Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) on Monday raised an alarm over the outbreak of a disease known as Anthrax which is in the West African sub-region and urged Nigerians to stop eating ‘pomo’ for now.

The FG through the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) alerted Nigerians that Anthrax is in some neighbouring countries within West Africa, specifically, Northern Ghana bordering Burkina Faso and Togo.

The FMARD Permanent Secretary, Ernest Afolabi Umakhihe in an official statement explained that Anthrax which has claimed some lives is a bacterial disease that affects both animals and man which in turn makes it a zoonotic disease.

“Anthrax spores are naturally found in the soil and commonly affect domestic and Wild Animals,” Umakhihe disclosed in the statement.

According to him, people can get infected with anthrax spores if they come in contact with infected animals or contaminated animal products.

However, Umakhihe said that anthrax is not a contagious disease and as a result, one cannot get it by coming in close contact with an infected person.

“Signs of anthrax are flu-like symptoms such as cough, fever, muscle aches and if not diagnosed and treated early, lead to pneumonia, severe lung problems, difficulty in breathing, shock and death,” he added.

Umakhihe said that anthrax being a bacterial disease can respond to treatment with antibiotics and supportive therapy.

He further stated that it is primarily a disease of animals but because of man’s closeness to animals, non vaccinated animals with anthrax can easily be transmitted to man through the inhalation of anthrax spores or consumption of contaminated/infected animal products, such as hides and skin, meat or milk.

Umakhihe disclosed that annual vaccinations with anthrax spore vaccines are available at National Veterinary Research Institute Vom, Plateau State and is the cheapest and easiest means of prevention and control of the disease in animals.

“However, infected animals cannot be vaccinated but animals at risk can be vaccinated,” he added.

In this present case, according to him, there is the need to intensify animal vaccinations along border States of Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kwara, Oyo, Ogun and Lagos because of their proximity to Burkina Faso, Togo and Ghana.

He also added that the other States of Nigeria are equally advised to join in the exercise.

Umakhihe in the statement said that infected dead animals should be buried deep into the soil along with equipment used in the burial after applying chemicals that will kill the anthrax spores.

He, however, warned that the general public is strongly advised to desist from the consumption of hides (pomo), smoked meat and bush meat as they pose serious risk until the situation is brought under control.

Umakhihe urged the public to remain calm and vigilant as the Federal Government has resuscitated a Standing Committee on the Control of Anthrax in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

He said relevant institutions and collaborators have been contacted with the aim of controlling the outbreak, in addition to the sensitisation of State Directors of Veterinary Services nationwide.

The Guardian

Nigeria spent $3.47bn importing phones, generating sets, electrical transformers, and a host of other electrical equipment in 2022.

This is based on data culled from the International Trade Center. The ITC gets its data from the National Bureau of Statistics and the United Nations COMTRADE.

According to the multilateral agency, which has a joint mandate with the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, Nigeria’s electrical importation bill grew by 11.90 per cent from the $3.09bn it was in 2022. Also, over the last three years, Nigeria has spent $10.26bn importing electrical equipment amid falling foreign exchange reserves.

Imports under the electrical machinery and equipment category on the ITC portal include, but are not limited to, electric motors and generators, electric generating sets, electrical transformers, vacuum cleaners, electric shavers, hair clippers, and telephone sets which include smartphones, facsimile machines for line telephony, teleprinters, and parts of telephone sets.

Total phone imports in 2022 was put at $773.56m, a 0.17 per cent year-on-year increase from $772.25m as of 2021. $468.65m worth of electric motors and electric generating, and $357.36m worth of electrical transformers were also imported.

Cumulatively, the three products constituted 46.06 per cent of total electrical equipment importation in 2022. Most of the equipment were imported from China, India, Germany, Türkiye, Sweden, United States of America, United Kingdom, Austria, Italy, Vietnam, and France.

Despite the liberalisation of its telecommunication sector over 20 years ago, Nigeria does not locally manufacture phones and most of the equipment needed in the telecom sector.

According to the Nigerian Communications Commission, about 63 million technology devices are sold in Nigeria yearly. Nigeria’s phone market is dominated by foreign players like Tecno, Samsung, Apple, and Itel. Despite having the seventh-highest number of phones in the world, buoyed by its large mobile subscribers, according to the World Population Review, the country’s local phone manufacturing industry is non-existent.

Recently, the IDC said, “Nigeria’s smartphone market declined 32.1 per cent YoY in Q4 2022 due to sustained high inflation and a shortage of U.S. dollars in the country.”

Nigeria’s smartphone market declined 32.1% YoY in Q4 2022 due to sustained high inflation and a shortage of US dollars in the country.

Punch

WATT Renewable Corp. aims to raise as much as $100 million by the end of 2024 to expand its business of providing solar power, mainly to telecommunications towers in Nigeria. 

The Canadian company, which has installed 12 megawatts of generation capacity at about 160 sites, has a pipeline of projects 10 times that size, Chief Investment Officer Sherisse Alexander said. WATT would prefer a major investor to take a stake, but will finance projects individually if need be, she said. 

“What we are looking at is a corporate raise,” Alexander said. WATT is talking to “companies that are already involved in the energy industry that have an understanding of renewable energy and specifically the African market,” she said, declining to be more specific. 

WATT is one of a number of energy startups trying to provide power solutions in Africa, where about 600 million people, or half the population, have no access to electricity. Businesses across the continent are offering services ranging from mini-grids to small hydro plants to reach areas that aren’t connected to national grids.

The company, which entered the West African market in 2018, initially planned to set up mini-grids for rural communities, but soon saw the opportunity to provide reliable power systems for corporate customers.

“We made our foray into the telecommunications industry where we transition telecommunication providers and towers from diesel-generated power over to a solar hybrid solution,” Alexander said. 

One of its main customers is Pan African Towers Ltd., a Nigerian provider of masts. In addition to telecommunications, WATT has also focused on financial institutions, and some commercial and industrial companies. 

The company lists 401 projects on its website, some of which are up and running, but most are in development. Of those all but 14 are in Nigeria, with the company having 13 projects in Canada and one in Texas. 

The need to raise money means that shareholders, including founder and Chief Executive Officer Oluwole Eweje, will reduce their stakes.

“Given the capital that we are looking to raise for our extensive pipeline of business, their shareholding will be diluted,” Alexander said. “It is in the best interest of future project development and deployment.”

Bloomberg

Chuma Nzeribe, a politician convicted of forgery and other crimes, has been freed from prison barely two months after he began a seven-year jail time.

