Connect with us

Business

AMCON responds to allegations from Grant Properties promoter, Olajide Awosedo

Published

on

 

 

 

 

The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and its receiver manager have been brought to the center of a media circus owing to the allegations of Olajide Awosedo, chairman of Grant Properties Limited, against the corporation. AMCON has now given a detailed response to the allegations.

WHO IS OLAJIDE AWOSEDO?

Mr. Olajide Awosedo is the promoter of Grant Properties which is currently under receivership due to debts owed AMCON. AMCON was established under the AMCON Act 2010 to acquire non-performing loans known as “Eligible Bank Assets” (EBA) from Nigerian banks. These assets are now held on behalf of 180 million Nigerians. It has been reported that over 80% of these debts are owed by a few elite Nigerians who deploy huge resources to avoid paying back the debts. One such debtor is OlajideAwosedo who was indebted to over nine banks to the tune of N22 billion. Awosedo’s other company – Havilah Villas Limited is also indebted to Heritage Bank and Access Bank.  Its assets in Ogun state were seized by AMCON in June 2017 over a N4.68 billion debt. Awosedo also owes First Bank N2billion plus interest arising from a development called Goshen Beach Estate. As a result First Bank, Sterling Bank, Wema Bank, Unity Bank, Access Bank, Skye Bank and the other banks are all trying to recover their loans.

WHEN AWOSEDO’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS REACHED A HEAD

Awosedo’s financial problem crystallized when he left the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for the Labour Party having failed to secure the Ogun State governorship Ticket. He proceeded to contest the governorship contest using borrowed funds and was unsuccessful. OlajideAwosedo made another unsuccessful attempt through the Accord party which further compounded his financial situation. As a result he was unable to repay his mounting debts. It has been alleged that Awosedo used part of the N8 billion he borrowed from the consortium of banks, meant for real estate development, to fund his governorship campaign in Ogun state.

Mr. Awosedo’s various debts arose from unpaid loans relating to the development of Goshen Beach Estate Lekki (First Bank), Victory Park Estate Lekki ( Sterling Bank, Wema Bank, Unity Bank and Skye Bank ) and Havilla Gardens Ogun State (Access Bank formerly Intercontinental Bank and Heritage Bank). It is claimed that he also owed FCMB, Diamond Bank, United Mortgage Bank and Providus Bank. These debts have been subject to court cases, court judgments and EBAs now acquired by AMCON.

THE BEGINNING OF AWOSEDO’S TROUBLE WITH BANKS AND AMCON

According to a source privy to this case, in 2002 the Lagos State government under the private developers’ scheme allocated 46 hectares of land to a company called Knight Rook Limited. But the company was unable to pay for the land; Lagos state demanded for a bank guarantee to cover the payment. Grant Properties the promoters approached a consortium of banks for the Bank Guarantee. Grant Properties was a shareholder of Knight Rook Limited before transferring its shares to the four banks led by Sterling Bank in 2006. At all times the property belonged to Knight Rook Limited and not Grant Properties.

The Victory Park Estate debt under reference arose due to this failed obligation to Lagos State Government. Grant Properties had approached the four banks in 2003 (Sterling Bank, WEMA Bank, Unity Bank and Skye Bank) for the Bank Guarantee to be issued in favor of Lagos State Government for a Site and Services estate Scheme. The lead bank was Sterling Bank (formerly NAL Bank). Mr. Awosedo was a staff of NAL Bank before resigning to enter private business.

Grant Properties failed to make payment on the due date and Lagos State claimed the due funds on the Bank Guarantee from the four Banks. Since the property was in the name of a company called Knight Rook Limited and the banks fully paid for the Land. (Awosedo did not contribute any money to the purchase of the property). The Banks demanded for their funds which were not forthcoming. Therefore in 2006 the bank foreclosed and all the shares of Knight Rook Limited were transferred to the four banks and the Banks appointed directors to Knight Rook Limited which meant that the banks fully owned Knight Rook. Grant Properties transferred all its shares to the banks and Mr. Awosedo and his wife resigned from Knight Rook Limited.  Knight Rook secretariat and administrative matters were domiciled with Sterling Bank as the Lead Bank.

