francisbiz: [img][/img]
Michael Adebolajo, and Michael Adebowale the cold blood killers that hacked a defenceless innocent British soldier to death are bona fide yoruba men.

and you wonder why they introduced the visa bond, the don't want more Yorubas coming into their country to kill their reverred soldiers

Ikengawo: The ignorance on this thread is record breaking

Botswana has the highest standard of living in Africa and is rated as the most stable government.
This is a result of neglected education for the generation of nigerians that are now old enough to travel. Nigerians have an extremely dim understanding of the rest of the world and themselves and will find themselves crawling the globe to humiliate their own lives. I don't believe it's primarily igbos by far that are leading this global foolishness, but before we start saying it's and igbo problem we have to realize it's really a national one.

Igbos are ambitious, nobody will take that from them but it's almost impossible to convince them what they own is better than what they can possiby own or have and that's what leads to their desperate nature.

Yorubas are fearful, nobody will take that from them either. A yoruba person is not going to risk what he has, even if it's very little, no matter the reward and don't typically think outside of what's theres. Many yorubas don't know there was a civil war in Nigeria.

The reason I point this difference out is because the igbo ignorance is manifesting in travelling the world blindly and becoming a nuisance and the yoruba ignorance is manifesting in not being able to think or look outside of the very narrow box they already have, hence poverty and a total ignorance of anything outside of their family and region. They typically don't want more because they don't know there's is more out there and would rather brag about whats been done that complain about the need to do more. the root of the problem is ignorance. While igbos are developing and even destroying other places, their homeland is neglected, and while yorubas are boxed in by fear their homeland remains stagnant. This is why the two regions of africa that should be the most developed, aren't.

ignorance mixed with our respective cultural nature isn't doing anything for us.

Share ignorance my broda . I have lived in that country for 7 yrs . that country is stunning . I will say it is the best place to live on earth though high prevalence of HIV. It is the most stable coutry in africa, least corrupt, strongest currency in Africa ( Pula botswana money is stronger than that south african Rand) highest producer of diamond in Africa , strong economy , the capital city is the fastest growing city in the world , one of the best tourist place in the world , most peaceful in Africa etc . Thats why they are chasing Nigerians out . Nigerians are doing well in that country business wise - genuine business.....

Hello NL Member's we are missing lot of things here. rather than pointing accusing fingers at each other of wrong doing (Yoruba,Igbo or Hasusa). we should sit down and ask critical and fundamental questions. how we got it all wrong. And also check the so called successful nation Botswana, what they did right to attain the status she prides herself in. Food for thought my people.We use more energy and gain less when we go on each other. We should rather learn to ask the right questions how did we get it all wrong and try to seek redress.
However, i have this articles showcasing the success story of Botswana. i will like to summarize what i learnt into two words.[/size][size=8pt][/size][size=8pt][size=8pt][/size] Leadership and Vision.

Successful Development in Botswana

As most people know, Africa is extremely poor and many of its countries are below the average low-income level. With most of the continent under the poverty line, people still remained puzzled as to why this particular area of the world has still yet to develop. Although Africa has not obtained success as a whole, a few countries have been able to develop and grow to some extent. Botswana, a land-locked country located in Sub-Sahara Africa, has not only outgrown its neighboring countries, but it has also been the fastest growing economy in the world for the last forty years. Why has Botswana been able to sustain tremendous rates of economic growth while other sub-Saharan countries with similar climates and locations have not?
Botswana has a population of approximately 1.8 million people, is located north of South Africa, and is roughly the size of Texas (Encyclopedia of the Nations: Botswana, 2007). The Kalahari Desert makes up nearly 70% of Botswana while the remaining portion of the country in the East is more habitable. This insufficient amount of habitable land in combination with the country's inadequate water supply have caused problems for the growing population in Botswana. In addition to these problems is the curse of the AIDS epidemic, as roughly 35% of the all adults in the country are HIV positive (Encyclopedia of the Nations: Botswana, 2007). So why again has Botswana, which is fairly similar to the other countries in the area, been able to obtain and sustain tremendous rates of economic growth for so many years? The answer ultimately requires a much more extensive analysis than simply climate or location. In An African Success Story: Botswana, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson have narrowed down the reasons for success in Botswana. These experts from the Department of Economics at MIT argue that the adoption of good policies, the institutions of private property, and key characteristics that allowed these institutions to stay in place have all contributed to the success of Botswana over the past 40 years.

The adoption of good policies is a crucial factor that ultimately contributed to development and growth in Botswana. Over the past 40 years, the government in Botswana has had steady and reliable economic policies. In general, it can be concluded that good policies lead to investment, increased jobs, and better economic fundamentals. However, these beneficial policies would not have been nearly as effective without the underlying institutions that encourage economic growth, development, and investment.

In An African Success Story: Botswana, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson conclude that the reason for good policy selection, both economically and politically, was a result of the "good" underlying institutions (An African Success Story: Botswana, Acemoglu, p 5). These institutions played an extremely important role in Botswana's successful development. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson go even further in describing these institutions as "good" such that they correspond "to a social organization which ensures that a broad cross-section of the society have effective property rights" (Acemoglu, p 5). One can refer to this group as "institutions of private property". Under these institutions the property rights of investors and potential investors are rightfully protected. They also provide political stability, put a constraint on political elites, and encourage broad-based participation. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson display the importance of these institutions when they estimate that "changes in institutions can close as much as ¾ of the income gap between the nations with the best and worst institutions" (Acemoglu, p 6). They then go even further in stating, "Once we control for the effect of institutions, countries in Africa do not have lower incomes" (Acemoglu, p 6). Thus, this statement supports the significance of institutions in the successful development in Botswana relative to the rest of the world.

