Abuja FileCover StoryIssuePolitics

Tinubu, Wike and the Ghosts of Obasanjo’s Politics

4 Mins read

Realpolitik is also called practical politics. It adopts practical principles rather than moral or ideological considerations in critical situations. President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration was seen to have adopted this principle between 2000 and 2003.

Right now, a similar scenario is playing out as exemplified by the developments in Rivers State. The question out there is on which side will President Bola Tinubu fall? Rewrite history or hug realpolitik?

The relationship between Governor Sim Fubara and his godfather Nyesom Wike started with a firm bond. And that made the sudden collapse of the relationship unbelievable at the start.

Wike had done everything possible to install Fubara as governor in the March 2023 election. He did many unthinkable, including hiding the then PDP governorship candidate, his adopted candidate, away from public glare for months.

The former governor, now FCT Minister covered the grounds, utilising the several projects he commissioned to campaign for his anointed successor. He needed to do all that as Fubara’s name had been advertised on the wanted column of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in respect of some transactions in the oil-rich state.

As the storm appeared to be simmering down towards the last days of the electioneering campaigns, the Wike camp gradually opened the veil on Fubara and his route to Government House was assured. There was never a hint of any possible insurrection. Things were so assured that a close friend of Wike had joked that his legacy in office was already guaranteed since he has two good friends, the GSM and Sim (card). Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State has GSM as his acronym, while the first name of the incumbent Rivers governor is SIM (inalayi). In truth, anyone with a GSM and a SIM can easily make calls to all destinations, perhaps except heaven or hell.

And as if nature is out to confirm the eternal realities contained in the words of God as seen in Ecclesiastes 1:9 and the French proverb traced to novelist Alphonse Karr (1808-90), the more things change, the more they remain the same with the Nigerian democratic character.

The Bible in Ecclesiastes 1: 9 says “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Away from the spiritual, French novelist, Karr, was reputed with the proverb: “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” The same proverb was used in George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Revolutionist’s Handbook’.

While it appears that an agreement in the spiritual and secular world provided the foundation slabs for the political character pioneered by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo in the build-up to the 2003 election, it cannot come as a surprise that such political behaviour has subsisted to date. What we do not know is whether the administration of incumbent President Bola Tinubu will succeed in undoing what has been since 1999.

As if in a replay of the drama we witnessed between the year 2,000 and 2003, the Presidential Villa under President Bola Tinubu announced early last week that it had brokered a truce between Wike and his political godson, Fubara. The contents of the eight-point resolution tilted towards Wike’s camp, possibly a replication of Obasanjo’s earlier drive in the battle between Abuja politicians and state governors at the start of the Fourth Republic.

Part of the eight-point deal indicates that all court cases would be withdrawn, while Fubara would recognise the defection of G27 members of the House of Assembly as well as their speaker, who had flashed an impeachment notice on his face. Fubara is to guarantee legislative autonomy for the lawmakers, even though they had defected to the APC, while accepting the return of the commissioners who had resigned their portfolios in a show of solidarity with the godfather, Wike.

In the early days of Obasanjo, the Abuja politicians fought what looked like an internecine war with the home-based politicians led by state governors. Obasanjo openly supported the Abuja clique, which included ministers, senators, and ambassadors. As the war raged, the political scene was replete with seemingly endless battles, impeachment threats, and factionalisation of State Houses of Assembly and the ruling parties in the states. The Abuja politicians, with the covert support of the presidency, succeeded in anointing factional speakers and factional state chairmen of parties. They replicated these in states like Enugu, Anambra, Borno, and Abia. The push by the presidency at the time was to curb the “overbearing” powers of the governors.

At first, it looked like a battle without end until the primaries ahead of Obasanjo’s 2003 re-election approached. Then, it dawned on the presidency that the governors would have an upper hand in the unfolding battle since they control the structure of the parties in their states and would also control the delegates to the national convention. With that realisation, Obasanjo’s camp shifted allegiance and empowered the governors, who were almost unfurling the carpet under Obasanjo’s feet in support of Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

Though Tinubu’s eight-point agenda looks more of an endorsement of Wike’s leadership of Rivers State, something akin to the scenario in the early days of Obasanjo, when the Abuja politicians held the thicker part of the yam, only time will tell whether the raw power encapsulated in the seat of the governor of a state would reignite itself in the current case in Rivers.

On Friday, some video clips emerged of massive campaigns against the Abuja accord in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. It is obvious which camp was at work. Will history repeat itself this time, or Wike’s camp would have the last laugh? That is the question in the belly of time.

History, however, records that only on scanty occasions have the awesome powers of the governors been undermined in this Republic. We saw something of such in Borno State when Senator Alli Modu Sheriff unseated Mala Kachalla; Chinwoke Mbadinuju was upstaged in Anambra and Akinwumi Ambode was stopped in Lagos recently. How will Jagaban Borgu fare in handling the ghosts of Obasanjo’s politics unfolding in Rivers?

   

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
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
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….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com