By an MOU, the Banks also appointed Grant Properties as developer to develop the phase 1 of 90 flats in Victory park estate. The Banks also funded and sponsored the phase 1 development. The Four Banks also paid the salaries of Awosedo’s staff during the period and customers paid deposits to the banks for the phase 2 development. The Banks did not charge any interest during this period because it was an investment. Upon completion of Phase 1 , the construction loan granted by the Banks remained unpaid and the project was declared a loss.

At this point, the debt figure was about over N10 billion. The consortium of banks explored every avenue to recover their money without success.

The Banks later discovered that OlajideAwosedo diverted 9 of the flats to his children and family which was an abuse and breach of trust. As a result all four banks were unwilling to provide further loans and the loan was classified as a bad debt. The banks further resolved to transfer the debt to AMCON. However, before the debt could be purchased by AMCON, the banks needed to refund all the creditors and depositors.

Grant properties proposed the sale of 10 hectares to raise funds to repay some of the debts. The four banks gave Grant Properties over 2 years to find a buyer but Grant properties informed the banks that they could not find a buyer due to the economic  situation. So the Banks found a buyer and sold the 10 hectares and then refunded all the depositors with the proceeds. In the process the banks lost a lot of money. This meant that even if the land was sold at a higher price, Grant Properties would NOT have received the money because it would have been applied to repay the remaining debts which were written off by the banks before they transferred the EBA to AMCON. The 4 Banks also agreed to transfer the remaining 14 hectares to AMCON as consideration for the EBA purchased from the banks. Considering the fact that this was depositors’ money and pressed in a tight corner, the banks sold the bad debt to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON). The corporation bought the liability for N5.1 billion which was not enough to cover the N10 billion debt sum which meant that the Banks lost another N5 billion on the debts.

Meanwhile Awosedo of Grant Properties continued to sell parcels of land in Victory Park Estate, Lekki, to unsuspecting buyers even after AMCON had acquired the asset. AMCON considered this action fraudulent and took legal action against him. Awosedo then petitioned AMCON claiming that the Banks sold the 10 hectares without his knowledge and that the 10 hectares sold by the Banks was part of the 14 hectares belonging to AMCON and that he was not involved or aware of the sale of the 10 hectares by the four banks. He also claimed that the property was sold below the true market value.

Further investigation by AMCON and the CBN found his petition to be false and untrue. AMCON found that the banks acted within the bounds of the law, and that sale of the assets to refund the depositors was legal.  Contrary to the claim by Awosedo that the banks sold “his land” after AMCON had acquired his debt. The corporation confirmed that the sale of this asset (10 Hectares) happened before its acquisition of the liability. AMCON also found that he had been aware of the sale of 10 Hectares, that the proceeds were used to refund depositors and subscribers for buildings which Awosedo failed to deliver, that most of the refund cheques and deposits were handled by Grant properties and Awosedo. In refunding the subscribers, the lead bank (Sterling Bank) issued cheques, which were then handed over to Grant Properties Limited for distribution. Grant Properties Limited not only acknowledged the cheques but replied with corrections to be made in the name of some subscribers. Consequently, contrary to the petition, MrAwosedo, through his companies was clearly involved in the sale of the 10 hectares and distribution of the proceeds of same.

AMCON discovered that Awosedo had fraudulently sold 2 Hectares of the 10 Hectares to unsuspecting buyers at N24,000/ sq meter. AMCON also discovered that the sales proceeds were diverted by Grant Properties and the proceeds were not used to pay down the bank debts or the AMCON EBA. The four banks had sold the 10 hectares – at N18,500/sqmeter (about N1.85 billion) to Real Estate Development Company (RED) before AMCON took over the assets.  RED sold 2.4 hectares of this land to UAC Property Development Company at the rate of N26,000/ sqmeter. The price was higher because the value of the property had appreciated owing to the construction of a pivotal access road – Oba Akinloye Way. The entire 10 Hectares is now fully developed with over 300 families living in the estate.

