Opinion

Shame on Northern Nigerians

6 Mins read

By Dan Agbese

A typical day and a typical news bulletin in northern Nigeria: “Bandits kill 21, burn houses in Katsina communities invasion;” “Bandits hold 348 students, UNESCO sounds warning;” “83 FGC students held;” “Bandits: we are holding 121 Kaduna school pupils.”

            In its issue of July 7, The Punch reported that “the total number of students being held by bandits has increased to 348 with the abduction of 121 students in Kaduna State. Out of the 348 students,” the newspaper further reported, “227 are still languishing in bandits’ dens many weeks after they were abducted from their schools in Niger, Kebbi and Kaduna states.”

         

Spare a thought for what their parents are going through, wondering if indeed their children are alive. No one knows in what condition the children are being held. But there is some indication they are sleeping on the ground in the bush subjected to the harsh elements in the open. It is no way to bring up our future leaders.

We do not know how and if they are fed but they are likely from the dens emaciated. It should worry our leaders who tend to lean towards power without responsibility. The responsibility of power does not begin and end with building roads. It is more importantly about the welfare and the protection of the majority of the people. As Churchill once said, power without responsibility is the province of the harlot. 

The bandits holding the Kaduna students had the temerity to ask for rice to feed their captives. Still, northern political leaders, the great men of the moment, cannot be counted on the side of the children and their parents. None of us can pretend not to be affected by what is happening to the region and its people. And let us not pretend about this. Northern Nigeria has surrendered to the reign of bandits in the full view and with the full knowledge of those who have the constitutional responsibility to make the region and indeed, the entire country safe. It is a huge shame on northern Nigerian leaders. 

The region bleeds and has been bleeding from Boko Haram, bandits, Fulani herdsmen, kidnappers and sundry criminal elements. Still, the Nigerian state and its constituent units in northern Nigeria feel overwhelmed and weakened by their inability to find answers to the tragedy. Our political leaders, great winners of paid awards for good governance, must have some problems with the sacred responsibilities of governance. Resplendent in choice baban riguna, they strut the political stage, uttering inane political sound bites but ignoring the plight of their own people. They object to power shifting to the south in 2023 and conveniently forget that their people are losers even as they hold the reins of power. 

I can find no reason and I can find no rhyme in the impossible situation and the existential threat we face. I can find no reason or rhyme for their cynical attitude towards the safety of the lives and the property of the people. There are many things we do not understand in and about our country but the current situation must rank as the worst case of a riddle wrapped in a puzzle. It befuddles the mind; it passeth all understanding. Those who believe they have the right to be listened to never tire of preaching the gospel of patriotism to the people. They forget that patriotism is reciprocal. A country that neglects its people has no moral right to expect the people to be patriotic.

When ISWAP captured one American not too long ago, the country deployed its forces and rescued him from his captors in Niger Republic. It is a typical example of a government that fully understands that the life of one citizen lost to a state or non-state actors takes something away from its constitutional obligation to protect all Americans wherever they might be. The US does not negotiate with terrorists but then it does not create room for such negotiation. It rescues its citizens and send their captors to hell. 

 Perhaps in the near future, sociologists would study these times and tell future generations of northerners why governments instituted by the people for the people abandoned the people to their fate in the hands of criminals. Here is part of the tragedy. We are told that the federal and state governments do not negotiate with terrorists, including bandits; yet the same governments allow the poor, helpless parents of the kidnapped children to negotiate with the bandits. It just does not add up.

Does that not undermine the so-called policy of non-negotiation? It is hypocrisy at its lowest level. It should not be the business of the parents to negotiate with the terrorists. If the governments are not willing to negotiate with them and secure the release of the children in safety, then they must have an alternative strategy that would achieve the same purpose and effect the release of the children. 

President Buhari has said it a good number of times that the federal government has massive power it could deploy to defeat the bandits and other terrorists but despite his repeated warning to them not to take his non-action against them as a sign of weakness, he has refused to deploy this massive power. I thought the state funded the purchase of the arms and ammunitions and the training of the security personnel for times like these. I wonder if the bandits are not laughing, knowing all too well that while the governments would not negotiate with them, the harried parents will and they will achieve the same purpose by collecting huge ransom from the parents.

It is impossible for anyone who sees these parents scraping for a kobo here and a kobo there to raise money to meet the demands of the bandits not to be affected by the tragedy that befell them and their children. They sent their children to school to give them a better future. They cannot understand why that path to their better future is either blocked or threatened by criminals. They cannot understand why their children have been turned into a means of making quick and illegal money while the governments dither, biting their nails in a typical display of weakness. They certainly cannot understand why the governments they instituted to make their lives and those of their children better are making things worse, much worse for them and their children. Nor can they understand why federal and state governments would choose to subject them to this trauma that deepens their helplessness and hopelessness and turn the rainbow of hope in the horizon into the dark clouds of an arrested future. Shame.

There is no way one can put it less indelicately: it is a shame on our governments and our political leaders who sought the mandate of the people, not to lead them into the gutter or abandon them there but to make their lives meaningful to them. But here we are: while the good times roll for our political leaders, the rough times roll for the people; while the leaders are protected by a phalanx of security men and women, the people are at the mercy of criminals who profit from the cynical attitude of our leaders towards us. The people are unsafe anywhere and everywhere – at home, in offices and on the roads. It could not be worse for the giant of Africa. 

Perhaps, the federal and the state governments in northern Nigeria should pause now and give some serious thoughts to their gallant development efforts and re-examine their objectives. What is the use of modern highways the people cannot make use of because they are dangerous and unsafe? What is the use of building primary and secondary schools and planting universities if the federal and state governments cannot guarantee the safety of the pupils and the students?

 Development is about making lives better for the people. As I said earlier, governance and its enormous responsibilities are about what is best for the people. It is not about mouthing slogans and ignoring the full protection of the rights of the people to live in safety and carry on with their legitimate businesses in their country. It was good to storm Sunday Igboho’s residence; it was good to arrest Nnamdi Kanu. Why does the same determination appear to be absent in saving our children from bandits? Since the actions against them for putting their fingers in the eyes of the Nigerian state, the roads in northern Nigeria have not become safer nor have schools in northern Nigeria become safer.Civilisation may follow the roads, as the Romans contended, but human development follows security of lives and property. It was no accident that the framers of our constitution made this as the number one responsibility the state must discharge towards its citizens. The failure to do so delegitimises the government. Let the northerners rise now and save their region, its future and the future of their young people. And end the shame of weakness

   

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
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
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…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com