Connect with us

Business

Chaos in House Of Representatives over stepping down of South-East development commission bill

Published

on

 

 

The House of Representatives was again thrown into a rowdy session on Thursday, forcing a hasty adjournment of proceedings.

The cause of the rowdiness was the rejection of a bill seeking to establish a South-East Development Commission.

The bill failed at the session, which was presided over by the Speaker, Mr. Yakubu Dogara, after it had been debated.

A similar bill to establish the North-East Development Commission had since been passed by the National Assembly, awaiting the assent of President Muhammadu Buhari.

However, South-East lawmakers immediately protested the decision on the grounds that the House could have, at least, allowed the bill to pass the second reading for more views to be collated from Nigerians at a public hearing.

Tension had built up in the House since Wednesday when the bill was billed to be moved for second reading.

However, it was stepped down on Wednesday because the lead sponsor and Deputy Minority Leader of the House, Mr. Chukwuka Onyeama, was unavailable in the chambers.

He returned soon after the bill was stood down.

The bill was re-listed for Thursday (yesterday), but again, Onyeama was unavailable just as the bill was to be taken and it had to be stood down a second time in line with the rules of proceedings.

But South-East lawmakers began a loud protest, insisting that the bill must be taken.

In the midst of the rowdiness, Onyeama reappeared in the chambers, just like he did on Wednesday after the bill had been stood down.

Dogara had to bend backwards to approve a motion for the rescission of the earlier ruling stepping down the bill.

The speaker said, “Let me clarify that it was not as if the bill was stopped. The sponsor of the bill was not around and we followed the rules to step it down.

“Now that he is here, we will take it. Nobody will shut out anybody because we don’t have the right to do that.”

Dogara calmed frayed nerves and opened debate on the bill.

Onyeama, while leading the debate, said the South-East geopolitical zone needed the commission to develop collapsed infrastructure and the damage suffered by the zone as a result of the Nigerian Civil War.

“The war led to massive destruction of critical infrastructure in the region, including roads, houses and environmental degradation,” he said.

Onyeama added that the region was worst-hit by erosion and other ecological problems.

The lawmaker stated that the commission would be funded from seven sources.

The first is through “15 per cent” of the total monthly statutory allocations due to member states of the commission from the Federation Account.

The second source, he explained, would be from “three per cent” of the total budget of any oil-producing company operating onshore and offshore in the South-East states, including gas processing companies.

The third source is from “three per cent” of the total annual budget of any solid mineral extracting or mining company operating in the South-East.

The fourth source will come through “50 per cent” of money due to member states of the commission from the Ecological Fund.

Five to seven of the funding sources are ”Such monies as may, from time to time, be granted or lent to or be deposited with the commission by the Federal Government or a state government, any other body or institution, whether local or foreign.

“All monies raised for the purpose of the commission by way of gifts, loans, grants-in-aid, testamentary disposition or otherwise.

“Proceeds from all other assets that may, from time to time, accrue to the commission.”

All South-East members, who spoke, including Mr. Uzoma Nkem-Abonta, Mr. Henry Nwawuba and Mr. Toby Okechukwu, said they gave “100 per cent” backing to the bill.

For instance, Nkem-Abonta argued that he believed the bill was the solution to the renewed agitation for the Republic of Biafra.

“We have to stop the crisis that is building up in the South-East before it turns into something else,” he said.

Members from the South-South, led by the Minority Leader, Mr. Leo Ogor, also supported the bill.

“Every zone deserves a commission because this country needs to be restructured. We cannot continue this way,” Ogor told the House.

Mr. Kehinde Agboola, who spoke for the South-West, said, “History will not forgive us if today we fail to support this bill.”

However, trouble started when all the lawmakers from the North spoke against the bill.

Members from North-West, North-East and North-Central, all opposed the bill.

For example, Mr. Mohammed Sani-Abdu opposed the bill on the grounds that it was a move to “divide Nigeria in piecemeal.”

He observed that coming soon after the government was trying to address the devastation caused by Boko Haram in the North-East, the timing of the bill was wrong.

Sani-Abdu recalled that after the civil war ended in 1970, government made concerted efforts to rebuild the South-East and re-integrate the people into the rest of Nigeria.

He argued that funding of the commission, using “three per cent” of the annual budget of oil companies operating in the South-East was indirect funding by the Federal Government.

Another member from the North, Mr. Karimi Sunday, said some South-East states were already benefiting from the funding of the Niger Delta Development Commission by the oil companies.