Notwithstanding the above, AMCON negotiated between the two parties and sought an amicable resolution. Awosedo demanded for N750 million, the difference between N26,000/ sq meter price sold to UAC and the N18,000/ sq meter purchase price of RED (despite having sold two hectares at N24,000/ sq meter). Mr. Awosedo put his demands in writing offering to accept N600 million which was applied to reduce his liability to AMCON. The Banks counterclaimed through Sterling Bank that Awosedo withheld the proceeds of nine developed apartments valued at N270 million and the sales proceeds of two hectares. After protracted negotiations and mediation by AMCON, the banks agreed to forfeit the 9 apartments valued at N270 million and 10% of the EBA proceeds valued at N510 million. AMCON wrote to the banks confirming the final settlement and the four banks replied through sterling bank accepting the offer with the condition that AMCON will compel Awosedo and Grant properties to accept the same. AMCON replied and accepted the terms. AMCON is therefore now also bound by the terms of settlement reached by both parties.

However, Mr.Awosedo commenced a legal action in 2012 – in the name of Knight Rook Limited (despite being fully aware that Knight Rook Limited was by this time wholly owned by AMCON and not having AMCON’s permission to do so) – purportedly to challenge the sale of land to UAC in SUIT NO: LD/576/12 – GRANT PROPERTIES LIMITED & ANOR V. UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PLC& ANOR. Throughout this case, Mr.Awosedo never disclosed, until he was challenged, that he did not have AMCON’s authority to sue in the name of a company wholly owned by AMCON. The defendants contested his authority to sue, at which point his counsel – a senior advocate of Nigeria BonajoBadejo SAN admitted the lack of authority to initiate the case in the name of Knight Rook Limited and Knight Rook Limited was struck out as a plaintiff in the suit (but inexplicably then joined as a defendant); more materially, Mr.Awosedo also never disclosed to the court that the issue had been resolved at his instance by AMCON. In June 2017 the high court nullified the transfer of 2.4 hectares to UAC but the court reaffirmed that the entire property still belonged to Knight Rook limited which was owned by AMCON. Awosedothen approached AMCON requesting to benefit from the judgment but AMCON as a responsible organization chose to honor the terms of the resolution earlier reached with all parties.

THE JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL HIGH COURT SACKING GRANT PROPERTIES

In 2015, a Federal High Court in Lagos had ruled that the asset in dispute was the property of Knight Rook, not Awosedo’s Grant Properties. So, having resigned from the Knight Rook and transferring his shares to the four banks, Awosedo had no legal right to the asset. During the court case against UAC, Grant properties suppressed this information from the Lagos State court to his advantage. This forms part of the grounds of appeal by UAC in the Court of Appeal.

AMCON, which played a mediatory role between the consortium of banks and Grant Properties, says Awosedo has no legal right to Knight Rook or to its assets according to the 2015 judgment.

Mr. JideOlasetin, a legal representative of the corporation, disclosed that the banks made 100 percent payment for the assets. He said Grant Properties made no single contribution to the purchase and development of the assets. He said the banks had exercised legal authority on the assets.

As required by law, AMCON duly gave Knight Rook Limited and thus Mr.OlajideAwosedo and his companies notice of the acquisition of their debts.

Today the assets belong to 180 million Nigerians and it is held in trust by AMCON until all the debts are recovered. Thus no amount of blackmail or intimidation will change the position of the Federal Government or AMCON until all the debts are paid.

The position of AMCON is unassailable and this position has been further confirmed “On 3rd October 2017, in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/744/17 – AMCON V. KNIGHT ROOK LIMITED & ORS, Hon Justice Buba of the Federal High Court (FHC), Lagos entered judgment in favour of AMCON against Knight Rook Limited& 5 Ors in the sum of N12, 566,910,191.00 plus interest.Counsel to Knight Rook Limited who was in court submitted to judgment stating that having reviewed records there was no defence to the claim while the other defendants including Mr.OlajideAwosedo who were duly served with the originating processes and had appeared in court through counsel prior to that day and had also applied for and obtained copies of all processes filed through their counsel, were absent and had Judgment entered against them in default of defence,  pursuant to the extant provisions of the AMCON Practice Direction 2013,” AMCON said.

