Nigeria Update
North hides nefarious aims under green cloak
THOMPSON AYODELE?
2009/12/17
2009/12/17
ENVIRONMENTAL groups from rich countries have for years waged a campaign against those in poor countries who want to harness their natural resources for economic growth. Their efforts threaten to do lasting harm to the aspirations of millions of poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and must be resisted at all times and in all places.
One of those places is the Copenhagen climate change summit taking place in Denmark. Thousands of delegates from around the world are gathered there trying to work on ways to limit global warming. But it is increasingly clear to those of us in the south that the north is using the summit as a way to maintain their living standards, while keeping the developing world in a state of destitution.
For example, just this week a document emerged that outlined a plan to stop poor countries from clearing some of their forest lands to make room for more productive uses, such as palm farming, rubber farming and urban development. The suggestion — encapsulated in the so-called “Danish text”
— is risible and morally obtuse and its emergence threatens to torpedo the entire conference.
— is risible and morally obtuse and its emergence threatens to torpedo the entire conference.
Every nation in history has harnessed its resources in the early stage of its development. Indeed, Europe itself was arguably the most forested region on the planet for most of its history until it started its economic growth path several centuries ago. Over the course of many decades, Europeans sensibly altered and re-altered their land use to permit more productive agricultural use and enterprise, with the resultant job creation.
Today, nations across the developing world aim to do the same thing — to harness some of their natural endowments to create products for sale in world markets. And so countries in Africa and Asia develop palm plantations to sell palm oil across the globe. Farmers in Latin America alter land uses to grow fruits, vegetables and flowers to satisfy customers in their region and beyond.
These efforts come with some ecological costs, just as they did in Europe , North America , Japan and other places in the north in decades past.
Only once the northern nations became rich — and not a moment before — could they afford the environmental protections they now demand of their poorer neighbours to the south.
Only once the northern nations became rich — and not a moment before — could they afford the environmental protections they now demand of their poorer neighbours to the south.
The environmental campaigners scored a victory this week, forcing a major multinational corporation, Unilever, to stop purchasing palm oil from a southern hemisphere producer.
The victory by the environmental activists will do nothing to protect the environment but it will toss thousands of poor people out of their jobs.
How Greenpeace employees can sleep well at night after an effort such as this is a mystery . Of course, they live in rich countries where everyone has soft pillows, fine linens, heating and air- conditioning, which must make sleeping with a guilty conscience easier.
The victory over Unilever is just a start, and green groups are hoping to use Copenhagen as their vehicle to, in effect, outlaw developing world vegetable oils across the globe.
If they succeed, millions of people whose livelihoods depend on natural resource industries will be thrown into economic chaos.
A little-reported but critical aspect of this story is that green groups are making common cause with large European vegetable oil producers. The European producers do not like the competition from Africa and elsewhere, and so they are pressing the European U nion to halt imports of competing vegetable oils.
They mask their protectionist efforts under a cloak of environmental urgency, but the end result is the same — Europeans maintain their jobs and living standards while the poor countries are denied opportunity.
The rich-world campaign against palm oil is worrying on many levels. It shows how easy it is to promote a one- sided argument regarding forest destruction without balancing it with the many benefits that can arise from changes in land use — principally benefits to some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
It also shows how easy it is for protectionists and businesses to use environmental issues to pass laws and regulations so as to further protect their interests, regardless of the implications for trade, the world’s poor and consumers around the globe.
This episode also exposes the troubling hypocrisy at play in the climate change and broader environmental debate.
Europeans used their own resources and those from many other nations in order to advance, become powerful and improve the living standards of ordinary men, women and children.
Poor countries need to be given the same opportunity. Basic notions of decency insist on it.
– Ayodele is the director of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Lagos, Nigeria.
Re-working Our Tax System
12.08.2007
By Thompson Ayodele
The present administration has indicated its interest to reform the current tax system. The reform is coming as a result of series of complaints by companies operating in Nigeria over problems associated with the current tax regime. The proposed tax reform is aimed at addressing multiple taxations and the need to strike a balance between governments’ lawful need for revenue and the desire to encourage investors.
By Thompson Ayodele
The present administration has indicated its interest to reform the current tax system. The reform is coming as a result of series of complaints by companies operating in Nigeria over problems associated with the current tax regime. The proposed tax reform is aimed at addressing multiple taxations and the need to strike a balance between governments’ lawful need for revenue and the desire to encourage investors.
Over the years, there has been several policies aimed at tax compliance by individuals as well as corporate organizations. The bottomline of such policies is the desire by all tiers of government to derive high revenue from tax. The effect of this is that all tiers of government end up collecting taxes for the same purposes under different guises.?
Under this circumstance, one thing which policymakers are yet to understand is that the expected high revenue would not be realised and compliance costs would be high. From the consumer standpoint, it has left so much businesses with no alternative than increasing the price of their services. This has left the burden incidence to shift to the consumers, many of whom are living under uncertain income realities.
More depressing is the penchant to lock up business outfits. The purpose of any tax system is defeated if it cannot be used to lure potential investors. With the current prevailing tax system, a lot of investors are either unwilling to invest or expand their existing operations. This is because of the plethora of taxes that all tiers of government ended up collecting.
The reform in tax system is coming at a critical time. Just as competition is essential for economic progress, tax competition also spurs more growth and opportunity. This is because capital goes where it is welcome and stay where it is well treated.
As part of the tax reform regimen, the Federal Inland Revenue has proposed 15 % increase in the Value Added Tax (VAT). In addition, it has proposed a reduction in companies’ income tax from 30 to 20 percent. This simply amounts to giving out with the right hand and taking away with the left. A 15 percent increase in VAT would reduce companies’ income. This is because income is determined by the amount of goods/items consumers purchased or consumed. The increase in VAT would affect the purchasing power of the individuals and hence companies’ income.
Our tax system should not be viewed from the amount that would accrue to the government. Rather it should be seen from the standpoint of how it could be used to lure investors, enable exit companies to increase their operations and how it can be used to launch the nation towards global competition. As the nation prepares for a comprehensive tax reform, what is unique is that there are solutions to the prevailing tax system. These have been demonstrated in other markets and it would be good for the present administration to start paying attention to these.
A growing number of countries have instituted or are adopting a flat tax rate. The idea is spreading. The logic behind it is that it helps to create more prosperity and countries have realized that if they don’t adopt the flat tax system, they would lose jobs, capital and their own ambitious entrepreneurs to more growth-friendly nations. The reason is simple: it spares taxpayers the countless headache of complying with several tax codes.
