By
UGO ONUOHA
LAST week, here, we said that we probably have been down the path that the regime of Nigeria’s president, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has been taking us to in the last 27 months through his economic reform agenda. We wrote that the current economic reform bore a striking resemblance to military president, Gen. Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s [IBB’s] structural adjustment programme [SAP] of the mid-1980s. Subsequently we dubbed Tinubu’s programme SAP 2.0. The major planks of the Babangida economic recovery agenda which he introduced in 1986 were economic diversification to reduce Nigeria’s over dependence on crude oil revenues; the development of the non-oil sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, and services; to restore fiscal discipline by implementing austerity measures, curbing government expenditures, and controlling inflation; devaluation of the Naira to make exports more competitive, encourage foreign investments, and reduce trade imbalances; liberalise the market by reducing government intervention and control in designated sectors to promote a more market-driven economic system; to privatize state-owned enterprises so that the private sector would be encouraged to drive economic development which was expected to promote efficiency and productivity; to stimulate economic growth by improving resource allocation and utilisation; improve the standard of living of Nigerians through poverty reduction; to improve government revenue by expanding and widening the tax base; and, to enhance resource allocation and utilisation for sustainable economic development. Does the above economic policy direction sound familiar to the adults in the house? Is this déjà vu? A quick reminder: it will be 40 years, next year, since Babangida introduced and implemented his own economic reform agenda. What were the benefits? How did it end? How much pain did it inflict on Nigerians? If it worked, why are we still where we are today? The answers to the questions are obvious. And we will explore some of them in the wake of the current gamble.
As we said earlier, Tinubu’s economic reform agenda is SAP 2.0. SAP 1.0 failed, and the reasons why Babangida failed may yet afflict Tinubu’s SAP, though he cleverly dodged calling it by its proper name for fear of a backlash and a pushback by Nigerians. So why did Babangida, a military ruler who sat atop his command and control military/government structure for about nine years, fail with his own SAP after putting Nigerians through so much pain 39 years ago? Could it be because his SAP had no buy-in from citizens? Yes, that’s partly the reason. It also suffered from poor implementation. There was no doubt that it was externally imposed shortly after a charade called a national debate on whether to adopt the programme or not was conducted. It was neither well planned nor intentionally and faithfully executed. Unintended consequences which should have been foreseen and provisions made to alleviate them took a huge toll on the programme. It should be concerning that the ongoing economic programme is grappling with the same problems of unintended consequences, lack of buy-in, and poor implementation. SAP objectives also failed to materialize because of the country’s poor and weak infrastructure. In 1986 Nigeria’s infrastructure was not developed enough to support the goals of the programme. Is there evidence today that the country’s public facilities are strong and robust enough to support the ongoing drastic and indeed reckless surgical procedures on the fragile and largely informal economy of the country? Can what is happening be likened to using a chainsaw for brain surgery? Corruption hobbled Babangida’s SAP, and hindered its effectiveness. Has this monster been tamed? Is it capable of dealing a death blow on Nigeria?
With succeeding administrations corruption became more pervasive. It has been suggested in some quarters that the extant regime is a haven for corrupt politicians and public servants and their collaborators. It’s a well known fact that some of the leaders of this government were suspects in multi-billion Naira fraud cases before their files were conveniently forgotten and allowed to gather dust on the shelves of the so-called anti-graft agencies, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission [EFCC] and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission [ICPC], the moment they assumed political offices through nepotistic appointments or rigged elections. Ahead of the 2019 election, a former national chairman of the ruling APC who is currently a senator of the federal republic had reportedly said in public that the sins, including looting of the treasury by office holders and opposition politicians, would be forgotten and forgiven once they joined the ruling party. Seven years after, that offer still remains on the table, and suspected and confirmed corrupt politicians have been enjoying the ‘amnesty’ to the detriment of Nigerians. It is now so bad that state governors, state and national assembly lawmakers are hawking and trading mandates given to them on the platforms of opposition parties to seek favours and protection from the APC. It sounds like what obtains in the mafia world. And this could be one of the reasons why a court in Canada was recently reported to have likened Nigeria’s dominant political parties – APC and PDP – to terrorist organisations. These parties thrive in holding Nigerians as hostages, intimidating citizens, extracting oaths of allegiance and fealty to their leaderships, violence and bloodletting. PDP used to have a cult leader or Capone while it was in power at the centre. APC still does probably because it now controls the federal government.
Meanwhile, like Babangida’s SAP, Tinubu’s SAP 2.0 is primarily focused on economic austerity measures without publicly saying so. At Inception of the economic programme no heed was paid to cushioning the harsh and inevitable painful fallouts from the agenda. Not much has been done in this regard since 2023, bar the student loan scheme. Other palliatives such as the conditional cash transfers to the poorest of the poor households and individuals, and access to funding for small scale enterprises have suffered from credibility problems. In fact, their implementations have been dogged by allegations of political partisanship and the challenge of verification. Even the register of beneficiaries of the cash transfers exists only in the closets of the implementers. Anybody who wants to assess the store that this regime sets on helping the less privileged and vulnerable, that person should look at the state of the ministry of humanitarian affairs. The ministry’s minister under the immediate past failed regime of Muhammadu Buhari is in court on allegations of financial fraud while she was in office. Her successor, another woman this time under Tinubu, was the first to be suspended from office by the regime also on allegations of financial malfeasance. Her suspension has lingered for almost two years. She has not been sacked, and her suspension has not been lifted. About one year ago she was summoned by the EFCC for interrogation over allegations of fraud in the ministry. There’s no evidence that she was ever charged to court. The minister’s slot remained vacant for a long time before a successor, this time a man, was appointed. But the man has also been removed, and promoted as the new national chairman of the APC. Other government agencies that could positively impact the property-less group are in no better stead. So the materially challenged are choking and suffocating under the weight of SAP 2.0. Cries are getting louder from many segments of the society for the regime to step back and to concentrate more on provision of safety nets for the people. Will it listen and reflect and course correct? Not likely because this regime is right in its own eyes.
Next, the over-reliance on external factors proved to be an Achilles heels of SAP 1.0. The expectation under Babangida was that his economic reform agenda would succeed on the strength of massive influx of foreign investments, and aid from donor agencies and countries. The expectation did not materialise. So the agenda crashed. The situation is worse now with palpable donor-fatique in the international community. One of the biggest donor agencies was the United States Agency for International Development [USAID]. For all intents and purposes, that body has been scrapped by the new administration in America led by non conventional President Donald Trump. The adverse impact of this development has been projected to be telling on less developed countries like Nigeria. Food aid, support for healthcare and others will suffer massive hits. The vanishing support from donors will put further pressure on the already limited financial resources of Nigeria and other countries which are in a similar category. The prospects of the financial wellbeing of many less developed countries do not look good. Indeed, they are scary. The fact that Tinubu virtually lives abroad allegedly in pursuit of foreign investors, loans and aid, and visits Nigeria occasionally has not borne any significant results. And it may not in terms of investment and aid. For loans, we are likely to be getting them with repayment that we will kick down the road for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.
In the concluding part of this month-long intervention we will analyse how Nigeria’s burgeoning debt, deepening cost of living crisis, currency devaluation, increasing despondency and hopelessness among Nigerians, diminishing faith in democracy, general distrust of politicians, among others, will most likely constitute strong, even fierce, headwinds to the realisation of the ongoing economic agenda of Tinubu.