Nzeribe was on the run for about a year after being convicted by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court until he was arrested and sentenced in March this year.

But barely two months after he began the seven years of jail time, the Chief Judge of FCT High Court, Husseini Baba-Yusuf, controversially freed him from the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja.

The Chief Judge, it was learnt, took the administrative decision anchored on the health conditions of the convict during his official tour of the prison facility for a decongestion exercise in May.

Baba-Yusuf’s decision pre-empted the ruling of another judge of the court, Halilu Yusuf, on the bail application which Nzeribe filed but had yet to be heard.

Some lawyers have argued that the Chief Judge’s action overstepped the limits of his administrative powers and breached the law stipulating the conditions for freeing prisoners, more so that the convict’s bail application was still pending in court for judicial determination.

The convict had been out of jail before the agency that prosecuted him – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) – got to know of it.

Nzeribe, a former member of the House of Representatives, was convicted in absentia by Halilu Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory High Court at Maitama, Abuja, in May 2022.

He was found guilty of impersonation, possessing federal government documents, and using the documents to acquire land in the Maitama district of Abuja fraudulently.

But Nzeribe could not be sentenced immediately after the judge pronounced him guilty due to his absence from court.

The EFCC could only apprehend and take him to court for sentencing on 24 March, nearly a year after his conviction.

At the sentencing proceedings, the judge, Yusuf, jailed the former lawmaker for seven years.

But within a short while after his sentencing, Nzeribe filed an appeal against the court’s decision and applied for post-conviction bail.

Parties were still anticipating a date to be fixed for the hearing when the EFCC team got the hint that the convict had been released from prison.

PREMIUM TIMES made attempts to confirm the development from the Chief Judge’s office to no avail.

Our reporter paid repeated visits to the offices of the Chief Judge and the court’s Chief Registrar, Hadiza Dodo, at the court complex in Maitama, Abuja, but was told on each occasion that the officials were not available.

‘Why Nzeribe was released’

But the FCT command of the Nigerian Correction Service, which supervises the Kuje facility where Nzeribe was held, confirmed the convict’s release to our reporter on Wednesday.

“The (Chief Judge’s) pronouncement (releasing Nzeribe) was made on 23 May 2023,” Adamu Duza, the spokesperson for the FCT Command of the Nigerian Correctional Service, said on Thursday.

Duza said Mr Nzeribe “was sentenced two months before the visit of the Chief Judge.”

PREMIUM TIMES learnt that the Chief Judge released the convict on health grounds, a controversial decision senior lawyers have called to question.

Confirming this to our reporter, Duza said, “The Chief Judge ordered his (Nzeribe’s) release based on medical grounds. There is medical proof to that.”

He added that “the Chief Judge used his discretion to pardon the convict (Nzeribe). Moreover, he is 64 years old.”

However, a constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Femi Falana, said, “Chief Judges have no power to pardon convicts,” a legal point another senior lawyer, Sebastine Hon, had argued years ago.

Falana referenced the Criminal Justice (Release From Custody) (Special Provisions) Act.

The law, however, stipulates conditions upon which the Chief Justice or Chief Judge may release a prison detainee.

It says, “…a person whose detention is manifestly unlawful; or a person who has been detained in custody, whether on remand or otherwise, for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment which the person detained could have served had he been convicted of the offence in respect of which he was detained.”

Agreeing with Falana, another lawyer, Adebayo Akinlade, said there were criteria to be met by prison detainees before the Chief Judge can release them.

Akinlade explained that the law empowers the Chief Judge under the prerogative of mercy to order a prisoner’s release if such a person has been incarcerated for a while.

In addition, Chukwuemeka Clement, 2nd Vice President Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), said the Chief Judge could pardon a prison detainee on condition of “old age, illegal detention, long period of incarceration and ill-health.”

‘Politically Exposed Persons above the law?

Nzeribe’s release, again, calls attention to how Nigeria’s criminal justice system can be easily manipulated to the advantage of politically exposed persons (PEPs).

Sometimes PEPs pull their weight to derail investigations or keep their trial delayed for years in court.

On rare occasions when they are convicted, they can get out of prison, deploying unusual legal tactics.

Nzeribe’s release fits into the broader picture of a criminal justice system that allows both the judiciary and the executive arms of government to give high-profile suspects or criminal convicts some special treatment.

The administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, in 2022, pardoned Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame, former governors of Plateau and Taraba states, respectively, while they were still serving jail time imposed on them for looting public funds. They were serving their prison terms when the Buhari administration granted them a pardon.

Erstwhile governor of Abia State, Orji Kalu, wangled his way out of prison after he was convicted of N7.1 billion fraud.

Kalu, a serving senator representing Abia North, was already serving a 12-year jail term for the offences when the Supreme Court, on 8 May 2020, quashed the proceedings leading to his and his co-defendants’ conviction.

The Supreme Court’s judgement delivered on an appeal by Kalu’s co-defendant, Ude Udeogu, had ordered a retrial at the Federal High Court.

Orji Kalu got out of prison based on the Supreme Court’s judgement but quickly applied to the Federal High Court in Abuja to stop his retrial.

In 2021, the judge, Inyang Ekwo, before whom Kalu filed the request, barred Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency, EFCC, from retrying the lawmaker.

Judge not aware of convict’s release

Nzeribe was released without the trial court’s knowledge.

The trial judge, Yusuf, who sits in a courtroom at the Maitama Court complex, which also houses office of the Chief Judge, is currently out of the station.

A court official said he was serving on an election petition tribunal outside Abuja.

The source, who asked not to be named, disclosed that the trial judge was unaware of Nzeribe’s release.

“The judge (Yusuf) has been under immense pressure to grant the convict bail through the backdoor, but he declined.

“In fact, there is a pending post-conviction motion for bail filed by Nzeribe. But it has not been heard,” the source said.

Another source familiar with the case said the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear Nzeribe’s bail request.

“It (the court) doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain any application from the applicant (Nzeribe) since …an appeal has been filed before the Court of Appeal,” the source said.

Background

In 2013, Nzeribe, a former governorship aspirant in Imo State, was alleged to be in possession of a document containing false pretence with reference number MFCT/LA/FCT 1302, dated June 18, 2003, bearing the name of Ramatu Alhassan.

He was, thus, accused of committing an offence contrary to Section 6, 8(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act.

The erstwhile lawmaker was accused of using the forged document as a genuine one, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 366 of the Penal Code Act Cap 532 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja) and punishable under Section 364 of the same Act.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges at the beginning of the case.

In aid of its case, the EFCC called five witnesses while the defendant testified for himself.

