Business
FLOUTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, DEFYING COURT ORDERS, AND DISREGARDING ARBITRATION: THE FACTS BEHIND HADIZA BALA USMAN’S ABUSE OF OFFICE AS NPA MD
FLOUTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, DEFYING COURT ORDERS, AND DISREGARDING ARBITRATION: THE FACTS BEHIND HADIZA BALA USMAN’S ABUSE OF OFFICE AS NPA MD
By BUA Group | May 31, 2025
We have noted recent public statements made by Ms. Hadiza Bala Usman, the former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), who was sacked from office. In her comments, she accused BUA Group and our Chairman, Abdul Samad Rabiu, of breaching a concession agreement and distorting facts. These claims were made in response to our Chairman’s interview and article, “Two Years of President Tinubu: A Business Perspective” (watch at https://bit.ly/pbatbua), which celebrated Nigeria’s reform trajectory and referenced prior instances of arbitrary disruptions to business operations, without naming anyone – a situation that has now been curtailed by President Tinubu’s no-nonsense approach to bringing sanity and stability to the business environment in Nigeria.
Ordinarily, we would not engage, but the distortions in her response necessitate this factual clarification, especially as they relate to her actions during her tenure as MD of the NPA.
THE CONTRACT AND WHAT SHE OMITTED
In 2006,
BUA entered into a valid long lease agreement with the NPA to rehabilitate and operate Terminal B at Rivers Port in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Long before Ms. Usman’s appointment, BUA had begun formal engagement with the NPA to address outstanding remedial works and infrastructural deficiencies. These discussions were nearing their conclusion when she assumed office.
Rather than build on that process, Ms. Usman ignored BUA’s requests and obligations under the agreement. In 2016, BUA wrote to the NPA under Article 8.4 of the lease, mandating concessionaires to report environmental and safety concerns and to seek approval for remedial works. Rather than act constructively, Ms. Usman used that letter as a pretext to issue a termination notice and summarily shut down the terminal, without providing any prior warning, consultation, or invoking the dispute resolution clause.
She forgot or failed to disclose in her response that the NPA, under her leadership, was itself in material breach of core obligations including, failing to hand over critical portions of the port, leaving derelict iron ore on the berths, failing to dredge or repair quay walls, and neglecting to provide mandatory security. These lapses were significant impediments to BUA’s operations and, as a result, led to disputes between the parties.
ILLEGALITY, CONTEMPT, AND DISREGARD FOR CONTRACTUAL MECHANISMS
After the unlawful termination, BUA approached the Federal High Court, which promptly granted an injunction restraining the NPA from proceeding with termination. The NPA itself then referred the dispute to arbitration, as stipulated in Section 17.3 of the agreement, which clearly states:
“Any dispute, controversy or claim… shall be exclusively and finally settled under the dispute resolution process prescribed in this Article.”
Despite this, Ms. Usman, against the advice of her agency, unilaterally decommissioned the berths, thereby violating both the agreement and a court injunction. To be clear, the concession agreement granted her no such power to decommission. If she believes otherwise, we invite her to publicly cite the specific clause that authorizes this action.
To further compound the illegality, BUA, after providing the guarantees and indemnities requested by the NPA, was permitted to resume operations briefly. Merely three weeks later, the terminal was again shut down, this time by Ms. Usman’s instruction. This left no doubt that her actions were motivated not by due process, but by personal animosity and abuse of office.
BUA subsequently filed contempt proceedings and was looking at estimated losses of over $10 million. These proceedings were only withdrawn out of respect for national interest and following the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians within and outside the government.
PRESIDENT BUHARI WAS NOT MISINFORMED—HE ACTED ON FACTS AND LAW
Ms. Usman’s claim that former President Muhammadu Buhari was “misinformed” when he reversed her actions is false, disrespectful, and disingenuous.
Following a meeting that our Chairman had the privilege of holding with President Buhari in 2018, he presented the matter to the President, who then directed the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation to conduct a thorough legal review and investigate the situation. The AGF invited all parties, including Ms. Usman, to several meetings. We never saw her at any of them.
Nevertheless, the AGF proceeded to undertake a comprehensive review of the contract, the litigation, the arbitration clause, and all correspondence and actions by BUA and NPA. The legal advice (attached herewith) found that the termination was unlawful, the decommissioning was without any legal basis, and that BUA’s rights should be reinstated.
It was on this basis that President Buhari ordered the reversal of her unlawful actions. His intervention preserved the sanctity of the contract, saved over 4,000 jobs, and BUA’s $500 million integrated investment cluster involving flour, pasta, and sugar processing facilities, which were all dependent on terminal access. For this, we remain deeply grateful to former President Buhari.
