Southern Nigeria

Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

It is true that the large chunk of Nigeria’s export comes from oil and that Nigeria depends to a great extent on this commodity for economic survival. However, this situation results from economic laziness – one of the many curses that came with crude oil to our country.

Pre-oil era, Nigeria was faring better, leading in many aspects of social and economic endeavours, especially agriculture and technical skills. This diversity of resources made our economy very resilient. Those were the days when Nigeria was a role model to the developing world.

Speaking of livestock and animal husbandry in today’s Nigeria leads to misleading insinuations that some supremacist ethnic group domiciled in the bush wants to hijack the “southern-oil-money” to rear cows.

These claims are not only wrong, but their makers are also pathetically ignorant of national and global economics. The fact is that, all over the world, animal husbandry is mainly economic and not ethnic, religious or regional. It is a matter of income, survival and sustenance. Data from butcheries, ternaries, restaurants, etc., in Enugu, Lagos and Port Harcourt can confirm this.

However, I do not squarely blame the proponents of these narratives for their lack of understanding of the fundamental economic outlook of this country. Instead, I assume that this kind of utter ignorance is also one of the curses caused by crude oil in Nigeria. Just as it killed all other viable sectors of our economy and transformed our political leadership into a set of docile, sit-and-wait set of people, it has succeeded in destroying our intellectual discourse. Today, all socio-economic conversations are viewed from the narrow prism of petrodollars.

Thus, our socio-economic and political conversation is now bereft of ideas and far from our social realities. It is sad to see many people failing to appreciate the glaring fact that six decades after the discovery of oil at commercial quantity, this country did not only fail to develop but has moved backwards in all indices of human and social development.

The topmost hierarchy of political leaders, policymakers, and civil society has failed to learn one simple, practical truth: our country’s strength, resilience, and prosperity are not in oil. They are right there under our feet and noses, at the backyards, waiting forever to be harnessed and utilised. Nigeria can take a cue from our mates, ala Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, India, etc.

Now, back to the “oil-money” narrative. Are herders and cattle breeders asking for “oil money”? No. In fact, herders do not care – or are not interested in crude oil in Nigeria.  Secondly, those of us advocating for the development of the livestock sector do so for the economic advancement of Nigeria, in general, and not just the herders, or “Fulani”, as would say the bigots.

For one, agriculture (livestock and crop) is the largest contributor to Nigeria’s economic growth. It contributes 40% of economic activities, employing over 60% of our country’s population – that is, one hundred and sixty million Nigerians.

You may think that the livestock sector is economically barren and that governments and other sectors of the economy do not benefit from it. You may even argue that only the “malams/awusas” benefit from the economic resources in this sector. But, you are dangerously mistaken, and I will show you why.

In Nigeria today, livestock is a multibillion-dollar business sector. Estimates by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture show that each year, Nigeria produces (and consumes) at least 18.4 million cattle, 43.4 million sheep, 76 million goats, 180 million poultry birds, among other things. Multiply these numbers to any amount of years and see the contribution of the livestock to the Nigerian economy.

For demonstration, let’s assume each of the 18.4 million heads of cattle is valued at $200 only. What you get is a staggering 6 billion dollars – three trillion naira per year – i.e. about ¼ of the country’s annual budget.

My experience in cattle businesses tells me that governments at all levels make a minimum of 10% direct revenue on each cattle, ranging from the market, local government, state, transportation, etc., levies that trail the cattle market chain.

But, this is just for cattle. These numbers multiply exponentially when other varieties of livestock come into the equation. Now, consider additional extended revenues on factories and sub-sectors that rely solely on livestock, such as leather, meat, and dairy.

While doing the maths, please remember that these raw and food materials serve Nigeria, one of the largest markets in the world, the most populous African country and the largest economy on the continent. Thus, the economic resources and taxations derived from this sector are massive!

Therefore, the question that naturally follows this arithmetic is: How much is Nigeria’s budget for the development of this sector and the millions of people it employs? 

As Nigerians, we are aware of the 12% derivation to the so-called oil-bearing states at the expense of other equal federating units. The basis for this disparity is to enhance the development of the immediate oil-bearing communities.

Similarly, a large chunk of the oil income is reinvested in the oil and gas industry development. Businesses and individuals in this industry benefit tremendously from these incentives and investments.

On the contrary, the Nigerian budgetary allocations for agriculture, particularly the livestock sector, have been very meagre and far below the lowest AU benchmark of 10%. For instance, from 2015, the allocations for agriculture have been below 2% of the budget, receiving a paltry N160 billion (1.37%) in 2020.