Delivering judgement on the suit, the judge said the prosecution discharged the onus of proof against Nzeribe beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yusuf held that the convict indeed made false pretence and is guilty of forgery. He said Nzeribe also cheated by impersonation.

The judge ruled that the land in Maitama, acquired with the forged papers, should be taken over by the owner, Ishaya Madi, immediately.

The judge said Nzeribe had failed to attend three consecutive court sessions.

Instead, the politician sent a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to the EFCC, surrendering the land to the real owner, Madi.

Thereafter, the judge deferred sentencing until Nzeribe was arrested and brought before the court on 24 March this year.

PT

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia launches 'massive missile' attack on Kryvyi Rih in central Ukraine - officials

Russia launched a "massive missile" attack overnight on the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih, killing and wounding people and damaging civilian infrastructure, Ukrainian officials said early on Tuesday.

"There are dead and wounded," Serhiy Lisak, governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region where Kryvyi Rih is located, said on the Telegram messaging app.

"A massive missile attack on Kryvyi Rih."

Russian air strikes hit several civilian buildings in the city, including a five-storey building, the mayor of Kryvyi Rih, Oleksandr Vilkul, said earlier.

"Likely, there are people under the rubble," Vilkul said on Telegram.

Reuters could not independently verify the report. Vilkul did not provide any further detail.

Lisak posted a photograph of a five-storey apartment building with all windows blown out and smoke coming out of some.

There was no immediate comment from Russia about the reported strikes. Both Russia and Ukraine deny targeting civilians in the war which Russia launched on its neighbour nearly 16 months ago.

During the earli hours of Tuesday, air raid sirens blared across the whole of Ukraine, with Kyiv's military officials saying air defence forces destroyed all Russian missiles targeting the Ukrainian capital.

The mayor of the city of Kharkiv in Ukraine's east said on his Telegram channel that Russian drones hit civilian infrastructure there, striking a warehouse and a utility firm's building. There was no immediate information about casualties.

** Coalition aims to begin Ukrainian F-16 pilot training by summer - Dutch minister

Ukrainian pilots could begin training to fly U.S.-manufacture F-16 fighter jets as soon as this summer, the Dutch defense minister has told Reuters, a first step toward supplying Kyiv with a powerful, long-term capability in its war with Russia.

NATO allies the Netherlands and Denmark are leading an international coalition to train pilots and support staff, maintain aircraft and ultimately supply F-16s to Ukraine. Previously, the Netherlands had said it aimed to start training Ukrainian pilots "as soon as possible", but had stopped short of specifying when such training could get under way.

"This summer is our ambition. And we'll see if that's realistic" for the start of the training programme, Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren told Reuters in an interview.

She said the aim would be to have the training programme fully operational within six months. Denmark, where there are flight simulators, is a possible location to host the program.

A final decision has not yet been taken on a request from Kyiv to supply dozens of F-16s, Ollongren said. The U.S.-backed training program will include Belgium and Luxembourg, while France and Britain have offered assistance, she said.

While adopting F-16s will not impact the war in the short-term, it will bring Ukraine more in line with NATO military capabilities, which "is very important for the future," Ollongren said.

"When the war is over Ukraine has to be able to defend itself to deter Russia from trying again. And I think...that's what the Ukrainians also see."

"It is a very strong weapons system. It's a very strong capability. But it's not going to be available anytime soon and President (Volodymyr) Zelenskiy, of course, knows that," Ollongren said.

Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the training would begin with two groups of 12 Ukrainian pilots, already experienced flying Soviet-era MiGs. The minister did not specify the initial size of the programme.

JUST AN AIRPLANE

Ukraine's Zelenskiy said last week he received "a serious, powerful" offer from leaders of countries ready to provide Kyiv with F-16 fighter jets and is awaiting final agreements with key allies.

The Netherlands, like other NATO members, is transitioning to newer F-35 fighters. The Dutch still have 24 F-16s in operation and more out of service which could be transferred to Ukraine.

It usually takes roughly 2.5 years to become a fighter pilot in the Netherlands. A U.S official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said estimates on the training time are still being finalised, but that it could take as little as four months to teach basic F-16 skills to an experienced Ukrainian pilot.

Colonel Laurens-Jan Vijge, a Dutch F-35 pilot who flew F-16s for 15 years, including multiple missions to Afghanistan, is part of the team being assembled to train the Ukrainians.

"Flying-wise, well, technically, if you're a pilot, this is also just an airplane," he told Reuters at the Volkel air base in the southern Netherlands, the roar of landing F-35 jet planes in the background.

Ukrainian pilots would have to learn how to operate the F-16's so-called 'hands-on throttle and stick'.

"That means that both on the throttle which you use to accelerate and on a stick to control the airplane, there's a lot of buttons that you use to operate all the avionics. Usually in Soviet equipment that's non-existent, or at least less part of the design," he said.

The course will include language training and "simulator training where they learn how to deal with the different subsystems in the airplane," he said. "And that's before you start talking about how to operate it as a weapons platform. So that's really the last part of the training."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukrainian unit loses most of its Bradley fighting vehicles in Zaporozhye

A Ukrainian military unit lost most of its US-made Bradley fighting vehicles (BFVs) during an offensive in Zaporozhye, the France-Presse news agency reported.

According to it, the fighting vehicles were eliminated near the town of Orekhovo.

The news agency said that "of nine vehicles attached to the group's mechanized infantry unit […] six were wrecked, three damaged but reparable, and one was unscathed."

Replying to the agency’s question about the offensive’s results, one of Ukrainian soldiers admitted that no serious progress was made.

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed to reporters the onset of a Ukrainian counteroffensive. He noted that the Kiev regime had engaged its strategic reserves but the offensive had not been successful due to the courage and valor of Russian servicemen. In turn, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged answering a question on the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

On June 10, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian troops had lost nine tanks over 24 hours south of Donetsk and in the Zaporozhye area, including four Leopard tanks, as well as 11 infantry fighting vehicles, including Bradleys.

** No pre-requisites exist for talks with Kiev regime, says Kremlin

Today there is no even ‘fragile foundation’ for talks with the Kiev regime, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.

"Today there are no pre-requisites for accords. Moreover, today there is no foundation, even fragile, for building any dialogue. We see: first, the regime is unwilling, second, it is unready and third, it is not allowed by its handlers [to hold negotiations], as we can say, without any equivoques," Peskov said in an interview with the Moscow. Kremlin. Putin program, an excerpt of which was posted by journalist Pavel Zarubin on his Telegram channel.

