SACKISM IS NEXT TO LAGOONISM – Philosophies of the 2015 Elections

Philosophy

These have been the most interesting times for Nigeria. Campaigns were had, tents were pitched, votes were cast and a winner was declared. The heavens were supposed to have fallen but they didn’t. It seems the world’s pillars are foundationed in Nigeria as, in spite of the world’s very best predictions of our imminent collapse, we still seem to be holding up half of the African sky.

This season witnessed the birth of new political philosophies in our country. There was Jonathanism and Buharism and fencism, fencists roundly being declared to be closet members of one side of the divide or the other. Interestingly, however, we have seen subsets of Jonathanism and Buharism evolve into unprecedented schools of political thought that would make even the member of the ancient Agora jealous. Jonathism has given way to sackism and a small faction of the Buharist school of thought propounded the theory of lagoonism. So stand back, Plato. Stand back Hobbes and Montesquieu. Stand back, Louis van Gaal. The age of new philosophy is here.

What is sackism? Sackism is the Jonathanian belief that after the fatal loss of an election, order can only be restored to society by sacking every gaddem thing and person in sight. You see a sitting head of the ports authority, feeling pretty and secure in their position, you sack them. You see the head of the police authority revelling in his unprecedented gall to ignore his mobile phones in spite of his commander-in-chief’s telephone calls, you sack his gaddem ass. In fact, one of the strongest tennets of sackism is, if you were not already on your way out after fatally losing an election, you might as well sack your gaddem self. Order must be restored, no matter the obstacles.

What is the ultimate aim of sackism, however? What do sackists ultimately believe? Is there a special heaven for sackists? Do they believe in the ultimate redemption of the sackist’s body, through imperious sackism in the last hours in office? This is not yet known. But Patience is a rite of passage for sackists. Not just patience but fakanistic patience, the sort of which a sackist must have endured prior to his fatal electoral loss. There is yet no agreement on how fakanistic the endurance of patience must be for a sackist to find true redemption but this is still a new, emerging and evolving philosophy. Not unlike lagoonism.

Lagoonism is a theory propounded by the house of kings, espousing a belief in the fatal submersion of all intransigent non-indigenes who resist the call to conformity. The pillar of this belief is that the philosophy of a king is rooted in the infallibility of the poseidonic progenity of Percy Jackson. Lagoonism is akin to baptism but only as far as it relates to submersion. Lagoonists do not believe in the emergence of the submerged body in a cleansed form or state of elevated sanctification. Lagoonism believes that the submerged body of the non-indigene must perish, travel to hades and hope to be reincarnated in the kingdom of the kings as an indigene, to find redemption.

So far, the High Priest of the Lagoon remains the philosophy’s only real proponent but the philosophy has grown a few legs and traversed the length and breadth of the country. Many have visited the temple of Lagoonism and sought in vain to propagate its gospel but their faith was insufficient to surmount the shame there. A quick note must also be made denouncing the purported and oft-pointed out similarity between Lagoonism and Coffinism, largely because philosophical thought must be expressed by known persons in order for credence to be lent to the emergence of the articulated thought as philosophy indeed.

Thankfully, these philosophies are yet to go mainstream and the believers in one are generally not far in proximity to believers in the other. The age of enlightenment is upon us and we salute the espousers of these gaddem newnesses of thought. Commit yourself to deep thinking, that ye might find, ultimately, enlightenment.

Advertisements

Drunken Love (the Consent remix)

 

“Not in a position to give consent” really means not in a position to withdraw it, no pun intended. At least that’s how I read the report of the proceedings in which Ched Evans was denied leave to appeal his conviction. I think this principle skews the balance of justice irretrievably in favour of the accuser, in accusations of non-violent rape, and I’m not certain it’s a good thing.

First of all, however, let’s get some ad hominems out of the way. I am male, the gender more likely to be accused of committing rape. I am the first of four sons and I grew up with no sisters. So perhaps my position will be perceived as biased. However, I am also married (to a woman – one must clarify these days) and we have 3 daughters, for whose future I am always terribly concerned. So, maybe a little reverse ad hominem there too. In other words, I think my opinion will be balanced. At least a little.