Knowing that good institutions are important to economic development is simply not enough and will not automatically lead to success. Why did these institutions remain in place in Botswana but not in neighboring countries? The answer to that question can help explain Botswana's success since the 1960s and can possibly help other countries get on the right path to successful growth and development. According to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, pre-colonial institutions, minimal British involvement, appropriate interests of the elites, the discovery of diamonds, and good decision making by leaders all played an important role in establishing institutions and keeping them intact.

Botswana possessed pre-colonial institutions which ultimately put constraints on political elites and allowed the country to traverse a successful development path. Consistent with An African Success Story: Botswana, in 1885 Great Britain created the British Bechuanaland and the British Protectorate, current day Botswana, because of the land's strategic importance in dividing Germany's colony in the west and the Boer states in the east. The British wanted to limit any territorial expansion from these two sides. In the 19th century, southern Africa was comprised mainly of tribes with the chief as the highest figure in society. The chief's authority was represented and carried out by friends, relatives, and officials. These adult males gathered together to discuss local issues in meetings known as the kgotla (Acemoglu, p 9). Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson explain the importance of these assemblies in stating, "Even though they were supposed to be advisory they seem to have been an effective way for commoners to criticize the king" (Acemoglu, p 10). The kgotla ensured appeasement among tribes and thus created more political stability, which was very important in creating an environment that was conducive for economic development. Thus, the institutions in Botswana put constraints on political elites by expanding the broad participation in politics.

In Botswana these institutions remained whole partly because of minimal British colonization. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson say that "colonialism was very light" mainly because Great Britain created the colony to limit territorial gains by the Germans and the Boer states (Acemoglu, p 12). They expand on this idea and conclude that the land was not "particularly valuable or attractive in itself" (Acemoglu, p 12). Thus, the institutions that were already established in Botswana were not destroyed by British involvement. The British did not stay out of Botswana completely as colonialism did have "important effects on the structure of the economy" (Acemoglu, p 13). The hut tax of 1899 and the native tax of 1919 required people to pay some money to the British. These taxes ultimately encouraged people to join the labor market so that they could earn money and pay this annual tax. According to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, there was some British colonialism; however, overall involvement was fairly minimal, which allowed the institutions to remain intact and unchanged.

Similar to minimal British involvement preserving the institutions in Botswana, the elites were also interested in maintaining and strengthening these institutions after independence. On September 30, 1966, Botswana gained independence from Great Britain and was on the way to controlling its own future. As indicated by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, Seretse Khama formed the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), which incorporated the emerging elites in addition to the traditional chiefs. In An African Success Story: Botswana, the strength of the BDP is described when it states, "They could integrate within the party the traditional rural structures of loyalty between commoners and chiefs" (Acemoglu, p 15). As a result of this popularity, in 1965, the BDP won the first election, and Seretse Khama was nominated president. As stated by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, "strengthening institutions of private property were in the economic interests of the elite" (Acemoglu, p 11). Many of the elites in Botswana owned cattle and were involved in the main export sector in the country at that time period. Thus, with the elites heavily invested in the economy, it seems reasonable to say that it was in the interests of the political elites to favor good institutions. Furthermore, Botswana's political elites at that time did not feel threatened by growth and development. Therefore, it would be practical for the elites to support the current institutions with the idea of strengthening them as much as possible.

Not only did the interests of the elites support the institutions, but people did not want to change the status quo after the discovery of diamonds, allowing these institutions to grow and develop even further. The leaders of Botswana made strategically important mining agreements with DeBeers, a company that specializes in the exploration, mining, and manufacturing of diamonds. With the agreement in place, the government of Botswana would receive half of all diamond profits in the country. The government was running a budget surplus by the mid 1970s with the diamond industry thriving and expanding tremendously. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson argue that the revenue generated from the mining industry was managed appropriately as the money was effectively and efficiently put to use. The rents were put towards the government budget as additional investment, allowing the economy to expand and the country to strengthen as a whole. One prime example that shows the government's ability to manage the diamond industry occurred in the 1980s when Botswana was unable to sell its diamonds for nearly half a year. Even through these difficult times, the government still managed to keep diamond prices relatively high without allowing government expenditure to fall. This ability to successfully control diamond prices ultimately led to more positive effects in years to come.

Furthermore, the diamonds in Botswana were positioned in such a way that the sector was mostly capital intensive rather than labor extensive. Botswana has mostly kimberlite pipes, which are channels that extend from the mantle to the surface and are highly concentrated with diamonds. However, in countries that have not been so fortunate such as Sierra Leone, diamonds are mostly spread out amongst thousands of miles of streams and rivers. Mining in these areas are more labor intensive and do not have the same positive effects of countries that have diamonds in highly concentrated areas.

Not only did the diamond industry have positive effects on institutions, but good decision making by leaders did so as well. Seretse Khama, the first president of Botswana, was a very legitimate leader. According to An African Success Story: Botswana, his prior experiences as the chief of Bangwato, present day Botswana, and his involvement with the Botswana Democratic Party contributed to increased political stability and ultimately more developed institutions. In the book it states, "Key decision made by Botswana leaders, particularly Seretse Khama and Quett Masire, appear to have been crucial", showing the impact leaders can have on institutions in addition to country development (Acemoglu, p 24). One of his crucial decisions as president involved the transfer of diamond rich lands from his own tribe to the government. If he did not complete this task, there could have been greater conflict between tribes simply because of the potential to generate tremendous revenue.

