking from the industries in Lagos and Anambra. When it persists, the commodity market will die. Deflation will strike, and consequently, the investment will disappear. Small enterprises will become bankrupt.

Trade deficit goes hand in hand with governments that are also in deficit. If an economic crisis occurs within any among the economies that are bound by the same currency, the fall in demand will trickle down to the deficit economies. Once the crisis began, whether in a surplus state or not, it would inevitably soon reach both the surplus and deficit states. Even if it arrived in the form of a slight downturn, some debtors would be made to feel that they were carrying too much debt. Keen to reduce their exposure, they would cut spending. But since, at the level of the national economy, society’s overall demand is the sum of private and public expenditure, when a large segment of the business community tries to reduce debt (by cutting expenditure), overall demand declines, sales drop, businesses close their doors, unemployment rises, and prices fall. As prices fall, consumers decide to wait for them to fall further before buying costly items. A vicious debt-deflation cycle thus takes hold.

Now that’s the question the Nigerian state economies must sit down and ask themselves; is this where we want to go?

From what we’ve learnt, recycling mechanisms are necessary to avoid the bubble from bursting. Likewise, it’ll be absurd to allow lazy economies to keep enjoying off the hard work of others. The best response, in my opinion, is to set a minimum threshold, one that each state must abide by. An evaluation of the state’s income streams must be made so that no state should source less than it should. Gubernatorial candidates must adequately explain henceforth how they intend to fund ambitious capital and recurrent projects. Both to the voters and intellectuals. Because the days of off-head projections are over. The truth is Nigeria is broke. And most states are lazy. While cutting them off will destroy the economy as a whole. The room for politicians who dreamt of becoming governors when they’re young is no longer there. What’s there is a capacity for difference makers. Policymaking bodies can no longer be filled with empty-headed pot-belly carrying nepotists. Trained economists must be engaged. For now, everything is up to the central authority; we shall see if it’ll tame the situation or sink the economy further.

MA Iliasu writes from Kano State. He can be reached via his email muhada102@gmail.com.

By Muhammad Sabiu

In a report released by a Lagos-based research firm, SB Morgen, Bauchi is the state with the highest number of out-of-school children in Nigeria, with figures rising to 1,239,759.

Figures in the report have indicated that Katsina State is second to Bauchi, with about 873,633 out-of-school children, who might have been prevented from going to school due to so many reasons.

Bringing the above figures, SB Morgen discussed recent occurrences in Kaduna State, which came fifth on the list and where schools remain closed until further notice due to the rising rate of kidnappings and other security challenges in the state.

“The Kaduna State Government has said that all primary and secondary schools will remain closed until the security situation improves across the state,” SB Morgen wrote.

It’s now apparent that one of the major factors that hinder the progress of education in northern Nigeria is kidnapping, which is not quotidian in only Kaduna. Most northwestern states have been witnessing kidnap of students in their hundreds, which usually forces authorities to order the suspension of school activities “until further notice.”

Not only northwestern states, recently, Niger State in the north-central part of Nigeria saw students in their hundreds kidnapped from their school, with many still being held by their abductors.

Officials also lament the general backwardness of education in Nigeria as there are approximately over 10 million out-of-school kids.

The Minister of State, Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, was in June 2021 quoted by the News Agency of Nigeria as saying, “The current challenges affecting the Nigerian education system has left much to be desired, the system is characterised by high illiteracy level, infrastructural decay and deficits.”

“We have inadequate number of qualified teachers, inadequate infrastructural facilities/resources and poor funding,” he added.

The figures, which are said to have been sourced from the Federal Ministry of Education, are presented as follows in order of the size of the number of out-of-school kids:

BAUCHI: 1,239,759

KATSINA: 873,633

KANO: 837,479

KADUNA: 652,990

GOMBE: 567,852

KEBBI: 484,702

ADAMAWA: 483,702

NIGER: 478,412

OYO: 463,280

SOKOTO: 462,164

YOBE: 405,100

ZAMFARA: 383,952

BENUE: 383,022

TARABA: 338,975

BORNO: 266,178

OSUN: 260,222

PLATEAU: 258,256

LAGOS: 229,264

NASARAWA: 204,771

RIVERS: 196,581

A’ IBOM: 194,018

DELTA: 181,995

KOGI: 169,316

OGUN: 158,797

EBONYI: 151,000

KWARA: 141,325

CROSS RIVER: 140,944

IMO: 125,414

FCT: 121,587

ENUGU: 117,091

ONDO: 113,746

EKITI: 99,778

ANAMBRA: 92,332

BAYELSA: 86,778

ABIA: 86,124

EDO: 79,446

Looking at the above statistics, out of the first 15 states on the list, only one is in the southern part of the country: Oyo.