Many emerging markets in central and eastern Europe have reformed their tax with the flat rate solution. For instance, flat tax rate in Estonia has contributed to making it an international hot spot for foreign investment. Estonia attracted about $890 million in foreign direct investment in 2003 alone and over $926 million in 2004. By Per capital, this is more than ten times what red-hot China is attracting.
According to the recent World Bank Study on Doing Business, there are over 35 different forms of taxes levied by the federal, state and local governments. There is the need to harmonize our taxation system. Take for instance before its reform, Russian economic system contained some many different taxes. Confusing levels of regional and local taxes that invariably overlap, complicated these. In fact, the country’s former tax system was like organized chaos.
?
Tax-collecting officials became notorious for negotiating tax liabilities instead of determining them based on a tax statute. However in 2001, a 13 percent flat tax was introduced. The result: higher tax revenues collected every year. By the end of 2004, government revenue from income taxes alone had more than doubled.
?
Tax-collecting officials became notorious for negotiating tax liabilities instead of determining them based on a tax statute. However in 2001, a 13 percent flat tax was introduced. The result: higher tax revenues collected every year. By the end of 2004, government revenue from income taxes alone had more than doubled.
When a tax regime becomes so convoluted that tax collecting has a legal component of arbtrariness, it cultivates corruption, evasion and failure. Our tax policy should not lose sight of the prevailing situation in Nigeria at the moment. Deteriorating infrastructures and crippling power supply have increased the transaction costs for organisations and the concomitant effect on production and distribution of goods and services.
?
Any tax reform that does not take cognisance of these facts might not achieve its end-view. At best business outfits would have no other option than to find dubious means of evading tax or conniving with tax collectors so as to under-pay them. Ultimately, an effective and efficient tax system would in the end enable Nigeria to compete globally.
•Ayodele wrote from Lagos
?
Any tax reform that does not take cognisance of these facts might not achieve its end-view. At best business outfits would have no other option than to find dubious means of evading tax or conniving with tax collectors so as to under-pay them. Ultimately, an effective and efficient tax system would in the end enable Nigeria to compete globally.
•Ayodele wrote from Lagos
Thompson Ayodele
Executive Director
Initiative of Public Policy Analysis
P.O Box 6434
Shomolu-Lagos
Nigeria
Website:www.ippanigeria.org
Tel: 01-791-0959
Cell:080-2302-5079
Executive Director
Initiative of Public Policy Analysis
P.O Box 6434
Shomolu-Lagos
Nigeria
Website:www.ippanigeria.org
Tel: 01-791-0959
Cell:080-2302-5079
DDT ban engenders
October 06, 2007
BY JIMMIE L. HOLLIS
BY JIMMIE L. HOLLIS
Our environmental efforts suffer from one very seri ous ailment — a division in the American population that falls along religious, political and social lines. This was not the case when original environmental concerns were addressed. The environmental movement was nonpolitical and enjoyed a common-sense forum. The majority of Americans, people of all stripes and political views, got on board and wanted to do what they could to address pollution and other environmental concerns.
?
But somewhere along the way, the movement took a poisonous and polluted political turn to the left. Liberal activist groups saw an opportunity to use environmental concerns to score points against their political opponents. Because they enjoyed the cooperation and coverage of mass media, they were able to paint anyone who questioned their reports, research and claims as “anti-environment bigots.” Liberal politicians soon picked up on this “weapon” and the environmental issue became a wedge that divided us. Conservatives picked up the gauntlet tossed down by liberals and the fight continues to escalate to this day.
?
One casualty of this wedge issue came early in the fight: the ban on dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Because of the ban, bed bug infestation in our nation has increased considerably, as they come into the U.S. in the luggage and clothing of foreign visitors and illegal aliens.
?
According to a report in the June 2007 issue of the Environment & Climate News report, the infestation is growing rapidly as a result of years of not being able to use DDT and several other effective pesticides that have been banned. Developing nations were forced to stop using DDT, because the European nations refused to buy produce from nations where this effective pesticide is still used.
?
But one of the most deadly re sults of the DDT ban is the increase in malaria deaths in Africa. An eye-opening paper by Nigerians Thompson Ayodele and Adegoke Anthony, who are members of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis in Lagos, Nigeria, was widely reported in Nigerian newspapers. In their report, “Anti-DDT Policies Are Deadly for Africa,” they assert that environmental groups continue to misrepresent DDT and worry more about hypothetical health problems from the chemical than about the disease and death it can prevent. It is a crime against humanity to ban DDT and leave more than 300 million African people to suffer every year from acute malaria. However, there is some good news: In the face of the ever- increasing deaths from malaria, the World Health Organization is again supporting DDT for household spraying in Africa and millions are benefiting — deaths from malaria have been cut by 80 percent in South Africa, and 30 percent in Uganda.
?
The impact of liberal and “political correctness” meddling in developing countries has been devastat ing. According to scientists and doctors in those nations, DDT poses little or no risk to humans or animals when used responsibly. Yet we still have people in the Western world who threaten agricultural bans and other sanctions against countries that use DDT to save lives.
?
The common-sense person has to wonder what other harm from overreaching policies and actions by politically charged environmental groups will surface in the future. Bed bug infestations are not as serious as malaria, but just the thought that other forms of pest control have proven ineffective or less effective than DDT in their eradication is disconcerting. People staying in hotels and motels up until 1951 were always at risk of being bitten by bed bugs. Then DDT was discovered as a very effective weapon against the little blood-suckers. The threat went away for decades, but now it looms again.
?
The concern over the environment could have taken a different track and would have been hailed as one of the most significant achievements of humankind, but it became a political weapon and therefore became polluted. Jay Lehr, Ph.D., is science director for the Heartland Institute. In his re cent paper, “When Will We Tire of the Fear Mongers?” he writes, “Shouldn’t we notice that past environmental and public-health crises never were true, and shouldn’t that realization lead us to stop over-reacting each time a new doomsday scenario appears in the daily newspapers?”
?
I, for one, agree with Mr. Lehr. There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the environment, but unless there is a balanced look at the issue, taking into consideration all views, pro and con, it is easy to move too far to one side or the other. To absolutely assert that “the debate is over,” and that only one view is valid, is insane. Maybe it is our way, our culture that causes us to turn every issue into a political and divisive firestorm, but who are we really hurting?
?
As Americans we have the technology and medical wherewithal to withstand and absorb some of the overreaching and harmful effects of the actions by politically driven environmental groups, but I am sure we would get a different response from Nigerians Ayodele, Anthony and millions of other Africans.
?
Jimmie L. Hollis is a retired United States Air Force Senior NCO and historian and a retired aviation businessman. He lives and writes in Millville.