“Are we going to ask the same oil companies to fund the South-East Development Commission again?

“Are we saying that every zone should come up with its own development commission?” he asked.

When Dogara put the bill to a voice vote, he ruled in favour of those rejecting the commission. For clarity purpose, he called the votes twice before bringing down his gavel.

But South-East lawmakers began another round of protests as Dogara handed over proceedings to the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Yussuff Lasun, and left the chambers.

Lasun quickly adjourned the House as the rowdiness worsened.

Outside the chambers, South-East lawmakers continued the protest.

Onyeama threatened that he would resign his position as a leader of the House.

“I am a leader in this House; you can’t just kill my bill like that. I will resign,” he fumed.

Another member from Abia State, Mrs. Nkiruka Onyejeocha, said her colleagues were not happy that the bill was rejected.

“At least, they could have passed it for second reading.

“At the committee stage, more work could have been done on it to remove the grey areas,” she said.

One member from Rivers State, Boma Goodhead, joined in the protest, saying the North was not fair to the South-East.

“They are using our oil money to address the issue of Boko Haram. Now, they are against this bill. It is not fair,” she shouted and walked away angrily.

 South-East, victim of orchestrated political, economic marginalisation  –Ohanaeze

In its reaction, the apex socio-political body of the Igbo, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, said the South-East was the victim of an “orchestrated” political and economic marginalisation.

The Deputy Publicity Secretary of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Mr. Chuks Ibegbu, who spoke with one of our correspondents on Thursday, said the rejection of the bill was “tragic, unfair and ‘unfortunate.”

Ibegbu said the bill, if passed into law, would have helped to address the longstanding marginalisation of the South-East.

He added that the development highlighted the flaws in the country’s federalism.

“The South-East is the victim of a well orchestrated political and economic marginalisation; these things do not happen by accident, they are planned and the plan is being carried out.

“The development highlights the tragedy of our federalism, a federalism that is filled with injustice, a federalism that emasculates the will of the people.

“At this stage in Nigeria’s history, nobody should be in doubt that the South-East needs federal attention.”

Ibegbu added, “The South-East has five states and 95 local governments but the North-East has seven states and about 200 local government councils. How fair is that?

“As we speak, the Federal Government has deployed national resources to attend to self-inflicted problems the North-East brought on itself through the Boko Haram insurgency. Before now an amnesty programme was initiated for the Niger Delta, and South-East youths, who were supposed to be captured in the programme, were not included.

“It is tragic that the House rejected the bill; it is unfortunate and very unfair on the people of the South-East.”

 

Business

Aare Adetola Emmanuelking Welcomes President Tinubu to Gateway International Airport Commissioning in Iperu-Remo

Published

on

Aare Adetola Emmanuelking Welcomes President Tinubu to Gateway International Airport Commissioning in Iperu-Remo

 

In a momentous occasion that underscores the rapid infrastructural advancement of Ogun State, renowned real estate mogul and philanthropist, Aare Adetola Emmanuelking, warmly received the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at the official commissioning of the Gateway International Airport, located in Iperu-Remo.

The landmark event, held under the visionary leadership of the Ogun State Governor, Dapo Abiodun, marks a significant stride in the state’s economic transformation agenda, positioning Ogun as a key hub for aviation, commerce, and investment in Nigeria.

Aare Emmanuelking, who is also the Chairman/CEO of Adron Homes and Properties, commended the Ogun State Government for its foresight and commitment to infrastructural excellence. He described the airport project as a “game-changer” that will not only boost connectivity but also stimulate real estate growth, tourism, and industrial expansion across the region.

Speaking during the commissioning, President Tinubu lauded Governor Abiodun’s administration for delivering a world-class facility that aligns with the Federal Government’s Renewed Hope Agenda, emphasizing the importance of strategic infrastructure in driving national development.

The Gateway International Airport is expected to serve as a critical gateway for investors and travelers, further enhancing Ogun State’s reputation as one of Nigeria’s most business-friendly environments.

The presence of top dignitaries, industry leaders, and stakeholders at the event underscores the project’s significance and its anticipated impact on the state’s socio-economic landscape and beyond.

Continue Reading

Business

N4.65 Trillion in the Vault, but is the Real Economy Locked Out?

Published

on

N4.65 Trillion in the Vault, but is the Real Economy Locked Out?