“Buba J also made an order forfeiting all and any residuary rights, which Mr.OlajideAwosedo may have to Knight Rook Limited amongst other orders.

“AMCON immediately executed this judgment by attaching and taking possession of the chattels and landed properties (including Victory Park Estate) which the receiver/Manager, Mr.LanreOlaoluwa,had earlier taken possession of Victory Park Estate and other assets of Mr.OlajideAwosedo and his companies. The receiver/manager, in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in that regard, handed over all those assets to AMCON.”

As a result of this action OlajideAwosedo has embarked on a smear campaign against individuals in AMCON and the banks on the social and print media. This blackmail is a usual strategy employed by chronic debtors who are unwilling to pay their debts. But AMCON and its senior management are undeterred.

According to the corporation, Justice Buba of the Federal High Court, Lagos ruled in October that Awosedo had no residuary right to Knight Rook. AMCON says the judgment also gave it the necessary legal muscle to acquire the assets.

This judgment, from a constitutional court, validates the action of AMCON.

 

Business

MREIF is Better: FirstBank’s Mortgage Loan Is the Game-Changer for Home Ownership in Nigeria

Published

on

FirstBank Set to Launch Tailored Financial Services for Blind and Physically Challenged Customers  

MREIF is Better: FirstBank’s Mortgage Loan Is the Game-Changer for Home Ownership in Nigeria

 

 

 

Anyone who has tried to get a loan to buy a house in Nigeria knows the drill: endless forms, property valuation, and eventual down payment of a minimum 25% or more on the property. Sometimes, interest rates could go as high as 30% per annum, while the typical loan limit is N50 million.

 

 

 

Now, FirstBank is making homeownership more attractive.

 

 

 

FirstBank, in partnership with the Ministry of Finance Incorporated (MOFI), has introduced the MREIF Home Loan. MREIF loan is a game-changer, offering a single-digit interest rate of 9.75% per annum, with a loan amount of up to ₦100 million and a repayment period of up to 20 years. This is perfect for salaried individuals, including Nigerians in the diaspora, looking to purchase homes in approved locations.

 

The MREIF loan stands out with its lower interest rate, higher loan amount, and flexible equity contribution as low as 10%. This makes it an attractive option for those seeking affordable homeownership.

 

 

 

You are one quick decision away from being a landlord.

 

 

 

If you’ve been waiting for the right time to buy a home, FirstBank’s MREIF Home Loan is the smartest route to owning property in Nigeria today. Visit the FirstBank website https://www.firstbanknigeria.com/personal/loans/mreif-home-loan/ to get started.

Continue Reading

Business

Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty

Published

on

Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty

BY BLAISE UDUNZEq

 

With the chanting of the ‘Renewed Hope’, it appears to be Uhuru in Nigeria, following the recent World Economic Outlook presented by the International Monetary Fund, which projected that Nigeria’s economy would expand by 4.1 percent in 2026. Though this specifically shows an economy faster than economies like the United States and the United Kingdom, as it handed the administration of President Bola Tinubu a powerful narrative. No doubt, the projection happens to be a narrative of progress, of reform, of a nation supposedly turning the corner after years of instability and setting the kind of moment that reassures investors, quiets critics and signals competence.

 

But once its statistical sheen is put aside, the weight of reality takes center stage. The truth is while Nigeria may be growing on paper, it is simultaneously shrinking and does not in any way reflect the lived experience of its citizens, as the populace can attest to. With the current lived experience, nowhere is this contradiction more glaring than in the widening gulf between macroeconomic projections and the daily economic suffering of over 200 million people.

 

The truth is uncomfortable, but it must be said plainly that a country where poverty is deepening, inflation is persistent, debt is rising, and basic survival is becoming more difficult cannot meaningfully claim economic success, no matter what the growth figures suggest.

