Opinion

Labour vs. FG: A Course in Madness that Takes Twenty Years

4 Mins read

The Federal Government, the TUC and the NLC to review the World Bank Financed Cash transfer scheme and propose the inclusion of low-income earners in the programme.

by Taiwo Adisa October 1, 2023.

The Yoruba people have a saying which says eni ti o fi ogun odun pile were, odun melo le fe fi sinwin? Literally translated, it means, he who takes 20 years preparing how to demonstrate madness, when will he eventually enter the streets?

The above appears to capture the story of the Nigerian Organised Labour and the Federal Government since the famous presidential declaration- ‘subsidy is gone,’ on May 29, 2023.

From May 29 up to the last week of September 2023 when the Nigeria Labour Congress(NLC) and the Trade Union Congress(TUC) finally resolved to embark on an indefinite strike starting from October 3, 2023, there was clearly a gap of four months. And in all those months, we have not seen anything concrete to address the growing agitation of workers.

Earlier in June, when organised Labour vibrated as a result of the increase in prices of petroleum products, there appeared a semblance of hope, especially as the government delegation announced its readiness to meet the Labour centres.

On June 5, a Federal Government team led by the Chief of Staff to the President, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila met with the Organised Labour and agreed to cushion the effects of fuel subsidy removal. The Chief of Staff to the President, who read a communiqué of the meeting stated thus: “The Federal Government, the TUC, and the NLC to establish a joint committee to review the proposal for any wage increase or award and establish a framework and timeline for implementation.

“The Federal Government, the TUC and the NLC to review the World Bank Financed Cash transfer scheme and propose the inclusion of low-income earners in the programme.

“The Federal Government, the TUC and the NLC to revive the CNG conversion programme earlier agreed with Labour centres in 2021 and work out detailed implementation and timing.”

Another meeting between the parties which took place in mid-June resolved that the National Economic Council (NEC) should be saddled with the task of fashioning the best option to secure a cushion for subsidy removal. Eventually, the NEC resolved that the State governments should handle the issue of palliatives, while the sum of N5 billion was approved for each state of the federation. The states have since distributed the palliatives but succour, in the real sense of it, still eludes the workers.

While the workers groan under the hardship of skyrocketing transport fares and galloping inflation, with the price of 50kg of rice jumping from about N30,000 to N50,000, the Ministry of Labour and the organised labour have been sitting out at endless meetings.

You just wonder what they have really been discussing in the last four months, that offered neither head nor tail. But it looks to me that the soup the labour organisations have been offering their members in recent months was cooked in the eight years of former President Muhammadu Buhari, which coincided with the tenure of Comrade Ayuba Wabba as NLC President. Those were the days when the Labour saw no evil and smelled no evil as far as government activities were concerned. When a government that campaigned against the Naira exchanging at less than N200 to the United States Dollar made the same Naira exchange for over N400 to the dollar, with attendant inflationary trends, the Labour muted its vocal chords as its leaders lived life as if nothing was wrong. The man had died in the Nigerian Labour system all along.

Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka wrote in his famous novel of eponymous title, “The man died in all the keep silent in the face of tyranny.” It should therefore not be strange to all that the Labour which was able to keep silent in the face of dangerous economic trends in eight years has been unable to find its voice in defence of the subsidy-induced stress of the Tinubu era.

During the Obasanjo days, when the then President of the Nigerian Labour Congress(NLC), Adams Oshiomhole was in charge, a statement such as we heard from the President on May 29 would have been met with instant response from the Labour. The streets would have been flooded with protesters with relentless shouts of Hi Soweto!!! But times have changed. Oshiomhole himself has since joined them and the ferocious power of organised Labour has disappeared. Those powers have largely been sublet to political masquerades, even as the tokenistic nature of the goodwill procured from past agitations has left the people far more bewildered. It looks like today’s Labour and the government at all levels only colludes to take them for a ride and package some drama each time they throw up challenging economic situations. The Labour makes some noise and the government drops some crumbs. Life goes on thereafter. Today Labour has become more or less a lame duck. The man died and things are falling apart. Okete ti padi da o nle aja (the grass cutter has turned it back and it’s pursuing the dog) and for four months, the Labour cannot eke out any reasonable relief for its members. Reports from the states indicate that those who got the palliatives are strictly not workers. So the workers have been bearing the brunt of the subsidy removal, without succour in view.

Though the Federal Government has declared that the planned indefinite strike fixed for October 3, would amount to an affront on the subsisting court order, the organised Labour has stated that nothing would stop it this time. Should the government beat a baby and expect it not to cry? That is a question to the court that issued such an injunction. Some affiliate organisations have pledged support for NLC and TUC this time though.

I want to think that the Federal Government has foot dragged on whatever succour it plans to unveil for the workers all these while. I pray the president’s independence speech contains some way forward. An administration that was swift in announcing an end to fuel subsidy should not leave anyone in doubt as to the solutions.

If today’s Labour is practically in limbo, the government needs not rub it on its face for the sake of the teeming workers. The endless meetings at the instance of the Ministry of Labour appear headed for nowhere, especially where the issues at stake are not hidden under an igneous rock. I think that besides the fact that the leadership of the labour unions lacks the conviction and verve to lead mass protests, the government needs to realise that the fact it is new and the need to allow it to take firm roots in the sounds of national politics could also be a limiting factor for the organised Labour. What is important is that the administration should end the macabre dance and the endless meetings. It should make public the much talked about wage award, address the transportation challenges in a robust way that would ensure the workers’ pay can take them home and then implement a few welfare packages here and there.

   

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