Some people would say that factors other than good institutions played a significant role for successful development to occur in Botswana. Scott Beaulier, assistant professor of Economics at George Mason University, puts more emphasis on leaders and their ability to direct a country in the right direction rather than simply being guided by "good" institutions. In Explaining Botswana's Success: The Critical Role of Post-Colonial Policy, Beaulier states, "Good leadership, in fact, could be the key factor in Botswana's development" (Beaulier, Explaining Botswana's Success: The Critical Role of Post-Colonial Policy, p 18). He argues that the future of the country after independence rested in the hands of Khama and his administration. It is ultimately the people with authority who have control of the country's future path, not Botswana's prior experiences. Khama's administration established pro-market policies, which included low taxes for mining companies and thus more investment. According to Beaulier, he also kept income taxes low to encourage people to pay their taxes and avoid corruption. Khama made critical decisions after independence that supported strong markets with the vision of having a better tomorrow.

If every nation in Africa had the chance to choose the most appropriate role for government, why did so many African countries turn out differently than Botswana? Beaulier argues that many of the elected leaders of other African nations chose paths that did not support long-term economic development and growth. Khama, on the other hand, maintained good policy and made wise decisions after independence, giving Botswana the opportunity to develop into the country it is today. The difficulty then arises of why Botswana had strong leaders while other countries did not.

There are two distinct factors that separate Khama from other African leaders. His experience in Great Britain in addition to his personality allowed for better leadership and in the end greater success for Botswana relative to other African nations. Khama received an education at Fort Hare University, which Beaulier describes as an institution with an "explicitly 'Euro-centric' vision for Africa" (Beaulier, p 21). He obtained an education that revolved around Western tradition and values and would inevitably spread European culture into Botswana. As said by Beaulier, Khama then went on to study at Oxford's Balliol College where he received a degree in law. He was exposed to British law as well as their culture and way of life. Khama's education revolved much around markets, Western values, and British common law, which eventually impacted his policy selection for Botswana. Beaulier argues that "Policy choice at a critical point in time was the key factor determining the wealth and poverty of African nations" (Beaulier, p 21). It is hard to say which factor impacted Botswana's success the most, but leadership and key decision making definitely paved the country's future to some extent.

Beaulier and Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson offer substantial evidence about the origins of Botswana's success and its tremendous rate of growth. It is important to note that these pieces of literature do not necessarily disagree with each other, but that different factors are emphasized more in each of them. Beaulier argues with Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson by saying that good leadership was the primary factor for Botswana's success while favorable institutions were a secondary factor. If Botswana's success is mainly attributed to its colonial institutions, then it seems that a country's success might be based on their past. If this concept is true, then it would be acceptable to conclude there is little hope for some countries whose history will inherently limit its success. At the same time, it would not be reasonable to conclude that one leader could change a country's direction simply with good policy and excellent decision making. Thus, it would be acceptable to say that both strong institutions and good leadership played a very important role in Botswana's growth, but it is hard to conclude which factor should be emphasized more.

One might be able to determine the significance of certain factors if there is some sort of analysis done between successful countries and ones that have failed. After gaining independence, Botswana has been successful and has achieved tremendous rates of growth. On the other hand, Zimbabwe has become a miserable failure. What are the underlying reasons for these very different outcomes even though they were both former British colonies? The factors contributing to growth in Zimbabwe, or the lack there of, are similar to the ones offered earlier by Acemoglu, Johnson, Robinson, and Beaulier. Robert Mugabe, prime minister of Zimbabwe after gaining its independence in 1980, played a major role in determining the failure of the country. The magazine The American says that in 1982 Mugabe turned on former ally Joshua Nkomo and the Zimbabwe Africa Peoples Union (ZAPN), killing nearly 20,000 of its supporters. This attack allowed Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) to win the following election very easily. In The American it states, "Nkomo was forced to agree to a merger of ZAPU with Mugabe's ZANU. In return, Nkomo received the largely ceremonial title of Zimbabwe's vice president", which shows the presence of corruption and political insecurity in Zimbabwe shortly after independence (Tupy, The American). This political unrest was not a component of Botswana's experience as it was named the least corrupt country in Africa by Transparency International, a global civil society organization that fights corruption. A recent sign at the Gaborone airport reads, "Botswana has a ZERO tolerance for corruption. It is illegal to offer or ask for a bride", which displays Botswana's political security and its ability to preserve beneficial, long-term goals (Biles, p 2). Political instability and corruption ultimately had some effect on Zimbabwe's outcome. However, it is difficult to determine the exact significance this factor played in its failure. The figure below from The American shows divergence in the per capita income of Botswana and Zimbabwe. It is hard to determine the exact reasons for Zimbabwe's failure, but one can easily make the argument that political insecurity was an important factor that separated these two countries into what they are today.

Overall Botswana's success can be attributed to good policy, underlying institutions, and good leadership. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the adoption of good policy in addition to the maintenance of good institutions. These institutions of private property encouraged investment and gave Botswana the opportunity to grow at incredible rates of growth for over 35 years. Beaulier, on the other hand, seems to believe that good leadership was the most important factor in Botswana's development. Key decision making right after independence was essential for Botswana's development. None of these factors alone could explain Botswana's success, but it was the combination of these factors occurring at the right time that allowed the country to experience high rates of economic growth for so many years.