Obviously, this is far from commensurate to the economic and financial contributions of the sector in Nigeria’s GDP. It also negatively affects the lives of the majority of Nigerians whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.

While the government’s spending on agriculture is pathetic, the situation is even worse in the livestock sub-sector. For instance, under “promotion and development of animal production and husbandry value chain”, the 2020 budget proposes only N546, 156, 792 for the whole livestock sub-sector. Note that this amount was not budgeted for just cattle, sheep, or poultry but Nigeria’s entire livestock value chain. And that is just a proposal, not actual spending.

This, given the resources, financial and material contributions of the sector, is an insult on the human senses of any keen observer. Moreover, juxtaposing this estimate to that of the crop value chain makes the economic injustice against livestock producers even more glaring.

Therefore, it appears that livestock production and development are grossly marginalised across all three tiers of government and even within the agricultural sector. I had hypothesised elsewhere that this disparity is one of the major causes of the setbacks in Nigeria’s efforts at agricultural development.

Now, in this socio-economic reality, the governments and other Nigerians outside the economic chain of livestock anticipate a quick, sufficient, and even elegant modern livestock breeding system in Nigeria.

Worse still, the government expects these people who suffer from this severe lack of financial support, access to social development and political representation to be absolutely immune to the social consequences of this economic inequality and injustice.

This, without fear of contradiction, is an impossible mission. For, we have learned from the works of the philosopher-king, Emir Muhammad Sanusi II, that every economic situation bequeaths social reaction(s), as humans are not only social but also “economic animals”.

The points derived from the previous discussion are that herders and livestock breeders do not need oil or its by-products to grow livestock. They do not also ask for money accrued from the oil and gas industry to be invested in developing the sector.

What the livestock needs – which is legitimate and necessary – is the reinvestment of a fair portion of the wealth it creates back into the sector and the social development of the herding communities.

By and large, herders are not asking for “oil money” because the cow does not need oil to prosper. We are only saying that the money accrued from the livestock sector – a small portion of our contribution to the nation’s economic basket – be reinvested into the very sector that produces it as is done for other salient sectors of the economy. Full stop!

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a herdsman and academic. He can be reached via ahmadsheehu@gmail.com.

Perhaps, it was the Mathew Effect that made Professor Kpareogi’s recent article on the plight of the Yoruba Muslims in their own lands so famous that it generated so much response as if, until the piece was made public, nobody was aware that Yoruba Muslims, who were in the majority in the Southwest, have been under powerful religious subjugation by the Yoruba Christians.

But even a casual observer will not fail to notice the recurring crisis across the Yoruba land over the use of Hijab by Muslim female children in the schools. Some of these sartorial choice crises trended long enough to attract the attention of everyone while some have to be settled at the courts. The infamous ruling by an Ikeja high court that because Christians would feel less righteous in the presence of Hijab wearing children, Muslim children should not wear Hijab to their schools, is still fresh in our memories. Delivering the judgement on 17th October 2014, Justice Modupe Onyearbor declared that “The non-Hijab wearing students will feel inferior to those who are putting on Hijab.” The judge, therefore, banned the use of Hijab for Muslim girls till an Appeal Court put aside that judgement.

The sartorial choice struggle is, perhaps, the most glaring among the many struggles being fought by the embattled Muslim majority in the region, this is mainly due to publicity it is generating and the will to resist the subjugation by the new generation of Muslims who firmly believed in self-determination. The case of Barrister Firdaus Amata who refused to jettison her constitutional right on December 12, 2017, an action for which she was denied entry into the International Conference Centre by the Body of Benchers, highlighted one of such struggles.

Apart from the Hijab struggle, the most glaring inequality the Muslims are struggling with is the fact that despite being the majority in the region, not a single Islamic court exists in the whole region. They are forced to either take their cases to the imposed Christian common law courts or Customary courts. This is more worrisome given that Islamic courts existed in Yorubaland long before the arrival of the colonial armies who abolished them and imposed their own courts. Islamic courts existed since 1842 in that region, according to MURIC.

Even the Yoruba Muslim’s peaceful move to introduce sharia courts in Yorubaland through constitutional means was fiercely tamed by the Christians in that region. On May 27 this year, the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) was eloquent in its submission that the introduction of Shariah Law in the South West should be ignored by the Senate.

