₦airaland Forum

kayjay69:
God bless you good man. God bless you.

Thank you I appreciate your kindness..

These changes would be great but they wont do it. Buhari's economic policies have proven to be failures. Nigeria consistently had low growth and high rates of unemployment every quarter. The central bank policy was contradictory on its face. You want strong currency that encourages imports. Then you ban goods arbitrarily because you save forex to create jobs.

Lol people will foolishly argue the IMF is turning them into slaves like they forced them take money. Everyone knows the IMF is the lend of last resort. If the country fixed it's economy itself you wouldn't be running cap in hand.

The IMF wants the CBN to end some of its harshest policies including lifting the forex ban on 41 items.

The International Monetary Fund, IMF on Tuesday approved a sum of $3.4 billion via a Rapid Financial Instrument to Nigeria. The loans come at a period when countries across the world are battling with the Covid-19 pandemic and the crash in crude oil prices.

While the loans do not necessarily come with strings, the IMF did reveal in its press release acknowledging that Nigeria was on the path to unifying its exchange rata and moving towards a flexible exchange rate regime. As Nigerians get acquainted with the terms of the deal, the IMF released more reports shedding more light into what the country might expect to happen in the coming weeks and month should they have their way.

One of such policy changes it demands from Nigeria is a change in some of the most loved monetary policies, currently in place under the Godwin Emefiele led central bank. The CBN Governor has often defended his heterodox policies claiming it is expedient if Nigeria were to dislocate itself from its thirst for foreign imports. The IMF may well be on a collision course with the CBN if it wants the CBN to reverse these policies.

CBN Policies IMF wants to be reversed.

Exchange Rate Unification: The CBN currently maintains a multiple exchange rate regime where it buys and sells forex through several windows. The IMF wants the CBN to collapse these windows into one.

“With the spread across the various exchange rate windows now very narrow, this is also a good moment to immediately move to full and formal unification—e.g., by converging all foreign exchange windows to the I&E window. This critical step to ensuring a well-functioning market would be helped by the CBN’s calibration of its foreign exchange sales in the market at a level commensurate with protecting central bank reserves while taking into account low international oil prices and reduced FX demand. A unified and more flexible exchange rate will be an important shock absorber, especially in turbulent times— with CBN FX interventions limited to smoothing large fluctuations in the exchange rate.” IMF 

The CBN already moved towards this after it devalued from N305 to N360 in its official window. However, the rate still differs from that of the BDCs and the I&E window. CBN also does not have a flexible exchange rate and have resisted this for years under Emefiele. This will be one of the greatest ever policy changes in Nigeria’s economic history and goes against every defense President Buhari has put forward defending a fixed exchange rate regime. It will be a huge victory for more market-friendly analysts if this happens under Emefiele and Buhari.

Remove FX Restriction on Imports: The IMF also wants the CBN to remove all FX related restrictions on imports. This includes its flagship ban on the sale of forex to import on 41 items, a major policy thrust of Emefiele.

“Along with exchange rate unification, existing FX restrictions on goods imports should be removed and monetary policy tightening through more orthodox tools (i.e., no discretionary CRR that distorts banks’ liquidity management) resumed to enable the CBN to reach its single-digit inflation target.” IMF

Dropping this policy will be a very difficult one considering how critical it is to the CBN’s import substitution policy. Once it does this, it would have done a complete 360 degrees to one of its most controversial policies. The CBN believes these bans have led to an increase in the local production of rice and a boost to the agricultural sector.

Stop the CRR & LDR policy: Banks hate the CBN’s increase in CRR and the CBN’s frequent unilateral debits of its deposits due to non-compliance of the load to deposit ration monetary policy. The IMF seems to hate that too.

“Recent regulations to spur lending through the loan-to-deposit ratio, which encourages higher credit risk and a shorter maturity structure, should be eliminated. Banks’ own capital and liquidity buffers should remain the first line of defense, which in the case of Nigeria means that supervisors could temporarily allow banks to drop below the minimum capital requirement (currently 15 percent for large banks, which is significantly above the Basel II 8 percent requirement).” IMF

The CBN’s CRR & LDR policy is at the heart of the bank’s quest to push banks away from the safety of treasury bills and OMO towards the more risky private sector lending. Some naysayers believe the CBN has an ulterior motive which probably includes defending the naira. Getting the CBN to also reverse this policy will be a huge win for banks who have complained that the policy affects its profitability growth.