My interest in this matter is mostly an academic one – a logical and jursiprudential look, as far as is possible in a non-academic piece such as this, at the events that led up to the conviction of Ched Evans. The facts of the case (here’s the link again) are that Evans and a “mate” of his had sexual intercourse with a very drunk girl, who claims she woke up the next morning hungover, without any memory of what had transpired the previous night. She’d arrived at the hotel where the incident took place in the company of Evans’s friend (McDonald) who, as we say in Lagos, “controlled his guy”. Evans arrived to meet the accuser “enthusiastically engaging in consensual sex” with McDonald and claims she asked him to perform oral sex on her. After that, he proceeded to have penetrative intercourse with her. Long story short, after she woke up the next day she reported to the police and both men were charged. When she was examined and samples taken from her body, there was only evidence of intercourse; no bruises or injuries indicative of violence.

The thrust of the prosecution’s case was that the accuser was too drunk to have given her consent and therefore could not have given it. In a very technical (and almost convoluted) explanation, her memory loss was discounted, both at the trial and at the application for leave to appeal the judgement. Discounting her memory loss is significant for me because, what if she did consent but had forgotten? Rather, according to the judge when sentencing Evans, “…. [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that.” I shall return to this shortly.

The jury, based on evidence of the accuser’s state as gathered from CCTV and witness testimony, acquitted McDonald but convicted Evans. I find this a little curious. If she was too drunk to have consented, as was the prosecution’s case, did going to the hotel with Evans indicate subliminal consent or did she somehow get drunker just before Evans came along? Note that (1) there was no evidence that she ingested more alcohol at the hotel; and (2) when she was tested at the police station, the following morning, there was no trace of alcohol left in her blood. On what basis did the jury deem that she consented to the sexual activity with McDonald but not to the one with Evans?

Then we return to the judge’s summation of the law, that the complainant was in no position to form a capacity to consent. Now, the thinking here is obviously to prevent vulnerable people from being taken advantage of; so that, for instance, men would not get away with intentionally intoxicating targets and putting them in that state of inebriation or incoherence to have their evil way with them. Fair enough. But it does not seem to me that the facts of this case fall under such precautionary jurisprudence. The implications for this on drunken, spontaneous (AND, hopefully, VERY SAFE) trysts, aside, it seems that what is being implied is that it is illegal to have coitus with a partner who is not in a position to communicate a withdrawal of consent.

I put the emphasis on withdrawal because, as these things go, except the sexual act is a transactional one lubricated by financial oils, consent is very rarely ever positively/verbally sought or communicated. Yes, sometimes, the guy asks if he can kiss the lady (I’ve been informed that this is not the preference of most ladies), but many other times, the man generally swoops in tentatively and sees consent or refusal in the lady’s response to his gesture.

Same for more advanced physical contact. You try first base, then second, then third, then go for the home run. It is extremely rare that consent is positively or categorically sought at each of these metaphorical stations. What usually happens is, when it seems like things are moving onward from any base, the uncomfortable lady communicates hesitation (during which moment, many a-weak man will say and promise anything to progress) or an outright NO, at which point, all well-mannered men retreat, albeit regretfully and konjilically. This is why I struggle a little with the reasoning behind “not in a position to form consent” in this case.

This piece does not seek to detract from the seriousness of non-consensual sexual activity. The only reason I’m even able to debate the case is because the crime alleged was not of the stalking or violent variety. I’m also not holding brief for Mr. Evans, and only the three people in the room know what actually occurred. Well, two, if one remembers that the third person had no recollection.

However, if she was so drunk that sex with Evans could not be deemed consensual, how is it that she was deemed sober enough to have consented to sex with McDonald? She was sober enough to agree to go to the hotel with a total stranger but too drunk to have consented to sex with a third party, even though the evidence of the 2 men involved as to what transpired in the room was not contradicted?

Rape is absolutely and completely deplorable and I understand that being a footballer is not a human right, but the facts here do not support Evans being treated like depraved, deviant sexual predator. This is as borderline as they come.

Furthermore, as this Slate piece (long read) suggests, while every accuser deserves to and should have her case investigated thoroughly, the fact of the accusation alone should not lead to a presumption of guilt and the unfair treatment of the accused.

UPDATE: On the 21st of April 2016, Ched Evans had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal and a retrial was ordered.

