Connect with us

Opinion

Hunger In The Land

Published

on

Dele Jegede In Conversation With Prince Yemisi Shyllon
Prof. Toyin Falola

By Toyin Falola

The theme of the Nigerian Independence Day protests was intriguing. The tag “fearless in October” captures the imagination and evokes thoughts about what must have been running through its creators’ minds. I think that its selection was careful and well-timed. October reminds us of that period in 2020 when young Nigerians took to the streets in large numbers to protest the mindless cruelty of the Special Anti-robbery Squad (SARS) and the grating economic policies of President Muhammadu Buhari, the Chief Executive that commanded it. Those events ended in bloodshed and tears for countless participants, many of whom still seek justice today. The protests created a template for the #EndBadGovernance movement in August, which, although limited in popularity, was targeted at redressing the continuity of the worsening challenges Nigerians continue to face. Different administrations, same issues.

Unfortunately, telling Nigeria’s stories invariably requires rehashing the same themes, one of which is the role of economic factors in the contrivance of worsening poverty levels. Data reveals that over 50% of the Nigerian population is multidimensionally poor, indicating multiple layers of shortcomings in resource access. From social amenities to the availability of respectable incomes, Nigerians scarcely remain untroubled without threats at any period. Even worse, currency devaluation and formidable inflationary pressures over the past year have brought many to their knees. Nevertheless, the country’s problems are quite traceable. One of the primary contributors is the country’s dependence on oil. Despite being a major oil exporter, Nigeria suffers from the “resource curse,” where reliance on a single commodity leads to economic instability and inequality.
Fluctuations in global oil prices, corruption within the oil sector, and the Dutch disease effect – where currency appreciation discourages growth in other sectors of the economy – have all contributed to poverty. Nigeria’s economy has perennially shuffled to the rhythm of the international oil market, plunging whenever there is a downturn and feeding fat on glutes – at least until it could hardly produce enough to fill market demands when prices soared.

History is replete with evidence, including the 1970s and following decades when the country felt it could spoil itself forever on the foreign exchange from oil to the detriment of other sectors. This shortsightedness led to costly consequences, such as austerity measures and structural adjustment programmes in subsequent decades.
The natural expectation is that follow-up measures would seek to revamp Nigeria’s overdependence on crude oil. However, this would hardly be so, as the final years of the Jonathan administration revealed. Owing to demand-side factors in crude sales, oil prices dropped by as much as 70%, triggering a prolonged recession in the country. The response from the newly minted Buhari government at the time was an absolute failure in terms of competence and accountability. For years, Buhari and his team repeatedly blamed the previous administration, insisting that the situation was too dire to be fixed so quickly. In all these, what the ex-general’s handlers refused to admit was that the president was patently clueless about economic matters. As he continued to play the blame game, Nigerians groaned under its heavy consequences. Workers were owed salaries for months, the desperate preservation of the naira stifled investment inflows, and the nation’s best minds increasingly realised that there were few opportunities for their capacious potential to thrive in their home country. Ridiculously, state officials sometimes went on live TV to dispute suggestions that Nigerians were suffering. They made shoddy efforts to paint Buhari as incorruptible, fair, and attentive to the needs of the average Nigerian. Yet, under his watch, wave after wave of killings engulfed numerous parts of the country as killer herdsmen ran amok. Farms were abandoned in preference for safety, while the president stoically refused to acknowledge the murders and, worse still, take meaningful action against those undermining the state. These challenges soon enlarged into regional insecurity and displacement, like the insurgency in the Northeast that was already plaguing the country when the president assumed office. In its wake came further difficulty in tackling a looming crisis in food supply, as farmers could not access their lands. Buhari’s tenure will be remembered for classic state-level gaslighting and unfulfilled promises. In the minds of young people, the #EndSARS killings will take centre stage. Sharing the platform will be bogus ventures like the Nigerian airline (Nigeria Air) that never took flight, the unachieved conquest of terrorism in the Northeast within the promised three months, as well as the unfulfilled promise to repair state-run refineries, to name just a few.

Now, the entitled leadership brand of the Bola Tinubu administration takes the stage. One finds here the controversial fuel subsidy removal–a policy that, at best, was overly eager and, at worst, the quickest path to economic decline for millions of Nigerian households. Uniquely, resolving the multifaceted challenges of the Nigerian polity takes more than the deployment of a wishful magic wand or a smattering of policy fixes. It requires layered approaches, without which the ever-relentless devil remains in the detail. In Yoruba, Nigeria’s situation is aptly described as egbirin ote – a complex web of problems that keeps evolving, rearing its head in new places the instant one is decapitated. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is a prime example of this. For anyone who has ever bothered to inquire, there is a standard stream of plausible yet avoidable excuses its officials leverage to deflect criticism over recurring fuel supply shortages.

During the rainy season, flooding is used as a convenient excuse; at other times, it is some convoluted twist in the web of industry relationships. The same applies to the refineries, where failures in meeting production deadlines have totalled seven since work commenced. On a broader scale, the removal of duties on certain imported food items has run into bureaucratic gridlocks despite being theoretically set to take effect on July 15, 2024.

In the private sector, foreign exchange issues preclude the utilisation of existing capacities, driving inflationary pressures down citizens’ throats. In other words, being Nigerian often means having little to no expectations.

If the government makes a promise today, your street wisdom – honed through years of failed promises and unmet potential -– should compel you to doubt them. You must not concede control of your life to the band of aloof politicians in the State House. Instead, take charge, hustle, and become the author and finisher of your fate in a country that threatens to strip even the concept of free will from you. That is the price of Nigerianness. It reflects the hallowed principle of the impossibility of building something out of nothing.

In specific terms, Nigeria’s infrastructure is underdeveloped, hindering economic growth and development. Poor roads, inadequate electricity supply, and limited access to transportation networks increase the cost of doing business and limit opportunities for economic activity. Expectedly, this situation affects productivity, job creation, and the overall economic well-being of the citizenry. Clear pictures of this emerge in discussions with individuals whose entrepreneurial mindsets led them to start businesses. Their stories are laden with themes of survival and prevalence despite the Nigerian factor. So, while one may consider digitisation as a solution to these issues, poor roads, corrupt state officials, and unreliable electricity remain significant obstacles.

Looking beyond this, when comparing the struggles of the average person with those of the privileged class, one finds a disturbing norm – even when policies are enacted to mitigate crises, the less privileged rarely benefit from them. This high level of inequality is reflected in the enormous pay packets received by people in offices like the legislature. With salaries that easily rival those of lawmakers anywhere else in the world, Nigerian leadership is a hotbed of insensitivity and a lack of patriotism.
In contrast to the prolonged debates over a new national minimum wage, the government seems to be actively prepared to enrich the purses of its acolytes rather than minimise the suffering of the masses. Instances of corruption and nepotism do not make this reality any easier to absorb. A scan of the list of Tinubu’s ministers will reveal that many are former governors with little to no relevant expertise in their current portfolios. More specifically, the selection of this crop of often incompetent individuals was largely determined by party loyalty and their impact on the incumbent’s election, with Nyesom Wike, the former governor of Rivers State, serving as a compelling example.

Worse still, it is difficult to tell whether there is any true appreciation for administrative discipline in overseeing ministers. A case in point is President Tinubu’s ambivalent stance on Betta Edu, whose office of humanitarian affairs was embroiled in scandal. To this day, it remains uncertain whether the axe has fallen on her or if the president’s reaction was merely a public relations stunt.

Since news first emerged about the likelihood of changes to serving ministers many months ago, there has been nothing but foot-dragging, suggesting to observers that a robust scheme of backroom negotiations is underway. While the administration prioritises satisfying its cronies and political allies, the situation at the grassroots continues to worsen. The wealth gap remains vast, with a small elite controlling a disproportionate share of resources, showing no sign of being evened by the government. Initially, there was a plan to requisition low-income earners with 8,000 naira; next came a scarcely realised project to distribute tons of rice. Both initiatives have become subjects of humour due to the shortsightedness and condescension underlining them.

In an economy where fuel prices have risen to historical heights, and the currency lies comatose, the reasoning that 8,000 naira could alleviate financial woes is utterly misguided and arrogant. The attempt to cushion the downsides of food inflation through rice distribution is also severely flawed, implementation-wise, as states have reported inconsistent delivery data. Given these trends, it is no surprise that the poor face increasing difficulties in accessing essential needs like education, healthcare, and other services, trapping them in a cycle of poverty. Notably, this is against a backdrop of rapid population growth, putting a strain on resources and exacerbating poverty. The increasing number of people competing for limited jobs, land, and social services has led to a higher unemployment rate, as the National Bureau of Statistics admitted under its new model, exacerbating poverty altogether.

While discussing these varying strands of economic and political challenges, it is also important to reflect on the quality of citizenship and democratic participation. Notably, the 2023 elections recorded the lowest turnout in Nigeria’s history, with just 26.72% of the voter population casting their votes at polling units. One analysis stated that this implies that for every ten eligible voters, only two showed up to vote. As a result, only a small fraction of the Nigerian electorate decided the ongoing trajectory of the country’s leadership. The widespread apathy displayed by millions of voters on election day symbolises a range of multiple issues. It is misguided to address this apathy without considering the nuances that drive it, such as fears of violent attacks at polling units, electoral fraud, and intimidation – all potent reasons to shun voting.

However, I strongly contend that Nigerians have developed a razor-edged disinterest in the affairs of their own country. If voter turnout is a qualified method for determining this, one could look at activism. Protests, such as the 2020 marches against poor governance, struggled with popularity depending on location. In certain areas, participation in the movements was forbidden for religious reasons. The #EndBadGovernance protests had even worse outings. The proposed ten-day marches were blunted by low turnouts at protest grounds, which deteriorated as the days passed, eventually forcing things to peter out before they reached an apex. The circumstances behind the underwhelming levels of participation can be surmised into one simple word: self-preservation.

For the average Nigerian, it is enough to merely exist and get by. If that happens, prayers and daily lamentations are the closest to dissent we will ever get. This is why it is nearly impossible to forge a united front on common problems. I do not intend to disregard the haunting issues of property loss and disorderliness that often pervade protest movements, but it takes only a shy measure of reasoning to realise that self-preservation or not, the collective challenges spurring these movements will persist in affecting us all. It also appears that there are gulfs between generations of Nigerians regarding approaches to democratic participation.Among young adults, particularly Generation Z and millennials, their slightly older siblings, there is a more aggressive and participatory attitude to political involvement. Theirs is a generation heavy on demanding accountability, probably influenced by exposure to better narratives from social media.

Contrastingly, a palpable sense of resignation exists among the older individuals. Perhaps this quality comes with age and experience of seeing the same issues play out repeatedly, but the appetite to challenge the leadership cadre is quite low. This laid-back tendency, I believe, contributed to the narrative that the #EndSARS protests were primarily led by hoodlums and “Yahoo boys.”

Aside from this, it is also arguable that members of the older generation have a much less receptive attitude to risk-taking than their younger counterparts. Police brutality, indiscriminate arrests, bullying, and threats to life and property are common consequences of opposing those in power. The fear of this, combined with longtime familiarity with the scarcity of justice, creates a clear recipe for self-preservation. It does not help matters that these instincts are further amplified by ethno-religious sentiments, with many perceiving certain movements as efforts to upend their political status. Despite the problems being similar across the North, East, and South, it is of no consequence as it is far too easy for detractors to stir feelings of loyalty to creed and community among ordinary people. It is equally easy to leverage these biases in creating ill-informed individuals typically framed as counter-protesters, as seen during the #EndBadGovernance movement. Sadly, this comes at a steep cost for political participation. It implies that it will be difficult to catalyse change now and soon, even as the disconnect with the government persists.

At this point, you might ask me what I think the solution could be; after all, it is not enough to pinpoint issues without identifying ways of resolving them. I believe that the country’s problems do not require a diviner to address. Nigerians are as aware of the needed solutions as they are of the challenges giving rise to them. It takes only a walk past newspaper stands or listening to random group conversations to know this. The drawback, however, is the lack of action, alternatively known as political will when describing the administrative class. A society lacking the willingness to confront its problems head-on, with the self-honesty and determination such challenges demand, will struggle to thrive, regardless of the creative range of solution-focused proposals available.

But we cannot live without hope. It is what keeps our spirits alive in the face of daunting adversity. So, I would say “hopefully” because that is the most productive thought; we will awaken collectively for transformational change–in time to save our dear nation.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Opinion

Professor Femi Badejo At 70: The Advocacy Of Equity

Published

on

Dele Jegede In Conversation With Prince Yemisi Shyllon
Prof. Toyin Falola

By Toyin Falola

People who are well-grounded in understanding the operations of the universe would quickly tell anyone who cares to listen that life is about words, signs, and symbols. Individuals in this category do not suddenly come to that knowledge midway through their life’s journey but through experiences, exposure, and study.

Regardless of their cultural identity or ideological mindset, everyone would accept that many things that happen in life are circumscribed by universal signs and symbols, which ordinary or inexperienced people may not easily understand. For example, where people are born and the environment where they grow up are vital signs that sometimes determine the trajectory of their life journey.

These things constitute what should be called signs because where we are born, and the environment where we grow up is crucial in shaping a few things in our lives, especially how we see the world or how we socialize in it, leading to the manner of which we negotiate the unfurling activities. More importantly, one’s lifelong destiny is often shaped by confident choices that humans make, especially the choice of what career path to follow or one’s ambition concerning one’s intellectual evolution. Professor Badejo’s signs and symbols of greatness are easily unmasked by his life’s series of activities, especially his career choices. Anyone expert in political science and law should excel in what they do, except if they do not have enough discipline to see themselves through.

The world has long cultivated the habit of celebrating individuals with outstanding contributions to the human world, and it is no coincidence that Professor Badejo falls into this category. The signs have always been there that an individual of his intellectual strength and persuasion cannot but contribute significantly to the straightening of things in a chaotic world, particularly in their conviction that as the world operates today, issues and activities are not orderly or in a right direction to guarantee collective advancement.

It cannot be overemphasized that every moment in human history is always dotted with a fair share of critical problems that often demand outstanding individuals’ precocious ideas and creative ingenuity. Professor Badejo is a shining example of the quest to make the world a better place. His foundation in the legal profession is deliberate, for he understands early enough that people who would dare the devil in today’s global society must understand the operations of their activities and predict human steps. This way, they can make timely decisions that would change the tides of things for the good of everyone. As already implied, the world always faces a fair share of its challenges because there are individuals who are blessed to solve issues using their intellectual strength. As a professor and a professional in legal affairs, Badejo is very grounded in dissecting international issues so that people can have a proper overview of the interplays of power and contestation in the global community. In other words, if you intend to take advantage of the vulnerable systems of the world, people like Badejo would be there, reminding you of the atrocities sparked by the parochialism of your ambitions.

It is exciting to discover that Badejo has profound knowledge of political science, which places him in good condition to understand political figures’ operations, intentions, and inclinations toward whatever actions they embark on. It, therefore, makes it more rewarding for him to use his intellect to redefine public relations through political insights so that the human world will attain progress and sustain the one they have already accomplished. That Badejo has worked in different places, especially in international locations, using his educational insights and professional skills to improve the conditions of the world speaks highly of his dedication to making an indelible impact.

I cannot state enough how vital Badejo has been. As indicated, the signs that he would make such accomplishments exemplify his career choices. While we cannot deny his commitment to such ambitions, we cannot understate how he has dedicated himself to getting the best from his knowledge. We, therefore, cannot undervalue his dedication to academic engagements, as that forms the basis of his intellectual advancement today―one which continues to brighten his life in tremendous ways. At the international level, he has served in different capacities; the summary is that he was either contracted to use his wealth of experience to save the day or use his professional expertise to provoke a change.

His efforts in community development services, especially in his involvement with the international community or non-governmental organizations, have always demanded his intellectual support. This cannot even overshadow his contributions to building the world’s human capital. It is interesting to state that Professor Badejo is a teacher who has made substantial contributions to knowledge generally. Apart from being a seasoned researcher, he has always been dominant in teaching, producing a sizeable fraction of students who underwent tutelage under him. This explains why many people can attest to how profoundly this scholar has redefined how they see the world and the things in life. Teachers hold a good place in our collective lives because they sacrifice very much to mold people’s minds correctly.

Badejo belongs to the class of educators who make incredibly critical efforts to improve Africa. He has painstakingly conducted research to study different issues, especially in areas of political science and, by extension, the legal profession. His success is significant, and he is enthusiastic in his endeavors. I should inform you that although the activity of teaching is conventionally seen as restricted to the four walls of an institution, it, however, transcends such conceptual location; teaching is what we do when we enlighten groups of people, communities of learners, and class of individuals to impact them or provoke them to change socially.

It gets more enjoyable when you know that Badejo has made an invaluable impression on us all with his solid academic publications, from which many of us today learn. In 2024, Badejo published an exemplary work titled Nigeria Corruption Perception Data. Apart from the fact that this work produces an objective overview of how the country is perceived by its citizens and the world generally, it is also an indictment of the political class about how they manage the systems and institutions in the country, thereby affecting Nigeria’s political and economic destiny in some ways. One who knows Badejo knows that such academic engagements increase his adrenaline because it will use his intellectual expertise in that domain and allow him to present his thoughts or ideas to the people. He has consistently revealed to the world the undergarments of Nigeria’s political systems, especially how it has become vulnerable in the hands of the few who control it. In what manner and character does one explain the problems of unbridled leadership compared to how neocolonial Nigerian leaders have particularly (mis)managed the country’s available resources, demonstrating their myopic imagination about the future? Issues like this are always given the necessary attention, and it explains how Badejo addresses fundamental issues, not the periphery.

Perhaps because of his intellectual depth, he has consistently produced respectable works on African democracy, using the Nigerian situation as his experiment laboratory. On many occasions, he has suggested to the political elites that they should make conscious efforts towards transforming Nigeria’s democracy and save it from whatever problems it may face. He takes this position, knowing that it is the freedom highlighted by democracy that is fundamental to the creation of a functional society, which would produce the necessary atmosphere in which people can grow. He understands that although democracy may have internal failings and even complications that could be a threat, especially when mismanaged, it remains the only avenue through which divergent thinking can be amplified so that the best ideas and approaches can be born. Such an individual cannot but be celebrated and even appreciated for their invaluable contributions to the human world. They have paid their dues and thus would always be accorded royal treatment, for their voices remind us of what we should be as a collective and not what our impulses want us to be.

On May 15, 2025, I will offer an in-person tribute and a lecture in his honor.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Natasha As Worthy Rebel

Published

on

Readers’ Showers Of Encouragement
Prof. Tony Afejuku

By Tony Afejuku

Elegant Natasha. Handsome Natasha. Beautiful Natasha. Nice Natasha. Sharp Natasha. Clever Natasha. Natasha the envy of men and women. Natasha of several qualities – above all, Natasha the rebel; Natasha a worthy rebel. Natasha a good patriot that is a worthy patriot. Everything the columnist has just stated or has just outlined or has just highlighted constitutes his interpretation of Senator (Barrister, Mrs.) Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s performance when she appeared before Arise News Good Morning Show on Friday, 28 February, 2025 to throw light on the drama that happened in the Senate a day or so before.

What was the drama on that day really about? What happened in the Senate between her and the Senate President was it really all about her seat re-allocation or re-assignment? Or, was it essentially about something else to entrap her – as she was allegedly told on the floor of the Senate on the afore-mentioned day of drama? The columnist saw everything as shown live on his television set that was privately power-generated (in this power-less or electricity-less clime) from the beginning to the end. The columnist wondered why, just why Natasha reacted the way she did, and why specifically she dared the Senate President the way she did. What was inevitably amiss? Why was/is Natasha claiming everybody’s attention the way she did (and she is still dong)? Why were her fellow senators, more than several of the male senators, I mean, flowing to her in her river of rebellion against the standards of the Senate that must be kept up? Was it because even if she was right in her classical democratic rebellion of a loner, it was necessary that the prestige of the great senators and that of their equally great but almighty President who is not more than first among equals should not be allowed to dwindle? And why was the Senate President so stupefied when Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan brandished Order 10 several times as she rebelliously but decorously stood her ground, grounds or no grounds? Did the Senate President at any time try to have a bite or a taste of Natasha’s inviting stupefacient something that had caused him the stupefaction I was allowed personally to notice by the inner master on that day that the rebellious one knocked him to stupor – or to a state of near-stupor before his like-minded senators came to his rescue? All these questions are significant ones (or must be significant ones) for all those who desire to find a factual and truthful solution to what is growing to be a pattern of values between the Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator (Mrs.) Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the very wife of Mr. Godswill Akpabio’s good friend (or now erstwhile good friend?).