As the Kremlin press secretary pointed out, "that is why, there are no pre-requisites for negotiations now".

The Russian presidential spokesman earlier said that Russia would seek ensuring its own security, which excluded NATO’s expansion to the country’s borders and Ukraine’s admission to the military alliance. Peskov also earlier pointed out that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s statement on Ukraine’s potential NATO membership suggested Kiev’s "unpreparedness, unwillingness and inability" to address existing problems at a negotiating table.

Reuters/Tass

Sudan war traps civilians after ceasefire ends

Air strikes, artillery and gunfire rocked several areas of Sudan's capital on Monday as fighting between warring factions intensified for a second day, trapping civilians in a worsening humanitarian crisis.

The war between the country's army and paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has raged for almost two months, forcing almost 2 million to flee and wrecking the economy, causing frequent electricity and water outages.

Talks in Jeddah have failed to permanently end fighting and clashes intensified as soon as a ceasefire ended on Sunday.

While the RSF has spread out across most of the capital, controlling main streets and setting up camp inside some homes, the army has the advantage of air and artillery weaponry.

Residents of eastern Khartoum reported being hit by air strikes, while in southern Khartoum as well as northern Omdurman reported being hit by artillery fighting. Eyewitnesses reported clashes in central Khartoum as well.

"Since yesterday, the war has come back and there's strikes from all direction," said Awatif Sidahmed, 43, living in Sharq el-Nil across the Nile from Khartoum.

"Our neighbourhood is a war zone so leaving is difficult and staying home is difficult. We don't know what to do."

Those who stay also struggle with dwindling funds as the government has stopped paying salaries and pensions.

More than 200,000 of the 1.9 million Sudanese who have managed to flee their homes have gone to Egypt, which this week imposed a visa requirement for children, women and the elderly who had previously been exempt.

Hundreds of Sudanese were turned back at Cairo airport and sent back on return flights, according to Cairo airport sources, after a similar exemption for those with residencies in western and Gulf states was removed.

DARFUR FIGHTING

No side has made clear progress, and the fighting has spread to several cities to the west in the Kordofan and Darfur regions.

In the westernmost city of El Geneina, militias backed by the RSF have launched attacks on the city, which has now lost access to power and running water. Tens of thousands have fled to Chad.

Activist Kamal Alzein told Reuters that he had heard from three activists in the city that has been largely cut off from telecom networks that 1,100 people had been killed and 3,000 injured since attacks began in April.

Reuters could not immediately verify the numbers. The highest official death toll from the Sudanese health ministry was 510, reported in late May.

The Darfur Bar Association, which monitors the conflict in the region, said that 17 people had been killed on Monday as a result of shelling, while 100 had died over the past five days.

“Geneina remains under siege,” it said.

In a statement on Sunday's intense fighting in Bahri, the army says that while they were able to make gains against the RSF and claim to have killed hundreds, it had also lost several soldiers. It blamed the RSF for deadly air strikes on civilians in southern Khartoum.

The RSF in turn said that the army had used the 24-hour ceasefire on Saturday to reposition troops and attack immediately after.

Kenyan President William Ruto said on Monday that East African countries would conduct face-to-face meetings with the heads of the army and RSF within 10 days to discuss stopping the war and humanitarian corridors.

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said on Monday agencies had been able to deliver supplies for 2 million people including 57 cross-line movements.

That included medical supplies to 42,000 people living on the island of Tuti on the Nile, where residents have said their single bridge to the mainland was blocked by the RSF, cutting off food and medicine supplies.

Reuters

The international economic architecture built after 1945 was based on a powerful idea: economic interdependence is crucial, if insufficient, for global peace and prosperity. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the predecessor to the World Trade Organization were founded in response to the three preceding decades of ceaseless instability, when the world had been devastated by two world wars, the Great Depression, and political extremism. It had also been a period of deglobalization, in which countries retreated into increasingly isolated trading blocs. In the rubble of World War II, governments sought to construct a new system that, by linking countries in a dense web of economic ties, would consign such chaos and division to history.

For much of the past 75 years, policymakers from across the world recognized the power of economic interdependence. Countries tore down trade barriers, opening their economies to one another. On balance, their record was impressive. Closer economic integration went hand in hand with rising global prosperity, an unprecedented reduction in poverty, and an unusually long period of great-power peace. Since 1990, the share of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen by three-quarters. At the center of this great leap in human well-being was a 20-fold increase in international trade volumes, which helped lift per capita incomes by a factor of 27 over the last six decades.

This economic vision is now under attack, and its achievements are in danger. A series of shocks in the space of 15 years—first the global financial crisis, then the Covid-19 pandemic, and now the war in Ukraine—have created an alternative narrative about globalization. Far from making countries economically stronger, this new line of thinking goes, globalization exposes them to excessive risks. Economic interdependence is no longer seen as a virtue; it is seen as a vice. The new mantra is that what countries need is not interdependence but independence, with integration limited at best to a small circle of friendly nations.

But dismantling economic globalization and the structures that support it would be a mistake. That is because, despite persistent rhetoric to the contrary, countries and people rely on trade more than ever in this age of “polycrisis.” Moreover, international cooperation, including on trade, is necessary to meet challenges to the global commons, such as climate change, inequality, and pandemics. Globalization is not over, nor should anyone wish for it to be. But it needs to be improved and reimagined for the age ahead.

THE END OF AN ERA?

The drift away from ever-closer economic integration was reshaping trade policy even before Covid-19. Rising geopolitical tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, the United States and China, saw the imposition of tit-for-tat tariffs. But the events of the past few years have supercharged the trend. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine exposed genuine vulnerabilities in global trade, causing product shortages and supply bottlenecks that harmed businesses and households alike. Talk of “decoupling” became widespread. More recently, governments have enacted a growing number of export restrictions, particularly for goods deemed strategically important, such as semiconductors and critical minerals. They have also revived industrial policies aimed at promoting domestic production.

That said, talk of deglobalization remains at odds with the trade data. In fact, global merchandise trade hit record levels in 2022. Over three-quarters of that trade was conducted on the basic “most-favored nation” tariff terms that governments extend to all World Trade Organization (WTO) members, suggesting that the multilateral rulebook still plays a defining role in international commerce. According to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, total trade between the United States and China reached an all-time high of $691 billion in 2022, which is 24 percent higher than it was in 2019. The share of intermediate inputs—goods used to produce other goods—in world exports remains roughly constant, suggesting that there has been no mass reshoring of international supply chains. Companies still make sourcing decisions based on cost and quality considerations. Policy measures could yet alter this calculus, but not overnight.