?
But somewhere along the way, the movement took a poisonous and polluted political turn to the left. Liberal activist groups saw an opportunity to use environmental concerns to score points against their political opponents. Because they enjoyed the cooperation and coverage of mass media, they were able to paint anyone who questioned their reports, research and claims as “anti-environment bigots.” Liberal politicians soon picked up on this “weapon” and the environmental issue became a wedge that divided us. Conservatives picked up the gauntlet tossed down by liberals and the fight continues to escalate to this day.
?
One casualty of this wedge issue came early in the fight: the ban on dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Because of the ban, bed bug infestation in our nation has increased considerably, as they come into the U.S. in the luggage and clothing of foreign visitors and illegal aliens.
?
According to a report in the June 2007 issue of the Environment & Climate News report, the infestation is growing rapidly as a result of years of not being able to use DDT and several other effective pesticides that have been banned. Developing nations were forced to stop using DDT, because the European nations refused to buy produce from nations where this effective pesticide is still used.
?
But one of the most deadly re sults of the DDT ban is the increase in malaria deaths in Africa. An eye-opening paper by Nigerians Thompson Ayodele and Adegoke Anthony, who are members of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis in Lagos, Nigeria, was widely reported in Nigerian newspapers. In their report, “Anti-DDT Policies Are Deadly for Africa,” they assert that environmental groups continue to misrepresent DDT and worry more about hypothetical health problems from the chemical than about the disease and death it can prevent. It is a crime against humanity to ban DDT and leave more than 300 million African people to suffer every year from acute malaria. However, there is some good news: In the face of the ever- increasing deaths from malaria, the World Health Organization is again supporting DDT for household spraying in Africa and millions are benefiting — deaths from malaria have been cut by 80 percent in South Africa, and 30 percent in Uganda.
?
The impact of liberal and “political correctness” meddling in developing countries has been devastat ing. According to scientists and doctors in those nations, DDT poses little or no risk to humans or animals when used responsibly. Yet we still have people in the Western world who threaten agricultural bans and other sanctions against countries that use DDT to save lives.
?
The common-sense person has to wonder what other harm from overreaching policies and actions by politically charged environmental groups will surface in the future. Bed bug infestations are not as serious as malaria, but just the thought that other forms of pest control have proven ineffective or less effective than DDT in their eradication is disconcerting. People staying in hotels and motels up until 1951 were always at risk of being bitten by bed bugs. Then DDT was discovered as a very effective weapon against the little blood-suckers. The threat went away for decades, but now it looms again.
?
The concern over the environment could have taken a different track and would have been hailed as one of the most significant achievements of humankind, but it became a political weapon and therefore became polluted. Jay Lehr, Ph.D., is science director for the Heartland Institute. In his re cent paper, “When Will We Tire of the Fear Mongers?” he writes, “Shouldn’t we notice that past environmental and public-health crises never were true, and shouldn’t that realization lead us to stop over-reacting each time a new doomsday scenario appears in the daily newspapers?”
?
I, for one, agree with Mr. Lehr. There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the environment, but unless there is a balanced look at the issue, taking into consideration all views, pro and con, it is easy to move too far to one side or the other. To absolutely assert that “the debate is over,” and that only one view is valid, is insane. Maybe it is our way, our culture that causes us to turn every issue into a political and divisive firestorm, but who are we really hurting?
?
As Americans we have the technology and medical wherewithal to withstand and absorb some of the overreaching and harmful effects of the actions by politically driven environmental groups, but I am sure we would get a different response from Nigerians Ayodele, Anthony and millions of other Africans.
?
Jimmie L. Hollis is a retired United States Air Force Senior NCO and historian and a retired aviation businessman. He lives and writes in Millville.
Thompson Ayodele
Executive Director
Initiative of Public Policy Analysis
P.O Box 6434
Shomolu-Lagos
Nigeria
Website:www.ippanigeria.org
Tel: 01-791-0959
Cell:080-2302-5079
Executive Director
Initiative of Public Policy Analysis
P.O Box 6434
Shomolu-Lagos
Nigeria
Website:www.ippanigeria.org
Tel: 01-791-0959
Cell:080-2302-5079
Does Nationalization Policy Increase Investment?
-The experience in Nigeria
-The experience in Nigeria
September 4, 2007
Government monopoly of any economic sector has been promoted as the surest and ideal way to enhance economic growth and development. Rather than promoting economic growth, it actually stifles it.
The end result of the services that majority of people get from such enterprise is either unreliable or inefficient. On the long run, the much-needed investments necessary to alleviate poverty are relocated to where private participation in the economy is encouraged.
In the attached (PDF) IPPA Policy Brief, Thompson Ayodele critically analyses how the existing railway legislation in Nigeria confers monopoly of the management of the railway solely on government. He argues that this on the long run has led to the decline in railway performance and operations.
He finally concludes that the crippling inefficiency and the unreliable services provided by the railway can be revived if the exiting law that hinders private investment in the sector is repealed and consequently stresses that the Nigeria railway cannot deliver as government monopolized enterprise without bringing in private sector investment as well as improved management skills.
Thompson Ayodele
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Lower Tax Rates Stimulate Economic Growth
08.01.2007
Economic growth anywhere in the world does not depend on chance or luck. It is purely based on pro-growth economic policies that must be embarked on. Defying basic economic reasoning, the federal government??? raised the Value Added Tax (VAT) rate from 5% to 10%. Justifying the increase, the government said it was in line with the ECOWAS policy directives, which require the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties within the sub-region to 15% with 2009 as deadline. Although the increase in the VAT has been suspended there is? concern that the VAT rate would be raised to 10% eventually in months ahead.?
The Value Added Tax was introduced in 1993 to replace the sales tax. It is a consumption tax, thereby having a wide base relatively with few exemptions. It is a single rate tax (5%), which makes it easy to administer. It uses an input-output method that makes it self-policing. When paid by a business on purchases, it becomes an input tax, which is recoverable from VAT charged on company’s sales, known as output tax.
The Value Added Tax (VAT) has become a major source of revenue for most developing countries including Nigeria . In view of this, there is penchant to increase tax rate to? get high revenue. According to the World Bank , in Cote d’Ivore VAT is 20%. This constitutes 4.8% of the GDP and 28.7% of the total tax revenue.
In Ghana VAT is 12.5%. This also constitutes 3.8 of the GDP and 23.5% of the total tax revenue. Likewise in Senegal VAT is 20% and this 6.2% of the GDP and 37% of the total tax revenue. However, in Nigeria VAT is 5%. This constitutes 1.6% of the GDP and almost 19%of the total tax revenue.