It will be interesting to see how the CBN reacts to these demands from the IMF and how quickly it could reverse its much-maligned policies if it does agree to reverse them.

Source: https://nairametrics.com/2020/04/30/imf-list-unpopular-policies-cbn-must-reverse/

Dedetwo:
You posted the above statements with the bolded line. Where did it state that due to Nigerian navy enforcement of the sea blockade, Nigeria was able to subdue Biafra? I guess you could make the same statement with Nigerian air force which was more in the fight than Nigerian navy. Yet Biafra was able to get supplies due to vast land mass which Nigerian army could not cover until the end of the war.

It's implied within the sentence and directly started in the articles. Nobody would common sense would claim blockade wasn't effective. Biafra only got it's main supplies flown in to uli airstrip. 2 million people starved yo death because the couldn't get food supplies.

The Navy's contribution was more vitals than the airforce. The airforce failed to take out uli air strip. The navy pressure killed Biafra economicly.

In conclusion, it was the blockade role of the Nigerian Navy that facilitated the victory over Biafra forces. The navy deprived Biafra of the opportunity to hold on to the Bonny terminal, export oil and deploy the foreign currency earned to purchase arms from the black market. It also denied Biafra access to an otherwise open route to convey purchased weapons into Biafra(Cameroon having become uncooperative). Above all, the Navy’s blockade created a siege mentality, a psychological feeling of being encircled with nowhere to go. Finally, the Nigerian Navy’s tactical support to the Nigerian Army in the first year of the war gave the federal troops quick successes.

PicLtd:
British built naval ships and boats were supplied to Gowon's army, just like the mortars, artilleries and even the bullets.
The British-supplied military hardwares don't have to be manned by British soldiers before they can be qualified to be described as 'British'.

Stop playing hide and seek. I'd bet you got the point if you are as intelligent as you pose.

Lol you're clearly bent on arguing this strawman. Nobody argued the British sold weapons. The correct way to phrase the sentence is British supplied ships. Britsh ships at sea implies the British navy.

Your argument is wrong. You'd be able to figure this out yourself if you were as intelligently you pose. If the British decided not to sell the patrol bosts the Soviets would have the supplied the Nigerian military. The Soviets actually did sell Nigeria boats and arms during the war. Nigeria simply went with the British because they had more leverage with them. In any war of attrition Nigeria had the clear advantage.

His well-equipped federal army of over 85,000 men supplied by Britain and the Soviet Union, among others, took on a volunteer Biafran force under Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, the military governor of the Eastern region, much of whose equipment initially came from captured Nigerian supplies.

Dedetwo:
I do not know the War College which taught you about the essence of naval blockade when the target does not have seaport facility.

Dedetwo:
British warships or no warships in Bight of Biafra remains irrelevant in the case of sea blockade of Biafra since the infantry had already overrun the seaport facilities in Biafra.

Lol you contradict yourself every sentence it's weird. Biafra has a seaport when it's convenient for your arguement. The point of blockades is to maintain control to stop the enemy from gaining resources or to prevent them making assualts. This should be common sense.

Dedetwo:
All the Biafran seaport facilities, Port Harcourt and Calabar, have been overrun by 3MCDO literally a month into the war. What other forms of sea or naval blockade are necessary or need to be orchestrated by Nigerian naval force?

The opperations was sucessful because they had superior navy and prevented biafra from being resupplied via the blockade. They same blockade prevented them from acquiring food via the sea.

‘The strategic value of the Nigerian Navy during the civil war lies in its unrivalled capacity to operate in the three dimensions of war, and to communicate with the campaign on land.   From this perspective, the Nigerian Navy was thus able to sustain the resources used on the battle front by the Nigerian Army, making the Nigerian land force have a momentum against the enemy otherwise victory may not have come or could have been delayed.

