After Saturday`s parley on Boko Haram in Paris France with some leaders from West Africa,the US delegation, comprising Wendy R. Sherman,Under Secretary for Political Affairs , Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs and Tina S. Kaidanow,Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism, held a special briefing
Q: On the record?
A: So I just wanted to begin with a couple of points and then be glad to take your questions. I won’t eat up all of your 20 minutes with me making my points.
I came here today at the request of the United States Government to represent our country at a meeting called by French President Francois Hollande. And President Hollande, I think, really deserves credit for calling this meeting and doing it so quickly in the wake of this horrific abduction of 200 young women from their school in Nigeria.
But when President Hollande called the meeting with not only Nigeria’s head of state but the head of state of the surrounding countries, he did so to have both the short-term goal of coordinating all of our efforts to, I say these days, bring our girls home, because I think now these young women have become the girls of the world, not just of Nigeria. And – but he also brought everyone together to look at the mid term and the long term to ensure that there was coordination in the region and coordination globally to bring all of the assets to bear to deal with the horrific terror of Boko Haram, to try to secure the borders in the region, to ensure that these kind of acts don’t occur, and to ramp up the development in the sub-region so that there is not a breeding ground for terror.
It was an excellent meeting. I think it’s quite extraordinary that there were five heads of state as well as representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, and it was a very focused meeting. Conclusions of the summit have been published, so I don’t need to run through them for you and take up the time with that. And the United States is very glad to be part of this. As you know, we have deployed assets to Nigeria to help find the girls and to bring them home, and we are also helping the Nigerians out in every way we can. We’ve had a long presence in Nigeria and a very robust, multifaceted engagement with the Nigerians.
So let me stop there.
Q: Is it true that the Nigerian president first asked the U.S. and then the UK to host this summit before he asked France, and both the U.S. and UK declined?
A: No, not that I’m aware of.
Q: Okay, thank you There’s been a lot of emphasis during this meeting on coordinating information to localize these girls, but there has also been strong criticism of the Nigerian army and the way they handled the situation in Nigeria. Isn’t there a contradiction in giving information to an army that one does not trust to be able to carry out a job? So does this mean that if and when these girls are located, there will be Western military involvement alongside the Nigerian army?
A: No decisions have been made yet because first we have to find out where the girls are. And where they are will certainly dictate how, in fact, one can get them home, and there are many ways to do that. This is – if there were to be a rescue operation – there may be other ways to bring them home, but if it were to be a rescue operation, that’s a very specific skill set and not every army in the world has that skill set. I know that there are some training that has been gone on with units of the military in Nigeria to build those skills, in other words special forces skills. Whether they’d be able to attempt a rescue, I think it would just depend on the circumstances.
Q:In the past (inaudible) has released some prisoner in exchange of hostage.Did you speak about this topic during your meeting, and what do you think of this attitude?
A: The United States has its own view about ransom, exchanges, things like that, but this is a Nigerian decision. It’s not an American decision. Nigeria is a sovereign country and its government will make what choices it thinks it’s appropriate. Our views on this are well known.
Q: Do you think it’s a way to bring back the girl today?
A: Excuse me?
Q: Do you think it could be a way to bring back the girls?
A: Well, it’s certainly a way. As I said, there are many ways.And I should say Linda Thomas-Greenfield is our Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, and Ambassador Kaidanow is our Counterterrorism Coordinator. And I want to encourage each of them, if there’s something they need to add because they know a heck of a lot more than I do, to feel free.
Q: The first question I had – it’s two questions that are linked. The French have put a great deal of emphasis on Nigeria’s new openness to UN sanctions against Boko Haram, but those are months away. One of the – it could be quite a long time, according to --
A: It could be very quick, actually. Could be next week.
Q: It could be that quick then?
A: It could be that quick, yes.
Q: And those would be – are those envisioned as a way to cut off funds? How are those envisioned (inaudible)?
A: When you have sanctions at the UN, it does do asset freezes, travel freezes, a variety of things. It depends on how the designation is done. But I imagine this will happen rather quickly. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine any country who would not support this designation.
Q: Sorry. Are you optimistic - I was wondering: Are you optimistic about finding these girls? I mean, you talked about those specific skills, but I want just for you to tell me (inaudible).
A: I don’t – what I can say is that all of the countries that were at the table today are very focused on coordinating all of their information, all of their intelligence, all of their resources. And there are countries like Canada and Israel who weren’t at the meeting today who also are providing assistance. So everybody is focused, and usually when you have that many – you have everybody pulling in the same direction, you can find your way to finding the girls. But I don’t think we know yet.
Anything you want to add on that, Tina?