The most damning evidence against the “fastest-growing economy” narrative as enumerated by the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala comes not from opposition voices or political critics, but this time it is coming from the World Bank itself. Alarming to this is that according to its latest Nigeria Development Update, poverty in the country rose to 63 percent barely months back, translating to roughly 140 million Nigerians living below the poverty line. This is not just a statistic; it is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in real time, which in a real sense calls for quick interventions.

 

Even more troubling is the trend. Poverty has not plateaued; it is accelerating, worsening and not stablising at all. From 56 percent in 2023 to 61 percent in 2024, and now 63 percent in 2025, the trajectory is unmistakable, as can be seen the data shows a clear upward trend over time that calls for concern. And projections from PwC suggest that the numbers will climb even higher, with an estimated 141 million Nigerians expected to be poor in 2026.

 

It would surprise many that these figures expose a fundamental contradiction; it is a total irony that an economy is growing while its people are becoming poorer, hence, while no one would hesitate to say that the type of growth taking place is flawed. Well, without jumping to a hasty conclusion, the answer lies in that growth. To say that the economic growth taking place is imbalanced, it is uneven, exclusionary, and not absolutely linked or largely disconnected from the sectors that sustain the majority of Nigerians. Growth driven by services and capital-intensive industries does little for a population whose livelihoods depend heavily on agriculture and informal enterprise. When growth bypasses the poor, it ceases to be development and becomes mere arithmetic.

 

The government’s defence often leans on the argument that inflation is easing and that reforms are beginning to stabilise the economy. But even this claim is increasingly fragile, as reported that the recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics shows that inflation has begun to rise again. This now shows that the headline inflation is ticking up to 15.38 percent in March 2026, alongside a sharp month-on-month increase of 4.18 percent. The pain Consumer Price Index climbed to 135.4, underscoring sustained pressure on household spending.

 

Another aspect that raises further questions is that the most critical component for ordinary Nigerians, which is the food inflation skyrocketed to 14.31 percent, with also a similar month-on-month surge. It must be made known that these are not just numbers on a chart; they represent the escalating cost of survival, mostly for the common man. The ripple effect of this, which is yet to change, is that families are compelled to pay more for basic meals, more for transportation, and more for the essentials of daily life.

 

Noteworthy is that even when inflation showed signs of moderation in previous months, the fact is that it did little to reverse the damage already inflicted. The World Bank has been clear on this point when it said that household incomes have not kept pace with price increases. The underlying point is that the earlier spikes in inflation eroded purchasing power to such an extent that any subsequent easing has been insufficient to restore real income levels and this is where the figures churned out were misleading.

 

This explains the inconsistency at the heart of Nigeria’s economy, where nominal indicators are improving, but real conditions are deteriorating. Nigerians are earning more in absolute terms but are able to afford less. This is further confirmed by data showing that while nominal household spending increased significantly, real consumption declined, while it would be said that people are spending more money, but they are consuming less. That is not growth; but the right word for it is economic suffocation.

 

The structural consequences of ongoing reforms compound the situation. The removal of fuel subsidies, which was the gift to Nigerians for electing President Tinubu and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market were framed as necessary steps toward long-term stability. And in theory, they are defensible policies. But in practice, the result has been an extraordinary cost-of-living crisis, especially for the larger section of struggling Nigerians.

 

Speaking of the fuel subsidy removal, which has driven up transportation costs across the country, affecting both urban commuters and rural farmers, as the pain has been further intensified by the geopolitical conflict in the Middle East. The second policy shift which was the exchange rate liberalisation, has led to currency depreciation with the experiences biting hard across board, making imported goods more expensive and fueling inflationary pressures. These policy choices, which were perhaps deemed necessary, and without further ado have imposed immediate and severe burdens on households that were already vulnerable.

 

The International Monetary Fund has warned that these pressures are far from over. Rising global tensions, particularly in the Middle East, are pushing up the cost of energy, food, and transportation. For Nigerians, especially those at the lower rung in society, this translates into even higher living costs and deeper economic strain to contend with.

 

In this context, the government’s insistence on celebrating growth projections begins to appear not just disconnected, but insensitive. Because for millions of Nigerians, the economy is not an abstract concept measured in percentages. It is a daily struggle defined by whether they can afford food, transport, and shelter.