In conclusion, it was the blockade role of the Nigerian Navy that facilitated the victory over Biafra forces. The navy deprived Biafra of the opportunity to hold on to the Bonny terminal, export oil and deploy the foreign currency earned to purchase arms from the black market. It also denied Biafra access to an otherwise open route to convey purchased weapons into Biafra (Cameroon having become uncooperative). Above all, the Navy’s blockade created a siege mentality, a psychological feeling of being encircled with nowhere to go. Finally, the Nigerian Navy’s tactical support to the Nigerian Army in the first year of the war gave the federal troops quick successes.

PicLtd:
Nobody, no Biafrans has ever said the British sent in troop.

Lol why are pressed on arguing a strawman. People did say the British directly enforced the blockade. One of the on this thread actually. Dude you literally said the British naval ships were on bight of biafra.

gidgiddy:
Nigeria did not blockade Biafra, they didnt have the capacity. In 1966, the Nigerian Navy was still in its infancy.

It was British Naval warships that blockaded Biafra. That blockade is what won the war for Nigeria.

Dedetwo:
Biafra did not have warships to even attempt to burst the Nigeria blockade which was not even orchestrated by the its naval force.

PicLtd:
Would the blockade have been enforceable without British Naval ships on the Bight of Biafra (Sea)

PicLtd:
It is on record that Britain supplied Gowon naval patrol Ships, Military hardware, armouries. I had this information saved and bookmarked on my microscoft Encarta encyclopedia as far as 2011.

Stop lying.

Read the post slowly so you know what's being argued. I said The British didnt enforce the blockade directly. You said British naval ships were on bight of Biafra. I already said British assisted materially meaning selling weapons. Even the article I posted said this.

Lol you guys enjoy making up historical fictions and mindless ranting. Cite the source that says the British directly enforced the blockade by stationing troops.

Dedetwo:
British warships or no warships in Bight of Biafra remains irrelevant in the case of sea blockade of Biafra since the infantry had already overrun the seaport facilities in Biafra.

You're wrong because the sea blockade ensured they were encircled and economicly crippled. The could resupply troops with weapons or get food to populace. The naval blockade ensured they couldn't potentially retake those cities forcing the troops futher inland.

PicLtd:
Would the blockade have been enforceable without British Naval ships on the Bight of Biafra (Sea), British amoury and other hardware on the border with cameroon (Land) and killer fighter jets harrasing and bombing Biafran civilians in villages and markets aerially (Air)?

Why didn't Gowon and Awolowo go and stand physically on the Bakkasi border with southern cameroons to enforce their blockade after making their declaration, if that's what it means in your dictionary?

Why do guys like telling these historical fictions. The British didnt directly enforce the blockade. There were no British naval ships on the on the bight of biafra. None of you can cite any source stating this. Nobody debating the British assisted materially and in other areas.

It's funny how some people will lie claiming the British directly enforced the blockade. If you ask them to cite their sources it turns into mission impossible. Even their declassified documents make this known.

By Mark Curtis

On the 50th anniversary of the end of the Biafran war, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in the late 1960s, declassified British files show that Harold Wilson’s government secretly armed and backed Nigeria’s aggression against the secessionist region.

The then Labour government secretly provided large quantities of arms to the Nigerian federal government which, by early 1970, had crushed an attempt by the country’s eastern region of Biafra to gain independence, which it had declared in May 1967. 

During the three years of war, up to three million people died, as Nigeria enforced a blockade on Biafra, causing widespread starvation amid considerable international opposition to the conflict.

British policy was mainly shaped by its oil interests, declassified government documents from the time show. “Our direct interests are trade and investment, including an important stake by Shell/BP in the eastern region,” the Foreign Office noted a few days before the outbreak of the war in 1967. 

Investments by Shell/BP—then a joint company in Nigeria which was partly owned by the British government—amounted to around £200-million at the time. The company was the largest producer of oil in Nigeria, most of which was in Biafra.

Shell “have much to lose if the FMG [federal military government] do not achieve the expected victory,” George Thomas, Labour’s commonwealth minister, noted in August 1967. He added: “The sole immediate British interest in Nigeria is that the Nigerian economy should be brought back to a condition in which our substantial trade and investment in the country can be further developed, and particularly so we can regain access to important oil installations.”