The experience of Covid-19 also showcased the power of international trade as a shock absorber. Early in the pandemic, as demand for medical products such as masks, gloves, and nasal swabs spiked, some of the disruptions were made worse by export restrictions on such goods. But trade swiftly became a vital means for ramping up access to desperately needed supplies, from personal protective equipment to pulse oximeters to, eventually, vaccines. Even as the value of global merchandise trade shrank by nearly eight percent in 2020, trade in medical products grew by 16 percent. Trade in cloth facemasks nearly quintupled. After Covid-19 vaccines were developed, billions of doses were manufactured in supply chains cutting across as many as 19 countries. Without trade, the recovery from the pandemic—from both the immediate public health crisis and the resulting economic crisis—would have been much slower.

In other words, despite the growing movement to dismantle the system underpinning globalization, people and businesses rely on it more than ever. Advocates of deglobalization are effectively calling for the disruption of the roughly 30 percent of all global output that depends on trade, a move that would only add to the downward pressure on peoples’ purchasing power across the world. In light of the strong rebound in trade that helped economies recover and kept most pandemic-induced shortages temporary, it is clear that the fundamental problem is not interdependence per se but an overconcentration of some trading relationships for certain vital products. And if the goal is more resilient supply networks that are less susceptible to weaponization by rivals, there is a better way forward.

DON’T DEGLOBALIZE, REGLOBALIZE

Deeper, deconcentrated, and more diversified global supply chains—what we at the WTO call “reglobalization”—offer a route to interdependence without overdependence. The problems exposed over the last three years can be turned into an opportunity to give countries and communities that have so far been excluded from global value chains a way in. 

In a handful of sectors, some reshoring or near-shoring looks inevitable. But beyond these limited areas, such measures could come at enormous economic cost. Researchers at the WTO have estimated that if the world splits into two separate economic blocs, the resulting reduction in international trade and loss of productivity from specialization and scale economies would reduce real incomes over the long term by at least five percent on average from the current trend. The output losses would be far greater than those caused by the 2008–9 global financial crisis. Low-income countries would see real incomes drop by as much as 12 percent, dealing a massive blow to their development prospects.

Economic interdependence is no longer seen as a virtue; it is seen as a vice.

What is more, large-scale reshoring could backfire by making supply chains less, not more, resilient. Negative supply shocks are likely to become more frequent in the years ahead as droughts, heat waves, and flooding wreak havoc with production and transport. Closing the door to trade would increase countries’ exposure to such shocks. In contrast, a reglobalized world economy would offer countries more outside supply options and thus more resilience.

In 2022, the United States saw firsthand that domestic production alone cannot ensure supply resilience when it experienced a shortage of baby formula. Nearly all formula sold in the United States was made domestically, and when one of the four major manufacturers had to stop production at one of its plants because of bacterial contamination, heart-rending shortages ensued. What ultimately mitigated the crisis was trade: the Food and Drug Administration authorized imports of formula on an emergency basis.

“Friend shoring,” the notion of moving production to geopolitical allies, is no panacea, either. Whenever someone proposes “friend shoring,” I always ask, “Who is a friend?” History has plenty of examples of friends behaving in unfriendly ways, especially when it comes to each other’s exports. Trade tensions can arise even among allies. 

TRADING GREEN

But the case for reglobalization goes further than such practicalities. It springs from the fact that the world needs international trade to overcome the most pressing challenges of the day, such as climate change, poverty, inequality, and war. It is often said that global problems demand global solutions. Too frequently, however, cooperation on trade is omitted from the list of those solutions.

The WTO is doing its part to rectify that omission. Last June, at our 12th ministerial conference, the organization’s 164 members agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in harmful fisheries subsidies, helping ease pressure on overexploited marine fish stocks while boosting the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend on healthy oceans. Members committed to preventing emergency food aid purchases from getting bogged down in export restrictions. They also pledged to keep food and medical supplies moving around the world, helping ensure availability and reductions in price volatility. When the war in Ukraine disrupted the supply of food, feed, and fertilizer, the WTO stepped up monitoring of related trade policies and urged members to stick to their pledges to keep markets open. As of early May 2023, around 63 of the 100 or so export-restricting measures that countries had introduced on food, feed, and fertilizer since the start of the warwere still in place. Although there is much room for improvement, things are headed in the right direction.

The existential imperative of climate change is another area where trade can—and must—be part of the solution. Trade is often portrayed as damaging the environment, with concerns about emissions related to shipping, air freight, and trucking spawning initiatives to “buy local.” It is true that transportation, like other carbon-intensive sectors, needs to reduce its emissions, and indeed, researchers are hard at work on alternative fuels, such as green hydrogen and green ammonia, to power cargo ships. But what critics miss is that the world cannot decarbonize without trade. It is an indispensable channel through which green technologies can be disseminated and countries can access the goods and services they need to recover from extreme weather events and adapt to a changing climate. The competition and scale efficiencies made possible by international trade and value chains are critical for driving down the costs of renewable energy technologies, accelerating progress toward the goal of net-zero emissions.

Moreover, international trade can help reduce emissions related to goods by allowing countries to specialize. Just as countries can reap economic gains by focusing on what they are relatively good at, the world can reap environmental gains if countries focus on what they are relatively green at. From the perspective of the planet, it makes sense to import energy-intensive products from places with abundant low-carbon energy or water-intensive products from places with abundant water. For example, a recent World Bank report noted that abundant wind and sun put Latin America and the Caribbean in a good position to produce green hydrogen.

But this sort of environmental comparative advantage works only when the right policy incentives are in place, so that the environmental costs of a given activity are taken into account—“internalized,” in the language of economists. Here, too, cooperation on trade has a critical role to play. As more governments take serious climate action, divergence in their policies could give rise to serious trade frictions and concerns about lost competitiveness. If these tensions go unchecked, countries could end up introducing trade restrictions and retaliating in kind to the restrictions of others. This would increase uncertainty for businesses, thus discouraging low-carbon investment. Higher trade barriers and lower investment would in turn combine to raise the cost of decarbonization—the exact opposite of what the world needs. Governments can avoid this scenario by reaching a shared understanding of how to assess and compare the equivalence of each other’s climate policies—whether taxes, regulations, or subsidies—with a view to helping preempt trade conflict associated with climate measures. The WTO is at work on potential approaches that could inform this kind of global carbon pricing framework, as are the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Co­­operation and Development, and the World Bank.