FURTHER UPDATE: On the 17th of October 2016, Ched Evans was found not guilty after the retrial.

 

National Honours (Laid Bare)

Today’s national newspapers, especially ThisDay, were quite bulky. When my copy was brought to me, I thought, judging from its thickness, that it was probably another political titan’s birthday or their daughter’s wedding celebration, and the minions were falling over themselves giving praise. I was wrong however. The several extra pages (which were indeed congratulatory messages) were to convey felicitations to various recipients of this year’s Presidential National Honours; men and women who are being honoured for “distinguished public service.”

I know that’s what they’re being honoured for, because that’s what the National Honours Act (see here) prescribes for inscription on the obverse side of the honours medal.

It’s probably going to be useless information, but here’s some more information the National Honours Act provides:

  • There are 2 Orders of Dignity – Order of the Federal Republic and Order of the Niger.
  • Each order comprises four ranks, namely – Grand Commander, Commander, Officer and Member

It seems the Order of the Federal Republic is the more distinguished one, because the Act places a lower limit on the maximum number of persons that can be appointed to its ranks in a calendar year. The maximum number of people that can be conferred with the different categories of honours each year are as follows:

  • GCFR – 2; GCON -10
  • CFR -20; CON -30
  • OFR – 50; OON – 100
  • MFR and MON have a maximum of 100 recipients each.

To be eligible for an award, the recipient must be a citizen of Nigeria. However, non-citizens can be honorary holders (not sure I get the distinction, or why it’s necessary then, but that’s what it says). The Act appears to be silent on whether or not honours can be conferred posthumously, but, to borrow the words of Brutus, Dr. Doyin Okupe is an honourable man. So it is possible that an amendment has since been passed and the copy of the Act that I consulted is dated.

A person is appointed to a rank when (s)he receives the insignia for the rank and an instrument (i.e. a document, letter, etc) signed by the President, sealed with the public seal of the Federation, conferring the rank. The President is however allowed to direct conferment on a person in any manner he feels is expedient.

When a person is promoted, (s)he is no longer entitled to hold [or use the insignia of] the lower rank. The government may request that insignia of the previous rank be returned upon promotion.

The President also has the power to deprive of rank anyone who has behaved in a manner not consistent with the dignity of the rank. I was unable to find any record of this power having ever been used.

And that’s it. Congratulations to this year’s recipients, deserving or otherwise.

How Much Does a Bad Education Cost?

How Much?

How Much?

When I was in university, not so very long ago, LASU was in a tussle with UNIBEN and Ambrose Alli Univeristy, Ekpoma to be declared the paramount hotbed of secret cultism in Nigerian universities. It was always only a butchering or slaying and a riot away from closure. The school has been closed again in recent times, but the protests that led to the closure happened because the Lagos State government had attempted to increase annual fees from about N25,000 (about $150) to about N350,000 (about $2100). On the 7th of August 2014, the Governor of Lagos State, announced that there would no longer be an increase of any sort (previous suggestions of 60%, then 30% increases had also been rebuffed) and that the N25,000 fees would stand.

The Governor’s reversal was seen as a victory for people power, with various references again being made to the supposed lessons from the Ekiti elections and the consequences of elitist governance. The thrust of the arguments in support of modestly priced tertiary education is that the less privileged in society should not be priced out of education. Those in favour of increased fees argue that quality education is pricey and that a $600 dollar education (i.e. over a 4-year course) is not going to build a country of industrialists and reformers. And there would be some merit on both sides but I would side more with those who favour a realistic cost being attached to education. I would also agree that government should subsidise education but not up to tertiary.

Many people cite the Norwegian example in the argument for free education into post-graduate studies, even. After all, we are both endowed with vast mineral wealth. This is a false equivalence however, as Norway has only 5 million people against its proven crude deposits of 5,366,000,000 BBL, compared to Nigeria’s 170 million people against its proven deposits of 37,200,000,000 BBL (data here). Per capita, Norway is 5 times richer in oil than we are. And they don’t even spend the wealth the way we do, but that’s a story for another time. Let’s stick with education.