UK supplies of arms — which eventually enabled the Nigerian government to win the war — included millions of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of machine guns and grenades, thousands of mortar and artillery bombs, aircraft and armoured personnel carriers. 

These supplies were massively stepped up while Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson was telling parliament that Britain was supplying arms to Nigeria at the same level as before. He made the false claim that there was “no special provision” for the war.  

The decisions to supply arms and ammunition were taken at a time when it was clear they were being used against civilians. Wilson’s agreement to supply patrol boats in 1967 was done in the knowledge that this would help the government maintain the sea blockade against Biafra. 

Declaration of war

The Nigerian government under General Yakubu ‘Jack’ Gowon — who had seized power in a military coup in July 1966 — began military operations to defeat the Biafran secessionists in July 1967. 

His well-equipped federal army of over 85,000 men supplied by Britain and the Soviet Union, among others, took on a volunteer Biafran force under Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, the military governor of the Eastern region, much of whose equipment initially came from captured Nigerian supplies.

In the run-up to Gowon’s declaration of war, British officials made clear to the Nigerian government that they supported the country’s unity. Labour minister George Thomas told the Nigerian High Commissioner in London in April 1967, for example, that the federal government had “our sympathy and our full support” but hoped the use of force against the east could be avoided. Britain initially refused Gowon’s requests for military support to target Biafran ports.

By June 1967, however, the new British High Commissioner in Lagos, Sir David Hunt, wrote in a memo to London that the “only way… of preserving unity [sic] of Nigeria is to remove Ojukwu by force”. He said the Biafran leader was committed to remaining the ruler of an independent state and reiterated that UK interests lay in firmly supporting the federal government.

On 1 July 1967 Gowon asked Britain for jet fighter and bomber aircraft, six fast boats and 24 anti-aircraft guns. Britain rejected the aircraft and boats but agreed to supply the anti-aircraft guns. The deputy high commissioner in Enugu, Biafra’s main city, noted that supplying the anti-aircraft guns would be seen as British backing for the Gowon regime and “they could also take on an offensive role if mounted in an invasion fleet”. 

The British government’s news department was instructed to stress the “defensive nature of these weapons” and to avoid publicity on their export from Britain. High Commissioner Sir David Hunt said that “it would be better to use civil aircraft” to deliver these guns and secured agreement from the Nigerians that “there would be no publicity”.

Faced with Gowon’s complaints about Britain not supplying more arms, Prime Minister Wilson agreed in mid-July to supply him with the fast patrol boats, in the knowledge they would help the government maintain the blockade against Biafra. Wilson wrote to Gowon saying that “we have demonstrated in many ways our support for your government as the legal government of Nigeria and our refusal to recognise the secessionists”. 

Wilson also told Gowon that Britain does “not intend to put any obstacle in the way” of orders for “reasonable quantities of military material of types similar to those you have obtained here in the past”. 

By early November 1967 Nigerian government forces had pushed back the Biafrans and captured Enugu. George Thomas now called for a “quick FMG victory” and recommended that the UK arms export policy towards Lagos be “relaxed” to ensure that outcome. On 23 November 1967 the Cabinet agreed that such a federal military victory provided the best hope for “an early end to the fighting”. 

Arms supplies

The following month, Commonwealth Secretary George Thomson suggested the UK should agree to Gowon’s shopping list for arms supplies. He wrote: “Anything that we now do to assist the FMG should help our oil companies to re-establish and expand their activities in Nigeria after the war, and, more generally, should help our commercial and political relationship with postwar Nigeria.”

As a result Britain supplied 36 armoured personnel carriers, along with 2,000 machine guns for them, anti-tank guns and nine million rounds of ammunition. Denis Healey, the Defence Secretary, wrote that he hoped these supplies would encourage the Nigerians “to look to the United Kingdom for their future purchases of defence equipment”. 