Although Botswana has been the fastest growing country over the last 35 years, will the country be able to sustain this rate of growth? Although per capita income has grown at nearly 7 % since the 1960s, Botswana still has a long way to go. Paul Rantao of the Botswana National Front believes the government has not done enough to actually help the country as he states, "The government is more concerned about per capita income, and that doesn't reflect the real quality of life of the majority. Most people here are unemployed" (Biles, p 3). According to the World Bank, only thirteen people out of a hundred have access to the internet and growth of industries other than mining have been minimal. However, the country has sought to diversify its economy by developing the financial services and tourism industry. Furthermore, part of Botswana's success can be credited to the pursuit of prudent and sound monetary and fiscal policies, which helped lay the base for the country's future. Botswana's success can also be attributed to the National Development Plans that the country has consistently instituted.

It is important to compare across countries in order to determine the true success of a country. With this being said, Botswana is considered one of Africa's success stories because it has experienced high rates of growth and has developed greatly relative to its neighboring countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although Botswana has not experienced perfection, the country has done extremely well over the past 40 years. In his farewell address, former President Festus Mogae left the people of Botswana with an influential statement that supported the country's future success. He had an optimistic outlook and said, "Whatever our challenges, ours is a land of hope and promise" (Pham, p 6).

Horus:

What do you mean by "Even Botswana"?

We Nigerians are their big bro. You got it

Osahon7: WEDA YORUBA OR IBO, WE ARE ALL ONE;AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL..PLS QUIT DIS ''YORUBA OR IBO'' SYNDROME, ABI DEM STILL DEY SEE YORUBA INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT?? NR BE GREEN ALL BE?

Bro. I tire o. I swear to God if dem gimme cyber cane i go flog some people for Nairaland like pickin! Han Han. Yoruba this...Igbo that....hausa that...! Wetin? Can't we just for once make a constructive criticism? I'm a Yoruba, i stay in Lagos, i'v got tons of igbo frnds. I dnt care what they are...i relate to them as humans should. Wait sef..! When u guys make tribalistic comments ,what do u fight for? Superiority? Una be big FOOL,OFEKES! HomoSapiens Oshi. Always thinking of how to dominate. If u no dominate ur tribe...u go wan dominate other people's tribe. let us pls address ourselves as Nigerians and not as tribes. We should all stand together to make this country great. Trust me, It is not a mistake that u're a Nigerian o. If God had wanted he could have made u a citizen of another Country. Jst stop all this tribalistic comments. Biko... Plssss.

Ikengawo: The ignorance on this thread is record breaking



Igbos are ambitious, nobody will take that from them but it's almost impossible to convince them what they own is better than what they can possiby own or have and that's what leads to their desperate nature.

Yorubas are fearful, nobody will take that from them either. A yoruba person is not going to risk what he has, even if it's very little, no matter the reward and don't typically think outside of what's theres. Many yorubas don't know there was a civil war in Nigeria.

Dude, you are a loser. Pure and simple. So Igbos are "ambitious supermen" while Yorubas are "unambitious and fearful" individuals with no ability? You are just another indoctrinated cretin and loser who can only relate to life thinking he is some 'superman' , with all the good qualities man can be endowed with, while others are 'mumus' he can ascribe all manners of inferior/bad qualities to. The sad thing is that reality never bears out the lies you devilishly dishonest people tell to put down the Yorubas and exalt yourself.

What is happening in Ghana right now is virtually what we have in Lagos and elsewhere. See the article below and explain to the forum why a "fearful" people with "no ambition" go all the way to Ghana to be good role models beneficial to society and captains of organised business. You should give a good explanation for what we read below or stand discredited forever.

Yet, I can predict you and your idiotic co-travellers, always into mindless character assassination against the Yorubas, will have nothing logical, scientific or fact-based to contribute because you have been indoctrinated to the extent your own mindset revolves around the concept you own everything merely because of how you are more committed to market/sole trading than others. You better raise your own children differently to respect others because I find it disgusting how people like you swallow lies about others and then live your lives telling those lies to yourself and others. You will always make enemies of everyone, even very liberal and open-minded folks who defend the rights of everyone, doing such and box yourself into an isolated corner of revilement.

It is as if you cannot take in oxygen if you do not put down others with lies while ascribing ludicrously flattering supremacist qualities to yourselves no one can establish with cold facts and in relation to on-ground reality. I know Ghana as well as any Nigerian can. What is written below is virtually the same in other sectors whether property development or franchised restaurant chains. The Yorubas, far from being "fearful" as you claim, are always present in organised, big, formal business because they are good managers of men and materials with a tolerant and inclusive 'live and let live' fairness.

You are simply another empty braggart with a petty-trader mentality. If you do not see Yorubas in Makola and Kaneshie Market tussling with Ghanaians for stalls, it does not mean Yorubas are "fearful" or that you are fearless supermen "owners of Ghana" because of petty trading alone. It simply means we have different focus and business interest. Fools like you should learn to note the difference so you can better your lives instead of going around lying you are better than others when the world sees you have so many deficiencies and are not special at all plus no different to an empty braggart loser overcompensating for failure.