Everyday, when talking about Nigerian university graduates, recruiters churn out the words “half-baked”, “unemployable”, “incoherent”, etc, and there’s a reason for this. Many Nigerian graduates (they’re in the minority, let’s be honest) do not fall into these categories but I’m convinced it’s more to do with the schools they went to before university. People with decent primary and secondary education are more likely to be the outliers that will thrive in spite of the university they go to. It may sound elitist but (if you were not one yourself), you probably remember that classmate at uni (or three, or five or twenty), who struggled not only with grammar, but also with grasping every material concept your lecturers tried to teach. People who would throw a tantrum if they could not record the lecturer verbatim. People who had not learnt how to learn.

What evidence do I have in support of this theory? Well, if you speak to any of these “good” Nigerian graduates who, after being educated up to their first degrees in Nigeria, go abroad for graduate studies, the overwhelming majority of them will tell you that it was hard to adjust initially. You think you know how to research an issue properly, until you find out that what qualifies as research in the best of our universities here is nothing but rank plagiarism abroad. Very few of us that are trained in Nigeria understand that it is a very broad and far-reaching concept.

Plagiarism aside, how many university lecturers here tolerate dissenting views, even where those views are backed by verifiable facts/data? Chances are, if you do not regurgitate what your lecturer dictated to you or printed in the handout he forced you to buy, you won’t excel in his course. Rubbish, you say? Law school students doing the Bar Part I course (for foreign-trained lawyers) always complain about the learning methods at the law school. “Learning”, even in law school, is sitting through hours of note dictation. As we all know and have seen, note-dictation means you only need to find a diligent classmate with good handwriting, to photocopy his notes when it’s time to cram, 3 weeks before exams.

I went to a secondary school where we had a woodwork shop, with saws and drills and chisels and mallets and did all the experiments in the chemistry, biology and physics textbooks. ALL. It was a complete shock to my system during GCE (which I took after SSCE), that there were “Theory of Practical” exams for the sciences and that this was what the great majority of Nigerian secondary school students prepared for.

Jumping from N25,000 to N350,000 was something of a quantum leap, to be honest, but the penultimate proposal of 30% hikes in the fees was more than reasonable, in my opinion. If you are a parent and have young children that you are educating in private nursery and primary school, you are no doubt paying many multiples of N25,000 per term. I would argue that the effects on the child(ren) are evident – their vocabulary is expanding much faster than yours or your parents’ did, they’re dealing with much more advanced concepts than you were at their age and, in fact, the system of teaching is vastly changed from when you were a child yourself.

We need to move away from this “XYZ Governor enjoyed free education but wants to deprive today’s youth” argument, for many reasons. The first is that it is a lie. If you go back to our primary and secondary school literature books, the narratives showed villages putting money together to send children to school. Many people were the beneficiaries of some sort of grant or scholarship and had to drop out if things got tough back home.

The second is that the annual N90 my mother paid to attend UI in the 70s was worth much more than the same N90 I was charged in the 90s. That sort of system is not sustainable. After all, that was when meals (via meal tickets/vouchers) cost 20kobo or something. The cheapest meal in my first year was around N50.

It is this free system that ensures that the best of our brains are lured away by more competitive salaries and opportunities to contribute to the body of knowledge. It is this free system that ensures that there has been no major scientific or engineering breakthrough (of the kind that can withstand the robust and rigorous scrutiny of international peers) in any of our universities. It is this free system that makes the Ghanaian educational system more attractive to Nigerian parents who can’t afford the US-Europe route. This same free everything is why we don’t have technicians and artisans with proper skills. We import tailors, bricklayers and masons from other countries in West Africa (where they pay for this skills training) if we want proper cuts or straight walls.

A 1300% rise in fees will always be hard to defend and was probably not wise, especially, as many have pointed out, in an election year. We have to ask ourselves however, why there are so many graduates who cannot find work years after NYSC. Why are there so many graduates who are forced to switch careers (often downwards) only a few years after graduation? Why do recruiters always lament a skills gap? Most importantly, with Vision 20 20:20 in mind, what are the world’s top economies doing differently from us? Have a look at the chart below, in connection with the World’s Top 100 universities, for 2013:

World's Top 100 Universities by Country Located

World’s Top 100 Universities by Country Located

Is it a coincidence that these are firmly amongst the world’s most developed countries? How many of them offer free or heavily subsidised tertiary education? Do we reasonably think that our way -the Nigerian way – is better?