By mid-1968 Britain had supplied 15 million rounds of ammunition, 21,000 mortar bombs, 42,500 Howitzer rounds, 1,950 rifles with grenade launchers, 15,000 lbs of explosives, 500 submachine guns, 4,000 rifles and four helicopters. 

These arms exports were secretly stepped up at a time when killings were being widely reported in the press. About 1,000 people of the Ibo ethnic group, who predominated in Biafra, were killed in Benin city by local people with the acquiescence of the federal government forces, the New York Review noted in December 1967. 

A further 700 Ibo males were lined up and shot in the town of Asaba in January 1968, the Observer reported at the time. According to eyewitnesses the Nigerian commander ordered the execution of every Ibo male over the age of ten in the town.

Humanitarian suffering, especially starvation, was severe as a result of the federal government’s blockade of Biafra. Pictures of starving and malnourished children went around the world and the Nigerian government was widely seen to be engaging in atrocities against civilians, including apparently indiscriminate air strikes, in an increasingly brutal war.

By the beginning of 1968, British files refer to deaths of between 70,000-100,000 people in the war. The Red Cross estimated there were around 600,000 refugees in Biafra and was trying to arrange supplies to meet needs, estimated at around 30 tonnes a day.

Public and parliamentary pressure in Britain to halt arms exports to Lagos was now rising, with 70 Labour MPs filing a motion for an embargo in May 1968. Yet the real extent of arms supplied by Britain was concealed from the public by the government.

Throughout 1967 and 1968, Labour ministers told parliament that Britain was essentially neutral in the conflict and was continuing to supply arms to Nigeria on the same basis as before the war. Wilson misinformed the House of Commons on 16 May 1968 that: “We have continued the supply… of arms by private manufacturers in this country exactly on the basis that it has been in the past, but there has been no special provision for the needs of the war”.

With the forces of Gowon’s regime in control of Port Harcourt, Biafra’s most important southern coastal city, by mid-1968, British officials noted that “having gone this far in supporting the FMG, it would be a pity to throw away the credit we have built up with them just when they seem to have the upper hand”. 

Britain could not halt the supply of arms since “such an outcome would seriously put at risk about £200-million of British investments in non-Biafra Nigeria”, George Thomson explained to Harold Wilson in private.

Read full: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-04-29-how-britains-labour-government-facilitated-the-massacre-of-biafrans-in-nigeria-to-protect-its-oil-interests/

Ps: you can listen to full article.

AnanseK:
Why don’t you go and mind your baby factories that are many and flourishing with babies produced and sold everyday. Just one Almajiri school for girls and you are restless shouting yourself hoarse as if you are angels.

What aboutism is a fools argument. I've already made threads about that topic relating to cross river. Why dont you make make threads calling out behavior you dont like instead of whining?

I find it funny a bunch of AGPA and APC lost to these clowns. Who ever ran those campaigns needs to fired. The attack ads write themselves.

Do we have linguists in the chat. Your expertise is appreciated.

Omooba77:
Seun, I really like your comment, but how do we do the referendum. Electorates have little say.
New York borrowed to build underground rail, within somw years, the debt was paid
Likewise Sam Houston Circus, the money borrowed was in paid back. Look at BRT, they have not brake even not to talk of profit.

I already explained how that works here and in depth in my thread on direct democracy. In order to have referendums the government needs to pass a law first. Specifically for bond issues the government has to restrain its powers to accumulate debt over certain limit with voter approval.

https://www.nairaland.com/5704281/direct-democracy-improve-nigeria-introducing

Kobojunkie:
This seems to answer your question. If you import more than you sell, you would need to find money elsewhere to balance out the cost of the imports, right?

I'm guessing you're talking about budgets. Nigeria has revenue shortfall hence the need to borrow. Nigeria has always been net exporter.

budaatum:
You are absolutely correct that the Federal Government has not recognized them, but its still a fact they have been created.

Federal Government is wise not to recognise them since recognition would mean increasing allocation to the states that created them, which would just make a state create as many local governments as it can so it can get more money. If it were so easy, each family will be a local government in its own right.

They have no legal authority to recognize these entities anyway. The process to create local government is clearly in stated. If one believes the states should be able to create as many local governments as they please then there shouldnt be manadtory allocation. Nigeria will just operate more like America afterwards.