While you do your 'homework' call our Ghanaians brethren in to ask them which is more beneficial to them between , for example, tax-paying Chicken republic with the average branch employing up to 30 Ghanaians working shift and a Makola Nigerian sole-trader who operates at an end where Ghanaians are squeezed out with the Government also not benefiting in the way of taxes, increased employment for Ghanaians etc. Go and learn why Ghana wants incoming businesses to employ a minimum number of Ghanaians to note what is appreciated in organised society instead of talking like a bushman who thinks petty/market/sole trading is everything everyone and every corner of the world must be judged by.

http://citypeoplegroup.org/unveiling-nigerians-who-play-big-in-ghana/

UNVEILING NIGERIANS WHO PLAY BIG IN GHANA
0 COMMENT 21 MAR 2013 POSTED BY


•How They Run Big Banks & Insurance Companies

When it comes to activities in the Ghanaian economy, Nigeria no doubt is a big player. Nigeria is rated the 3rd biggest investor in Ghanaian economy, after the U.S and China and this explains the magnitude of the massive influence the country wields in terms of business and commerce in Ghana. It is also on record that Nigeria has led the revolution in some key sectors of the Ghanaian economy, especially in the banking and insurance sectors. This piece is about top Nigerian Corporate Executives who are steering the wheels of big corporate institutions and establishments in Ghana, with special focus on the Banking and Insurance sectors. Interestingly, there is no sector of the Ghanaian economy, where you will not find a Nigerian holding a big stake.
In the banking sector, there is no way the story of the current revolution in the Ghana banking industry would be told without the mention of names of Nigerian corporate titans who helped in reshaping the sector in the country. One of such men is Dolapo Ogundimu.. He is the Managing Director of Access Bank. Before he took up the job, Dolapo was the MD of Guaranty Trust Bank Ghana. A seasoned banker, Lekan Sanusi is the current MD of Guaranty Trust Bank Ghana Limited. Since he took over, he has kept the flag of the bank flying as one of the biggest financial institutions in Ghana. Zenith Bank is yet another Nigerian bank doing great in Ghana. Daniel Asiedu is the M/DCEO of the bank. Though Asiedu is a Ghanaian, he had spent most part of his career in Nigeria. Another man doing great in the banking sector is Oliver Alawuba. He is the Managing Director of United Bank of Africa (UBA) in Ghana. UBA is one of the best banks in Ghana at the moment.
Ghanaians can also not forget Nigerian multi-billionaire businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim in a jiffy. He is one of the men who had done so well for the Ghanaian banking industry. He established Energy Bank 2 years ago and today, the bank has 7 branches across the country. It was adjudged the Most Liquid Bank in Ghana last year and also one of the 2 with the Best Profit After Tax out of 28 banks. The Managing Director of Energy Bank Ghana Limited is Mr. Sam Ayinuola. He has been doing so well for the bank and has been bettering the fortunes of the bank. There is also Mr. Isaac Shedowo, who is the Deputy General Manager of Energy Bank.
There is also Mr. Michael Osikoya, who is the Head, Financial Control and Corporate Planning of the Bank. Seasoned Nigerian politician, Senator Iyiola Omisore is another big player in the Ghana banking industry. He, alongside some other Nigerian businessmen floated the First Atlantic Merchant Bank Ghana Limited last year. The bank is set to bring a ne experience to the industry. Another Nigerian entrepreneur who is playing a good role in the Ghanaian banking sector is Oye Balogun. He is one of the new Nigerian businessmen who just moved into banking in Ghana.
In the insurance sector, Nigerians are equally playing big. In that sector in Ghana, there are equally a lot of big names who have done well. There are names like that of Dolapo Balogun. He is one of the Nigerians who play big in Ghana where he owns a lot of investments. He started off as a big player in the Insurance sector in Nigeria, having taken over his dad’s insurance business and he has successfully taken it to the next level; expanding the company’s operations to Ghana few years back.
You cannot also forget names like Iyiola Saraki who is the MD of Nem Insurance Ghana Limited. There is also Roy Bernard, who runs Capital Assurance, Ghana Limited. Another prominent name in the Ghanaian insurance sector is Bode Oseni, who runs Regency Assurance Ghana Limited. Bode is one of the finest hands in the business of Insurance. In Ghana today, Equity Assurance ranks among the biggest in the Insurance sector. A seasoned insurance guru, Prince Yemi Adetuwo is the MD/CEO of the company. Another big name in the industry is Isola Akintunde. He is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Equity Assurance Ghana Limited.
There is also Prince Uche Okugo, who runs International Energy Insurance (I.E.I) Ghana Limited. We also have Abiodun Razak. He is the Managing Director of Intercontinental/WAPIC Insurance Ghana Limited. The insurance company, which has been doing well in Ghana over the years, has David Duduyemi as its General Manager.
Leaseafic Ghana Limited is a leading name in Finance and leasing services in Ghana. A seasoned Accountant, Alex Mbakogu is the General Manager of the company.

–Tope Aileru

Aigbofa:

There are probably Yoruba everywhere you find Igbo, you are just more likely to find the Igbo in the detention.

Mumu! Nsuwam prison in Ghana is filled the brim with Yoruba's.

The article also says 70 Batswanans are whatever they are called are given visa to Nigeria every month, more than the number of Nigerians who get visa to Botswana. The problem is that we are so many, we don't know who is who in this country, we need to start maltreating some African foreigners.

Youngzedd:

We Nigerians are their big bro. You got it

My dear..botswana is the 3rd richest country in Africa

O'Neal at work

Why should yu have a student visa,voluntary permit and still carrying out businesses it happens here in capetown weeks ago;that's the problem with we nigerians..why should yu be going with a working permit without having a company yu are working for?yu are going around with a valid business permit yu don't even have a company registration let alone of a tax cLearance cert.its as good as u dont respect the immigration laws..or someone going about with a student permit without even having a student I'd card and don't even attend the sch..nigerians still gott a long walk to go..

zenatta: Poor, poor, Nigeria; its citizens at loggerheads with one another and it's peoples, mutilated mercilessly outside it's shores.
"Everyone hates Nigeria" is no longer a chant, a lullaby, but a ravaging epidemic.
What did this political entity do to deserve this. Be it as it may, what next. Should we go on, taking these insults laying low; pretending that as long as it is an isolated experience, life can go on. Or should we in our small corners start a revolution - to better the name of this great and always will be great country.
I used to hide behind my other country when Nigeria is being maltreated, shrugging non-chalantly and accusatorily but no more.
And I think you non-Nigerians on this thread, heaping insults on a prone giant, have a nerve. This giant will stand it's full height again. No condition is permanent.