The high and growing revenue accruable to government through VAT is a motivating factor for countries within the sub-region to raise and harmonise VAT and excise tax. It is, however, economic folly to expect more revenue from any hike in tax rate. This simple reason had dawned on? many notable leaders at periods when economic performance was low.
?Lets, take the US, which relies so much on tax for example. Irrespective of their political affiliations, realizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, Harding/Coolidge cut tax in the 1920s, the same goes for Kennedy in 1960s and Reagan in 1980s. What was unique in the tax cut across board then was the recognition that tax reduction stimulates growth and minimizes tax avoidance.
None of these leaders embarked on tax cut because of realities in North/South America but in view of grave economic recession of those periods back home. Admittedly, it is not in doubt that Nigeria is a leading member of the ECOWAS. The economic realities in Nigeria are quite different from what is obtainable in other West African countries.
?Last year, the National Assembly had appropriated the 2007 budget on the basis of a 5% VAT. In the first place, it is illegal to increase VAT when the 2007 budget was based on 5% VAT rate.? Anyone advocating for increase in VAT and any other forms of taxes at this period must be a? complete stranger in Nigeria . Already, businesses are complaining about multiple of taxes. This is further aggravated by the zero power supply. Many businesses have resorted to running on private power generators. This has also increased the transaction costs. This added costs are being passed on to consumers.
?It is ironical that VAT increase was contemplated at a time when consumer spending is at low ebb and gross inefficiency in public infrastructure. Ultimately, a 5% increase in VAT rate would further reduce individuals’ purchasing power. This is because the prices of such consumable like beer, fuel,? and? services would go up by an additional 5%. Most of the countries in ECOWAS particularly Ghana have lower transaction costs. Recently Ghanaian government harmonised its tax regime and introduced a flat tax.? In Nigeria the infrastructure that is supposed to provide the needed support to the economy is inefficient. Promises are made with respect to upgrading these infrastructures but all to no avail. Policies geared towards infrastructure development and upgrading are made almost every day but the implementation is always a tall dreaEconomic growth and right economic policies go hand in hand.
?Unfavourable tax burdens only worsen the economic power of any country. As? already indicated economic boom and recession are not dependent on chance or luck. What really makes the difference is a vibrant and enhancing economic policy. This is the only tool that can uplift Nigeria from slow economic growth. Obviously, the current economic realities in Nigeria cannot accommodate any increase in any form of taxation.? The concern over the economic impart of VAT would be felt by everyone, rich and poor alike. Aside from driving up prices it will also further worsen the present state of our manufacturing sector.
It would also slice the amount of revenue that government has projected from the increase in VAT.
The resultant effect of this? increase would have a negative effect on consumers’ demand. When consumption falls, the effect takes its tolls on labour productivity and level of employment. The Common External Tariff treaty agreed upon by the Nigerian government with other ECOWAS countries has no economic relevance to what is at stake back home. What is paramount now is to retain the present rate of 5%, harmonize the tax system and above all block all drainpipes in tax collection system.
•Thompson? Ayodele
Lagos
In addition government policies should be geared towards wealth creation. Allied to this is respect for property rights, the rule of law and government should stop intervening in the working of the markets. If government plays its constitutional role as a provider of enabling environment for businesses to thrive, the economy will blossom and the impacts would trickle down. An average Nigerian is economically alive. All that is required is an enabling environment and not policies favourable to other nations and detrimental to the local economy. The pro-VAT increase officials should learn from Arthur Laffer, the father of the Laffer Curve and Supply-side economics when he said: “? Lower tax rates change economic behaviour and stimulate economic growth, which causes tax revenue to exceed static estimates. Under some circumstances, tax cut can lead to more tax revenue. The exact opposite occurs when following tax increases, and revenues fall short of static projections.”? *Ayodele is the Executive Director of Initiative for Public Policy Analysis based in Lagos .?
Economic growth anywhere in the world does not depend on chance or luck. It is purely based on pro-growth economic policies that must be embarked on. Defying basic economic reasoning, the federal government??? raised the Value Added Tax (VAT) rate from 5% to 10%. Justifying the increase, the government said it was in line with the ECOWAS policy directives, which require the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties within the sub-region to 15% with 2009 as deadline. Although the increase in the VAT has been suspended there is? concern that the VAT rate would be raised to 10% eventually in months ahead.?
The Value Added Tax was introduced in 1993 to replace the sales tax. It is a consumption tax, thereby having a wide base relatively with few exemptions. It is a single rate tax (5%), which makes it easy to administer. It uses an input-output method that makes it self-policing. When paid by a business on purchases, it becomes an input tax, which is recoverable from VAT charged on company’s sales, known as output tax.
The Value Added Tax (VAT) has become a major source of revenue for most developing countries including Nigeria . In view of this, there is penchant to increase tax rate to? get high revenue. According to the World Bank , in Cote d’Ivore VAT is 20%. This constitutes 4.8% of the GDP and 28.7% of the total tax revenue.
In Ghana VAT is 12.5%. This also constitutes 3.8 of the GDP and 23.5% of the total tax revenue. Likewise in Senegal VAT is 20% and this 6.2% of the GDP and 37% of the total tax revenue. However, in Nigeria VAT is 5%. This constitutes 1.6% of the GDP and almost 19%of the total tax revenue.
The high and growing revenue accruable to government through VAT is a motivating factor for countries within the sub-region to raise and harmonise VAT and excise tax. It is, however, economic folly to expect more revenue from any hike in tax rate. This simple reason had dawned on? many notable leaders at periods when economic performance was low.
?Lets, take the US, which relies so much on tax for example. Irrespective of their political affiliations, realizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, Harding/Coolidge cut tax in the 1920s, the same goes for Kennedy in 1960s and Reagan in 1980s. What was unique in the tax cut across board then was the recognition that tax reduction stimulates growth and minimizes tax avoidance.
None of these leaders embarked on tax cut because of realities in North/South America but in view of grave economic recession of those periods back home. Admittedly, it is not in doubt that Nigeria is a leading member of the ECOWAS. The economic realities in Nigeria are quite different from what is obtainable in other West African countries.
?Last year, the National Assembly had appropriated the 2007 budget on the basis of a 5% VAT. In the first place, it is illegal to increase VAT when the 2007 budget was based on 5% VAT rate.? Anyone advocating for increase in VAT and any other forms of taxes at this period must be a? complete stranger in Nigeria . Already, businesses are complaining about multiple of taxes. This is further aggravated by the zero power supply. Many businesses have resorted to running on private power generators. This has also increased the transaction costs. This added costs are being passed on to consumers.
?It is ironical that VAT increase was contemplated at a time when consumer spending is at low ebb and gross inefficiency in public infrastructure. Ultimately, a 5% increase in VAT rate would further reduce individuals’ purchasing power. This is because the prices of such consumable like beer, fuel,? and? services would go up by an additional 5%. Most of the countries in ECOWAS particularly Ghana have lower transaction costs. Recently Ghanaian government harmonised its tax regime and introduced a flat tax.? In Nigeria the infrastructure that is supposed to provide the needed support to the economy is inefficient. Promises are made with respect to upgrading these infrastructures but all to no avail. Policies geared towards infrastructure development and upgrading are made almost every day but the implementation is always a tall dreaEconomic growth and right economic policies go hand in hand.
?Unfavourable tax burdens only worsen the economic power of any country. As? already indicated economic boom and recession are not dependent on chance or luck. What really makes the difference is a vibrant and enhancing economic policy. This is the only tool that can uplift Nigeria from slow economic growth. Obviously, the current economic realities in Nigeria cannot accommodate any increase in any form of taxation.? The concern over the economic impart of VAT would be felt by everyone, rich and poor alike. Aside from driving up prices it will also further worsen the present state of our manufacturing sector.
It would also slice the amount of revenue that government has projected from the increase in VAT.
The resultant effect of this? increase would have a negative effect on consumers’ demand. When consumption falls, the effect takes its tolls on labour productivity and level of employment. The Common External Tariff treaty agreed upon by the Nigerian government with other ECOWAS countries has no economic relevance to what is at stake back home. What is paramount now is to retain the present rate of 5%, harmonize the tax system and above all block all drainpipes in tax collection system.
•Thompson? Ayodele
Lagos
In addition government policies should be geared towards wealth creation. Allied to this is respect for property rights, the rule of law and government should stop intervening in the working of the markets. If government plays its constitutional role as a provider of enabling environment for businesses to thrive, the economy will blossom and the impacts would trickle down. An average Nigerian is economically alive. All that is required is an enabling environment and not policies favourable to other nations and detrimental to the local economy. The pro-VAT increase officials should learn from Arthur Laffer, the father of the Laffer Curve and Supply-side economics when he said: “? Lower tax rates change economic behaviour and stimulate economic growth, which causes tax revenue to exceed static estimates. Under some circumstances, tax cut can lead to more tax revenue. The exact opposite occurs when following tax increases, and revenues fall short of static projections.”? *Ayodele is the Executive Director of Initiative for Public Policy Analysis based in Lagos .?
Malaria: ‘Anti-DDT Policies Are Deadly’
07.01.2007
?? Last year, one of our colleagues, his wife and their two children were diagnosed with malaria. In an instant, their lives were turned upside down, and all other priorities and plans were postponed. The new priority was getting better ? and simply staying alive.
?? For countless families in Nigeria and the rest of Africa, this horrible drama is repeated over and over, year after year. Over 300 million Africans get malaria ? and up to 1 million of our children die from it ? every year.
?? Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, in countries that no longer have malaria, environmentalists were celebrating the 100th birthday of Rachel Carson, whose book Silent Spring helped launch the environmental activist movement and get the repellent-insecticide DDT banned nearly all over the world. Were she still alive, she would have witnessed the countless family tragedies that this ban helped cause? and probably would have been appalled by them.
?? Malaria once killed thousands of Americans annually, from New Jersey to California, from Florida and Louisiana to Michigan and even Alaska. It sent Jamestown colonists to early graves and, as late as the 1930s, reduced the industrial output of America’s southern states by a third. Malarial mosquitoes ruled over Europe for centuries. They decimated armies from the time of Alexander the Great to World War II.?
?? But during that global war, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane or DDT was dusted on Allied soldiers and tents to prevent malaria. After the war, it stopped a European typhus epidemic. It then helped eradicate malaria in the US by 1952, and in Europe by 1961. It was also used (often carelessly and in excess) to protect crops against insects.
?? However, in the midst of these successes, Rachel Carson and the emerging environmental movement concluded that DDT was building up in wildlife, livestock and humans ? and said it would result in devastating consequences. Instead of conducting objective, scientific studies to see if DDT was actually harmful to humans and animals, they mounted a worldwide campaign that ultimately caused DDT to be removed even from the malaria control arsenal.
?? For these Americans and Europeans, seeking this ban imposed no costs. Malaria was gone in their countries. When they visit Africa, they stay in Five Star Hotels, away from mosquitoes. They have bug sprays, and medicines to prevent and treat the disease. They rarely visit the hospitals or homes where its victims are suffering and dying, or feel the pain of million of poor people whose cause they claim to champion.
?? So Africa became a sacrifice zone, where environmental ideologies demand that only politically correct tools like bed nets be used to prevent the disease that is still the biggest single killer of our children. It is a crime against humanity ? banning DDT and leaving over 300 million African mothers, fathers and children to suffer every year from acute malaria.
?? Even today, 65 years after it was first used in disease control, no other chemical works as well, for as long or at a lower cost than DDT to malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. There is no proof that it is harmful to people or animals, when used responsibly in disease control. That is why hundreds of physicians, clergy and human rights advocates have demanded that it be put back into the malaria control arsenal.
?? Finally, our health officials are listening, the World Health Organisation and USAID are again supporting DDT for household spraying, and millions are benefiting.
?? South Africa?s DDT household-spraying programme cut malaria rates by 80 per cent in 18 months, with no harmful environmental effects. Mozambique, Zambia, Madagascar and Swaziland slashed their malaria rates by more than 75 per cent within two years. The countries were then able to treat a much smaller number of seriously ill patients with new artemisinin-based drugs, and slashed malaria rates by over 90 per cent in just three years!
?? Uganda has also been able to reduce the malarial burden from 30 per cent to three per cent in villages where houses were sprayed with Icon. Now it plans to use DDT as well, because it costs less, keeps mosquitoes out of houses and remains effective much longer.
?? Despite these huge achievements, though, some people in Europe threaten agricultural bans and other sanctions against countries that use DDT to save lives. Aid agencies refuse to supply or support the use of DDT, while they promote bed nets that don?t get delivered and await vaccines that are still a decade away. And environmental groups continue to tell lies about DDT and worry more about hypothetical health problems from the chemical, than about the disease and death it can prevent.
07.01.2007
?? Last year, one of our colleagues, his wife and their two children were diagnosed with malaria. In an instant, their lives were turned upside down, and all other priorities and plans were postponed. The new priority was getting better ? and simply staying alive.