Omooba77:
I have cited the reason why states can not propose electoral reform without buying of NASS. are you still talking about Local Government election. Where you aware of Badagry LGA result publicly announced, but Gov. Fasola and co over turned the result claiming a party did not support creation of LCDA, so they cant benefit from it.
No opposition has won LGA elections in any state. Is that the reform. Not diverting from the topic, Why will pay all the debts?

You didnt cite anything. You made an erroneous statement that was proven false by constitutional. Your anecdotes dont supersede the laws. Yes I was referring to local elections not needing approval. INEC needs NASS approval. The state electoral commission is corrupt which is why your reforms should start there. If they cant handle simple local elections there's an issue.

The tax payers will pay debts. That's how it works.

Omooba77:
This is in paper, State still use INEC facility, I stay around Bariga so I know what operates around Queens college. The voters list used is same as INEC

You're shifting the goalposts. They use the same voters list because they're legally obligated to. There's nothing stopping them from using their own facilities. The fact remains there's nothing stopping state electoral commissions from implementing the reforms.

F - Independent National Electoral Commission 

15. The Commission shall have power to - 

(e) arrange and conduct the registration of persons qualified to vote and prepare, maintain and revise the register of voters for the purpose of any election under this Constitution;

Omooba77:
You know the way the law works, Federal controls virtually everything. Little or no autonomy exist for the State or Local. Why is it impossible for State to create Local Governments. 1999 constitution too ambigious sir. Electoral reform can only come from NASS and signed by the President

The FG doesn't regulate local elections that's a fact. The constitution isn't ambigious on this if you read it. If you disagree cite the ambigious passage. If you want to start your reforms at the local level do so. If you dont care to focus on INEC.

B - State Independent Electoral Commission

4. The Commission shall have power-

(a) to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to local government councils within the State.

(b) to render such advice as it may consider necessary to the Independent National Electoral Commission on the compilation of and the register of voters in so far as that register is applicable to local government elections in the State.

F - Independent National Electoral Commission

15. The Commission shall have power to -

(a) organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a State, and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each State of the Federation;

(i) carry out such other functions as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly.

Omooba77:
I cant understand you sir

If you believe electoral reforms are needed you should start with your state. The federal government cant stop state electoral commission from transmitting results electronically. These type of ideas usually start local then get popular nationwide after it's proven better.

Omooba77:
Forget election in Nigeria for now, we know the truth.
Reason they toy with us, because our vote does not really matter. Give us electoral reforms, allow results transmitted electronically, come and see how fast Nigeria will develop.

If you believe that start with your state. Im guessing your state electoral commission doesn't do it for local elections. Personally I'm for ballot measures since more direct democracy is great.

seunmsg:
Winning election is the referendum that gives government the authority to borrow money on your behalf. You have an elected president and elected parliament. Once you elect people into constitutionally created offices, you’ve given them the power to make decisions on your behalf according to the laws of the land.

That's generally true since NASS controld the purse. I do agree there should be laws to rein in borrowing at least at local and state level. Ballot measures on bond issues would be great so they would at least get consent of tax payers before taking on foolish debts. This practice exist the United states so there's a template to copy.

A bond issue as it applies to ballots is when a state government, or a local unit of government (city, county, school district), places a question before the voters as a ballot measure, asking them to approve or deny additional proposed spending. School districtsand municipalities often make the most use of bond election authority, but state governments utilize bonds as well.

Bonds issued by state governments and municipalities are both generally referred to as municipal bonds. Laws and regulations stipulating how and when bond issues go to a vote vary from state to state, and from locality to locality within states.

State legislatures or local units of governmentmay place such a question before the voters in their political jurisdiction because of laws that prevent the unit of government from raising taxes or spending beyond a certain level without the approval of voters, as well as laws that require voter approval for the creation of any new public debt.

Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Bond_issue

Seun:
I've always believed that the government should not be allowed to borrow money from foreign entities without first winning an open referendum. If you want to borrow money on my behalf, which I will have to repay when you are long gone, you should have to inform and convince me first.