Trade can help the world achieve environmental objectives in other ways, too. Many WTO members are looking at reforming and reducing the subsidies that governments give to fossil fuel producers and consumers, and some are considering lowering trade barriers to environmental goods and services such as technologies to manage air and water pollution. Parallel to these efforts, some members are taking bold steps to incentivize investment in green technology. Although the WTO rulebook supports efforts to decarbonize, it encourages members to do so in ways that do not discriminate against others or lead to subsidy races in which trading partners are harmed. There are ways to go green and to subsidize, including by supporting research and innovation, that do not undermine a level playing field.

CLOSING THE GAP

Trade has long been a powerful force for poverty reduction as well. It permits countries with small or poor home markets to take advantage of external demand to shift people and resources out of subsistence activities and into more productive work in manufacturing, services, and agriculture.

In the decades before the Covid-19 pandemic, trade played an instrumental role in lifting over one billion people out of extreme poverty. This was not just a story of China’s economic ascent. The share of the global population living on less than the equivalent of $1.90 a day declined from 36 percent in 1990 to around nine percent in 2018. Taking China out of the equation, that share over the same period still fell substantially—from 28 percent to 11 percent. The result of this boom was a dramatic rise in living standards almost everywhere. In the quarter century leading up to 2019, the gap between incomes in poor countries and those in rich economies began to narrow for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, 200 years earlier.

These trends have now been thrown into reverse. The World Bank has estimated that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have pushed as many as 90 million more people into extreme poverty. Rich economies, which enjoyed early access to vaccines and the resources to rescue their economies through big fiscal stimulus packages, are once again leaving poor countries behind. Without global trade, it will be impossible to put development and poverty reduction back on track.

But the world needs a different, reimagined type of trade, because not all people and not all countries shared adequately in the progress of recent decades. Although the overall trends were impressive, the top-line numbers hid a darker story. Many poor countries—most notably in Africa—lagged behind their counterparts elsewhere, even during the pre-pandemic era of convergence. Many poor people and regions in rich countries also lagged behind, since the opportunities created by better access to international markets were not always, or not often, in the same regions or sectors hurt by attendant import competition.

The world needs a different, reimagined type of trade.

Even as economic inequality declined between countries and across the global population as a whole, inequality within many advanced economies increased. Trade was one of several factors at play, including technological changes that favored skilled workers and replaced many manufacturing jobs with machines. Tax, labor, and antitrust policy choices also shaped these changes, which is why inequality increased much more in some countries than in others. When the financial crisis and the painfully slow labor-market recovery that followed fed populist extremism, trade and immigrants became easy scapegoats. The political disruptions of recent years underscore the importance of cushioning the impacts of trade and technological changes on people’s lives and livelihoods. By introducing active labor-market and social policies, governments can ensure that the gains from trade and technology are broadly shared while their disruptive effects are softened.

There is surely scope to bring more people and places from the margins of global production and trade networks to the mainstream. This is already starting to happen. Multinational companies are diversifying their supplier bases in pursuit of cost savings and better risk management. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Morocco, and Vietnam are expanding their participation in regional and global value chains. From Barbados to Bali to Ohio, remote services work is creating opportunities and breathing new life into struggling communities.

Taking this reglobalization process further to encompass more places and draw in more small and women-owned businesses would yield considerable dividends. It would promote growth and reduce poverty in the parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America that have good macroeconomic and business environments but weak connections to the most dynamic sectors of the global economy. It would lead to greater socioeconomic inclusion for sections of society that typically register higher rates of poverty and underemployment. And it would increase the depth, security, and flexibility of supply chains.

A strong, open, multilateral trading system is necessary for this potential next wave of trade-driven growth. But reglobalization will look different from the export-led industrialization that transformed East Asia. With advances in automation making manufacturing a somewhat weaker engine for job creation than it used to be, services will have to play a major role alongside manufacturing and agricultural production and processing. Services are increasingly important drivers of growth and trade, expanding faster than trade in goods. This is especially true for services delivered digitally—everything from streaming games to consulting by videoconference. Cross-border trade in these services grew by an average of 8.1 percent between 2005 and 2022, compared with 5.6 percent for goods. In 2022, digitally delivered service exports reached $3.8 trillion in value, equivalent to 12 percent of all goods and services trade, up from eight percent a decade earlier.

To support this process of reglobalization, the international trade regime will need to adapt by setting forth clear rules on digital trade and promoting deeper cooperation on services trade. Gaps in existing trade rules—or the absence of shared global rules altogether—result in uncertainty and transaction costs that weigh heaviest on smaller businesses. Members of the WTO have been taking steps in the right direction. In 2021, a group of members accounting for over 90 percent of global trade in services struck an agreement on reducing regulatory barriers to services trade, and nearly 90 members, including China, the United States, and the European Union, are currently negotiating a basic set of global rules for digital trade. Regional initiatives to lower trade barriers and build connective infrastructure, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area, are also useful.

Finally, maintaining peace and security is particularly salient these days. The increasing weaponization of trade relations and policy has cast doubt on the long-standing proposition that trade brings peace. Countries are understandably worried about becoming dependent on potential adversaries for critical goods. But as has been made clear, limiting trade to a few partners comes with opportunity costs: higher prices, diminished export options, less productive resource allocation, and new kinds of supply vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, deep and diversified markets make it harder to weaponize international trade, by reducing countries’ dependence on any single source of supply. When the war in Ukraine cut off nearly all of Ethiopia’s wheat imports from that country, Ethiopia was able to fill the gap with imports from Argentina and the United States. Europe has made up for the loss of piped Russian gas with imports of liquefied natural gas from other sources. In a reglobalized world economy, a diffuse production base for all manner of goods would mean even fewer potential chokepoints. One prerequisite for reglobalization is a broadly open and predictable global economy, anchored in a strong, rules-based multilateral trading system.

A FORCE FOR PEACE

International trade is neither the silver bullet that can solve all security problems nor the Achilles’ heel of the current security architecture. To abandon the many benefits that come with international trade would be foolhardy. There are real problems with the current trading system, but the counterfactual scenario is almost certainly worse: it is difficult to believe that international security would be better served if leading powers had no economic stake in one another’s stability and prosperity and no shared institutions in which to engage. Trade between the United States and China benefits people and businesses in both countries enormously and binds the superpowers together, both bilaterally and in international forums, providing an incentive to cooperate where possible and avoid conflict.

Strategic competition is a reality of the modern world. But that world will become unlivable unless there is also strategic cooperation. The WTO’s ministerial meeting last summer offered hope that the two can go together. The agreements reached there had the support of all WTO members. They worked across geopolitical and policy fault lines, each perceiving a national interest in reinforcing the world trading system.

