Abuja FileAnalysisBankingBusinessEconomyEditorialFinancePolitics

On Peter Obi’s Use of Economic Data At The Vice Presidential Debate: Between Facts And Fiction

5 Mins read

By Valentine Obienyem

Economic data is not fixed; such data is based on specific date or period.Though the figures change every second, periodic figures are used for range of time until the data provider publishes updated figures. This explains why Nigeria’s unemployment rate is still quoted at 18.8% despite the fact that the data is more than one year old. Provided no current figure is available, the latest figure remains the most reliable.

Having researched the figures quoted by Mr. Peter Obi at the Vice Presidential debate, I wish to present to you the comprehensive source of data that Mr. Obi quoted during the debate. I can understand why some people, desirous of massaging the pains of the “knock-out blow” he gave to the incumbent Vice President during the debate have gathered together to attack him like antibodies gathering to attack an infection.

What are they doing? They are questioning  the accuracy of the data he used during the debate  because he tossed them up and set them on their feet now and then like a jolly  juggler  tossing objects into the air with admirable candour. Ridiculously, some of them said that “after all the man  is not a computer!” 

The fact is that one can argue about Obi’s   parsimony; whether as a trader he would leave his shop chasing criminal or not; but one cannot argue about his affinity with facts and figures which is as strong as the attraction between an antigen and an antibody. 

I also see people faulting his comparison of Nigeria with countries like China, Turkey, Mexico and South Africa. He uses those countries because in the eighties, Nigeria was at par with them in most economic indicators. In choosing them, typical of his nature, he was just trying to act like a gadfly, provoking Nigerians to seek answers to the reasons those countries left us behind.

For those in love with  the Cross checking of facts, I will present  the sources of the date  Obi used during the debate. Let me forewarn  readers, as I said earlier, that economic data do not obey the laws of exactitude. 
Here we go!.

1.    Obi said Nigeria used over 50% of her revenue to service debt
Facts: According to DMO’s 2017 reports on Nigeria’s debt stock and total debt service, Total Debt Service as %age of FGN Retained Revenue was 58.56% in 2017.

2.    Obi said the country’s total debt stock was N22.7trillion, about USD80 billion.
Facts: According to DMO’s June 2018 report on Nigeria’s debt stock, Nigeria’s total debt stock was N22.38 trillion or USD73.21 billion using an official exchange rate of N305.70/USD. When we add the USD2.8 billion Eurobond issued in November 2016, the total debt stock comes to USD76.01 billion.

3.    Obi said that Mexico’s GDP  was over USD1 trillion and its GDP per capita was  over USD8,000.
Facts: According to the world bank (source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?locations=MX&view=chart),Mexico’s 2017 GDP (constant 2010) was USD1.28 trillion while its GDP per capita(constant 2010) was USD9,946.16

4.    Obi said that South Africa’s stock market capitalization was USD900 billion.
Facts: According to Stock Market Clock (https://www.stockmarketclock.com/exchanges/jse), in March 2018, South Africa’s market capitalization was USD891.74 billion.

5.    Obi said that Nigerian bank loans made up 15% of GDP.
Facts: According to world bank (source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FD.AST.PRVT.GD.ZS?locations=NG&view=chart),Nigeria’s domestic credit to private sector by banks as a percentage of GDP was14.15%.

6.    Obi said that Nigeria had the highest number of Poor at87 million – growing by 6 persons per minute
Facts: According to a Brookings Institute publication, “The start of a new poverty narrative” published by Homi Kharas, Kristofer Hamel, and Martin Hoferon Tuesday, June 19, 2018 (source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/06/19/the-start-of-a-new-poverty-narrative/),“At the end of May 2018, our trajectories suggest that Nigeria had about 87million people in extreme poverty, compared with India’s 73 million. What is more, extreme poverty in Nigeria is growing by six people every minute, while poverty in India continues to fall. In fact, by the end of 2018 in Africa as awhole, there will probably be about 3.2 million more people living in extreme poverty than there are today.”

7.    Obi said that Nigeria’s Human Development Index (HDI) ranking moved from 152 – 157
Fact: HDI ranking moved from 152 – 157 (Source:
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf ).

8.    Obi said that Nigeria’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranking moved from 124 – 127
Fact: GCI ranking actually moved from 124 (Source:
http://reports.weforum.org/, Global Competitiveness Reports).

9.    Obi said that Nigeria’s Stress ranking was 148 out of 149
Fact: Stress ranking was 148 out of 150 (Source:
https://www.zipjet.co.uk/2017-stressful-cities-ranking.