As our Chairman said in his interview, imagine if he weren’t privileged to have access. Nonetheless, this culture of impunity has been significantly curtailed under President Tinubu’s leadership, as many are aware that they could be dismissed or imprisoned if they abuse their positions.
POST-HADIZA: DUE PROCESS RESTORED, INVESTMENT RESUMED
Following Ms. Usman’s removal from office, the NPA, under new leadership, implemented the AGF’s position. In 2022, BUA was granted formal approval to resume reconstruction works. The contract was awarded to TREVI, and BUA has since invested over $65 million—entirely self-funded and with no recourse to public funds or subsidies. Work is ongoing, and completion is expected in the first quarter of 2026.
THE REAL DANGER: INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW
We must state clearly that this matter goes beyond BUA. Had Ms. Usman’s actions been allowed to stand, it would have sent a disastrous signal that contracts in Nigeria are worthless, court orders are optional, and public institutions or individuals can act unilaterally without consequence. We must never return to that era.
Nigeria’s reform success today is rooted in respecting contracts, due process, and investor confidence—principles being restored under President Tinubu’s administration, under which BUA has committed over $1 billion in new investments across energy, food processing, manufacturing, infrastructure, and social interventions.
We wish to emphasise that Ms. Usman is entitled to her opinions, irrespective of how distorted they may be. However, she is not entitled to distort the facts or rewrite history. We do not seek a public spat and would like her to concentrate on fulfilling her duties in her new role under the strong leadership of President Tinubu.
We therefore simply restate the facts that Ms Hadiza Bala-Usman had no authority to decommission Terminal B unilaterally. She also acted in defiance of a court injunction and contractual procedure, and her actions caused significant economic loss of over USD10 million, reputational risk to BUA, and investor concern for Nigeria.
Our core message remains the same: public office should be viewed as a position of trust rather than a platform for personal biases. Those granted public power need to resist the temptation to let prejudice, ego, and vendetta influence their actions.
If Ms Hadiza Bala-Usman believes she acted lawfully, we challenge her to cite the specific clause or clauses that guided her unlawful actions. If not, let the facts remain where they belong — in the public record.
Signed,
BUA Group
May 31, 2025
Business
Import Bans, Empty Boasts and Economic Delusion: Tinubu’s Recipe for Nigeria’s Economic Disaster
Import Bans, Empty Boasts and Economic Delusion: Tinubu’s Recipe for Nigeria’s Economic Disaster
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Sahara Weekly Nigeria
When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared that banning the importation of foreign goods would “revive” Nigeria’s economy, one would think the man had a Nobel Prize in economic policy. Instead, what we get is textbook delusion coming from a self-proclaimed “first-class accountant” from Chicago State University, a claim with no official transcript, certificate or academic record in public view to validate it. In a time when Nigeria urgently needs innovative, export-driven policies, Tinubu is trying to build an economic miracle on import bans, slogans and the illusion of industrial rebirth in a country plagued by power failure, insecurity and corruption.
The Import Ban Illusion
Let’s start with the cold, hard facts. NIGERIA is not an INDUSTRIAL NATION. According to World Bank data (2024), manufacturing contributes less than 9% to Nigeria’s GDP. The country imports over 80% of its essential goods, including food, pharmaceuticals, refined petroleum and machinery. In such a context, banning imports without ensuring local capacity is not “patriotic policy” but economic sabotage.
Tinubu’s administration recently restricted the importation of over 40 items, including rice, cement, toothpicks and even poultry products. His argument? Local production must be encouraged. The problem, however, is that there’s no infrastructure to support that ambition. As of Q1 2025, Nigeria still suffers from epileptic electricity supply, averaging just 4,000 MW for over 200 million people, according to the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. For comparison, South Africa, with a population of 62 million, produces over 45,000 MW (Eskom, 2024 data).
No economy thrives under darkness. You cannot ban the importation of toothpicks and expect bamboo to magically morph into industry without electricity, investment or skilled labor.
Failed Economic Patriotism
The Tinubu administration is recycling the failed policies of past governments. We saw this playbook under former President Muhammadu Buhari, another disciple of economic isolationism. The Central Bank of Nigeria, under Godwin Emefiele, banned 41 items from forex access, yet inflation soared, local substitutes remained expensive and smuggling boomed. The result? Nigeria became the poverty capital of the world in 2018.