Therefore, this calls for more effort and attention of stakeholders to put their shoulder to the wheel to curb this problem of the rising number of out-of-school children.

By Muhammad Sabiu

On Monday, suspected gunmen killed seven people, including a police inspector, in an ambush when some workers were being conveyed to a Shell Petroleum Development Company facility in Imo State, southeastern Nigeria.

Imo State police spokesperson, Mike Abattam, confirmed the incident to the press on Wednesday.

“They were ambushed, they came out from the bush and started firing at them. They (the victims) were all in the vehicle.

“The seven people include a police inspector who was providing security for them,” Mr Abattam said

As of the time of filing this report, no one or group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

According to Bamidele Odugbesan, a Shell spokesperson, the oil giant has shut down the site and its other facilities around the area as a “precautionary measure.”

South-east has been hit by attacks by suspected members of the proscribed separatist group, IPOB, which agitates for the breakaway of Biafra in recent months.

IPOB’s leader, Nnamdi Kanu, is standing trial in Abuja on treason charges and illegal possession of firearms.

By Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

There is this misleading argument that the government should not support cattle breeding and animal husbandry and that public funds cannot, and must not be invested in any way, to develop the livestock sector in Nigeria. The protagonists of this opinion argue that livestock production is a private business, and as such government should not invest “taxpayer money” to develop the sector. They hold that other citizens provide everything to run their businesses, often citing examples with shop owners, mechanics, transporters, etc. Therefore, in their minds, livestock producers – and millions of Nigerians engaged in the sector – should not receive any form of incentives from the government – financial or material – to enhance their businesses. Well, I know that for most dispassionate and well-meaning Nigerians, the faults in this line of argument are crystal clear. However, as illogical, naïve and vividly absurd as this argument sounds, there’re still Nigerians who believe in and are continuously promoting it, hence the focus of this article.

The whole argument advanced in this line of thought is often faulty, funny, and absurd. For instance, the people fighting against this would be found complaining severely of the government’s failure to provide enabling environments, such as electricity, convenient shelters, and other critical facilities necessary for their trades and businesses. But, the same people deliberately refuse to accept that it is equally the responsibility of the same government to provide enabling environment for all sectors of the economy – including livestock – to thrive. That is the extent to which the Nigerian public discourse is polarised.

Such people feign ignorance of the fact that government spends billions of naira to subsidise and support crop production, which is in the same category as animal husbandry. For decades, the federal government has been sinking billions in fertiliser and agrochemical subsidies and providing single digit loans to farmers and stakeholders in the crop production sector. It is common knowledge that these sub-sectors complement each other and that they are not mutually exclusive. The serial failures of successive governments’ agricultural policies may not be unconnected with the dislocations caused by this partial approach, as the livestock sub-sector heavily influences the Nigerian agricultural sector. Interestingly, however, the self-acclaimed defenders of the free market do not agitate against the government involvement in a “private business” of farming, as if all the farms in Nigeria belong to the government.

Moreover, our darling oil and gas industry is, unfortunately, one of the cruellest beneficiaries of government interventions and subsidies. For many decades, Nigeria has provided a conduit for oil marketers to make billions out of public funds in the name of oil subsidy, without recourse to the economic (dis)advantage it portends. Similarly, the industrial sector engulfs billions under the Bank of Industry and CBN interventions, where producers, factories and businessmen and women are supported to do business. Similarly, the aviation industry consumes billions from the government every year and uses airports and facilities provided 100% from the public purse. Moreover, all Nigerian ports and rails on which business people feed fat are provided and maintained by the taxpayer money. We can go on and on. 