In the three-quarters of a century since the world first embraced multilateral cooperation on trade, the trading system has underpinned rising—if still uneven—global prosperity. It has achieved its original goal of helping governments keep markets open in turbulent times. In the face of mighty shocks, from the global financial crisis to the pandemic, the world did not repeat the 1930s spiral of protectionism and depression, instead allowing cross-border demand and supply to be an engine for recovery.

Today, the multilateral trading system is part of the solution to major global challenges, from climate change to conflict to pandemic preparedness. And a reformed WTO, fit for the twenty-first century, is needed now more than ever, with rules that underpin the stability, predictability, and openness of the global trading system. If the past 15 years have taught us anything, it is that unforeseen crises surely lie ahead and that without the stabilizing force of trade, the world will almost certainly be less able to weather them.

Foreign Affairs

I have always been in the number that believes strongly that Nigeria will reclaim its role as the giant of Africa. Year in, year out, I struggle to keep this hope alive regardless of the realities on ground. However, it became harder to profess faith in my motherland when February happened. We had trusted INEC for an efficient process in the presidential election but there seemed to be a commitment to dishonour Nigerians yet again.

With the chains of electoral malpractice witnessed and recorded across the country, it still baffles me that a ‘winner’ was declared at a time when citizens were not just asleep but a time when results were still being uploaded on the database. Isn’t it ironical that we are marking Democracy Day today? If there is anything I remember from my Social Studies class in secondary school, it would be the definition of democracy – the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Sadly, the state of the nation consistently debunks the notion that power belongs to the people.

It’s been 24 years since Nigeria ended its toxic relationship with the military regime in order to embrace democracy but it feels like that was more of a ceremony for the books and not a call to action. As we mark this day’s event, I am here to declare, “LET DEMOCRACY BREATHE; DON’T SUFFOCATE IT. WE HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILIITY.”

I am particularly excited that the presidential election results are being contested at the court of law. I do not appreciate how easily the narrative of coerced acceptance of the spectrum of electoral irregularities have continued to be pushed on citizens per election cycle. It is high time justice prevailed. The last presidential election was plagued with unfortunate circumstances. In some polling units, citizens were denied their rights to vote because of their ethnicity, while some other units had their share of violence. Despite the hitches, it was inspiring to see Nigerians resisting the urge of hopelessness until surviving votes were counted.

It Is important to reiterate that leading Nigeria is not a personal community development project. It is absolute service to those who have elected you to lead. Election is not selection, recommendation or appointment. Elections do not follow the structure of royalty; political positions are not hierarchical. The will of the people at the polling booths decides who leads. If this basic principle of democracy is compromised, then there is a problem.

The solution Is not to chant RENEWED HOPE. The way forward is to ensure the judiciary is fully independent and allowed to follow the due course of the law.

Nigeria deserves a government led by duly elected officials who can be held accountable. The structure of accountability takes into consideration the fallibility of humans hence, serving as a framework for acts of service as and when due. Those who are courageous to go to the court do not trust in the delusion that they would fix Nigeria in a minute. They are motivated by the belief that Nigeria is ours and not a parcel of inheritance. They understand that to clean up the mess that has gravely engrossed the system takes creativity, efficiency, proactiveness, transparency, firmness and discipline. Their goal is simple, to Make Nigeria Great Again. They are certain that the success of Nigeria is a collective commitment and it is greater than anyone’s personal ambition.

Without mincing words, I am forever a fan of a system that is designed to meet the needs of the people through empathy, realistic policies and no violence. I hope that by this time next year, we would look back and be grateful that democracy is not just breathing but flourishing.

I would rather wish you a happy holiday my fellow Nigerian. May justice be our reward.

The fear-mongering around Generative AI and ChatGPT taking jobs from hard-working, knowledge-economy humans has reached a fever pitch. 

Without naming names and linking links (I'd rather keep you here, more on that later), a simple web search returns hundreds of articles, listicles and correlation thought pieces, all written to harvest the click of the average bread-winner by instilling a panic image of the machines rising up and doing for free what you get paid for.

I've been working with Natural Language Generation (NLG) and the roots of Generative AI since 2010, which, on the technology timeline, is the Mesozoic Era.

And I've got some good news for you. And you might get an ironic chuckle when I tell you which jobs are immediately in danger of being erased.

How Technology Impacts the Bottom-Feeders

My journey into NLG began with a company called Automated Insights, which pioneered NLG tech to create narrative stories out of data in walled data gardens like sports, finance, marketing and so on. 

My job was to create the algorithms which analyzed the data and turned it into words. We sold to a private equity firm in 2015 and our tech, prehistoric as its origins may be, is still being utilized by Yahoo Fantasy Football, the Associated Press and dozens of other organizations. 

Anyway, as we made our meteoric rise from two engineers and a handful of young developers to a VC-backed, 75-person company, journalists took interest.

I did a lot of interviews with major media outlets and almost every single interview ended with the journalist turning off their recording device and asking, off the record:

"You're coming for my job, aren't you?"

My response was to get them back on the record and tell them firmly and flatly, no. Not you. While there were plenty of technological shifts plaguing journalism and media at the time, we weren't part of the problem. 

You know who we were coming for? Data scientists. And only the lazy ones at that.

In the mid-2010s, data science existed in two camps. In one camp were true data scientists who could take billions of rows of data and generate valuable, useful insights from it.

We could do that too and we realized we could automate a lot of it. Thus our name, Automated Insights.

The jobs that our NLG/Generative AI technology "took," were in the other data science camp. In the 2010s, with the influx of massive sets of data being released online, thanks to increases in processing power and innovations like Amazon's AWS infrastructure, there was too much data for data scientists to handle.

A new class of data scientists sprung up, basically anyone who knew SQL or Python and could game the system and generate $100,000-plus salaries for doing simple things that machines could automate. 

What I learned and what I've carried with me since those days is that technology has a way of calling out the bottom feeders in any industry and AI does it almost instantaneously. That's where the fear gets mongered.

However, ChatGPT is not coming for the bottom-feeding knowledge workers. Not yet. Because this slice of AI is niche and all Generative AI does is automate the creation of content.

So if your job is in the creator economy and if you're not very good at it, I've got some bad news for you. 

The World Doesn't Need More Content

It needs more targeted content. That's where Generative AI and ChatGPT hold the most promise. And they're coming for a camp within the creator economy.

The creator economy has two classes – not camps, I'll get to the camps later. 