The giant need to be lectured about money. Money should only be meant for one thing ; making life easier but not the primary purpose of life. Most Nigerians need to learn that. Look at our music videos, its all about money,chains,cars, getting money at all cost. That idea is killing us except we learn that money is not everything but building a long standing happy community is.

So it's no longer BOTSWANA Vs NIGERIA...it's now IGBO Vs YORUBA Nigerians are so Vapid..and have this Crude mentality..Even the so-called BigBrothe(L) Africa that was intended to Unite Africa has become an Avenue for People to eat free food...drink free alcohol and have free se.x. When a contestant is evicted . .#hateNigeria . . When a Nigerian wins #hateNigeria . . When the housemates don't nominate Nigerians #hateNigeria. All they do is drink..get drunk..say profane words..gossip..have se.x. Anyway..sex sells. That's by the way tho.. In some countries Like Zimbabwe where BBA is a big deal..u can bet they'll soon start deporting Nigerians

Goodysydney: Mumu! Nsuwam prison in Ghana is filled the brim with Yoruba's.

No mind the clueless dude.

Mpamaneously.

instead
of u guyz 2 com 2geda as broda's nd sista's 4rm one country or
continent u re here fightin urself.Of wat use will al dis argument get
us pls we re one

nobody can send we Edo's out of Lagos even if all of us dey craze for road. Edo owns Lagos.

Doff_Man:

I don't get you? Are Edo's, Rivers people and Deltans being sent home from Lagos too?

The problem of Nigeria is lack of unity,instead of pointing accusing fingers at other countries,why dont we sit and solve this problem of unity.
A country where there is tribalism what do you expect from other country.

Judas2013:

The giant need to be lectured about money. Money should only be meant for one thing ; making life easier but not the primary purpose of life. Most Nigerians need to learn that. Look at our music videos, its all about money,chains,cars, getting money at all cost. That idea is killing us except we learn that money is not everything but building a long standing happy community is.

Your talking about Naija music industry, then what do you have to say about USA everything is all about money.

I agree with the bolded.

Things has really fallen apart, and the centre can never hold, until concerted efforts are made! Arise O Compatriots, ...............

ayswags: Ibos are economic nomads,like what the Bleep are they looking for in botswana,a country even godforsaken nigeria is better than a million times

i no blame u, from ur dirty n smelling ampit,plus ur tear tear leg, we already know ur tribe, dats y laod is suffering. tribalists! wat hsa igbos got to do with dis topic? AM PROUDLY IGBO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Qelvin:
useless country,i can't wait for Biafra to be a reality!

As soon as that happens you are thrown out of lagos

Doc_Miss: My dear..botswana is the 3rd richest country in Africa

Third richest right , now tell us which countries occupied the 1st and 2nd position.

Still the giant of Africa. BIG BROS.

Judas2013:

As soon as that happens you are thrown out of lagos

Define Lagos?

Gorrbachev:

or being stabed or thrown out of buildings by taxi divers and petty criminals. case being Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Indonesia.

Why you Yorubas are filthy two face animal. The two Yorubas terrorist that beheaded a young Britian soldier in UK, are they not Yoruba's again? Honestly, you ugly dirty hypocrites Yorubas are Nigeria problems.

ayswags: Ibos should take a good look at themselves in the mirror,and ask themselves why everybody is against them.

You're assuming Igbos can think straight.

But you seriously can't compare Nigeria and Botswana. The smallest state in Nigeria has more people than Botswana. With Botswana's 2 million people, you factor in the children, nomads, and villagers, and after that, how many people are you left with? That's why its peaceful, there's nobody there! Any country with less than 5 million people should have no excuse not to have their house in order.
That's why I can't understand what Nigerians are doing there in terms of "business." What market is in Botswana unless they are looking to get into the mining business.

Also,this issue of seekin greener pasture,Nigerians should learn to make good use of wat they've got,.
We can still make this country better,instead of runing to other countries,we should think of making a change in our country,and the change starts from you,individually.

Soreza: it will be a blow and foolishness for any nigerian to blame tribe or no tribe,it totally an insult,infact an insult is an understatement,like a prophet i predicted this not long ago,you can check my posts,but i was using mali as a representive of a low country never knew its BOTSWANA,LADIES AND GENTLEMEN BOSTSWANA,u know wotits a disgrace to be called a nigerian and yes,i can attest that any where in the world,tell me what type of giant are we that countries low as low slam us to the face,listen until nigerian leaders pick this up as a challenge and not a reciprocal attack then we shall be on the path to redeemtion,first it was south africa,what do we dosome sort of revenge deportation like a school boy,kenya then,guess they didnt see any kenya person,so the revenge was to ground their plane,uk visa bond came,wot are they planing raising theirs to 5000,now botswana,am expecting likewise,but for how long?till our leaders bend down to reason,9ja is d....oomed

The only time i have to use my Nigerian passport is to travel into Nigeria otherwise it is hidden somewhere no one will see. You cannot proudly present a naija passport in Europe,Australia or America,it will be thoroughly check and probably they will invite sniffer dogs. For the country to work it need to be divided. Yorubas do not like the ibo and vice verse. Why are we together in the first place. I wish i could go to a court and get the Yorubas a divorce letter,free from Nigeria ASAP! I do not want to be associated with some money hungry lunatics from the south.

