All The NewsBusinessEducationFinanceNews

CBN, Oyo Govt. Commission Intervention Projects with Funfair

3 Mins read

 

From Bola Ogunlayi, Ibadan

Oyo State Chief helmsman, Senator Abiola Ajimobi has said that the success of the newly established Technical University, Ibadan was anchored upon stakeholders’ contributions and subscriptions by lovers of education as well as Public-Private Partnership.

The Governor said this at the official commissioning and handover of the Central Bank of Nigerian intervention projects at the State-owned TechU which consisted of a Central e-Library space for 500 students, 10 offices, 12 units of toilet facilities as well as a block of 24 lecture rooms which has 11 Administrative offices, furniture, borehole,  a 500KVA Generating set, street lights, CCTV cameras, air conditioners and additional toilets facilities for male and female students.

According to him, his administration’s desire for a world-class Technical University was in the tradition of innovation and excellence pioneered by forebears of the State.

“The university is founded on the principle of unique innovation, research collaboration, exceptional service and excellence”, Senator Ajimobi disclosed.

“We are indeed very happy that the apex bank has gone beyond its statutory fiscal and financial responsibilities to support this critical investment and the future of our state and country. We are not unmindful of the challenges of financing tertiary institutions by government in Nigeria today due to the current economic reality.

“We have taken numerous financial initiatives to fund tertiary education in the State, it has been challenging ensuring the self-sustainability of the institutions and in order to avert this unpleasant experience, The Technical University, Ibadan is conceived as a public-private initiative where self-sufficiency through partnership, subscriptions and stakeholder contributions, locally and internationally shall be entrenched.

“TechU is therefore an initiative of the Oyo State government of Nigeria to continue in the tradition of innovation and excellence pioneered by our pathfinders.  It is founded on the principle of unique innovation, research collaboration, exceptional service, integrity, excellence and uplifting of the human condition, knowledge, skill, classroom/industry and theory/practical.

“We are therefore committed to the efficient and responsible use of science, technology, engineering, innovation in solving societal problems,” he said.

He assured that the University would have the best hands in its management team as well as academic handlers.

The Governor pointed out that the mission of the present administration in the State is to cultivate a cadre of technical professionals, with requisite entrepreneurial skills, capable of creating businesses that would provide employment for the youths.

He assured that TechU would produce exceptional graduates who are not only socially conscious but technically competent enough to turn around the fortunes of the State, noting that the institution is committed to offering degree programs of international standard through collaboration with relevant global institutions.

The Governor of Central Bank, Godwin Emefiele, who was represented by a Deputy, Mr. Adebayo Adelabu at the event commended the State government for its vision in transforming education in the State.

He said it was against the backdrop of the need to bridge the manpower and infrastructural deficits that had accumulated overtime that the Central Bank of Nigeria started its education intervention programs throughout the country.

Adelabu said the monetary institution recognized Oyo State as the socio – political and intellectual headquarters of the Southwest region as well as its past roles in economic integration of the Southwest of Nigeria.

“Having recognized Ibadan and Oyo State in general as a sociopolitical and educational headquarters of the Southwest region, given its past role in the Southwest regional development and potential role it can still play in the general economic integration of the region.

“There is no gainsaying the fact education is the bedrock for development and lifting people out of poverty, Nigeria is experiencing an acute shortage of high quality and world class educational institutions, our primary mandate at the Central Bank of Nigeria apart from fiscal policy is to intervene regularly in the critical sectors of the economy of which education is one, to bridge manpower and infrastructural deficits accumulated overtime,” Adelabu stated.

The State Commissioner for Education, Science and Technology, Prof. Adeniyi Olowofela, in his welcome address, said that the unique idea behind the Technical University was to produce graduates who could turn theory to practice in order to create jobs.

Olowofela said Tech-U was formally recognized by the National Universities Commission (NUC) on 7th December 2012 as the 30th State-owned University in Nigeria with the information that the University would provide succour for parents who sent their wards abroad for higher education.

 

Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi, the Olubadan-in-council who represented the Olubadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji (Aje Oguguluso 1), Onpetu of Ijeru, Oba Sunday Oladapo, Aseyin of Iseyin, Oba (Dr) Abdulganiy Adekunle Oloogunebi (Ajinese 1), Eleruwa of Eruwa, Oba Samuel Adegbola all praised the ingenuity of the State administration towards revamping education and positioning the Technical University.

 

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

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

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….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com