OpinionPerspective

Insecurity and the Plight of Kidnap Victims (2)

4 Mins read

By abiodun KOMOLAFE

Perceived callousness in society comes, chiefly, from the responses of the government to public issues as they affect individuals and the collective. As a country and society, we are perhaps the most cold-hearted people on the surface of the earth.

Here, a man who fed his children last night and … could still afford something substantial as zakat, that’s our definition of generosity. An armed robber who is lucky to escape unhurt is the one society worships. In our fated clime, if you don’t have money, you are in trouble.

In the eye of the nouveau riche, why must you not even have money? Times and things have now gone so bad that those who lived under Ibrahim Babangida would think that Sani Abacha was complete evil, whereas those who lived under Muhammadu Buhari would also think as if this sad and sympathetic country had a better yesterday. Taking the most optimistic view, Abacha’s approach would have been one of ‘live-and-let-live’.

In 1980, Ogunpa flooding happened to Ibadan. No doubt about it: it was a terrible tragedy, with millions of naira worth of goods either destroyed and/or carted away. Lives in their preciousness were also lost. Not unexpectedly, the government’s response was swift, but only in terms of jingles and advertorials, not that foodstuffs and/or clothing were given to the people. In specific terms, there were no physical interventions as in what could truly touch the people. Instead, eloquent words – that the government would see to the sufferings of the people – were in excess of expectations.

The late Bola Ige, who was the governor of the old Oyo State at the time, was on hand to mitigate the perceived energy of the enemy, notably Adisa Akinloye and Richard Akinjide, who were not only indigenes of the ancient city but also rubbing and defending the ego of Shehu Shagari, the then president of Nigeria. To the victims, nothing came; unfortunately, so!

Somewhere along the line, something important happened, but not in the public glare. The Federal Government intervened with N30 million, and the money was shared. Friends and colleagues watched as government officials of specific calibre started building monstrous houses and buying exotic cars; and they were careless with their mouths.

Though the victims documented what Ogunpa took away from them, it was just an exercise in futility. When money came, which took several months due to the shape and size of Nigeria’s bureaucratic slip-ups, the people had moved on, obviously without any assistance from anybody. But their children in the civil service saw what happened and news went round. As at that time, Ige was no longer in government. People saw all those anomalies but there was no way they could push their aggression beyond bottling up the resentment they had for the government and government policies; and it was freely discussed among the people.

Again, that’s where it ended. After all, there’s no sympathy for government money, more so as it belongs to no one. Sad therefore that the handlers of Nigeria’s affairs have consistently shown sufficient callousness to the extent that nobody pities them again. Sadder that that policy has been responsible for the depravity in the system, which makes nobody care. The saddest part of it is that it subsists till date, because nobody has attempted to address it.

Look at the parents of the Chibok girls, Leah Sharibu and many others who are still languishing in the terrorists’ enclave. Talking seriously, that’s sufficient enough to take their faith away from them because, if one has a God who cannot actually save one while one is here, it is useless believing in the afterlife.

If one calls on God while one is on earth, and, indeed, He hears but cannot save one, then it is as if one doesn’t have a Saviour in the first place! With this sad expression staring us in the face, isn’t it time our religious leaders called on God again – if, truly, they know how to call on Him – to come down and rescue those who trust in Him? Isn’t it time we beheld His real power, because, for those who truly believe in Him, at no time is His power limited?

The pathetic truth is that those who are leading us on the religious path in Nigeria are unperturbed even as dear fatherland has turned into a fount of uncertainties, a cocktail of misfortunes, a terrible economy and a nation divided. Pastor Adejare Adeboye is fine; Pastor Folorunso Kumuyi is fantastic while Bishop David Oyedepo keeps acquiring jets as if he’s buying motorcycles. Remember former President Buhari also rode to Aso Rock on the promise of recovering the Chibok girls. PMB has done his 8 years and gone back to Daura, leaving behind policy summersault, unmet promises, unsettled obligations and, most importantly, the girls at the mercy of Boko Haram and ISWAP terrorists.

As things stand, nobody remembers poor Leah who is wasting away in the forest for knowing the God she served or her parents who continue to walk the path of their fate. Still, our spiritual fathers continue to use this same God to make money; and it is as if being a Nigerian is a crime. And we ask: isn’t ours a terrible tragedy?

For heaven’s sake, how did we get to this pass?
• Concluded.

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

KOMOLAFE wrote in from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08098614418 – SMS only)_

   

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