Some members of the House of Representatives recently came up with a proposal for a single term of six years for the President and state governors, constitutional recognition of the six geopolitical zones and rotation of the presidency among the six geopolitical zones of the country. The legislators under the auspices of Reformed-minded legislators also canvassed for amendments to the relevant sections of the Electoral Act to ensure that all elections (Presidential, Governorship, National Assembly, State Houses of Assembly, and Local Governments) are held on the same day, among other proposals. These proposals, in their opinion, will unite the country, ensure a seamless transition and unprecedented development for the country, promote efficiency in governance, and national stability and lead to a reduction in the cost of governance.
Some months earlier, some members of the same lower chamber of the National Assembly had sponsored three bills seeking to alter the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to transition from the current presidential system to a parliamentary system at all levels – federal, state and local government, claiming that the presidential system is expensive to run. These are indications that the current system of government in the country is not yielding good results and needs to be looked into with a view to coming up with a system of government that will address the peculiar needs and challenges of Nigeria. As the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, puts it, Nigeria should identify its democratic shortcomings and formulate its model of “Nigerian federalism” rather than attempting to imitate other nations’ federal structures.
In his keynote address at the Songs of Nigeria Festival awards ceremony (SONIFES) in Abuja recently, the diplomat said, “I have argued in several places that there is nothing called True Federalism. If you look at the federalism that is practiced in Australia compared with the federalism practised in Brazil, with that of Canada and compare it with quasi federalism practise in Britain and United States, you will find out some issues which are common to these federal structures, there are massive differences in the federalism that is being practised in this country. So, when we talk about true federalism, which one is Nigeria supposed to pursue? “Therefore, we must make it clear in our mind what kind of federalism we need to practise. We must seriously tackle the issue and then we can have Nigerian federalism. To have Nigerian federalism is not something that we should be afraid or apologetic about. It is sheer laziness for us to be talking about copying what is done in America when it may not suit us.”
Indeed, it is high time Nigeria looked inward, identified its unique features and challenges and came up with a system of government suitable for the country.  Nigeria is a nation blessed with abundant resources, diverse cultures, and a dynamic population but has struggled with issues of governance, development, and national unity. As the nation continues to grapple with these challenges, the idea of regional government has emerged as a potential solution that could foster sustainable development, enhance governance, and strengthen national unity. Historically, Nigeria operated under a regional system of government during the First Republic (1963-1966), which allowed for significant autonomy and development within the regions. This period saw considerable progress in education, infrastructure, and economic development in various parts of the country, likewise agricultural revolution and industrialisation.
Incidentally, the country shifted to a centralised federal system which has ever since been marked by inefficiencies, corruption, and an over-concentration of power at the centre, leading to regional imbalances and persistent tensions. Not a few Nigerians have opined that the current centralised federal system has not adequately addressed the diverse needs and aspirations of the 36 states in the country and the Federal Capital Territory. The over-reliance on oil revenue, which is centrally controlled, has stifled economic diversification and innovation in many regions. Moreover, the concentration of power in Abuja has often led to a disconnect between the government and the people, contributing to feelings of marginalisation and alienation among various ethnic and regional groups.
Many people have lamented that the centralised federal system is responsible for the under development of many states across the country. On the other hand, Nigeria’s model of federalism where the existing six geopolitical zones will become regions as the law makers proposed, will make the regions viable and engender rapid development and stem the practice of state governors converging on Abuja every month to collect monthly allocations. This system of government will bring governance closer to the people, allowing for more responsive and accountable administration. Regional leaders, being closer to their constituents, would have a better understanding of local needs and priorities. This proximity could foster greater citizen engagement and participation in governance, leading to more effective and transparent decision-making.
Regional governments would have greater autonomy to harness and develop their unique resources and economic potentials. This autonomy could spur regional competition, innovation, and economic diversification, reducing the over-reliance on oil and creating a more balanced and resilient national economy. For instance, the agricultural potential of the Middle Belt, the technological and industrial capabilities of the South-East, and the vast mineral resources of the North can be fully explored and developed. Nigeria’s rich cultural diversity is one of its greatest assets. A regional government system would allow for the preservation and promotion of cultural identities and heritage, fostering a sense of pride and belonging among different ethnic groups. This cultural recognition and respect can enhance social cohesion and national unity, reducing ethnic tensions and conflicts.
This governance structure would be better positioned to address local needs in areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Decentralising these services would lead to more efficient and tailored solutions, improving the quality of life for citizens across the country. For example, regional health policies could be better adapted to address the specific health challenges of each region, while regional educational policies could reflect the unique cultural and linguistic contexts of the area. A regional government structure would deepen democracy by creating more layers of government where democratic principles can be practised and strengthened. It would provide more opportunities for political participation and leadership at the regional level, fostering a more vibrant and inclusive political culture.
Critics of regional government often raise concerns about the potential for increased regionalism and the fragmentation of national unity. However, a well-designed regional government system can include safeguards to ensure national cohesion. For instance, a strong federal government can maintain control over critical areas such as defence, foreign policy, and national economic planning, while allowing region’s significant autonomy in other areas. Additionally, inter-regional collaboration and coordination mechanisms can be established to address common challenges and promote national unity. The formation of Nigeria’s style of federalism with strong and effective regions will surely present a viable path towards addressing the country’s longstanding governance and development challenges.
By enhancing governance, fostering economic diversification, preserving cultural heritage, improving service delivery, and strengthening democracy, regional governments can create a more balanced, prosperous, and united Nigeria. As the nation continues to seek solutions to its complex challenges, it is imperative to consider and embrace the potential of regional government as a catalyst for sustainable development and national unity. However, as many Nigerians have pointed out, no system of government will work in Nigeria if the issues of corruption, greed and selfishness among the elites and political leaders are not dealt with. For any system of government to work in the country, the leaders must begin to prioritise the interest of the citizens and the nation.

Calista Ezeaku

Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, has witnessed a disturbing trend in recent years, as  several prominent multinational corporations announced their departure from Nigeria, citing various reasons such as economic hardship, regulatory challenges, insecurity, and difficulty in accessing foreign exchange.  This phenomenon is not without  far-reaching implications for the nation’s economy, which demands careful consideration.  Some of the companies that have left Nigeria include: LafargeHolcim, a Swiss-based cement company, which closed its operations in Nigeria in 2022 due to the challenging economic environment; ExxonMobil, an American oil company, announced its exit from Nigeria’s upstream sector in 2021, citing regulatory uncertainty and security concerns.
Shoprite, a South African retail company, was said to have closed its own operations in Nigeria in 2020 due to the harsh business environment.  General Electric (GE), an American multinational, allegedly shut down its operations in Nigeria in 2019, over difficulties in accessing foreign exchange and the high cost of doing business in the country.  Pfizer, an American pharmaceutical company, which closed its operations in Nigeria in 2018 based its decision on  the challenging business environment, while  Cadbury Nigeria, a British confectionery company,  shut down its operations in Nigeria in 2017 due to the harsh economic conditions. Nokia, a Finnish telecommunications company, also closed its operations in Nigeria in 2016 due to the challenging business environment. The departure of these companies has significant implications for Nigeria’s economy. Firstly, it leads to job losses and a decline in economic activity.
We need not be told that the closure of these companies results in a significant reduction in government’s  revenue, exacerbating the country’s fiscal challenges. The exit of multinationals in this magnitude undermines Nigeria’s attractiveness to foreign investors, a situation that can lead to a decline in foreign direct investment, which is critical to the country’s economic growth and development.  In the light of this disturbing trend, the writer sees a need for urgent reforms to address the challenges facing businesses in Nigeria. The government must act swiftly to address issues such as access to foreign exchange, regulatory uncertainty, and the high cost of doing business in the country. Nigeria’s economic growth has been sluggish in recent years, and the exit of multinationals will only exacerbate the situation. The country’s GDP growth rate has been less than 3 percent in the past few years, and the exit of multinationals will only make it harder for the country to achieve its economic growth targets.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit by the exit of multinationals. The sector has been struggling due to the challenging business environment, and the exit of companies like LafargeHolcim and Cadbury Nigeria will only make things worse. What about the country’s  trade balance?  As a country which relies heavily on imports, the exit of companies like Shoprite and Nokia will not be funny at all. Of course, the rate of decline in the country’s foreign exchange earnings can only be imagined. Companies like ExxonMobil and GE were significant contributors to Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings, and their exit will only make it harder for the country to earn foreign exchange.
This no doubt is  a blow to Nigeria’s quest for diversification of  its economy  away from oil.  The exit of companies like LafargeHolcim and Cadbury Nigeria will only make it harder for the country to achieve this goal. Howbeit, the multinationals’  exodus from Nigeria is a wake-up call for the government and stakeholders, for an urgent action is required to address the challenges facing businesses in the country and to create an environment that is conducive for  investment and economic growth. The government must act swiftly to address the issues that led to the exit of multinationals. This includes addressing the challenges of accessing foreign exchange, regulatory uncertainty, and the high cost of doing business in the country.
Nigeria cannot afford to continue to rely on oil exports as its main source of revenue. The country must diversify its economy, and the exit of multinationals is a reminder of the urgent need for economic diversification. The exit of multinationals was a reminder that Nigeria’s economic growth is not guaranteed. The country must work hard to create an environment that is conducive for investment and economic growth.  Thus, the multinationals’ exodus from Nigeria should be seen as a call to action for the government and stakeholders. The time to urgently address the challenges facing businesses in the country with a view to creating an enabling environment for investment and economic growth is now.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

The new minimum wage negotiation which began peacefully last February, appears to have turned into a bitter disagreement that is generating debates among Nigerians, and especially between employers in Nigeria and the labour unions who represent groups of employees.The recent development in the entire discourse, concerning a proposal from Southern Governors Forum that the organised labour should allow state governments negotiate separate minimum wages for their respective states, appears not to have gone down well with the unions, which already are perceiving orchestrated delays in the implementation of a nationwide living wage for Nigerian workers. However, the mere proposal by state governors to enter into seperate negotiations with state workers puts to jeopardy the very essence of assuring a nationwide minimum wage, aside from the fact that the proposal runs contrary to the National Minimum Wage Act.
In a nation where all political office holders across the States and the federal government cadres receive remunerations as nationally categorized by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, irrespective of the resource capacities of their respective governments, should there then be a separate measure for the rank and file of the workforce?All over the world, a national minimum wage is set to guard against inhumane exploitation of workers, who whether in government or private employments, face same economic situations. Besides, nations that value social equality and fairness set standards in education, healthcare, wages and other necessities of life, to ensure equal sustainability opportunities for all. The minimum wage should be a nationally assured lowest wage from which any employer may wish to negotiate to pay higher, and it should be aimed at ensuring subsistence for the least worker in a way that is reasonably fair, moral and affordable, to enable him/her meet basic living conditions.
History has shown that such protections have proved to ensure wider social justice, industrial harmony, while boosting workers’ productivity, and therefore sustaining a general economic growth.There’s no doubt that in the present economic situation in Nigeria, where the cost of a basic meal has risen above N1,000, the current N30,000 minimum wage can’t sustain the feeding, clothing, housing, transportation and healthcare needs of a single adult, let alone those with dependants. In the current devaluated currency and inflationary economy, and in the face of the affluence flaunted by politicians, workers may have a justification to feel short-changed in the lopsided distribution of wealth and see themselves left in cold, dark corners to languish in penury. It’s therefore unimagineable that some states still pay N18,000 as minimum wage, and stagnate workers’ promotions, while others have refused to pay wage awards intended to temporarily cushion hardships.
On January 30, 2024, Nigeria’s President, His Excellency, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, through the Vice President, Kashim Shettima, inaugurated a 37-man panel of Tripartite Committee on NationalMinimum Wage, headed by Bukar Aji, to review the current minimum wage of N30,000, and recommend a new minimum wage for the country. Members of the committee comprised representatves from Nigeria’s diverse employer groups, the six geo-political zones each represented by a state governor, as well as representatives of employee groups.Apart from the need to address the pressing economic challenges faced by salary earners in the country following the harsh impact of petroleum subsidy removal, Mr President’s action was also in line with the Minimum Wage Act of 2019 which rests upon a House of Representatives Resolution of May, 2017 that the National Minimum Wage Act be compulsorily reviewed every 5 years. The current N30,000 minimum wage had been agreed upon in 2019 based on which the National Minimum Wage Act was enacted, and expired in March 31, 2024.
The report of the committee’s review and recommendations were envisaged to be  ready before Workers’ Day when workers usually expect announcements of new labour policy directions. In the face of biting economic hardships, and as Mr President had promised that a new minimum wage regime would take effect from May 1, 2024, it was by no little expectations that workers awaited the outcome of the tripartite committee’s deliberations, and government pronouncement for May 1, 2024. The committee in its negotiations and consultations, conducted public hearings on minimum wage expectations across the six geo-political zones of Nigeria, where zonal stakeholders in high hopes reached some rather fabulous wage demands – the South-South zone had proposed N850,000 as an ideal minimum wage; South-West zone, N794,000; the North-Central zone, N709,000; the North-East zone, N560,000; the South-East zone, N540,000; while the North-West zone asked for N485,000, from which the organized labour finally settled on an initial demand of N615,000.
In presenting its demands, the united congress of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) claimed, “The figure was a product of a painstaking effort through which we captured the cost of living of Nigerian workers and masses in all parts of the country. It was essentially an outcome of an independent research conducted by the NLC and TUC on the cost of meeting the primary needs of an average family around the country. Our research was based on a family with both parents alive and four children without the burden of having other dependents with them”.However, which ever how labour tries to justify its initial demand, N650,000 is nothing but outrageous given Nigeria’s financial challenges, and considering that the minimum wage is envisaged for the lowest-level worker who most likely is without dependents.
By its unaffordable demand, labour may have shot itself on the foot by making itself be perceived  as unrealistic, which may have tempted the employers’ side to engage it in a hide and seek game, with the opening offer of N48,000. As labour downed to N497,000, the employer groups racheted the offer knob to N48,000, N54,000 and N60,000. In the final tally following a brief strike, labour pins to N250,000 demand, while the offer micro-ed to N62,000. In the stalemate and air of suspense, the Tripartite committee sent its report to the presidency following which all eyes are now on Mr President’s action and the likely reaction from labour. The new push from some governors to decentralize negotiatons won’t help diffuse the obvious tension hanging over Nigeria’s industrial relations, but may inflame it.The onus therefore lies on Mr President to come to the rescue, by bringng all contending stakeholders to a cordial agreement. A more pragmatic government should stir away from the unrealism of both the labour unions and employer groups, and rather see the survival of both sides as vital to the resuscitation of a struggling economy. But given that some employers who enjoy the affluence of office in a harsh economy, yet feel no empathy for stranded workers to the point of refusing to implement even the old N30,000 minimum wage, Mr President has got a lot of policy frameworks to tidy up.

By: Joseph Nwankwo