BY BLAISE UDUNZE

Following the successful conclusion of the banking sector recapitalisation programme initiated in March 2024 by the Central Bank of Nigeria, the industry has raised N4.65 trillion. No doubt, this marks a significant milestone for the nation’s financial system as the exercise attracted both domestic and foreign investors, strengthened capital buffers, and reinforced regulatory confidence in the banking sector. By all prudential measures, once again, it will be said without doubt that it is a success story.

Looking at this feat closely and when weighed more critically, a more consequential question emerges, one that will ultimately determine whether this achievement becomes a genuine turning point or merely another financial milestone. Will a stronger banking sector finally translate into a more productive Nigerian economy, or will it be locked out?

This question sits at the heart of Nigeria’s long-standing economic contradiction, seeing a relatively sophisticated financial system coexisting with weak industrial output, low productivity, and persistent dependence on imports truly reflects an ironic situation. The fact remains that recapitalisation, by design, is meant to strengthen banks, enhancing their ability to absorb shocks, manage risks and support economic growth. According to the apex bank, the programme has improved capital adequacy ratios, enhanced asset quality, and reinforced financial stability. Under the leadership of Olayemi Cardoso, there has also been a shift toward stricter risk-based supervision and a phased exit from regulatory forbearance.

These are necessary reforms. A stable banking system is a prerequisite for economic development. However, the truth be told, stability alone is not sufficient because the real test of recapitalisation lies not in stronger balance sheets, but in how effectively banks channel capital into productive economic activity, sectors that create jobs, expand output and drive exports. Without this transition, recapitalisation risks becoming an exercise in financial strengthening without economic transformation.

Encouragingly, early signals from industry experts suggest that the next phase of banking reform may begin to address this long-standing gap. Analysts and practitioners are increasingly pointing to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as a key destination for recapitalisation inflows, which is a fact beyond doubt. Given that SMEs account for over 70 percent of registered businesses in Nigeria, the logic is compelling. With great expectation, as has been practicalised and established in other economies, a shift in credit allocation toward this segment could unlock job creation, stimulate domestic production, and deepen economic resilience. Yet, this expectation must be balanced with reality. Historically, and of huge concern, SMEs have received only a marginal share of total bank credit, often due to perceived risk, lack of collateral, and weak credit infrastructure.

Indeed, Nigeria’s broader financial intermediation challenge remains stark. Even as the giant of Africa, private sector credit stands at roughly 17 percent of GDP, and this is far below the sub-Saharan African average, while SMEs receive barely 1 percent of total bank lending despite contributing about half of GDP and the vast majority of employment. These figures underscore the structural disconnect between the banking system and the real economy. Recapitalisation, therefore, must be judged not only by the strength of banks but by whether it meaningfully improves this imbalance.

Nigeria’s economic challenge is not merely one of capital scarcity; it is fundamentally a problem of low productivity. Manufacturing continues to operate far below capacity, agriculture remains largely subsistence-driven, and industrial output contributes only modestly to GDP. Despite decades of banking sector expansion, credit to the real sector has remained limited relative to the size of the economy. Instead, banks have often gravitated toward safer and more profitable avenues such as government securities, treasury instruments, and short-term trading opportunities.

This is not irrational. It reflects a rational response to risk, policy signals, and market realities. However, it has created a structural imbalance in which capital circulates within the financial system without sufficiently reaching the productive economy. The result is a pattern where financial sector growth outpaces real sector development, a phenomenon widely described as financialisation without productivity gains.

At the center of this challenge is the issue of credit allocation. A recapitalised banking sector, strengthened by new capital and improved buffers, should theoretically expand lending. But this is, contrarily, because the more important question is where that lending will go. Will Nigerian banks extend long-term credit to manufacturers, finance agro-processing and value chains, and support scalable SMEs or will they continue to concentrate on low-risk government debt, prioritise foreign exchange-related gains, and maintain conservative lending practices in the face of macroeconomic uncertainty? Some of these structural questions call for immediate answers from policymakers.

Some industry voices are optimistic that the expanded capital base will translate into a broader loan book, increased investment in higher-risk sectors, and improved product offerings for depositors; this is not in doubt. There are also expectations that banks will scale operations across the continent, leveraging stronger balance sheets to expand their regional footprint. Yes, they are expected, but one thing that must be made known is that optimism alone does not guarantee transformation. The fact is that without deliberate incentives and structural reforms, capital may continue to flow toward low-risk assets rather than high-impact sectors.