Am outta here.

Nigeria is cursed! To our brothers living abroad, don't go around and be claiming you're from Nigeria...You better watch your neck!

realpower32: In Botswana these institutions remained whole partly because of minimal British colonization. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson say that "colonialism was very light" mainly because Great Britain created the colony to limit territorial gains by the Germans and the Boer states (Acemoglu, p 12). They expand on this idea and conclude that the land was not "particularly valuable or attractive in itself" (Acemoglu, p 12). Thus, the institutions that were already established in Botswana were not destroyed by British involvement. The British did not stay out of Botswana completely as colonialism did have "important effects on the structure of the economy" (Acemoglu, p 13). The hut tax of 1899 and the native tax of 1919 required people to pay some money to the British. These taxes ultimately encouraged people to join the labor market so that they could earn money and pay this annual tax. According to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, there was some British colonialism; however, overall involvement was fairly minimal, which allowed the institutions to remain intact and unchanged.

Similar to minimal British involvement preserving the institutions in Botswana, the elites were also interested in maintaining and strengthening these institutions after independence. On September 30, 1966, Botswana gained independence from Great Britain and was on the way to controlling its own future. As indicated by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, Seretse Khama formed the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), which incorporated the emerging elites in addition to the traditional chiefs. In An African Success Story: Botswana, the strength of the BDP is described when it states, "They could integrate within the party the traditional rural structures of loyalty between commoners and chiefs" (Acemoglu, p 15). As a result of this popularity, in 1965, the BDP won the first election, and Seretse Khama was nominated president. As stated by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, "strengthening institutions of private property were in the economic interests of the elite" (Acemoglu, p 11). Many of the elites in Botswana owned cattle and were involved in the main export sector in the country at that time period. Thus, with the elites heavily invested in the economy, it seems reasonable to say that it was in the interests of the political elites to favor good institutions. Furthermore, Botswana's political elites at that time did not feel threatened by growth and development. Therefore, it would be practical for the elites to support the current institutions with the idea of strengthening them as much as possible.

Not only did the interests of the elites support the institutions, but people did not want to change the status quo after the discovery of diamonds, allowing these institutions to grow and develop even further. The leaders of Botswana made strategically important mining agreements with DeBeers, a company that specializes in the exploration, mining, and manufacturing of diamonds. With the agreement in place, the government of Botswana would receive half of all diamond profits in the country. The government was running a budget surplus by the mid 1970s with the diamond industry thriving and expanding tremendously. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson argue that the revenue generated from the mining industry was managed appropriately as the money was effectively and efficiently put to use. The rents were put towards the government budget as additional investment, allowing the economy to expand and the country to strengthen as a whole. One prime example that shows the government's ability to manage the diamond industry occurred in the 1980s when Botswana was unable to sell its diamonds for nearly half a year. Even through these difficult times, the government still managed to keep diamond prices relatively high without allowing government expenditure to fall. This ability to successfully control diamond prices ultimately led to more positive effects in years to come.

Furthermore, the diamonds in Botswana were positioned in such a way that the sector was mostly capital intensive rather than labor extensive. Botswana has mostly kimberlite pipes, which are channels that extend from the mantle to the surface and are highly concentrated with diamonds. However, in countries that have not been so fortunate such as Sierra Leone, diamonds are mostly spread out amongst thousands of miles of streams and rivers. Mining in these areas are more labor intensive and do not have the same positive effects of countries that have diamonds in highly concentrated areas.

Not only did the diamond industry have positive effects on institutions, but good decision making by leaders did so as well. Seretse Khama, the first president of Botswana, was a very legitimate leader. According to An African Success Story: Botswana, his prior experiences as the chief of Bangwato, present day Botswana, and his involvement with the Botswana Democratic Party contributed to increased political stability and ultimately more developed institutions. In the book it states, "Key decision made by Botswana leaders, particularly Seretse Khama and Quett Masire, appear to have been crucial", showing the impact leaders can have on institutions in addition to country development (Acemoglu, p 24). One of his crucial decisions as president involved the transfer of diamond rich lands from his own tribe to the government. If he did not complete this task, there could have been greater conflict between tribes simply because of the potential to generate tremendous revenue.

Some people would say that factors other than good institutions played a significant role for successful development to occur in Botswana. Scott Beaulier, assistant professor of Economics at George Mason University, puts more emphasis on leaders and their ability to direct a country in the right direction rather than simply being guided by "good" institutions. In Explaining Botswana's Success: The Critical Role of Post-Colonial Policy, Beaulier states, "Good leadership, in fact, could be the key factor in Botswana's development" (Beaulier, Explaining Botswana's Success: The Critical Role of Post-Colonial Policy, p 18). He argues that the future of the country after independence rested in the hands of Khama and his administration. It is ultimately the people with authority who have control of the country's future path, not Botswana's prior experiences. Khama's administration established pro-market policies, which included low taxes for mining companies and thus more investment. According to Beaulier, he also kept income taxes low to encourage people to pay their taxes and avoid corruption. Khama made critical decisions after independence that supported strong markets with the vision of having a better tomorrow.

If every nation in Africa had the chance to choose the most appropriate role for government, why did so many African countries turn out differently than Botswana? Beaulier argues that many of the elected leaders of other African nations chose paths that did not support long-term economic development and growth. Khama, on the other hand, maintained good policy and made wise decisions after independence, giving Botswana the opportunity to develop into the country it is today. The difficulty then arises of why Botswana had strong leaders while other countries did not.