 

Compounding these challenges is Nigeria’s growing debt burden. Unexpectedly, public debt has climbed to over N159 trillion, with projections indicating a continued rise in the coming years because of the government’s appetite for borrowing. While the debt-to-GDP ratio may appear moderate compared to global averages, this comparison is totally misleading. The question is why the debt is ballooning when Nigeria’s revenue base is narrow, heavily reliant on oil, and constrained by a large informal sector that contributes little to tax income.

 

The current position of things is that debt servicing consumes a disproportionate share of government revenue, leaving limited fiscal space for investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social protection, which has continued to expose the majority of Nigerians to untold hardship. It is a precarious position, one where the government is borrowing more while having less capacity to translate that borrowing into meaningful development outcomes and the part that is also critical is that Nigeria’s rising debt profile is entering discomforting quarters, as concerns shift from the sheer size of borrowings to the growing risks associated with refinancing existing obligations.

 

Even more troubling are the emerging questions around fiscal transparency and governance. Only recently, there were allegations by Peter Obi on the missing N34 trillion in federation revenue that remains unaccounted. This, according to him, has intensified concerns about systemic leakages and institutional corruption. The fact is, even though these claims remain contested, they resonate deeply in a country where public trust in government financial management is already fragile and has remained a subject of discussion for many Nigerians.

 

The truth is that if even a fraction of such resources were effectively managed and invested, the impact on infrastructure, social services, and poverty reduction could be transformative but this is yet to be embarked upon. Instead, the persistence of such allegations reinforces the perception of an economy where wealth exists but is inaccessible to the majority, which brings to bare if there will ever be a respite in a situation like this.

 

Adding another layer to this complexity is the excessive contradiction of oil revenue. With global crude prices that were once sold above $113 per barrel and currently hovering around $85-$90, which is still far exceeding Nigeria’s budget benchmark, and the country stands to hugely benefit from a significant windfall, as was the case in the past. You know that history is more revealing than ever; it suggests that such opportunities are often squandered.

 

Analysts repeatedly have continued to warn that without disciplined fiscal management, these revenues may be absorbed by debt servicing or recurrent expenditure rather than being invested in productive sectors. The risk is that Nigeria once again experiences a boom without transformation, a cycle that has defined its economic history for decades.

 

Meanwhile, the irony in all of this is that, despite having plenty, every day Nigerian continues to bear the brunt of systemic inefficiencies. As the people bear the brunt, the country’s transportation costs are rising, food prices remain volatile, and access to basic services is increasingly strained, while the rural areas are not left out of the equation, as insecurity continues to disrupt agricultural production. This has further constrained food supply and driven up prices. In urban centres, the cost of living is pushing more households into financial distress.

 

The cumulative, as well as the ripple effects of these pressures is a society under strain. Lest we mistake this, economic hardship is not just a financial issue; it has social and psychological consequences, while unbeknownst to many, its resultant effect fuels frustration, erodes trust in institutions, which also leads to fertile ground for instability.

 

What makes the current situation particularly troubling is the widening disconnect between official narratives and lived reality. There are two instances in which it was noted that, on the one hand, the government points to IMF projections and macroeconomic indicators as evidence of progress. On the other hand, citizens experience rising poverty, declining purchasing power, and limited opportunities. Another good example stems from when President Tinubu declared in September of last year that the federal government had met its 2025 non-oil income goal by August.

 

However, the former Minister of Finance, Wale Edun stated that the Federal Government lacked sufficient funds to appropriately fund its capital budget during a public hearing at the National Assembly late last year. The minister stated that in order to pay the N54.9 trillion “budget of restoration,” which was intended to stabilize the economy, ensure peace, and create prosperity, the federal government had estimated N40.8 trillion in income for 2025.

These two reports sounded and appeared contradictory and it probably was first of many factors responsible for the fallout.

 

This disconnect is more than a communication gap, it is a credibility crisis. When people’s lived experiences contradict official claims, trust erodes. And without trust, even well-intentioned policies struggle to gain acceptance.