Beyond lending, experts are also calling for a shift in how banking success is measured. The next phase of reform, according to the experts in their arguments, must move from capital thresholds to customer outcomes. This includes stronger consumer protection frameworks, real-time complaint management systems and more transparent regulatory oversight. A more technologically driven supervisory model, one that allows regulators to monitor customer experiences and detect systemic risks early, could play a critical role in strengthening trust and accountability within the system.

This dimension is often overlooked but deeply significant. A banking system that is well-capitalised but unresponsive to customer needs risks undermining public confidence. True financial development is not only about capital strength but also about accessibility, fairness, and service quality. Nigerians must feel the impact of recapitalisation not just in improved financial ratios, but in better banking experiences, more inclusive services, and greater economic opportunity.

The recapitalisation exercise has also attracted notable foreign participation, signaling confidence in Nigeria’s banking sector. However, confidence in banks does not necessarily translate into confidence in the broader economy. The truth is that foreign investors are typically drawn to strong regulatory frameworks, attractive returns, and market liquidity, though the facts are that these factors make Nigerian banks appealing financial assets; it must be made explicitly clear that they do not automatically reflect confidence in the country’s industrial base or productivity potential.

This distinction is critical. An economy can attract capital into its financial sector while still struggling to attract investment into productive sectors. When this happens, growth becomes financially driven rather than fundamentally anchored. The risk therefore, is that recapitalisation could deepen Nigeria’s financial markets but what benefits or gains when banks become stronger or liquid without addressing the structural weaknesses of the real economy.

It is clear and explicit that the current policy direction of the CBN reflects a strong emphasis on stability, with tightened supervision, improved transparency, and stricter prudential standards. These measures are necessary, particularly in a volatile global environment. However, there is an emerging concern that stability may be taking precedence over growth stimulation, which should also be a focal point for every economy, of which Nigeria should not be left out of the equation. Central banks in emerging markets often face a delicate balancing act and this is putting too much focus on stability, which can constrain credit expansion, while too much emphasis on growth can undermine financial discipline, as this calls for a balance.

In Nigeria’s case, the question is whether sufficient mechanisms exist to align banking sector incentives with national productivity goals. Are there enough incentives to encourage long-term lending, sector-specific financing, and innovation in credit delivery? Or does the current framework inadvertently reward risk aversion and short-term profitability?

Over the past two decades, it has been a herculean experience as Nigeria’s economic trajectory suggests a growing disconnect between the financial sector and the real economy. Banks have become larger, more sophisticated and more profitable, yet the irony is that the broader economy continues to struggle with high unemployment, low industrial output, and limited export diversification. This divergence reflects the structural risk of financialization, a condition in which financial activities expand without a corresponding increase in real economic productivity.

If not carefully managed, recapitalisation could reinforce this trend. With more capital at their disposal, banks may simply scale existing business models, expanding financial activities that generate returns without contributing meaningfully to production. The point is that this is not solely a failure of the banking sector; it is a systemic issue shaped by policy design, regulatory priorities, and market incentives, which needs the urgent attention of policymakers.

Meanwhile, for recapitalisation to achieve its intended purpose and truly work, it must be accompanied by a deliberate shift or intentional policy change from capital accumulation to productivity enhancement and the economy to produce more goods and services efficiently. This begins with creating stronger incentives for real sector lending with differentiated capital requirements based on sector exposure, credit guarantees for high-impact industries, and interest rate support for priority sectors can encourage banks to channel funds into productive areas and this must be driven and implemented by the apex bank to harness the gains of recapitalisation.

This transformative process is not only saddled with the CBN, but the Development finance institutions also have a critical role to play in de-risking long-term investments, making it easier for commercial banks to participate in financing projects that drive economic growth. At the same time, one of the missing pieces that must be taken into cognizance is that regulatory frameworks should discourage excessive concentration in risk-free assets. No doubt, banks thrive in profitability, as government securities remain important; overreliance on them can crowd out private sector credit and limit economic expansion.

Innovation in financial products is equally essential. Traditional lending models often fail to meet the needs of SMEs and emerging industries as this has continued to hinder growth. Banks must explore new approaches, including digital lending platforms, supply chain financing, and blended finance solutions that can unlock new growth opportunities, while they extend their tentacles by saturating the retail space just like fintech.

Accountability must also be embedded in the system. One fact is that if recapitalisation is justified as a tool for economic growth, then its outcomes and gains must be measurable and not obscure. Increased credit to productive sectors, higher industrial output and job creation should serve as key indicators of success. Without such metrics, the exercise risks being judged solely by financial indicators rather than its real economic impact.