?? For countless families in Nigeria and the rest of Africa, this horrible drama is repeated over and over, year after year. Over 300 million Africans get malaria ? and up to 1 million of our children die from it ? every year.
?? Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, in countries that no longer have malaria, environmentalists were celebrating the 100th birthday of Rachel Carson, whose book Silent Spring helped launch the environmental activist movement and get the repellent-insecticide DDT banned nearly all over the world. Were she still alive, she would have witnessed the countless family tragedies that this ban helped cause? and probably would have been appalled by them.
?? Malaria once killed thousands of Americans annually, from New Jersey to California, from Florida and Louisiana to Michigan and even Alaska. It sent Jamestown colonists to early graves and, as late as the 1930s, reduced the industrial output of America’s southern states by a third. Malarial mosquitoes ruled over Europe for centuries. They decimated armies from the time of Alexander the Great to World War II.?
?? But during that global war, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane or DDT was dusted on Allied soldiers and tents to prevent malaria. After the war, it stopped a European typhus epidemic. It then helped eradicate malaria in the US by 1952, and in Europe by 1961. It was also used (often carelessly and in excess) to protect crops against insects.
?? However, in the midst of these successes, Rachel Carson and the emerging environmental movement concluded that DDT was building up in wildlife, livestock and humans ? and said it would result in devastating consequences. Instead of conducting objective, scientific studies to see if DDT was actually harmful to humans and animals, they mounted a worldwide campaign that ultimately caused DDT to be removed even from the malaria control arsenal.
?? For these Americans and Europeans, seeking this ban imposed no costs. Malaria was gone in their countries. When they visit Africa, they stay in Five Star Hotels, away from mosquitoes. They have bug sprays, and medicines to prevent and treat the disease. They rarely visit the hospitals or homes where its victims are suffering and dying, or feel the pain of million of poor people whose cause they claim to champion.
?? So Africa became a sacrifice zone, where environmental ideologies demand that only politically correct tools like bed nets be used to prevent the disease that is still the biggest single killer of our children. It is a crime against humanity ? banning DDT and leaving over 300 million African mothers, fathers and children to suffer every year from acute malaria.
?? Even today, 65 years after it was first used in disease control, no other chemical works as well, for as long or at a lower cost than DDT to malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. There is no proof that it is harmful to people or animals, when used responsibly in disease control. That is why hundreds of physicians, clergy and human rights advocates have demanded that it be put back into the malaria control arsenal.
?? Finally, our health officials are listening, the World Health Organisation and USAID are again supporting DDT for household spraying, and millions are benefiting.
?? South Africa?s DDT household-spraying programme cut malaria rates by 80 per cent in 18 months, with no harmful environmental effects. Mozambique, Zambia, Madagascar and Swaziland slashed their malaria rates by more than 75 per cent within two years. The countries were then able to treat a much smaller number of seriously ill patients with new artemisinin-based drugs, and slashed malaria rates by over 90 per cent in just three years!
?? Uganda has also been able to reduce the malarial burden from 30 per cent to three per cent in villages where houses were sprayed with Icon. Now it plans to use DDT as well, because it costs less, keeps mosquitoes out of houses and remains effective much longer.
?? Despite these huge achievements, though, some people in Europe threaten agricultural bans and other sanctions against countries that use DDT to save lives. Aid agencies refuse to supply or support the use of DDT, while they promote bed nets that don?t get delivered and await vaccines that are still a decade away. And environmental groups continue to tell lies about DDT and worry more about hypothetical health problems from the chemical, than about the disease and death it can prevent.
.Thompson Ayodele and Adegoke Anthony, Lagos
Read:? http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=82369
Read:? http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=82369
Thompson Ayodele
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
Nigeria – How Nationalisation Fails
3/17/07
By Thompson Ayodele
The carnage on Nigerian roads in recent time has reached an unprecedented
level. While several reasons have been cited for the current rate of
wreckages on Nigerian roads, the truth is that the state of the roads is
extremely poor. Our so called expressways are not in anyway different from
roads constructed during the regional days.
level. While several reasons have been cited for the current rate of
wreckages on Nigerian roads, the truth is that the state of the roads is
extremely poor. Our so called expressways are not in anyway different from
roads constructed during the regional days.
Most of the roads in Nigeria are riddled with pot holes and most of the
vehicles plying the roads are poorly maintained. Many haulage trucks are
made to carry goods that are heavier than the legal weight.
vehicles plying the roads are poorly maintained. Many haulage trucks are
made to carry goods that are heavier than the legal weight.
How did Nigeria get into this unenviable situation in the first place? At
independence, Nigeria had a vibrant, efficient and flourishing railway
system. The rail system was considered the best way to transport goods,
including highly inflammable materials across Nigeria. Nigerians once took
pride in saying that their country had the largest rail network in Africa.
Ironically today, it is a show of shame, grossly inefficient and shutting
doors against potential investors.
independence, Nigeria had a vibrant, efficient and flourishing railway
system. The rail system was considered the best way to transport goods,
including highly inflammable materials across Nigeria. Nigerians once took
pride in saying that their country had the largest rail network in Africa.
Ironically today, it is a show of shame, grossly inefficient and shutting
doors against potential investors.
A great deal of effort has been made by successive governments to
revitalize the rail system. These included a contractual agreement between
Nigeria and Rail India Technical and Economic Services, 1978-82, the
1989-92 ‘Ogbemudia Revolution’ that turned around local rail transport and
the rehabilitation project with China Civil Engineering Construction
Corporation, 1995-99. Although there were some new leases of life for rail
system during these periods, those steps did not actually succeeded in
turning the rail system into an efficient one.
revitalize the rail system. These included a contractual agreement between
Nigeria and Rail India Technical and Economic Services, 1978-82, the
1989-92 ‘Ogbemudia Revolution’ that turned around local rail transport and
the rehabilitation project with China Civil Engineering Construction
Corporation, 1995-99. Although there were some new leases of life for rail
system during these periods, those steps did not actually succeeded in
turning the rail system into an efficient one.
Many reasons are behind the failure of these endeavors. Among others, a
contract of $500 million awarded to a Chinese firm, China Civil
Engineering Construction Corporation, between 1995 and 1999, to
rehabilitate the existing rail, supply 50 locomotives, 150 coaches, 400
wagons and 20 rail buses, and provide technical training for the railways
staff. The substandard rail locomotives, wagon and coaches supplied by the
Chinese firm, however, were not fit for later use. The same China Civil
Engineering Constriction Company has again been awarded a whopping $8.3b
contract to rehabilitate the rail system. Will the latest injection of
funds by government result in an efficient rail system? Only time will
tell.
contract of $500 million awarded to a Chinese firm, China Civil
Engineering Construction Corporation, between 1995 and 1999, to
rehabilitate the existing rail, supply 50 locomotives, 150 coaches, 400
wagons and 20 rail buses, and provide technical training for the railways
staff. The substandard rail locomotives, wagon and coaches supplied by the
Chinese firm, however, were not fit for later use. The same China Civil
Engineering Constriction Company has again been awarded a whopping $8.3b
contract to rehabilitate the rail system. Will the latest injection of
funds by government result in an efficient rail system? Only time will
tell.
The ownership of the rail transport by the federal government is
responsible for the present state of rail in Nigeria. The rail system has
been solely funded by government. Partnering with the private sector that
could muster enough funds and invest in development of the rail has never
been encouraged. Rail business in developed countries has progressed
significantly leading to strategies like Design Build Own and Transfer
(DBOT). This strategy has made it easier to adequately fund railway
revitalization. For instance, the Bangkok’s Skytrain elevated rail system,
the Great Belt Fixed Link in Denmark and the joint ?resund Strait project
between Denmark and Sweden.
responsible for the present state of rail in Nigeria. The rail system has
been solely funded by government. Partnering with the private sector that
could muster enough funds and invest in development of the rail has never
been encouraged. Rail business in developed countries has progressed
significantly leading to strategies like Design Build Own and Transfer
(DBOT). This strategy has made it easier to adequately fund railway
revitalization. For instance, the Bangkok’s Skytrain elevated rail system,
the Great Belt Fixed Link in Denmark and the joint ?resund Strait project
between Denmark and Sweden.
It is quite obvious that government alone cannot shoulder the financial
burden required to rehabilitate the rail. But has this been realized? The
Railway Act exclusively places railway business under the domain of the
federal government. This clearly excludes private investment. The Act
makes it illegal for anyone without the consent of the railway corporation
to construct or operate a railway for the public carriage of passengers or
goods within Nigeria.
burden required to rehabilitate the rail. But has this been realized? The
Railway Act exclusively places railway business under the domain of the
federal government. This clearly excludes private investment. The Act
makes it illegal for anyone without the consent of the railway corporation
to construct or operate a railway for the public carriage of passengers or
goods within Nigeria.
What is more, by implication the Act forecloses private investment in the
rail business. However, investors are always on the look for
opportunities. Five years ago, a Canadian firm put forward a proposal to
construct a 3-hour Lagos-Abuja rail line. The Oodua Group had also planned
to construct a 20-minute Lagos-Ibadan rail track. The Lagos state
government last year signed a $240m memorandum of understanding with Lemna
Incorporated, a U S-based firm, for the construction and operation of a
light rail under build, operate and transfer (BOT) arrangement.
rail business. However, investors are always on the look for
opportunities. Five years ago, a Canadian firm put forward a proposal to
construct a 3-hour Lagos-Abuja rail line. The Oodua Group had also planned
to construct a 20-minute Lagos-Ibadan rail track. The Lagos state
government last year signed a $240m memorandum of understanding with Lemna
Incorporated, a U S-based firm, for the construction and operation of a
light rail under build, operate and transfer (BOT) arrangement.
These laudable projects are bound to face the major hurdle. The Nigeria
Railway Act clearly confers monopoly powers on the Nigerian Railway
Corporation.
Railway Act clearly confers monopoly powers on the Nigerian Railway
Corporation.
The mass transit system would have been in total chaos if government had
monopolized other transport systems such as airlines and road transport.
Government involvement in road transport has not produced the expected
result. Once state and federal governments embarked on mass transit
programmes by buying buses. None of them were able to survive in the
market for a long time as they could not compete with the private sector
and their innovation.
monopolized other transport systems such as airlines and road transport.
Government involvement in road transport has not produced the expected
result. Once state and federal governments embarked on mass transit
programmes by buying buses. None of them were able to survive in the
market for a long time as they could not compete with the private sector
and their innovation.
Huge investment and competition that are vital for the rail system in
Nigeria are completely lacking. Private investment is necessary if there
is really a genuine desire not only to bring back the rail system but
other sectors as well. Revamping and modernizing the rail system is
contingent on the willingness of the government to repeal the existing
Railway Act and introduce legislation that would open up rail market and
makes it competitive. Doubling its funding will do little to revitalize
the rail. At best what would be created is a rail system that is dependent
on government funding and cannot generate enough funds to defray its
running costs.
Nigeria are completely lacking. Private investment is necessary if there
is really a genuine desire not only to bring back the rail system but
other sectors as well. Revamping and modernizing the rail system is
contingent on the willingness of the government to repeal the existing
Railway Act and introduce legislation that would open up rail market and
makes it competitive. Doubling its funding will do little to revitalize
the rail. At best what would be created is a rail system that is dependent
on government funding and cannot generate enough funds to defray its
running costs.
At a time when government is ceding its interests in some business
enterprises into private investors, the time to repeal anti-investment law
such as the Railway Act is now. That would in the long run reduce carnage
on the roads; lessen the costs of haulage and burdens of the road
transport and improve the standard of living for ordinary Nigerians.
enterprises into private investors, the time to repeal anti-investment law
such as the Railway Act is now. That would in the long run reduce carnage
on the roads; lessen the costs of haulage and burdens of the road
transport and improve the standard of living for ordinary Nigerians.
Read:?????? http://www.righthinker.com/content/view/55/
Thompson Ayodele is the Executive Director of Initiative for Public Policy
Analysis based in Lagos, Nigeria.
Thompson Ayodele
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
Analysis based in Lagos, Nigeria.
Thompson Ayodele
Director
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
P.O.Box 6434
Shomolu,Lagos
Nigeria
Email:thompson@ippanigeria.org
Backup: thompsondele@onebox.com
Website: www.ippanigeria.org
*****Good Public Policy is Sound Politics**********
Tel:01-791-0959
Cell:080 2302 5079
Nigeria: Elections – Strategic Forces, Issues
January 1, 2007
Wale Oluwade
Wale Oluwade
As we prepare here in Nigeria for general elections in 2007, let us take a serious look at the strategic forces and issues at play and which will determine the final outcome of the elections or the absence of it. Whether we realize it or not, Nigeria stands at a watershed in her chequered history and 2007 represents the pivotal point in her transition either to socio-economic and political greatness or oblivion.
It is imperative to give my understanding of the forces.
The first is globalisation. This is a term which came into use over 20 years ago and has since become a cardinal rule in the interplay of human interrelation and engagement. Globalization entails the merging of the world into one huge borderless territory of economic, political, social and environmental space. In this age of globalization, what goes on in one nation in Africa is of huge strategic importance to China , USA and the UK.