10.     Obi said that the Misery Index in Nigeria worsened
Fact: Nigeria’s Misery Index ranked 6th position in 2017 with a score of 52.1(Source:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hankes-annual-misery-index-worlds-saddest-happiest-countries)

11.    Obi said that Unemployment and underemployment inNigeria rose from 24% to 40%
Fact: Nigeria’s Unemployment and underemployment rose to 40.00% in Q3 2017 from33.60% in Q3 2016 and 27.30% in Q3 2015 (Source: National Bureau of Statistics unemployment data for the respective periods)

12.     Obi said that Nigeria had the highest number of out-of-school children
Fact: According to a July 25, 2017 BBC report titled “Nigeria’s has largestnumber of children out of school in the world” and which quoted a UNICEFpublication titled on Quality Basic Education” (Source: https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/education.html),Primary school enrolment has increased in recent years, but net attendance isonly about 70 per cent, but Nigeria still has 10.5 million out-of-schoolchildren – the world’s highest number. Sixty per cent of those children are innorthern Nigeria. In fact, Nigeria’s out-of-school children is now 13.5million.

13.     Obi said that the FG budgeted N340 billion on health and paid over N1 trillion on PMS subsidy. Education budget was aboutN400 billion.
Facts: According to Nigeria’s Minister of State for Petroleum Resources,Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation now spends a total of N1.4 trillion annually as subsidy for Premium Motor Spirit. Source: https://punchng.com/subsidy-on-petrol-hits-n1-4tn-per-year-says-fg/.The Punch Newspapers (online), April 06, 2018.

According to FG’s budget office (Source: http://budgetoffice.gov.ng/index.php/resources/internal-resources/budget-documents), total allocation to the Federal Ministry of Health for 2018 was N340.46 billion; hence, annual PMS subsidy payment is 4.11 times 2018 health budget. Alternatively, health budget is 24% of annual PMS subsidy.


Total allocation to the Federal Ministry of Education for 2018 was N605.79 billion; hence annual PMS subsidy is 2.31 times 2018 education budget. Alternatively, education budget is 43.27% of annual PMS subsidy.

14.     Obi said that the ease of doing business rankingwas currently at 146. However, all the BRIC and MINT countries were below 100
Fact: For the BRIC countries, Brazil ranked 109, Russia 31, India 77 and China46 while for MINT countries Mexico ranked 54, Indonesia 73, Nigeria 146 and Turkey 43 (Source:
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2019-report_web-version.pdf)

15.     Obi said that Small Medium Enterprises Contributed 60% to China’s GDP, 60% of employment and 80% of urban employment
Fact: According to a report by CBN Editor on chinabankingnews.com websitewhich was published on June 22, 2018, Small, medium and micro-enterprises account for over 90% of all market entities in China, over 80% of nationwide employment, more than 70% of patents, over 60% of GDP and more than 50% of tax revenues. (Source:
http://www.chinabankingnews.com/2018/06/22/smes-account-60-chinas-gdp-beijing-mulls-inclusion-loans-mlf-collateral/)

16.    Obi said that China created 7.2 million jobs within first 6 months in 2018
Fact: According to a report on chinadaily.com.cn website titled “China added 375 million jobs in past 40 years”, which was updated on September 17, 2018, a total of7.52 million new jobs were generated in urban areas in the first six months –170,000 more than the same period last year. The urban registered unemployment rate stood at 3.83 percent at the end of June. (Source:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201809/17/WS5b9f2aeda31033b4f46566bb.html/)

17.   Obi said that Nigeria’s 4,000 MW electricity generations was too low
Fact: The Nigeria Electricity System Operator of the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) on Monday said that it generated 4,176 Mega Watts (MW) at 06:00hour of Sunday, 02 December 2018. Meanwhile, at 06:00 hours of Saturday, 01December 2018, the Nigeria Electricity System Operator of the TransmissionCompany of Nigeria (TCN) daily report said that the electricity market recorded4,124MW energy generation. Whereas the electricity market, according to thereport, has a maximum available capacity of 7,652.6 (MW), what it sent out onFriday, 30 November 2018 was 3,910.40 MW, an indication of un-utilized3,742.2MW on the day under review.

(Source: https://www.nigeriaelectricityhub.com/2018/12/04/electricity-market-generates-4176mw/

   

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 FileAll The NewsCover StoryEducationEntrepreneurshipFeaturesNews

2026/2027 Admission Begins @ AAT University: Where Modern Facilities, Academic Excellence and Global Citizenship Meet

7 Mins read
Why Abdulrasaq Abubakar Toyin University is emerging as a compelling destination for the next generation of Nigerian undergraduates By Abdulrahman Aliagan For…
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…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com