On Saturday, 29 February, 2025, that is, almost a week ago, I read entirely on pages 10-12 of Saturday Vanguard details of the Natasha Uduaghan-Godswill Akpabio problem and other proclamations, claims and counter-claims, including Natasha’s full interview she granted Arise News Good Morning Show which I had already alluded to. Natasha answered more than very satisfactorily all the questions put to her concerning the following: “allegations by a northern group”; “harassment of clerk and requests for CVs of staff”; “how the sitting arrangement issue started”; “denial of rights”; and “the night-cub incident.” My assertion(s) to each of her every answer is clearly clear and transparently transparent, and brings me to this conclusion: A highly brilliant and sharp female senator; a highly valuable, worthy, no nonsense female senator that Senator (Drs. Mrs.) Remi Tinubu, our President’s dear, dear wife, who is equally bright and brilliant, needs in her core team of patriots to help make our country reach its rightful destination. But I have no persuasive influence whatever upon her to make her see Natasha as I see her – or as I am seeing her. Yet I should tell her as the inner master tells me to say to her what I am now saying to her. Natasha certainly has her foibles – like all human-beings, including our one and only Godswill Akpabio. Her foibles, however, pale into nothing or insignificance in comparison with her positively rebellious bent and manner.
Since the matter between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senator Godswill Akpabio entered our television screens and newspapers and everywhere outside the main-stream media the Senate President has not deemed it right to claim our attention with at least one important line of defence from his own persuasive mouth. Why? Others, some of whom claim to be activists (activists my foot!) have been speaking for him. Why? If he does not want to say anything he should instruct his hangers-on, including his lawyer(s), his acolytes and cohorts and sycophants, and Natasha’s back-stabbers in the Senate, to keep mum until the brouhaha stills itself, evaporates and vanishes. But will it? I don’t think so until he transparently opens his line of persuasive rebuttal himself.

By the way, why did his wife, his damsel (who, like Natasha, is an impeccable communicator), come into the fray? What for? I saw her on television trying to persuade people like us in vain. After all said and done I exclaimed to myself “What for?” in the trope of a question. She said several things which I, as a literary detective and gleaner, punctured. I will only mention one or two here. (After all, I am not Natasha’s lawyer as I am not Unoma’s lawyer). She said, among other things, that no woman or women ever complained against her disciplined darling husband as a governor or minister – if I heard her well. I chuckled. No woman or women who succumbed to the sheets-whims-and-caprices of her darling governor- or minister- husband would complain openly or in loud silence to Unoma or to anyone for that matter close to Unoma. I put this to Unoma as a literary gleaner who is ever objective come rain or sunshine. Secondly, her open swipe at Natasha’s husband has drawn the very decent man who cannot hurt a fly out of his refined shell. I am sure that she and her disciplined husband have since seen and read the mature and refined letter of the highly cultured Alema of the very beautifully great Kingdom of Warri, the envy of many kingdom-less kingdoms, on what has been that shouldn’t have been.

There are other things I want to say but which I am nicely holding back as a top Niger Delta personage. What I can do best is to immerse myself in my own quiet way on how to bring this matter to a good and transparent end. The Senate President and the Alema of Warri must meet to resolve the knot in the favour of their friendship and that of the people of the whole of the Niger Delta and beyond. The situation needs to be remedied. I know how, but I won’t open my mouth wide here. For the time being, however, Natasha, our worthy rebel, needs to be appeased with appeasable appeasement by appeasers agreeable to the parties and all the parties in our Niger Delta and the Confluence State and beyond. I hope I am not building castles in Spain. Phew!

Afejuku can be reached via 08055213059.

Continue Reading

Opinion

IBB In The Annals Of Civil Service Reforms In Nigeria

Published

on

Prof. Tunji Olaopa

By Tunji Olaopa

The autobiography is a most delicate, complex and indeed disruptive art form. It is the autobiographer’s authorial insistence to be heard in terms of his or her narrative addition to a historical discourse. In fact, it is the autobiographer’s narration of the historical event from his or her own perspective. And more often than not, when the autobiographer is a fundamental participant in the event, the complexities of that event and the circumstances surrounding it are multiplied. Only very few autobiographies enjoy global approval. And that is because the art form is seen as an ego trip. That sentiment is summed up by the English biographer, Humphrey Carpenter: “Autobiography is probably the most respectable form of lying.” This is even made worse if the protagonists are critical individuals whose lives have affected national trajectories. General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) is one such critical protagonist, and his autobiography has arrived.

A Journey in Service has since started generating lots of furors in all strata of the Nigerian public space, online and offline. Lots of opinions have tied IBB to several significant historical moments in Nigeria, especially the annulment of the June 12 elections, and the demise of MKO Abiola. What many have conveniently glossed over, and a case I have consistently made, is that personal narrative in the forms of autobiography and memoirs serve a unique function in terms of their historical import. If A Journey in Service had not been written, we will all be gasping within the yawning silence of the political and administrative gaps that ought to have been filled with whatever the autobiographer has to say. But now it has been written, and we can then commence the journey of unraveling how the narrative fits or fails to fit in with the existing accounts of Nigeria’s political development.
This personal narrative has a critical import for me as a historian of Nigeria’s administrative and reform trajectories. The Babangida administration played a very fundamental role in articulating a significant portion of Nigeria’s administrative reform architecture. And so, that portion of the trajectory, and the entire institutional reform agenda of the Nigerian state, will not be complete without adding the voice and perspective of the key protagonist to the understanding of how the reform policy emerged. No matter what anyone thinks, the imperative of national history demands that such an account be added to the stock of what we already know, and to flesh out a better understanding of what we already know. The idea therefore is to see how the protagonist, no matter the groundswell of national opinion for or against him, fits into a larger picture of the political and administrative frameworks that enable us to see where the nation is coming from and where it is headed.

This is a task every institutional reformer must long for without getting sidetracked by sentimental opinion that accords blame and slings mud. This is part of what makes IBB and A Journey in Service such a delight for me. Unfortunately, the head of the historic administration does not consider that irreducible reform agenda that distinguishes his administration so significantly as to celebrate its conception, elements and operation, as well as its limitations, in a significant autobiography. That responsibility has been passed to posterity. This piece rescues that fundamental omission.

The pre-Babangida administrative reform narrative must always revert back to the 1974 Udoji Commission. That Commission is singular because it was the first to attempt an alignment between Nigeria’s reform efforts and the emerging managerial revolution in public administration across the globe. The Udoji Commission took its immediate inspiration from the Lord Fulton Committee of 1968 in Britain. The task of the Fulton Report was to inquire into the capability readiness of the British civil service to confront the modern British society and its technological complexity. Fulton’s most significant recommendation was the displacement of the cult of generalist amateur civil servants in an approaching administrative dispensation that requires a critical mass of new managers who possess the professionalism and specialist expertise to harness the talents needed to make the civil service economic, effective and efficient.
By the time the Udoji Commission was inaugurated, Nigeria had also reached the critical juncture where it became imperative to ask whether the Weberian assumptions underlying the British administrative legacy were capable of tackling the urgent governance requirement of a postcolonial society. The wage impasse which the system had been confronting before independence, for the Commission, was a symptom of a deeper administrative malady represented by a bureaucratic culture that had arrested innovation and entrepreneurial creativity in the analysis and implementation of policies. Managerialism therefore provides the most timely and perfect means of making the civil service system align with the goals of national development.

The Udoji Commission went on to leverage the global good practice of the time that calls for a new style of public service that deploys new management techniques of Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS), Management by Objectives (MBO), the precursor of what is today called the performance management system, project management system, among others, that were totally alien to the Nigerian public service, at the time. The new management architecture that the envisioned management system would have institutionalized would obviously have been inadequate but would have laid a critical substructure that would have set Nigeria on the new productivity paradigm that assisted Malaysia, Singapore, the Asian Tigers and many other developing countries that are within Nigerian global ranking at the time.

The most devastating blows that the civil service suffered were those created not by it but the governance tradition that militarism and “New Federalism” of the post-civil war years created where the rigorous analytical frame that governed development investment got replaced with the unreflective “with immediate effect” command and control governance tradition which created huge process, policy, capacity, performance and resource gaps. The Udoji Commission and its limitations, as well as the succeeding Phillips and Ayida Commissions, could be understood only within this military tradition of which IBB was a significant part. When he assumed office in 1985, one of the most immediate decisions was, according to his admission, the need to “strengthen the practice of the presidential system with clear economic, political, and social reforms to strengthen the nation as a constitutional democracy based on the presidential system.” Assuming the title of a “President” was therefore more than a mere nominal gesture to narcissism. Rather, he said, it was “a summation of our consensus on the need to preserve and strengthen the presidential system and make it work better for the nation.”

But a nominal title was not enough. A commitment to the presidential system, IBB insisted, defined the necessity of “structuring a reform programme around institutions to make it work.” And given the tension that already was prevalent in the heated polity, IBB surmised, the reforms that must make any significance must be as comprehensive as the administration could make it. And the first act of symbolic gesture was negative: the urgency of the need “to review the various draconian decrees, convictions, and pending cases that bordered on human rights violations.” The Exchange Control (anti-sabotage) Decree 7 and Decree 4 (Public Officers Protection Against False Accusation) had to be significantly reviewed. This was followed by the real positive task of reforming the economy and governance in ways that go beyond “knee-jerk populist reflexes.”

The task, in governance and economic terms, was therefore to “Remove the government from the role of an enormous money changer to that of an enabler of the appropriate economic environment. We also needed to let the economy, in general, breathe more freely.” It was to liberalize the economy and make government an able enabler rather than occupying the ‘commanding heights of the economy.”

Unfortunately for us all, IBB fails to dwell on what could have been a defining dimension of A Journey in Service, the civil service reform framework of the Babangida administration. This is shocking but revealing in itself. One possible reason is that the author subsumed the civil service reform under the broader political reforms: “Our political programme targeted the critical areas of political and socio-cultural restructuring highlighted by the Political Bureau report: the party system, the electoral process, including election administration, the federal structure, the civil service, and the problem of succession, including political leadership.”

And yet, this fails to do justice to the significance of the Babangida administration and its inheritance of the Dotun Philips Commission from the Buhari-Idiagbon administration. The Phillips Study Team is significant because it had the task of re-organizing the operations of the civil service in terms of professionalism that will eventually align it with the managerial revolution recommended by Udoji. And that reform effort alone cements his administration’s significance in the annals of administrative history in Nigeria, and a fundamental contribution to the cumulation of reform knowledge in Nigeria. IBB already gave the significant intellectual basis of the restructuring that was an imperative: to achieve “national rebirth and future greatness,” there is a need for political and economic restructuring that frees up the national space for transformation. And one way to do this, according to him, was cultivate intellectuals: “We needed the input of intellectuals to enlighten the business of government.” There was also the crucial need for the public service as the engine of government business. It beats me how IBB did not see that.

The Dotun Philips Study Group was constituted by the Buhari-Idiagbon administration in 1985, with the objective of undertaking an interrogation of the structure, mode of operation and strategy of the civil service in the light of contemporary administrative situation, as well as finding means by which the eroded professionalism of the system could be restored. After the 1985 coup, Babangida inherited the study group and transformed it into a full-blown commission whose task was to keep up with the objective of aligning the spirit of managerialism and a professionalized civil service with the form and spirit of presidentialism. This was to be incorporated into the total package of the Civil Service Reforms through a Civil Service Reorganisation Decree No. 43 of 1988. Given the administration’s concern with the rigid Soviet-styled centralization of the economy and the need to open the economy up to market forces, it was only logical that the administration would adopt the critical managerial principle of letting managers manage by having greater control on critical resources. This possesses the capacity to inspire a wholesale decentralization of the HRM function to MDA. The policy choice here is between centralized resource governance for example where the civil service commission wields constitutional powers for recruitment, promotion and discipline exercised at top management levels by the Commission while delegating the powers to MDAs at middle to lower levels.

The Philips reform was compromised essentially because (a) it took the issues involved in professionalism too far (for instance, by attempting to make a professional out of everybody within the civil service); and (b) its own unique managerial thrust was directed towards integrating the civil service into the presidential system of government, with one unintended consequence being that professionalization turned into politicization through an attempt, for instance, that turned an administrative post (permanent secretary) into a political one (director-general). And yet, this is not a failure because it was a logical reform complement to the short-circuited Udoji Commission recommendation of a public service founded on performance management, and its underlying managerial philosophy was significant in getting the Babangida administration its governance template for transforming national development.

I insist that an administration is only as good as its reform agenda, both in design and implementation. The Babangida administration gave Nigeria’s reform trajectory one of the key moments in the protracted attempt to translate the gains and efficiencies of a managerial opportunity to a bureaucratic system.

. Olaopa is a Professor of Public Administration and Chairman,
Federal Civil Service Commission .

Continue Reading

Top Stories