As the world’s major nations continually insist and demand for multi-party and fully participatory democracy as the only form of political government acceptable to it, Nigeria may not have an option than to conduct elections in 2007. Failure to do so, comes with heavy sanctions such as was imposed on Apartheid South Africa . Nigerian’s, vividly recall what painstaking efforts it took the present administration to record minimal shift in international perception from that of a pariah nation to what we currently enjoy. Why would we want to return to this?
The second is the military. To say that the Nigerian Military establishment contributed immensely to the present state of the Nigerian nation would be a gross understatement. The Military mentality, ideology and doctrine of might is right; obey without question; loyalty without responsibility and especially the resort to sheer force of arms in resolving issues has been at the core of our present tragedy!
The political, economic, and social environment is populated by one ex-General, or the other. In the last six months, for instance, two paramount traditional rulers were installed and both were military men; in fact, one was a serving officer! The language of the military emanates from their mindset which has been programmed to see the application of force through the use of arms, as the solution to human problems. The military class, especially those in Nigeria , do not understand diplomacy, dialogue, intellectual discourse and respect for human rights!
The Nigerian society is extremely militarized because of the burgeoning population of retired military men who have used their ill-gotten resources and training to contaminate an otherwise sane and civilized society.
Will the Military remain in the barracks? Will the military-politicians allow democracy to truly be democracy in Nigeria and not a detestable hybrid as it presently is, having no moral underpinning, intellectual soul and national interest as against suffocating class interest? These are the questions the military class, retired and serving, must answer!
Economic forces can also not be ignored. Every successive military regime since 1966 has always been hugely successful in creating a cabal or tiny clique of very rich civilians whose sole ambition and purpose is to profit from the endemic chaos, lawlessness corruption and visionlessness of the system! As of today, this class of economic juggernauts have become so powerful in the political equation such that ignoring them is to be politically na?ve and strategically suicidal The more brazen half of this class were the ringleaders of the infamous, but now botched “third term project”. The other half are older, deeply entrenched and rooted in the very fabric of national life. Also, they are, as a cardinal rule, faceless and amorphous. Their membership cuts across tribe, religion, language, gender and education. Of the two, I fear the latter the most!
They have become kingmakers of sorts! They remain behind the scenes pulling the strings and orchestrating vital socio-economic and political moves essentially for their class interest to the detriment of the majority of Nigerians! If I may say, this is the Nigerian variant of the notoriously famous Italian Mafiosi, based in Sicily !
What does this ruinous and entrepreneurial parasites want in 2007? Business as usual? I think so! Because they remain powerful and profit only as long as Nigeria remain a hobbled, prostrate and anemic giant! How to deal with them? Is Ribadu’s EFCC the answer to this menace? I don’t think so since EFCC is only effective against this class whenever there is either a clash of interests or greed, within the rank, (as we presently have at the presidency) ego wars and breaking the silence code, an offence greater than murder itself!
This class, working actively in cahoots with the Military, and their politician mutants, constitutes the major threat to the evolution and survival of a modern, just, truly democratic and civilized nation!
Can the Civil Society rise up to the challenge? This is the only opposition to the successive military regimes prior to 1999. The civil society groups could be credited for fighting and winning two major wars recently against the IBB and Abacha regimes. Even now, the only voice of opposition, offering strident criticisms and condemnation against arbitrariness and wanton disregard for the rule of law, disobedience of court orders and progressive dissembling of democratic norms and ideals is that of civil society groups in active collaboration with the media, both print and electronic.
But how effective has the efforts of civil society been in the current battle? Especially now that major civil rights leaders such as Gani Fawehimi seem to have been massively compromised! Until lately, Gani has been a die-hard advocate of the rule of law and democratic tenets. But he has since taken an ideological summersault coming out vigorously to justify one lawless and obscenely ridiculous constitutional breach after the other!
Politics is the art of nation-building. In the absence of a credible, honest and selfless visionary political class, we had always looked towards the civil society groups for succor. Perhaps, now is the time for the National Assembly, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, to rise up, seize the initiative, insist on respect for the rule of law, good governance at all levels, obedience of court orders and generally put a stop to incessant executive recklessness!
I see a ray of hope here, because but for the National Assembly, the “Third Term” perfidy would have become a fait accompli! But if the national assembly departs from the path of nobility, integrity and leadership, and tows the dangerous paths embarked upon by the shameless states houses of assembly, then, it is well and truly over!
Any role for mass revolt? The human rights of the ordinary Nigerian exists in the statute books solely for history lessons! The ordinary Nigerian is totally disempowered politically, economically and socially. The ordinary Nigerian believes, as a must, in God, for basic survival issues of life! He does not believe in the government and expects nothing from it! To do so will be to willingly court extinction! As a Nigerian, either at home or abroad, you simply are on your own! What a shame?
For example, to travel these days within Nigeria , the ordinary Nigerian has got to fast and pray seriously! When you have successfully arrived at your destination, those who travel and the family left behind, must offer thanksgiving at their places of worship for journey mercies! The mode of travel is irrelevant! If you live in Nigeria and you move from one city or town to the other without any untoward occurrence, then God is truly on your side!
Every where you look, North, South, West or East, the ordinary Nigerian is suffering under excruciating burdens of socio-economic and political rudderlessness! For 46 years, what do the average Nigerian have to show for being a citizen save for marginalization and emasculation from the process of nation-building and social re-engineering? As a Nigerian, your votes do not count! Your opinions, such as this article does not matter to the powers that be! Your protestations and vehement cry against palpable leadership vacuum goes unheard and ineffective. The average Nigerian lives in a hobbesian state. He lives in a country in the year 2006 that is a replica of the jungle his ancestors dwelled before the dawn of modern history. Interestingly, Nigerians are very resilient, highly informed and very patient. But perhaps the patience has since worn thin from repeated attacks and assaults. Maybe the time has come when the equation seem right for a popular revolt against all the forces that has connived and contrived to keep them less than human and live a short, brutish and squalid life of barely subsisting!
Something tells me, I might be wrong, and I pray that I am, that the evil forces against Nigeria’s greatness have a rude shock in store for them in 2007 should they continue on the path of ignominy and hopelessness, they have always walked! We have seen it happen before in other similar societies such as ours. It happened in Romania in the 1990’s. It happened, even more recently in Ukraine . And the conditions are just perfect here in Nigeria ! I never thought I would live to see the day robbers, assassins and sundry criminals will take over an entire nation and operate with unfettered swagger and reckless abandon! But this is the state of Nigeria as of 2006.