The completion of the recapitalisation programme represents more than a regulatory achievement; it is a defining moment for Nigeria’s economic future. The country now has a banking sector that is better capitalised, more resilient, and more attractive to investors. These are important gains, but they are not ends in themselves.

The ultimate objective is to build an economy that is productive, diversified, and inclusive. Achieving this requires more than strong banks; it requires banks that actively power economic transformation.

The N4.65 trillion recapitalisation is a significant step forward. It strengthens the foundation of Nigeria’s financial system and enhances its capacity to support growth. However, capacity alone is not enough and truly not enough if the gains of recapitalisation are to be harnessed to the latter. What matters now is how that capacity is deployed.

Some of the critical questions for urgent attention are as follows: Will banks rise to the challenge of financing Nigeria’s productive sectors, particularly SMEs that form the backbone of the economy? Will policymakers create the right incentives to ensure credit flows where it is most needed? Will the financial system evolve from a focus on profitability to a broader commitment to the economic purpose of fostering a more productive Nigerian economy and the $1 trillion target?

The above questions are relevant because they will determine whether recapitalisation becomes a catalyst for change or a missed opportunity if not taken into cognizance. A well-capitalised banking sector is not the destination; it is the starting point. The real journey lies in building an economy where capital works, productivity rises, and growth becomes both sustainable and inclusive.

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

Continue Reading

Business

Precision and Heritage: How Fifi Stitches Is Rewriting African Fashion Narratives

Published

on

Precision and Heritage: How Fifi Stitches Is Rewriting African Fashion Narratives

 

 

A Nigerian-born designer is gradually carving out a cross-continental footprint in contemporary fashion, blending African textile heritage with British technical discipline.

 

Esther Fiyinfoluwa Adeosun, Founder and Creative Director of Fifi Stitches, is gaining recognition for structured womenswear and bridal couture that reinterprets traditional fabrics through architectural tailoring and precision construction.

 

Born in Ibadan, Oyo State, Adeosun’s fashion journey began at home, seated beside her mother’s sewing machine. What started as childhood curiosity, sometimes jamming the machine just to understand its mechanics—evolved into a disciplined design practice now operating between Nigeria and the United Kingdom.

 

During an interview with journalists the fifi Stitches once mentioned “I was fascinated by how flat fabric could transform into something structured and meaningful”.

 

In her Story , early designs made for her family, though imperfectly finished, were worn with pride—an encouragement that laid the foundation for her professional confidence.

 

Today, Fifi Stitches is recognised for sculpted bodices, controlled tailoring, corsetry construction, and the contemporary reinterpretation of Ankara, Aso Oke, and Adire textiles.

 

The brand challenges the long-held perception that African fabrics belong solely in ceremonial contexts, instead positioning them within global luxury and modern design spaces.

 

Adeosun’s training reflects this dual perspective. She studied Fashion Design and Entrepreneurship at the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Development Studies, Obafemi Awolowo University, and earned a Diploma in Fashion Design through Alison Online.

 

In the UK, she undertook industry-focused technical training with Fashion-Enter Ltd and gained fashion business exposure through Fashion Capital UK.

 

Her technical expertise spans pattern drafting, draping, garment technology, structured tailoring, corsetry, and bespoke fittings—skills she describes as central to credibility in fashion. “Precision builds trust,” she says. “A designer must understand construction as deeply as creativity.”

 

Fifi Stitches has showcased collections at the Suffolk Fashion Show, Liverpool Fashion Show – FB Fashion Ball, Red Carpet Fashion Event in London, and through editorial features in London Runway Magazine.

 

The brand has also received coverage in The Guardian Nigeria and Vanguard Allure, expanding its visibility across markets.

Beyond couture, Adeosun integrates community impact into her practice.

 

She has facilitated garment construction workshops, draping sessions, and introductory training programmes for women and emerging creatives, promoting fashion as both artistic expression and vocational empowerment.

 

 

Fifi Stcithes Boss operates between Nigeria and the UK, in order to continue to shape her brand identity.

 

 

According to her “Nigeria provides cultural richness and expressive textile traditions, while the UK offers structured production systems, sustainability conversations, and institutional frameworks”.

 

Looking ahead, Adeosun said she plan to establish a fully structured fashion house spanning Africa and the UK, develop scalable production partnerships, launch capsule collections, and expand independent editorial visibility.

 

Her broader ambition is clear: to position African textile craftsmanship within global contemporary design conversations—through structure, discipline, and technical excellence.

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending