Business
Govt must use windfall tax revenue for critical infrastructure projects-OAU Prof of Economic History
Govt must use windfall tax revenue for critical infrastructure projects-OAU Prof of Economic History
A Professor of Economic History at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Adetunji Ogunyemi, speaks on the amendment of the Finance Act 2020 by the National Assembly to accommodate windfall levy on banks’ profits on foreign exchange transactions. The lawyer, public finance expert submits that the policy is perfectly in order, asking banks to see it as contribution to national development. Excerpts:
The windfall levy generated some debate in the polity with government justifying it as the right thing to do in order to strike a balance in the key sectors of the economy. How justified is this levy on banks’ foreign exchange gains?
Nigeria is currently in dire straits financially and generally speaking economically. It is within the power of the government of the Federation going by its stated exclusive jurisdiction in the First Schedule Part I of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to make such laws and to direct such policies and actions as to ensure peace, good order and good government in Nigeria. Therefore, if Nigeria is in dire straits and some Nigerians, whether persons or bodies or corporate organisations, that have been feeding fat on the system, especially when that feeding fat is not directly a function of their own productive energies, then it behoves the Federal Government to ensure a balancing of duties and responsibilities within the system such that a resource-deficient sector of the economy can benefit from the resource-surplus part through what is called economic stabilisation. So, to me, it is perfectly in order to amend the Finance Act 2020 in order to accommodate the collection of this one-off levy on the windfall that the banks in the financial system have benefited from on foreign exchange transactions in the last one year. To me, it is perfectly in order and it is part of the duties of the government to stabilise the economy and also redistribute wealth.
Part of the arguments of those kicking against the policy is that allowing the windfall levy on banks may create uncertainty about the future as government may come with another windfall tax in some other sectors. Is this fear justified?
A situation of paralysis needs a shock therapy to bring it to normalcy. In 1929 up to 1932, there were decisions made in the United States under Herbert Hoover to stabilise the economy by ensuring that government deliberately pumps into the economy huge expenditure financed under public-private partnership arrangement. Nigeria is in such a situation now as the United States was under Hoover. So, it is not out of place to request that that banks that have made unplanned, spontaneous, unpredicted, sudden income to donate to the system a portion of their profits. This levy is actually on their windfall which is not part of their projections in their respective budgets. So, there is nothing that is malicious about this levy. After all, the levy is not for the benefit of persons. It is for the benefit of the public and it is in order.
Naturally, the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN) has risen in defence of the banks to say asking them to pay a windfall levy amounts to double taxation because banks have already paid Companies Income Tax. What do you make of this argument?
I disagree absolutely with such stance from CIBN. What of the progressive deductions that the banks have been making with respect to ATM withdrawals by both the depositors and the withdrawers? Banks charge N20 per transaction and at times N50. Many of these deductions are actually illegal and the CBN should have asked them to return the money to their customers. These deductions run into billions of naira. But it would seem that the CBN did not want to rock the boat and has allowed the banks to earn some income for their stabilisation so that when a request for re-capitalisation would come, they would have something to use for that purpose. So, the banks can’t approbate and reprobate at the same time. They can’t be placing unlimited charges on their customers and expect government not to come in with a decision to stabilise the system. The windfall levy is a patriotic call made on the banks to contribute to the system. The banks should not see it as a tax. After all, it is a one-off levy. At any rate, why are the banks trying to shy away from their responsibility of contributing to the system? Their wealth comes from the commonwealth of Nigeria. Is that not? If your wealth comes from the commonwealth of a country and that country is in dire straits and it calls upon you to pay a levy on profits arising from your unpredicted income, I don’t think that it is out of place for them to obey such call to help fatherland.
Are there special benefits from a windfall tax?
The benefits are many. One, insofar as the government will not pump the revenue arising from this windfall levy on banks into the general budget, then there is no problem. But if government puts the revenue into the general budget and uses it to fund recurrent expenditure, that is going to be unacceptable. However, if government pumps the money from the windfall tax specifically into certain projects, for example, the Sokoto-Badagry Highway, the coastal road, the Port Harcourt-Maiduguri railway, etc, it is going to be absolutely correct. It can also be used for industrial development through the Bank of Industry or specifically into some agricultural projects such as dam development and so on. These are the specific areas the money can be channelled into. But I would advise that the government uses the revenue to fund critical projects such as the Lagos-Calabar Coastal road, the Sokoto-Badagry Highway, Port Harcourt-Maiduguri rail line, expansion of the standard gauge from Ibadan to Abuja and then onward to Kaduna. These are the critical projects that will create a trickle-down effect on the economy to jumpstart it from its doldrums and provoke productive enterprises among business concerns.
The three tiers of government have been smiling to the banks every month on account of huge revenue collected by the FederaI Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) for the Federation. Shouldn’t focus shift to the other two tiers of government who have been getting more money since the removal of petrol subsidy by President Bola Tinubu?
That is what we call financial injustice in the system.
Actually, many governors in Nigeria, maybe for political correctness, did not say much about the issue of workers conflicting with the Federal Government on the issue of minimum wage neither did they support the Federal Government to do at least some defence within the realm so that citizens will not be unnecessarily agitated and then begin disturbances. But the truth of the matter is that the respective governments of the states of the federation today are now earning at least 40 per cent more than what they were earning before. It behoves them to come forward to explain to Nigerians why some A, and B, C policies have been done in their favour by the Federal Government. For example, the removal of subsidy from petrol has helped states that were previously in debts like Osun State to begin to successfully and significantly exit those debts and be able to pay workers. But do they give the credit to the Federal Government? The answer is No. The states have been giving the credit to themselves as if they conjured up the fat allocations they are now getting. Whereas, we know it is directly as a result of the fact that the FAAC has been to get more money through removal of subsidy and the efficient revenue collection by FIRS. This is why the states have now been financially strong to do their capital projects. Some of these states are even doing a kind of subtle blackmail to give a dog a bad name in order to hang it. Otherwise, if your income has increased as a result of government policy, why can’t the states explain to their citizens and spend the money to make things better for the citizens in their respective states? They have put all the burden on the Federal Government. It is a shame.
Do you think the recent Supreme Court judgment which states that allocations should be paid directly into the accounts of local government areas will also help bring down tension and enhance development at the grassroots?
I support the Federal Government’s view, position and policy on this and for the Attorney General of the Federation to approach the Supreme Court for interpretation of the constitution and to make declarative orders. This is perfectly in order. This is actually how to govern a country. Do not forget that the local government councils in Nigeria are 768 and not 774. This is provided in Section 3 subsection 6 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. There six area councils in Abuja and if you add this number, you will get 774. But the area councils in Abuja are not local government councils.
The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2002 in the Attorney General of the Federation versus Attorney General of Abia State and 35 others. But let us not go there. The truth of the matter is that the 768 local government councils in Nigeria will now directly benefit from their allocations pursuant to Section 162 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court judgment is just half of the battle won. The other half of the battle to be won is to ensure that election into local government councils is not conducted by State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs). There should be an amendment to the Electoral Act for that purpose so that the same election will be conducted by INEC in order that there will be a level-playing field. The SIECs are actually not independent of the governors who appoint their officers. But it is a good thing that local governments are now going to get their allocations directly from FAAC beginning from this month, that is July.
Quote “The windfall levy is a patriotic call made on the banks to contribute to the system. The banks should not see it as a tax. After all, it is a one-off levy.”
Riceocracy: When Tinubu and the APC Government Substitutes Governance with Handouts
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
“Tinubu’s administration faces mounting criticism as rice palliatives replace real solutions to Nigeria’s deepening crisis.”
ABUJA, Nigeria — March 17, 2026
A growing wave of public frustration is sweeping across Nigeria as citizens decry what has now been dubbed “Riceocracy” a governance pattern where the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) respond to systemic failures with the distribution of rice rather than meaningful reforms.
Across the country, from major cities like Lagos and Abuja to underserved rural communities, Nigerians are voicing anger over persistent issues: no stable electricity, deteriorating road networks, unaffordable fuel and cooking gas, and a struggling education system. Yet, in response to these structural problems, the government’s most visible intervention has been the distribution of food palliatives; particularly rice.
The central figures in this unfolding crisis are President Tinubu and the APC-led federal and state governments, who have overseen the rollout of these relief measures. On the other side are millions of Nigerians battling rising inflation, joblessness, and declining living standards.
The trend gained momentum following the removal of fuel subsidies in May 2023, a policy decision by the Tinubu administration that triggered a surge in transportation and commodity prices. By 2024 and into 2025, the government intensified the distribution of rice and other palliatives as a stopgap measure to quell public discontent. Now, in 2026, the approach has become a defining feature of the administration’s response to economic hardship.
The “Riceocracy” phenomenon is nationwide. Reports from states such as Kano, Rivers, and Borno show large crowds gathering for rice distribution exercises, even as basic infrastructure continues to decay. Urban centers are not exempt; in cities like Lagos, residents still grapple with erratic power supply and high living costs despite periodic palliative programs.
Analysts point to political convenience and immediate optics. Distributing rice is quick, visible, and politically advantageous, especially in a climate of widespread hardship. However, critics argue that it reflects a deeper governance failure; an inability or unwillingness to implement long-term solutions.
Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka has long warned against superficial governance, describing such approaches as “a betrayal of democratic responsibility.” In the same vein, global economist Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has stressed that “palliatives may provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace sound economic management and structural reform.”
Political economist Pat Utomi offers a sharper critique: “A state that reduces its responsibility to food sharing risks institutionalizing poverty rather than eliminating it.” His statement captures the growing concern that Nigeria’s leadership is addressing symptoms rather than causes.
The implications are severe. Nigeria’s power sector remains unreliable, forcing businesses to depend on costly alternatives. Road infrastructure continues to hinder economic activity, while the education sector suffers from underfunding and frequent disruptions. Despite these challenges, rice distribution has become the most consistent government response.
Critics further argue that this strategy fosters dependency and weakens civic engagement. Instead of demanding accountability, citizens may feel compelled to accept handouts as substitutes for rights and services. Allegations of mismanagement and politicization of palliative distribution also persist, raising questions about transparency and fairness.
The term “Riceocracy” may sound satirical, but it reflects a sobering reality. It highlights a governance model where survival replaces development, and where public policy is reduced to emergency relief rather than strategic planning.
As Nigeria marks this moment on March 17, 2026, the message from scholars, civil society, and frustrated citizens is unmistakable: rice cannot fix a broken system. Only deliberate investments in infrastructure, education, energy, and economic productivity can restore confidence and chart a sustainable path forward.
Until then, the image of Nigerians queuing for bags of rice will remain a stark symbol of a nation still searching for leadership that goes beyond palliatives to deliver real progress.
ZENITH BANK OPENS MANCHESTER BRANCH TO SUPPORT CROSS-BORDER TRADE AND INVESTMENT
Zenith Bank Plc has announced the opening of a new branch in Manchester, United Kingdom, marking another significant milestone in the bank’s international growth and its commitment to strengthening financial connections between Africa and global markets.
The official opening ceremony, scheduled to hold on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, is expected to attract government officials from Nigeria and the United Kingdom, regulators, investors, customers, and business leaders from both countries, underscoring the growing economic ties and investment opportunities between the two markets.
The new Manchester branch will complement Zenith Bank’s existing operations in the United Kingdom and serve as a strategic hub for supporting businesses engaged in international trade and investment. Through the branch, the bank will provide corporate banking, trade finance, treasury and related financial services to clients operating across the United Kingdom, Europe and Africa.Speaking ahead of the launch, the Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Zenith Bank Plc, Dame Dr. Adaora Umeoji, OON, said: “The opening of our Manchester branch represents another important step in Zenith Bank’s growth as a leading African financial institution connecting businesses and markets across continents. Manchester is one of the United Kingdom’s most dynamic commercial centres, and our presence here will further strengthen financial connections between businesses in the UK and opportunities across Africa’s rapidly expanding markets.
”Founded in 1990 by its Founder and Chairman, Jim Ovia, CFR, Zenith Bank has grown into one of Africa’s most respected banking institutions, boasting a robust capital base and a remarkable history of year-on-year profitability. Built on a strong foundation of people, technology and service, the Bank has consistently delivered innovative financial solutions while maintaining a disciplined approach to growth and risk management. The impressive performance of the Bank has consistently earned it excellent ratings, recognition and endorsement from local and international agencies and institutions.Headquartered in Lagos, Nigeria, Zenith Bank operates over 500 branches and business offices across the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Bank currently operates subsidiaries in several African countries including Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia, and Cote d’Ivoire, while maintaining a presence in major international financial centres including the United Kingdom, France, UAE and China.
In recent years, Zenith Bank has continued to expand its international network as part of its strategy to support global trade and investment flows involving Africa.Manchester, widely regarded as one of the United Kingdom’s most vibrant economic centres, hosts a diverse base of businesses across sectors such as manufacturing, engineering, logistics, technology and consumer goods. The city’s strong commercial ecosystem and international outlook align closely with Zenith Bank’s expertise in corporate banking, structured finance and trade finance.The Manchester branch will work closely with the Bank’s London operations and its broader international network to support clients seeking to expand across markets and unlock new opportunities in both the United Kingdom and Africa.
With the opening of the Manchester branch, Zenith Bank continues to advance its vision of building a truly global African banking institution that connects businesses, facilitates trade and investment, and creates stronger economic bridges between Africa and the world.
Business
New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu
*“New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu*
An energy policy group has advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to reconsider the wider economic consequences of newly issued permits allowing marketers to import petrol into the country, warning that the move could undermine Nigeria’s efforts to strengthen domestic refining and stabilise the economy.
In a statement released on Sunday in Abuja, the Energy Transparency and Market Justice Initiative (ETMJI) said the approvals granted by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) could produce unintended consequences if not carefully managed.
The group’s president, Dr. Salako Kareem, said Nigeria was at a delicate moment in its energy transition and that policy choices made now would determine whether the country finally escapes its decades-long dependence on imported refined petroleum products.
Kareem said while the regulator’s responsibility to guarantee adequate fuel supply is understood, expanding import permissions at this stage could weaken the policy direction required to encourage local production and long-term sector stability.
“Our respectful appeal to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is that decisions concerning petrol importation must be carefully weighed against their long-term economic consequences,” Kareem said.
“Nigeria has spent decades trying to overcome the paradox of being a major crude oil producer while relying heavily on imported refined products. Any policy action that appears to reopen the floodgates of importation may slow down the progress that has been made toward strengthening domestic refining capacity.”
He warned that increasing petrol imports could place additional pressure on the country’s foreign exchange reserves, especially at a time when the government is pursuing difficult economic reforms aimed at stabilising the naira and improving fiscal discipline.
“For many years, the country has lost enormous volumes of foreign exchange importing petroleum products that could ideally be refined locally,” Kareem said.
“If import volumes begin to rise again, the demand for foreign currency will inevitably grow. This could place renewed strain on the naira and undermine the broader economic stabilisation programme that the government is currently pursuing.”
The group also warned that excessive reliance on imported petrol could create opportunities for product dumping and the entry of substandard fuel into the Nigerian market, a challenge that has troubled regulators and consumers in the past.
According to Kareem, Nigeria’s downstream sector has historically struggled with quality control issues whenever importation becomes widespread, because imported fuel often travels through multiple intermediaries before reaching domestic depots.
“One of the lessons from the past is that when imports dominate the supply chain, the market sometimes becomes vulnerable to the dumping of inferior petroleum products,” he said.
“This not only creates regulatory complications but also exposes Nigerian consumers to fuels that may damage vehicles, affect industrial machinery and ultimately impose hidden economic costs on the country.”
He added that encouraging domestic refining and strengthening local supply chains would provide better product traceability and improve overall market transparency.
Kareem stressed that the group’s intervention was not intended as criticism of the NMDPRA, noting that regulators must often make complex decisions to prevent supply disruptions in a volatile energy market.
However, he urged the federal government to ensure that short-term supply management does not weaken long-term national objectives in the petroleum sector.
“We recognise that the regulator has the responsibility to ensure that Nigerians do not experience fuel shortages, and that duty is extremely important,” he said.
“But at the same time, policy coherence is essential. The country must avoid sending signals that could discourage investment in local refining or create uncertainty about Nigeria’s commitment to energy self-sufficiency.”
Kareem said Nigeria now has a rare opportunity to restructure its downstream petroleum industry in a way that strengthens domestic production, protects foreign exchange reserves and builds long-term industrial capacity.
He urged the president to ensure that the country’s regulatory framework reflects that strategic vision.
“Our appeal is simply for policy alignment. If Nigeria truly wants to build a resilient energy economy, then every major decision in the downstream sector must reinforce the goal of reducing import dependence, strengthening domestic production and protecting the country’s economic stability,” Kareem noted.
The group added that careful policy coordination between regulators and the presidency would help ensure that Nigeria avoids repeating the costly fuel import cycles that have historically drained public resources and weakened the national economy.
-
society6 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
news3 months agoWHO REALLY OWNS MONIEPOINT? The $290 Million Deal That Sold Nigeria’s Top Fintech to Foreign Interests
-
society6 months ago“You Are Never Without Help” – Pastor Gebhardt Berndt Inspires Hope Through Empower Church (Video)
-
society7 months agoWho is Chief Kestin Pondi? Niger Delta’s “People’s Chief” Winning Hearts With Hundreds of Millions in Generosity