I assume that people adamant on this argument are not actually against the government’s intervention in any economic sector. Their actual grievances are the particular target sector and the perceived beneficiaries of such investments in Nigeria. It is motivated by the social ills of hatred, provincialism, ethnic, religious and regional chauvinism that define the Nigerian social space and the highest form of ignorance. If the hatred is for the cattle, the livestock sector is not all about cattle. Similarly, if the envy and malice are towards the Fulani – the perceived cattle owners – the cows are actually not Fulani. This line of thought is also evidently illogical, uninformed and oblivious of what an economy is all about. That is because it fails to recognise that a sector of an economy cannot exclusively benefit only a section of the population. It may be true that cattle are the central concentration of the Nigerian livestock and that they are identified mainly with the Fulani, but the truth of the matter is that the Fulani are not the most significant economic beneficiary of cattle. They are, in fact, at the bottom of the list. I will explain.     

The Fulani might be the initial owners of the cattle (assuming they are not just employee-herders), but they are not the dealers at the cattle market. While they had spent years growing cattle, day-in-day-out, a dealer trades off the cattle and earns a decent living. Another dealer buys and transports it to other parts of the country, such as the southeast, and makes a profit upon selling it to local cattle dealers, who also earn their living by selling to consumers. The Fulani do not own the trucks that transport these cattle; neither are they the drivers, or other employees working in the transportation sector, all of whom are beneficiaries of the cattle value chain.

The Fulani are not the local butchers whose livelihood depends on the cattle produced by the Fulani that they love to hate. While cattle are the source of the multibillion-naira leather industry in Nigeria, a Fulani has no business being a tanner, skin dealer or exporter. The Fulani produce cattle, but they do not sell bones, blood and other minerals derived from cattle. They are not the owners of the local companies in Port Harcourt, Warri, Enugu or Lagos that use the beef, dungs, skin and other raw materials extracted from cattle. In the dairy sector, the Fulani may produce milk and even sell it out, but they are not the owners of the dairy companies littered all around this country.

Yes, the Fulani love the cow, but they do not own the businesses within the cattle economy. They are unaware and genuinely do not care who makes what out of the cattle they spend many years growing. But for bigotry and subjectivity, these facts are not difficult to grasp. The whole scenario should not be too difficult to understand. Still, let me borrow the language of the cynics to boldly say that given the raw material and mineral resources inherent in cattle, and the role of the Fulani in cattle production, several sectors of the Nigerian economy as well as the billionaires controlling those sectors depend on the Fulani to thrive.

Furthermore, the Fulani provide a whole chain of employment, from the herders to the traders, transporters, butchers, restaurants, and other giant industries. Yet, they are erroneously assumed to be the only beneficiary of this endless economic chain. I do not know a single ethnic group in Nigeria that could match this contribution, and at the same time, bear the brunt of negligence, alienation and even aversion from the society they serve and the economy they support.   

When people argue against investing taxpayers’ money into this sector, I wonder what tax they are precisely talking about. If this is a result of ignorance, let me highlight the tax chain obtained within the livestock value chain. Apart from the taxes paid during herding, cattle are taxed at all markets by the governments; the cattle transporters pay taxes; butchers, tanneries, factories, etc., that deal in the value chain pay heavy taxes to the governments. There are very few sub-sectors that generate this kind of taxation within the Nigerian economy. Therefore, to argue that the livestock sector cannot be funded by “taxpayers’” money is to betray logic.

The preceding discussion shows that even though the Fulani are in love with the ancient traditional human occupation of herding, they do not do so because they are the biggest economic beneficiary of the trade. If anything, the Fulani subsidise the beef and dairy markets, create and sustain millions of jobs, and maintain an extensive value chain, which is crucial to the Nigerian economy. Therefore, if you hate the Fulani, please know that the cow is not Fulani. 

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a nomad cum herdsman and an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola. He is passionate about the Nigerian project.     

By Muhammadu Sabiu

Barely thirty hours after The Daily Reality online newspaper published an article on the need to include Kannywood filmmakers in the Netflix Naija written by one of its editors, Muhsin Ibrahim, the streaming service has finally considered the adjuration made in the said article.