There are two distinct factors that separate Khama from other African leaders. His experience in Great Britain in addition to his personality allowed for better leadership and in the end greater success for Botswana relative to other African nations. Khama received an education at Fort Hare University, which Beaulier describes as an institution with an "explicitly 'Euro-centric' vision for Africa" (Beaulier, p 21). He obtained an education that revolved around Western tradition and values and would inevitably spread European culture into Botswana. As said by Beaulier, Khama then went on to study at Oxford's Balliol College where he received a degree in law. He was exposed to British law as well as their culture and way of life. Khama's education revolved much around markets, Western values, and British common law, which eventually impacted his policy selection for Botswana. Beaulier argues that "Policy choice at a critical point in time was the key factor determining the wealth and poverty of African nations" (Beaulier, p 21). It is hard to say which factor impacted Botswana's success the most, but leadership and key decision making definitely paved the country's future to some extent.

Beaulier and Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson offer substantial evidence about the origins of Botswana's success and its tremendous rate of growth. It is important to note that these pieces of literature do not necessarily disagree with each other, but that different factors are emphasized more in each of them. Beaulier argues with Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson by saying that good leadership was the primary factor for Botswana's success while favorable institutions were a secondary factor. If Botswana's success is mainly attributed to its colonial institutions, then it seems that a country's success might be based on their past. If this concept is true, then it would be acceptable to conclude there is little hope for some countries whose history will inherently limit its success. At the same time, it would not be reasonable to conclude that one leader could change a country's direction simply with good policy and excellent decision making. Thus, it would be acceptable to say that both strong institutions and good leadership played a very important role in Botswana's growth, but it is hard to conclude which factor should be emphasized more.

One might be able to determine the significance of certain factors if there is some sort of analysis done between successful countries and ones that have failed. After gaining independence, Botswana has been successful and has achieved tremendous rates of growth. On the other hand, Zimbabwe has become a miserable failure. What are the underlying reasons for these very different outcomes even though they were both former British colonies? The factors contributing to growth in Zimbabwe, or the lack there of, are similar to the ones offered earlier by Acemoglu, Johnson, Robinson, and Beaulier. Robert Mugabe, prime minister of Zimbabwe after gaining its independence in 1980, played a major role in determining the failure of the country. The magazine The American says that in 1982 Mugabe turned on former ally Joshua Nkomo and the Zimbabwe Africa Peoples Union (ZAPN), killing nearly 20,000 of its supporters. This attack allowed Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) to win the following election very easily. In The American it states, "Nkomo was forced to agree to a merger of ZAPU with Mugabe's ZANU. In return, Nkomo received the largely ceremonial title of Zimbabwe's vice president", which shows the presence of corruption and political insecurity in Zimbabwe shortly after independence (Tupy, The American). This political unrest was not a component of Botswana's experience as it was named the least corrupt country in Africa by Transparency International, a global civil society organization that fights corruption. A recent sign at the Gaborone airport reads, "Botswana has a ZERO tolerance for corruption. It is illegal to offer or ask for a bride", which displays Botswana's political security and its ability to preserve beneficial, long-term goals (Biles, p 2). Political instability and corruption ultimately had some effect on Zimbabwe's outcome. However, it is difficult to determine the exact significance this factor played in its failure. The figure below from The American shows divergence in the per capita income of Botswana and Zimbabwe. It is hard to determine the exact reasons for Zimbabwe's failure, but one can easily make the argument that political insecurity was an important factor that separated these two countries into what they are today.

Overall Botswana's success can be attributed to good policy, underlying institutions, and good leadership. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the adoption of good policy in addition to the maintenance of good institutions. These institutions of private property encouraged investment and gave Botswana the opportunity to grow at incredible rates of growth for over 35 years. Beaulier, on the other hand, seems to believe that good leadership was the most important factor in Botswana's development. Key decision making right after independence was essential for Botswana's development. None of these factors alone could explain Botswana's success, but it was the combination of these factors occurring at the right time that allowed the country to experience high rates of economic growth for so many years.

Although Botswana has been the fastest growing country over the last 35 years, will the country be able to sustain this rate of growth? Although per capita income has grown at nearly 7 % since the 1960s, Botswana still has a long way to go. Paul Rantao of the Botswana National Front believes the government has not done enough to actually help the country as he states, "The government is more concerned about per capita income, and that doesn't reflect the real quality of life of the majority. Most people here are unemployed" (Biles, p 3). According to the World Bank, only thirteen people out of a hundred have access to the internet and growth of industries other than mining have been minimal. However, the country has sought to diversify its economy by developing the financial services and tourism industry. Furthermore, part of Botswana's success can be credited to the pursuit of prudent and sound monetary and fiscal policies, which helped lay the base for the country's future. Botswana's success can also be attributed to the National Development Plans that the country has consistently instituted.

It is important to compare across countries in order to determine the true success of a country. With this being said, Botswana is considered one of Africa's success stories because it has experienced high rates of growth and has developed greatly relative to its neighboring countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although Botswana has not experienced perfection, the country has done extremely well over the past 40 years. In his farewell address, former President Festus Mogae left the people of Botswana with an influential statement that supported the country's future success. He had an optimistic outlook and said, "Whatever our challenges, ours is a land of hope and promise" (Pham, p 6).

Who is this?how long did u take u to write all this
I bet u not everybody have d time to read ur newspaper
Better buy space in one of d dailys so u can be heard