In one class, you've got folks who are creating original content at the individual level (hello), in the form of words, music, film, art and even food and crafts. They're running businesses that are more creativity-based than product-based.

They target an audience as opposed to customers and they generate revenue from the attention of that audience.

This class is not in danger, yet. But they sense it. Generative AI is one of the concerns that brought about the entertainment industry's writer's strike.

In the other creator economy class, you've got people who discuss and critique content. They define and opine. It's a legit way to make a living and you probably have a favorite.

I'll point to Dan Olson and Lindsay Ellis, who do a great job of blending critique and knowledge, using creative elements to deliver their product to their audience and generate revenue. 

This is the class of the industry that's most in danger, but there are two camps within that class. 

The first camp is the legit creator, the Olsons and the Ellises. Then you've got the bottom-feeder camp, people who create low-quality and easily-replicable content, revolving around or even "stealing" copyrighted first-class original content, to game the creator-economy infrastructure and algorithms, flooding the market for a piece of that creator revenue. 

You folks are done.

Replace Entrepreneurs With Creators

Outside of my day job as head of product for a high-tech, high-growth startup, I create content that portends to make more and better entrepreneurs by writing pieces like this and more targeted Q&A content at Teaching Startup. 

So I know both the entrepreneurial ecosystem and the creator ecosystem intimately.

In the startup ecosystem, there have always been and always will be bottom-feeding "gamers" who sell a "business" based on manipulating some existing system that has a low barrier-to-entry to transact real cash money. 

A lot of creator-economy platforms are targets for these gamers. In my "word" world, it's Medium and Substack, but it's also Patreon, YouTube, podcasts, even Amazon with its affiliate links and Google with its pay-per-click ads.

These gamers plague Kickstarter and crowdfunding. They're rampant in sectors like crypto and NFTs, which is basically the unholy marriage of the creator economy and money.

Now, my point is, in the startup ecosystem, there are organizations and platforms that support and educate entrepreneurs (hello).

The organizations that promote that type of "gaming" business are, of course, not considered legitimate. However, the organizations that even tolerate that type of business are often held just as culpable and risk their reputations as legitimate entrepreneurship economy platforms. 

Replace "entrepreneurs" with "creators" and I do think, with the proliferation of a massive influx of automated, machine-generated, low-quality content, creator platforms like Medium and Substack are at a crossroads and will soon have a choice to make. 

Do they tolerate this low-quality content on a massive scale, and keep the attention-economy gravy train of algorithms and clicks and views going, or do they proactively challenge the low-quality content?

The latter will require an investment in both technology and the human element to raise the quality bar before low-quality content destroys their reputation as a legitimate platform.

And eventually, Generative AI tech will bring the same crossroads moment to digital art platforms, podcast platforms, video platforms and so on. 

Then it will hit the knowledge economy, at which point, knowledge workers can start worrying about their jobs. But going back to the 2010s, I already saw this happen.

Not just with lazy data scientists, but with almost every white-collar, butt-in-a-chair, pixel-pushing, spreadsheet-spelunking job that the influx of data wrought on the workforce. Those jobs are long gone or are only being used as stepping stones to turn "knowledge workers" into "knowledgeable workers."

Those are two distinct camps that are very easy to identify. You're probably in the latter and if you're not, well, you've likely still got five to ten years to get there before you become obsolete.

Inc

Markets are likely to respond positively to the weekend ouster of Nigeria’s central bank governor, which will allow the country’s new president to better pursue his promise of resetting monetary policy that’s been blamed for crippling Africa’s biggest economy.

Godwin Emefiele was suspended by President Bola Tinubu after financial markets closed on Friday, and detained by Nigeria’s state security service a day later for what were termed “investigative reasons.” Folashodun Shonubi, a deputy governor in charge of operations at the bank, will take over on acting capacity. 

Analysts said the outcome should be that Nigerian bonds strengthen and benchmark interest rates may rise as the nation’s assets look more attractive to investors. The scrapping of a multiple exchange rate regime will likely lead to the devaluation of the naira.

“The market will receive the removal of Godwin as a positive development, as his unorthodox policies had become an impediment for Nigeria,” Ronak Gadhia, director of Sub-Saharan banks research at EFG Hermes, said by email. “His removal should be viewed as positive and could lead to increased risk appetite for Nigerian bonds and equities.”

“A more normalized and conventional” policy “should result in higher interest rates in the short term as the CBN attempts to rein in on inflation,” Gadhia added.

Emefiele’s policies — including propping up the naira, restricting foreign exchange for dozens of imports, and focusing on development finance — had long been criticized by investors, economists and institutions like the World Bank. His central bank also lent the government 22.7 trillion naira ($49 billion), helping push the country’s public debt to a record 77 trillion naira.

Suspension and Detention

Emefiele was widely seen as acting in lockstep with the administration of Tinubu’s predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari. The previous government was perceived to be more statist and socialist in its approach, said Yemi Kale, chief economist for Nigeria at KPMG LLP and the nation’s former statistician general. “The markets will respond positively to an administration it believes to be more market oriented,” Kale said.  

Tinubu criticized the country’s central bank in his May 29 inaugural address, vowing to unify the multiple exchange rate regime in order to “direct funds away from arbitrage into meaningful investment in the plants, equipment and jobs that power the real economy.”

Under Emefiele, Nigeria’s central bank offered the US dollar through several windows at tightly controlled rates with little liquidity to businesses and individuals. This forced many to the black market where the dollar traded more freely but at about a 60% premium to the official rate. 

“The departure of Emefiele is likely to be viewed positively by markets as a signal of a new policy direction in Nigeria,” Ayo Salami, chief investment officer at Emerging Markets Investment Management Ltd in London, said via email. “To be credible, the implementation of policy changes would most likely need a new team.”

Naira Devaluation

The current naira exchange rate of 471.92 naira to the dollar, a record low, likely needs to be adjusted to about 700-750 naira, closer to the current black market rate, JP Morgan said in an investment note on May 31. “Our baseline expectation is that an adjustment to these levels is likely, barring significant upside to oil prices or production,” the bank said. 

The naira has closed lower for three consecutive days, its longest streak of losses since May 12. Analysts expect that the naira could trade anywhere between 650 to 750 naira to the dollar as Nigeria allows the currency to trade more freely. 

A naira at that level, combined with Tinubu’s decision to remove a costly gasoline subsidy, “means the government does not have [to] borrow as much, just to pay interest on debt,” Charlie Robertson, head of strategy at FIM Partners, said in a series of posts on Twitter. 

Bloomberg