We’ve reverted to the status quo ante on the fees and this probably means not much is going to change in the system. For what it’s worth, I believe that the entire benefit of free or subsidized education should be directed at basic education, to bring up our base literacy levels and learning aptitudes. Thereafter, fees for degrees need to be realistically priced, to upgrade facilities and attract the intellectual and administrative talent needed to transform our tertiary learning centres. If we look around us, the real cost of bad education is all too evident.

So, some guy went and trademarked “Nollywood”…

 

News reached us in Nigeria a few days ago that someone (a man named Nicholas Opara) had applied for and received approval from the USPTO to register the word “Nollywood” as a trademark in the United States. At first it didn’t seem to me like something anyone should worry about but the Nollywood people at the NBA’s Section on Business Law Conference were clearly disturbed. There is a sense that anyone using the expression “Nollywood” in the context of our entertainment industry will owe Mr Opara money. This is incorrect, for the reasons given below.

 

You can see the USPTO report on the NOLLYWOOD trademark here. This tells us that the registration was in classes 35 and 38. (You can find our quick refresher on trademarks and classifications here.)

 

What does this mean? Well, trademarks are registered in connection to goods and services. So you can’t just walk up to the trademarks office and ask to register “TEXTHELAW” in abstract. You would have to tell them what goods or services will be branded with the trademark. In the refresher course link above, you will find that there is a standardised international classification of goods and services, available in most countries. In Mr Opara’s case, he registered NOLLYWOOD in connection with “Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions” (class 35) and “Telecommunications” (class 38).

 

What is the effect of the Class 35 & Class 38 registrations? It means that you can’t set up businesses that provide the services listed under these classes (i.e. advertising, business management, business administration, telecommunications) and use the word Nollywood in the business name or trademark of your company. Mr. Opara can set up Nollywood Telecoms or Nollywood Business Managers and it would be fine. It does NOT mean that anyone operating in our Nollywood needs his permission to use the word or that the industry as a whole is held to ransom by Mr. Opara.

 

Could he have registered the trademark in Class 41? The services listed under class 41 are “Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities”. This is the class that would have given Nigerian practitioners real concern, as it would have meant that trading in the US as movie industry practitioners under the name Nollywood, would have infringed Mr. Opara’s registration. However, given the popularity and famousness of the term “Nollywood” worldwide and the industry it represents, it is unlikely that the USPTO would have agreed to a registration in this class. And if they did, it would be fairly easy to instruct a US attorney to challenge such a registration as the chances of getting it revoked are very high.

 

Should an actor or the Guild of Actors/Directors register Nollywood as a trademark in Nigeria? No. First of all, a trademark cannot be descriptive of the goods or services it brands. So, for example, you cannot register “PURE WATER” as a trademark to brand drinking water. In the same vein, “Nollywood”, which has come to mean the movie service industry segment of the Nigerian entertainment sector cannot be registered as a trademark for entertainment services, in my opinion. Secondly, the whole point of a trademark is to distinguish your goods and services from those of others. So even if the Nigerian Trademarks Registry somehow approved the trademark application, it would be a trademark of very little value, since the entire industry already refers to itself as Nollywood.

 

Did Nicholas Opara miscalculate or does he have something up his sleeve? My mentors in the legal profession taught us not to comment on speculation so they would probably be disappointed by this paragraph. However, the cynic in me thinks he probably tried class 41 initially and was refused, so he settled for the next best classes. Nonetheless, 35 and 38 registrations will not affect 41 services, especially if it’s clear that you didn’t invent the word. On the other hand, it is quite plausible that he wants to deploy Nigeria-centric services in the US and I guess this isn’t a bad thing. It wouldn’t be out of place, for example, to have Hollywood Drycleaners or Hollywood Barbers in Nigeria. If his plan is something more along those lines, then all the very best to him.

 

 

Sanusi’s Case: Where does Jurisdiction lie?

sanusi2

Suspended CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

This morning, I had the pleasure of viewing a debate between 2 highly esteemed learned friends on social media. The subject being discussed was the recent ruling by a Federal High Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the case filed by suspended Central Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi, challenging his suspension by the President. The court decided that the National Industrial Court was the proper forum, as the matter appeared more employer/employee than anything else, and ordered the case to be transferred accordingly.