Tinubu is repeating that cycle. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), food inflation stood at 40.53% as of April 2025, with staple items like rice, bread and oil becoming unaffordable for millions. The average Nigerian is now spending over 70% of their income on food—a clear indicator of economic dysfunction.
“The idea that a country can simply ban its way to prosperity is not just misguided; it’s reckless” said Dr. Kingsley Moghalu, former Deputy Governor of the CBN. “You need to create an enabling environment not a restrictive one. Industrialization thrives on productivity not prohibitions.”
A Mouthful of Academic Fraud?
While the economic policy is bad enough, the president’s intellectual credentials are also under serious scrutiny. Tinubu continues to tout his supposed “first-class” status from Chicago State University (CSU). Yet the institution, under subpoena in 2023, confirmed Tinubu did not graduate with honors and discrepancies exist between submitted documents and university records.
As Nigerian lawyer and public affairs analyst Dele Farotimi noted during a Channels TV interview:
“We are being governed by ghosts, people with no verifiable history, no transparency, yet they want to dictate economic truths to over 200 million people.”
How can a man who allegedly forged his way through academic corridors be trusted to engineer genuine economic transformation?
Export, Not Ban: The Real Path to Growth
Rather than banning imports, any serious leader would focus on boosting non-oil exports, supporting SMEs and fixing power, roads and insecurity. For instance, Vietnam (once as poor as Nigeria) embraced export-led growth. According to the International Monetary Fund, Vietnam’s exports in 2023 stood at $371 billion, compared to Nigeria’s paltry $67 billion, 85% of which was crude oil.
In the words of Professor Pat Utomi, political economist and founder of the Centre for Values in Leadership:
“We don’t have a productive economy; we have a transactional economy. Until we invest in human capital, reduce power costs and create policies that invite rather than repel investment, we will keep declining.”
Tinubu’s Propaganda Economics
Let’s also talk about perception. Tinubu’s administration spends more time defending economic disaster than solving it. The presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, recently claimed that the economy is “on track” and that “Nigerians should endure.” This while the naira trades at ₦1,580 to $1 on the official market and youth unemployment hovers at 53.4% (NBS Q1 2025 report).
The government is delusional and more obsessed with optics than outcomes. The average Nigerian doesn’t care about economic jargon. They care about whether they can afford a bag of rice, fuel their car, pay school fees and stay safe.
As Nigerian writer and columnist Gimba Kakanda aptly wrote:
“The tragedy of Nigeria’s leadership is that they see national sacrifice as something the people alone must endure, while they dine on luxury.”
No Vision, No Results
To put it bluntly: Tinubu’s administration is a regime without vision. Import bans are the policies of lazy governments & those without the courage to compete, reform or innovate. These are leaders who cannot think beyond customs tariffs and control levers.
We’ve seen this movie before. In 1984, Buhari as military Head of State implemented similar bans. Nigeria became a nation of smugglers. In 2015, he repeated it. The economy crashed. Now Tinubu is borrowing from that same dusty playbook.
Even in India, a country once famous for import substitution, policymakers have long since abandoned that model in favor of “Make in India” a strategy built on exports, competitiveness and infrastructure.
What Nigeria needs is a Productive Economy and not a prohibited one.
The Final Blow: A Dangerous Gamble
Tinubu’s economic policy is not just wrong but it’s dangerous. Banning imports without providing alternatives is a betrayal of the masses. It punishes consumers, stifles innovation and invites corruption at the borders.
The president wants applause for forcing Nigerians to buy inferior, expensive local goods they don’t want, while politicians and their families still travel abroad for healthcare, holidays and education. What hypocrisy.
Nigeria deserves better. We deserve a leader with real academic credibility, real economic vision and real empathy, not one obsessed with clinging to propaganda while the nation bleeds.
As Chinua Achebe once warned: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a FAILURE of LEADERSHIP.”
And Bola Ahmed Tinubu is living proof of that FAILURE…first-class in name only, and utterly bankrupt in strategy.
Business
Dreamfo organizes ‘Biennial Conference 2025’ to commemorate International Widow Widowers Day
-
society3 months agoRamadan Relief: Matawalle Distributes Over ₦1 Billion to Support 2.5 Million Zamfara Residents
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoCourt To Hear ₦5 Billion Suit Against Sinach For Alleged Copyright Infringement
-
Business6 months agoDangote Refinery, wonder of modern technology ― Japan Ambassador, business community
-
society6 months agoNAPS Presidential Aspirant Lauds Tinubu’s ₦3.5 Trillion Education Budget, Advocates for Polytechnic Investment
