AnalysisOpinion

Buhari, Atiku DNR Candidates: Too Old To Be Part Of Nigeria’s Future

3 Mins read

By Bayo Oluwasanmi

 

The profile of Nigerian politicians from the president to lawmakers, from ministers to ambassadors, heads of federal and state agencies bear an uncomfortable resemblance to gerontocracy. Nigeria has been a captive of an octogenarian rule with failings that come with senility and close-mindedness.

 

The Buharis and Atikus of the world have nothing to offer to the teeming unemployed Nigerian youths. Last year, at the inauguration of a skills acquisition center built in Agosasa, Ipokia Local Government Area of Ogun State by a former member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Abraham Akinlade, the Director-General, Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute (NBRRI), Professor Danladi Matawal said over 30 million Nigerian youths were unemployed and do not have means of livelihood.

 

Unemployment is the cause why the country’s young men invade streets and high ways as armed robbers, kidnappers, abductors, and for our young women to seek livelihood from prostitution. Thirty million unemployed youths is an unacceptable reality in a country with such impressive pool of youth talent and creativity. Youth unemployment is a ticking time bomb which now appears close to exploding in form of election revenge. In 2019, the ballot will not boast of the usual cast of octogenarians.

 

The octogenarians warming up for 2019 have serious health and medical issues related to senility and dementia. Age is a factor in some of their cloudy thinking. As demonstrated time and time again, they seemed confused, lost, distant, disoriented, incoherent, indecisive, immobile and exhausted. Yes, the experience is a virtue, but the memory of the octogenarians is not as acute as they want us to believe. They are prone to increased risk for trouble in memory and cognition.

 

For 58 years our youths have been shortchanged. They have been sidelined, ignored, rejected, and written off as the lost generation. They have been denied any viable notion of morality and personal and social responsibility. They have been polluted, corrupted, miseducated, misinformed, and co-opted. Our youths no longer imbibe critical thinking, civic courage, and are not critically engaged citizens. They have become robots and zombies. They can no longer speak truth to power and hold power accountable.

 

Our youths are lost as it were in transit. They have been rendered grounded, powerless, hopeless, useless, impoverished by the same old backward-looking group that has ruled Nigeria since independence. They have been nurtured and nourished in the culture of immediacy, corruption, dishonesty, and fraud. Our youths have been consigned into a dark cave of civic and intellectual depravity. They have been taught by the morally bankrupt ruling class that greed is a national virtue. Social justice and political vision fall prey to a preying and spectating leadership. Ethical imagination has come under assault. Honesty, honor, respect, and compassion have been erased from our social and political culture. Advocates of such virtues and values have been muzzled and punished. Buharis and Atikus will continue with the same bullshit if by default they are returned to power.

 

President Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar as candidates for 2019 are on political life support. They are DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) candidates. They are too old to be part of Nigeria’s future. They are political relics that have no place in the new Nigeria waiting to be birthed. They are behind the times. The 2019 government of youths, by youths, and for youths will be a Candlelight Revolution. It will represent a light in the darkness. It’s going to be a strong movement for democracy, peace, progress, and prosperity for all. This is beyond APC or PDP or any political party for that matter. It’s a movement for sanity. A movement that will sanitize Nigeria and Nigerians. It’s a collective determination to fight and uproot a system in which only the corrupt wealthy and the well-connected advance and prosper.

 

Whenever any form of government becomes insensitive, corrupt, inept, destructive, and wicked, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute new government that will protect, preserve, and provides for the safety and happiness of the people. For 2019, Nigeria needs a president who will look into a troubled situation, discern the problem, then do what it takes to correct the problem. In other words, Nigeria needs a troubleshooting president. We need a president who will equip youths to maximize and use their talents and gifts. A president who must always accompany authority with responsibility. A president who will raise the bar and call Nigerians to a higher standard. A president who will celebrate our diversity and work for our unity. A president who will avoid living in denial but define reality. President Buhari and Atiku lack these prerequisites.

bjoluwasanmi@gmail.com

   

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
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….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

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

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

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