Nothing highlighted how the Muslims in Yorubaland are struggling to free themselves from Christian subjugation than the declaration by some Muslim groups that they are not in support of the Oduduwa Republic as they will face persecution if actualized. This belied the widely believed notion that the Yorubas are homogenous and that religion plays a second or third role in their lives. It proves that for a long time, the Muslim majority were silenced into submission out of fear of “social ostracism”. Their passiveness was fully exploited by Christians and misunderstood by northerners.

Now that the passiveness is giving way to the rising tide of Islamic awareness in the region, things are getting clearer that the hyped religious tolerance in that region was indeed the domination of Christians over Muslims.
Ironically, this is coming just as some voices are maintaining a hyperbolic but erroneous assumption that the North is the den of religious intolerance even as facts are contradicting them.

Sheikh Nuru Khalid is among those who seemed to have fallen for this fallacy recently. In his clamour for Interfaith Dialogue, he recently claimed, among other things, that Interfaith Dialogue was necessary now given the bad light in which the terrorist organizations, like Boko Haram, are painting Islam and the high level of religious intolerance in the North.

If the Sheikh is right on Interfaith Dialogue’s effect on religious intolerance, he is very wrong on the Boko Haram claim. He is also very wrong in his charge that Muslims are to be blamed for religious intolerance in the region. Because of all the religious crises in this part of the nation, over ninety per cent were NOT caused by Muslims; they were just defending themselves.

Therefore, to insinuate that Muslims are to blame for religious intolerance in the country is insidious even if said in good faith, because it is a BIG lie.

It is flabbergasting to assume that had there been an Interfaith Dialogue, Boko Haram wouldn’t have happened, because among the reasons the terrorists have for fighting is what they called the systematic downplaying of religious teachings in order to please non-Muslims.

It is evident that both the terrorists and the Sheikh have agreed on the same erroneous definition of Interfaith Dialogue. Both seemed to give Interfaith Dialogue the definition of Syncretism. Many people speak about syncretism while they think they are discussing Interfaith Dialogue.

To differentiate between the two terms, just take the stands of late Nnamdi Azikiwe who said “We must forget our differences”, and that of late Sir Ahmadu Bello (Sardaunan Sokoto) who replied, “No, let’s understand our differences…” What Azikiwe said is syncretism while the stand of Sardauna connotes Interfaith Dialogue.

I don’t think anyone who knows that Muslims are the majority of the victims of Boko Haram or understood their mission will honestly insist that an Interfaith Dialogue would have been an antidote to their aggression.

Finally, while I am not saying (the Muslim) North is totally devoid of religious intolerance (this depends on your definition of the term), it is not true that we are the purveyors of intolerance, rather, we are at the receiving end of religious intolerance. This could be discussed in another piece.

Muhammad Mahmood writes from Kano.

By Muhammad Sabiu

A famous Kannywood producer and former actress, Mansurah Isah, took to her social media accounts to lament how some southern Nigerian cinemas rejected the Hausa films.

She further complained about the government’s reluctance to support the films produced by the Kano-based Hausa film industry, Kannywood, and the inability to make the films as popular as those produced in other film industries in Nigeria.

Speaking in a 56-second video, she strongly questioned why Hausa movies are not popular all over Nigeria, except in just a section of the country, which, according to her, should not be like this.

“What did we Hausa producers do in Nigeria that our Hausa movies cannot be shown in cinemas all over Nigeria? But Yoruba movies will be all over; Igbo movies all over. Nigerian movies, too, are all over. So why is that we Hausa producers all left behind,” she questioned.

Though she didn’t mention anybody’s or agency’s name, Mansurah further solicited assistance, which she said should be by patronising films produced by the Kannywood film industry.

“Let us be assisted. You should make regulations. Display your language. Display your culture. You should love us. Make our films to be watched all over Nigeria. An English movie would be brought and shown in Kano, but a Hausa film wouldn’t be taken to Lagos and be displayed there. What is the reason?

Tacitly addressing people in power, she said, “We are the ones who support you. We neither insult nor defame you but we are still not developed. So what do you want us to do?

“I beg you in the name of God to help us and come up with regulations that will make Hausa films to be consumed everywhere in Nigeria.”

Kannywood is embattled with many tough challenges relating to cultural and religious issues, clichéd film content, monopoly of megastars, internal crises, among other problems critics and experts point out.

Masurah produced Fanan, a film whose songs have been trending on social media for several months. It recently showed in cinemas in Kano.

By Abdulrazak Iliyasu Sansani

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.