Anyway this sort of proposal actually exists on state and local level in the united states. In Texas they're known as bond issues where citizens vote on proposed borrowing. The legislature would first have to pass a law limiting their ability to borrow before hand. I don't see the federal government doing it but states and local governments can easily do implement this efficiently.

You're going to pay.

Bevista:
How about we reorganize our entire governance structure (some people will call it restructuring). The FG currently takes 52% of the entire common wealth of the federation. To justify this, it arrogates to itself massive responsibilities (for which it has shown grossly incapable of handling). The system needs to be structured so that the states have more funds and hence push many of the responsibilities the FG currently handles to the states. The FG should be given max 20% from the federation account.

The FG should focus on key elements like Defense, Immigration, Foreign Missions, Central Banking, etc. What d fvck are they doing with basic education, primary health care, etc?

Allocation isn't the reason states aren't productive. Alot of states could easily collect tax revenue that bigger than allocation. They worse than the federal government at tax collection even though they can charge things like income and property taxes.

If you want to reduce the Federal governments responsibility and powers that's fine. The tax code needs to be adjusted. Foolish laws like land use should be repealed.

gasparpisciotta:
We need more writers in Nigeria, our history seems to be fading away very fast. If we do not document our authentic past how do we avoid mistakes in future? What does the future hold for another generation?

The writers already exist and publish their work. You can find well reseached history on lots of topics free online with cited sources. Others you might have to access through you local university. That's how I found out Nigerian civil war naval history.

This story sounds like fiction cite your sources. It's funny how all these escape stories sound like Hollywood comedies where w man puts on dress. The poet doesn't have a name?

The coup failed but Ifeajuna escaped to safety in Ghana, dressed as a woman and was driven to freedom by a famous poet. Twenty months later, he was back, fighting for the persecuted Igbo people of eastern Nigeria in a brutal civil war that broke out as a consequence of the coup.

Covidodo:
Nice topic .
But I think one of the major problems facing Nigeria is her 'structure' .
Let's go back to regionalism and allow each region to fashion out their own economic policies .
Why on earth should Lagos and Yobe have the same VAT regime for example ??

50 years from now , this topic would still be relevant because we are shying away from the truth that we all know .

Nigeria

I dont think the structure matters. The issue is the tax code. States already do set their own bad policies. The exclusive list should be vastly reduced. Most importantly the land use act should be repealed and mineral rights and should be given to individuals.

Yobe and Lagos should have the same vat rate because it's fair. The government shouldn't play favorites between states. The VAT is regressive by nature but charging poorer state less wouldn't be fair either. The rich people in the Yobe will just preferential treatment.

Notice the oil revenue collapse and Nigeria runs to IMF for a few billion dollars. They will naturally blame the CCP-19 virus but the underlying issue was always their tax collection. There's an inherent weakness in being resource dependent economy. Nigeria's debt to GDP not bad. It's the debt to revenue that bad.

Due to covid Nigerian cant collect their drivers licences. The common sense solution is mailing it. Too bad common sense isn't too common.

Kazeem said, “You would recall that the corps marshal had earlier advised applicants to avoid physical capture at this critical moment when the world is battling a common enemy (COVID-19), and explore the By-Pass option which is the online processing of the National Drivers License without physical presence of the applicant at the DLCs.  However, the driver’s license will only be collected upon resumption after the lockdown.

Rules for thee not me.

Naughtysite:
This is a useless thread.

What we want to hear is that Nigerian Army has decimated Boko Haram, killed 1,000 of them, captured their leader, captured their armoury.

Tired of propaganda.

You should take the time to think about this issue rationally. This report isn't propaganda like you're erroneously claiming. It's already been confirmed by multiple parties. The Chadian soldiers you want Nigeria to emulate are stopping these activities in the territory. Starving the enemy of resources makes them easier to eliminate.

While the Chadians are making efforts to put a stop to this dark window, at least in their territories, it is business as usual in the Niger and Nigerian territories around the Lake Chad basin, sources said.

This news analysis is a partnership between the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism and Humangle Media Foundation under the media and terrorism project.