In 1997, in Korea, for example, the I M F laid down conditions on the amount of debt that private sector companies could have, on the grounds that over-borrowing by these companies was the main reason for Korea’s financial crisis.
To add insult to injury, the Bad Samaritan rich nations often demand, as a condition for their financial contribution to I M F packages, that the borrowing country be made to adopt policies that have little to do with fixing its econ- omy but that serve the interests of the rich countries lending the money. For example, on seeing Korea’s 1997 agreement with the I M F , one outraged observer commented: ‘Several features of the I M F plan are replays of the policies that Japan and the United States have long been trying to get Korea to adopt. These included accelerating the . . . reductions of trade barriers to specific Japanese products and opening capital markets so that foreign investors can have ma- jority ownership of Korean firms, engage in hostile takeovers . , , and expand direct participation in banking and other financial services. Although greater competition from manufactured imports and more foreign ownership could . . . help the Korean economy, Koreans and others saw this . . . as an abuse of I M F power to force Korea at a time of weakness to accept trade and investment policies it had previously rejected’.
This was said not by some anti-capitalist anarchist but by Martin Feldstein, the conservative Harvard economist who was the key economic advisor to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Its too late - the IMF is already running nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan has handed everything over to them, he is merely an honorary head of state and has no say in nigeria's economic policy.

Any fighting we nigerians are doing now is a fight to free ourselves from neo colonialism.