Now, jurisdiction is perhaps the most fundamental issue in litigation. It goes to the heart and validity of any case. Anything done by a court in respect of a matter in connection to which it has no jurisdiction is a nullity. My first learned friend argued, as she had stated since the suit was initially filed, that only the NIC had jurisdiction. My second learned friend argued that certain provisions of the constitution nonetheless vested the FHC with jurisdiction. My first learned friend disagreed. So, what does the constitution say?

First of all, let us examine the section of the constitution advanced by my first learned friend in support of her argument; Section 254 C, which states –

254 C- (I)      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-

(a)      relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith;

Is Sanusi’s suit in connection with employment? On the face of it, yes. Additionally, I emphasised certain keywords in the referenced section, whose importance you will see in the section of the constitution advanced by my second learned friend; Section 251, which states –

251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-

(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

Is Sanusi seeking a declaration affecting the validity of an action or decision by the President/Federal Government? Yes, he is. So you see the conundrum here. Both 251 and 254 are literally notwithstanding each other and yet appear to have “exclusive” jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit.

I don’t envy judges. Additionally, I am confused and unable to pitch my tent with either of my learned friends. What do you think?

 

 

Doing Business Needs To Be Easier

The Federal Government and many State counterparts know how to spin a good yarn on entrepreneurship being the solution to Nigeria’s unemployment pandemic.  There has been no better evidence of the country’s stark reality in the employment stakes than when the government itself shambolically attempted to test over 500,000 job applicants to fill only 4,000 vacancies (less than 1%), resulting in stampedes and deaths.

 

So, yes, unemployment is a problem. And you would think that governments serious about stimulating private sector job creation would be similarly serious about creating an environment conducive to this. Sadly, starting and running a business in Nigeria remain extremely tough and most of the obstacles to giving it the best shot come from the government and its various agencies.

 

Granted, it isn’t the fault of the government (well, not directly, anyway) that very little credit is available and so office space, electricity generators, equipment, supplies, etc. all have to be paid for in full prior to commencing business. However, most business people find that once they’re set up, they’re then at the mercy of all sorts of “officials” from State agencies and the local government, demanding all sorts of levies for sundry permits, depending on the nature of business being carried on.

 

The problem isn’t the permits in and of themselves, as most entrepreneurs I’ve been privileged to advise do want to do business legitimately and in a structured manner. The problem is in the way that these agencies ambush businesspeople. What’s worse, I doubt that there are any consultants who can give you the full list of permits, licenses or approvals required for a business – this advice will come with a caveat. So, how can people starved for cash properly plan their expenditure?

 

My proposed solution is for the government to simplify this process. I realise this is antithetical to current practices of making approvals as tortuous as possible (in order to extract as much “extra” from the public as possible) but we surely cannot continue this way. My proposal for simplification is similar to the Federal Government’s One Stop Investment Centre (which hasn’t really worked out, by the way, but a noble idea).

 

The idea behind OSIC was to create one office where investors could go to for all the permits required to carry on business in Nigeria. Great idea, but key agencies like customs and immigrations have remained very tribal (who would blame them, given how much, for example, expatriate quotas cost) and “one stop” hasn’t really been one stop.

 

A state OSIC would be a great idea too though, especially if the State Government secured (or coerced) the buy-in of Local Governments too. One place for every single permit your business needs, with a pact from the government that no one would be harassed over any permit or levy not issued or collected at its OSIC. In addition to that, serious states (I’m talking to you, Ogun State) have to dismantle road blocks where local governments demand that motorists buy radio licences to be able to drive through the local government. It isn’t only illegal, it is patently stupid. Same as with requiring trucks and articulated vehicles to obtain permits for each local government they intend to drive through. This currently affects only loggers and the like but when e-commerce begins to require larger delivery vehicles to maximise efficiency, it simply won’t be workable.

 

In the World Bank’s annual “Doing Business” report for 2014, Nigeria ranks 122 out of 189 in ease of doing business. In 2013, our rank was 114, so it appears doing business has become tougher over the past year. You can see the report for yourselves here (and here for the overall rankings). It is no coincidence that the countries where doing business is easiest are amongst the world’s most prosperous.

 

We have only 6 years to go until 2020, when the government says it plans to break into the elite group of the world’s Top 20 economies.