Muhsin Ibrahim, a PhD student at the University of Cologne, Germany and a teacher at the same institution, wrote an article titled “Dear Netflix Naija, there are films and filmmakers in northern Nigeria.” It was a reminder to the streaming service that Nigeria is of different cultures and religions. Therefore, according to him, it should not be treated in such a way that only films from a section of the country would be included in the streaming giant.

“Nigeria’s diversity cuts across many things, chiefly cultures, ethnicities, religions and regions. […] Due to these complexities, the country is a house to two significant film industries—Kannywood and Nollywood—with many smaller ones operating under these brands,” Ibrahim wrote.

Making his plea on behalf of the Kannywood filmmakers, the PhD candidate added, “I am not an agent of division, not at all. I am, instead, an advocate of fairness and inclusion of all, regardless of their culture, ethnicity, region, religion, among other diversities. Therefore, northern Nigerian filmmakers and their films should equally be aboard the ship Netflix captains in Nigeria.”

What were Kannywood filmmakers’ reactions?

A few hours after this newspaper published the article, Falalu A. Dorayi, a famous Kannywood member, took the entire article’s screenshots to his Instagram account, with the caption“A very good write up! Thank you very much for speaking on our behalf. @muhsin2008 Ibrahim”. The screenshots generated about 2.3k likes and over a hundred comments.

Also, Ali Nuhu, another prominent member of the Kannywood film industry, posted screenshots of the whole article with the same caption, under which several other members of the industry commented, including this:

@rahamasadau: “Hmmm, I wish I can [sic] add to this article…🤔👀”.

Acceptance of the Adjuration by Netflix Naija

Confirming the acceptance of the adjuration made in the article, Mr Ibrahim wrote on Facebook, “Sequel to the publication of my article on The Daily Reality last Saturday, Netflix Naija contacted a Kannywood director whose work they ignored for nearly a year. Thus, we shall soon watch a Kannywood production on Netflix. Nothing is more delightful to a budding writer.

“My informant, a Kannywood heavyweight, expressed his happiness, adding that “see the impact of writing”! He doesn’t know that I am probably happier. The Daily Reality is here to make a difference.

“May Allah help us, bring back peace to our region and country at large, amin.”

Kannywood, a predominantly Hausa-Muslim, Kano-based film industry, produces movies mainly in the Hausa language. The cinema has been facing tough challenges that revolve around its members’ handling of religion, culture and the likes.

By Ahmad Shehu, PhD.

In recent years, Nigeria, particularly the northern part of the country, has gone through a series of debilitating crises that have become existential threats to the region and the entire country and even the West African sub-region to some extent. The Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, the herder/farmer crises in the north-central, the kidnapping and banditry in the northwest, the ethnic clashes in the middle-belt have all spilt over across other regions of the country, causing chaos, social instability and economic devastation.

Governments at all levels have tried hard to contain these menaces through conflicting policies, strategies and approaches. But, evidently, none of these has succeeded, yet, as these crises grow and engulf more Nigerian lives and properties daily. With the troubles raging, the regional economic and social fabrics go down the slope. Farmers have abandoned their farmlands; herders are on the run, business people are on a massive exodus to urban centres. Schools, hospitals, and other social services are no longer obtainable in many places across the region. These are serious but not insurmountable challenges.

Despite its effects on livelihoods, physical destruction can easily be reversed in a relatively short period. The political history around the world teaches us this basic fact, with Germany, Poland, Russia and even Rwanda as cases in point. Left in rumbles decades ago, these countries provide development models for the world to follow today.

On the contrary, a society whose social fabrics are destroyed is more difficult to rebuild, for a nation grows in and flourishes from the minds of its citizens – their beliefs, dispositions, attitudes, education, etc. Sadly, the proud, significant historical antecedents of northern Nigeria are maliciously challenged on all fronts, with destructive narratives, or what my friend Dr Samaila Yandaki calls “falsification of history” being pushed against the people, culture and sociopolitical freedom of the region. This, as far as statecraft is concerned, is more dangerous to the corporate existence of the area and indeed Nigeria in the long run than the physical challenges we are currently battling. Here is why.  

For many decades, northern Nigeria and its people have endured a consistent assault on their historiography, heritage and sociopolitical status. At the expense of sounding conspiratorial, I believe it is safe to state that the constant ethnic and regional profiling of the North and its people is a deliberate, well-planned assault aimed at breaking the very social fabric that held people together. The orchestrators fully understand the natural advantages and disadvantages of the region at equal proportions.

In today’s Nigeria, the North has been stereotyped in the most dangerous way. In the Nigerian sociopolitical scheme, northern leaders have been systematically stigmatised, with all the evils and ills of the country being falsely but persistently attributed to the failures of the North, even though history proves to the contrary. Some people propagate this antagonism without equal acknowledgement of the good tidings, sacrifices, patriotism and contributions of northern leaders and northerners in the Nigerian project. The bitter, unbiased truth is that the problems and prospects of the Nigerian state are Nigerian, with all regions, ethnicities and religious identities contribute their fair share in making or marring the country.

Similarly, the Nigerian media has worked hard to regionalise or ethnicise all kinds of human criminalities against the North. The media ascribe all sorts of criminal acts to northern folks or, precisely, Fulani, without recourse to the dangers these kinds of ethnic and regional profiling pose to the ordinary northerner. Conversely, criminal gangs, armed robbers in all southern states, notorious kidnappers, internet fraudsters and corrupt public officials would pass as mere criminals if, at all, they get reported. There won’t be a mention of the regional, ethnic or religious identities of those criminals. Unlike the former, we all share the criminal’s misdemeanour as humans and Nigerians. They are now “Nigerians”, not southerners, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, etc. The hypocrisy is stinking.

Furthermore, today’s public discourse in, about and on Nigeria is a mere comparison between a supposedly ‘wealthy, educated’ south versus a supposedly ‘poor, illiterate’ north. This narrative gained traction by consistent and persistent reportage, which went unchallenged for too long. It is indeed true that all you need to validate a narrative is to keep saying it. While the ills caused by the utterly disgusting failure of the Nigerian leadership obtained in the North are reported or tagged as northern, the similar or worse scenarios obtained in the south will not belong to the southern region but the Nigerian federation. For the common audience, this kind of deliberate misrepresentation of information has caused deep-rooted mischief and hatred against northerners.

The dangers this stereotyping portend for the region’s future is, in the long run, worse than its current physical challenges. For one, the political leadership required to solve the physical problems will be entirely messed up in ways never seen before. Secondly, the communal consensus that gave the region the upper hand in the political scheme of the country will be dismantled, leading to distrust, disharmony and possible internal disintegration. Thirdly, young Nigerians constantly fed these venomous, hate-filled narratives are prepared to antagonise their northern counterparts, a situation that will affect their participation in the Nigerian project. The tail end of this debacle is not a story I would like to predict. We have seen examples in Nazi Germany and Rwanda.

The good news, however, is that the solutions to this seemingly intractable problem are not farfetched. It has been said that if you want to use a mirror, buy your own. People are made by their history; their minds are shaped by their stories; while their future is dependent on their world views, their dignity and respect depend on how others view them.

Indeed, the animosity and distrust between the major ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria are as old as the country itself. Among the major culprits in fanning the embers of this powerful but devilish attempt to demonise the North is the Nigerian media which has deliberately and consistently pushed stereotypical narratives against the region.

However, one of the reasons the campaign is succeeding is the total lack of counter-narratives that would eventually challenge the misinformation churned out by the Nigerian media against the region. If this is the case, then the only way out for the North is to speak out, provide content and information, counter-narratives and reliable, factual evidence that will eventually challenge the calculated attempts to demonise its history and hamper its progress. To do this, the region’s intelligentsia, political and economic leaders must be dedicated to and invest heavily in the media. It is only then that the North and its people will be fairly represented.

PS:

I celebrate the courage and dedication of the young men and women who started this medium, The Daily Reality. It is indeed one of the success stories of the North in 2021. Congratulations.

Ahmadu Shehu is an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola. He writes from Yola, the capital of Adamawa State.

By Muhsin Ibrahim

Nigeria’s diversity cuts across many things, chiefly cultures, ethnicities, religions and regions. Although several commentators consider the northern part more Islamic and the southern one more Christian, Muslims and Christians, followers of traditional belief systems and non-religious folks may be seen everywhere. Due to these complexities, the country is home to two significant film industries – Kannywood and Nollywood – with many smaller ones operating under these brands.

Kannywood, the name given to the “local” Hausa film industry with Kano State as its epicentre, is a distinct and autonomous film industry in northern Nigeria. Nollywood has its roots in the South, has mainly Christianity and Western-influenced motifs as themes and produces films primarily in English or other southern Nigerian languages. For Kannywood, however, Islam is arguably the trademark, and the East remains their vital source of influence and inspiration. Nonetheless, many people and institutions, including Netflix, see Nollywood as “the default” Nigerian film industry.

Lumping Kannywood and Nollywood or seeing the former as merely a Hausa branch of the latter is problematic. Hence, a prominent Kannywood scholar, Carmen McCain, points out that “In most scholarly discussions of Nollywood, Hausa films are footnoted as an ‘other’ to Nollywood.” The implication of this is enormous. It, among other things, leads audiences and potential investors like Netflix into failing to see and understand Kannywood films in their peculiar socio-cultural and religious contexts. But, yes, Kannywood operates differently from and is independent of Nollywood.

On the one hand, Nollywood, now the second-biggest film industry globally, succeeds because it faces little or no challenge from its audience or any censorship board. On the other hand, despite being arguably older than Nollywood, Kannywood struggles a lot. Kannywood was inaugurated in 1990 with a film entitled Turmin Danya(dir. Salisu Galadanci). Two years later, in 1992, Living in Bondage (dir. Chris Obi Rapu) began what became known as Nollywood.

Subsequently, the editor of Tauraruwamagazine, Sunusi Shehu, coined the name ‘Kanywood’ [with a single “n” before several authors later on added the second “n”, the version that is more recognised globally today]. It appeared in the magazine’s August 1999 issue. “Nollywood” appeared for the first time in a New York Timesarticle titled “Step aside, Los Angeles and Bombay, for Nollywood” by Norimitsu Onishi in September 2002. The Nigerian newspaper, The Guardian, republished the article a few days later. The rest, they say, is history.

Moreover, the “local” Hausa language has more users than any other West African language. The possible shortage of professionals in Kannywood is due to a lack of support from the government, other stakeholders, and investors. Despite all these and more challenges, the film industry stands on its feet, and I believe a little more push will catapult it to the promised land.

Delineating the glaring yet ignored differences between Kannywood and Nollywood is only part of the aim here. The primary objective is to remind Netflix Naija that for “Africans [to] take charge of African stories”, the message its parent Netflix emphasised when launching the local franchise, all Africans – and, of course, all Nigerians – deserve to be carried along.

Nigeria’s entertainment industry is a lot like India’s. Mumbai-originated Bollywood does not represent all films produced in the vast country. Netflix India understands this truth early on and thus accommodates that diversity so beautifully in its rich library collection of Indian films. There are arguably several exciting films from all India’s nooks and crannies on Netflix today. We earnestly wish the same to happen in Nigeria.

Of course, Netflix Naija may argue that Kannywood’s films are generally below their standard. No one can dispute that adequately. However, there are exceptions. Thus, they should get in touch with those exceptional productions. An anonymous top-notch Kannywood director told me some producers have already approached Netflix Naija. Quite regrettably, they have been, at best, told to go and fix this and that, which they did and, at worst, summarily snubbed.

Another way to embrace all is via commissioning movies. Netflix Naija can engage Kannywood filmmakers to see if it is possible to sponsor films or series. Northern Nigeria is rich with stories, perhaps more than other parts of Nigeria, thanks to its fantastic mixture and, admittedly, unfortunate incidents like the Boko Haram insurgency. The famous films Voiceless and The Milk Maid are only two examples based on a single event – Boko Haram’s abduction of Chibok schoolchildren in the northeast. Netflix can and should have originals from northern Nigeria. I bet that will be a commercial success.

Filming in the North is different from telling Northern stories. Thus, having films set in that region is not the same as having filmmakers from the area telling their stories. I am not an agent of division, not at all. Instead, I advocate fairness and inclusion of all, regardless of their culture, ethnicity, region, or religion, among other diversities. Therefore, northern Nigerian filmmakers and their films should equally be aboard the ship Netflix captains in Nigeria.

Muhsin Ibrahim is a PhD student and staff at the University of Cologne, Germany. He can be reached via muhsin2008@gmail.com.