 

The claim that Nigeria is growing faster than advanced economies may be technically accurate, and perhaps it must be seen as an absolute insult to Nigerians and it must be noted that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the country’s core challenges. This key fact must be taken into cognizance that growth rates, in isolation, do not capture the quality, inclusiveness, or sustainability of economic progress and this is because they do not reflect whether growth is creating jobs, reducing poverty, or improving living standards. Note that in Nigeria’s case, the evidence suggests otherwise, in which the reality continues to dominate outcomes and this is not but the fact.

 

For growth to be meaningful, it must translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives. At this point, it is necessary to understand that it must create jobs, raise incomes, and expand opportunities. Another important factor that must not be left out is that it must be inclusive, reaching not just the top tiers of society but the millions at the base of the economic pyramid. At present, Nigeria falls short on all these counts.

 

The path forward requires more than optimistic projections and reform rhetoric. It demands a fundamental rethinking of economic priorities. Policies must be designed not just for macroeconomic stability but for human welfare and while investment must be directed toward sectors that generate employment and improve productivity, particularly agriculture and manufacturing. Social safety nets must be strengthened to protect the most vulnerable from economic shocks which has yet to be considered by the government of the day.

 

Equally important is the need for transparency and accountability in public finance. Without trust in how resources are managed, even the most ambitious economic plans will struggle to gain legitimacy.

Nigeria is not lacking in potential and this is one of the ironies of it all since it has a young population, abundant natural resources, and a dynamic entrepreneurial spirit. But potential, without effective governance and inclusive policies, remains unrealised.

 

The uncomfortable reality is that Nigeria is at risk of normalising a dangerous illusion which connotes that growth on paper is equivalent to progress in practice. The truth is that it is not and cannot be contested. And until this illusion and deception is confronted, the gap between economic narratives and human realities will continue to widen.

 

In the end, the true measure of an economy is not how fast it grows, but how well it serves its people. By that standard, Nigeria’s current trajectory raises serious questions, take it or leave it. Because in a nation where over 140 million people live in poverty, where inflation continues to erode incomes, where debt is rising and where basic survival is becoming more difficult, the claim of being a “fast-growing economy” is not just misleading. Yes, it is a mirage!

 

And for millions of Nigerians struggling to get by each day, it is a mirage that offers no relief, no hope, and no future.

 

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Business

WFA APPOINTS GLOBAL BRAND EXECUTIVES TO EXPANDED LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

Published

on

WFA APPOINTS GLOBAL BRAND EXECUTIVES TO EXPANDED LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

 

STOCKHOLM — The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) has announced the appointment of senior executives from leading global brands to its Executive Committee, in a move aimed at strengthening its global influence and industry coordination.

The appointments were unveiled during the WFA Global Marketer Week held in Stockholm.

The new members, drawn from top multinational corporations, include executives from Driscoll’s, Haleon, IKEA and Nissan. They join an already influential body comprising marketing and corporate affairs leaders from major companies such as Best Buy, Danone, Diageo, Grab, Kenvue and Tata Group.

Also joining the Executive Committee are representatives of key advertiser bodies, including Josh Faulks, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Association of National Advertisers; Simon Michaelides, Director General of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers; and O’tega Ogra, Vice President of the Advertisers Association of Nigeria and Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria on Digital Communications, Engagement and New Media Strategy.

WFA President David Wheldon and Deputy President Philip Myers of Ferrero will continue in their roles, alongside all regional vice presidents.

The newly appointed members are:

Jiunn Shih, Global Chief Marketing Officer, Driscoll’s

Silas-Lewis Meilus, Global Head of Media Operations, Haleon

Joel Renkema, Global Head of Insights, IKEA

José Román, Corporate Executive, Global Sales and Marketing, Nissan

Josh Faulks, CEO, AANA

Simon Michaelides, Director General, ISBA

O’tega Ogra, Vice President, ADVAN

Industry observers say the expanded committee reflects WFA’s commitment to deeper global collaboration and stronger representation across regions and sectors within the marketing and advertising ecosystem.

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending