Perspective

Jonathan as Elder Statesman

By
2 Mins read
0
Share

By Samuel Oyejola

In 2010 while Nigeria was preparing up for the 2011 general elections in the wake of the issue of Acting President Jonathan taking over as substantive president of the country, not far away in the sub region, tension was mounting in  French speaking Ivory Coast as a result of the election that saw the opposition candidate, Alassane Ouattara wining ahead of the incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo who despite international pressure refused to hand over power.

The outbreak of civil war in that  country and  Gbagbo’s  shameful  arrest  and handing  over to the International Criminal Court for prosecution along with his wife is nopw history.

Also 10 years ago, a think tank in America  had predicted that the entity called Nigeria today would break up come 2015. The prediction as expected was not received well in Nigeria but all actions and development pointed towards its realization. With the aggression and desperate moves of the campaign organization of the PDP and the character assassination and hate speeches towards the candidate of the APC, Muhammadu Buhari,  the shadow of the prediction loomed over Nigeria.

As the elections approached  pockets of violence were  visible in various parts of the country. Boko Haram was ravaging in the north east, with serious unrest brewing in the south-south as the vociferous Asari Dokubo spit  venom if President Jonathan loses. Also, happenings in the south-south state of Rivers also pointed towards a violent election.

However, President Goodluck Jonathan made history when prior to the announcement of the results from three states and the final result by the INEC chairman,  Prof. Attahiru Jega,  he made  a call to his opponent, congratulating him as the winner of the election.

In the global perspective this would have been said to be the norm and standard but in a continent where sit tight syndrome is common and the likes of Laurent Gbagbo are all over the continent, Jonathan laid a good example for heads of government in Africa. He toed  the line of General Olusegun Obasanjo in 1979 who handed over to democratically elected President and General Abdulsalam Abubakar who also did the same in 1999 when they both had   excuses to stay put in power.

The uncommon gesture of Jonathan had gotten him global accolades and added another feather to the democratic process in the country, serving as  a  good precedent for other countries on the continent to emulate. In a release by the White House, President Barack Obama said that Jonathan hax  placed his country’s interests first by conceding the election and congratulating President-elect Buhari on his victory.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon,  who also commended Jonathan, said his leadership qualities throughout the electoral process and his statesmanship in upholding the democratic process depicts that Nigeria is developing democratically.

Also, the Chairman of ECOWAS Heads of State and Governments and the President of Ghana, President John Mahama,  described the action of   Jonathan as that of a statesman.
This simple act of conceding to the winner of the election by Jonathan would make him a toast within the comity of nations. He would be regarded as statesman who could be asked to take charge of foreign missions.

As the  giant of Africa and  one time leader of the country,  Jonathan would be in the best position to encourage and negotiate peaceful handover of power to winners of elections in other countries of Africa where the incumbent is reluctant to hand over.

   

0
Share

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

By
6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

By
4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Cover StoryHealthOpinionPerspective

Nigeria’s AMR Blind Spot: We Cannot Defeat Resistance Without Knowing Its True Scale

By
2 Mins read
  By Pharm. Mercy Aransiola Here is an uncomfortable truth about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Nigeria: we do not fully know how…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com