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: No, I think that’s right. I mean, clearly every asset that we can muster is being mustered, and the obvious imperative is to try and find them. Whether and what time frame we would be successful, it’s really hypothetical if we were to speculate.
Q:Can you describe all those asset that the U.S. would deploy? And someone question was it has been mentioned by President Hollande that Boko Haram had links to other terrorist organizations. Which terrorist organization? Can you be a little bit more specific, Shabaab or --
A: So what I would say on the latter question is Boko Haram is its own terrorist group, and the United States has designated Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In this day and age, there is probably no terror group that does not have some links somehow, even if tenuous, to some other organization. But for the most part, we treat Boko Haram as its own terror organization.
Secondly, in terms of assets, we have a multidisciplinary interagency team that has been deployed to Nigeria. I think you also are aware that we are flying ISR. That’s surveillance reconnaissance. And I met with the national security advisor of Nigeria while we’re here and I’m confident that all of that is proceeding forward as it should.
Q:To follow up on the sanctions issue, you said it’s going – it could come as soon as next week. So was there some sort of progress made today in order to accelerate the timetable?
And the second question: In the conclusions they mentioned this idea of pooling intelligence. My sense is that that intelligence will be pooled at the regional level. To what extent is the U.S. going to participate in that?
A: My understanding is out of the meeting today, which is the regional countries, that the U.S. will probably, as the other countries, have a presence there, at least in sort of some liaison status. But I think those details are being worked out.
Is there something – I think that’s where we are.
A:And on the resolution, they were working fast and furiously last week to get the draft in in final. So it has a 10-day waiting period, and once they get it in final I think it’ll move very, very, very fast. I don’t see it being weeks away. I see it being --
Q: So it’s not something that happened today?
A: No, no. It was already in train.Already in train.
Q: One more question also sort of related to that. Hollande can talk about the weapons for Boko Haram coming from Libya, in which there’s been a known flight of heavy weaponry. The training, to an extent, came from Mali when Mali was under attack. And then he said it’s still being looked into where the funds are coming from. Does the U.S. have any sense or any particular idea where the funds are coming from?
A: I think some of this information is not information that I would talk about publicly in terms of what we know the connections are, how things get done, where they are today. I think that the arms flow out of Libya is a well-known story. There is nothing secret about that anymore, and if there ever was a secret about the arms flowing out of Libya, and great concern and international attention that’s being focused on Libya as well.
There was a Quint meeting in London this week that Secretary Kerry participated in talking about a number of items. Libya was one of them. And we have a very focused, coordinated effort going on with close allies and the Libyan Government to try to do whatever we can, and with countries in the region to try to deal with border security, which is a constant concern throughout a great deal of the sub-region.
Anything you want to add on that?
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: No.
Q: Just to make sure that I understood the answer you gave previously, you were saying that you – at this stage you cannot exclude that there would be a Western and U.S. participation in a military operation to secure the release of --
A: No, what I – let me be clear.
Q: Is that what you were saying?
A: No. What I’m saying is there are many ways to bring this horrific situation to a close. When and if we know where they are, then the Nigerians will have to decide how to proceed. Right now, as our President has said, we are providing intelligence assistance to them. He has said we are not putting boots on the ground.
Q: (Inaudible.) I just wanted to know what would be the next step. Do you expect a new meeting by – soon?
A: There was, in fact, a discussion about a follow-up meeting happening soon, and my guess is that will be worked out in the next days, just as people coordinate schedules.
Q: Would it --
A: Probably on the margins of another international meeting that’s taking place so it doesn’t have to be de novo. But yes, I think there is a commitment to this not be a one-off, that this be an ongoing commitment that the international community is making.
Q: Would it be a long time?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Would it be open to Israel --
A: You could ask the foreign secretary. (Laughter.)
Q: Would it be open to Israel or Canada (inaudible) this kind of meeting?
A: It’s not my decision. This is also really driven by not only the Nigerians but by Benin, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad. Really, this is African led. This is not Western, U.S., UK, EU, France led. We have the resources that we can bring to bear, and that’s our responsibility to do so and to support Africa, but this is African led.
Q: Just to connect the dots a bit between my colleague’s question here about whether Western military might be involved, it sounds like Obama has ruled that out for now. So seeing as how that’s not a possibility, how concerned are you about sharing intelligence with the Nigerian army the moment that the girls are located?
A: We are all working together, so it’s not like we’re over here and we’d see something and the Nigerians would know at that second and they’d decide what to do. We are working as a team.
Q: Right.
A: And so decisions are going to be made in a conscious and thoughtful way with all of – we have laws in our country. We have ways that intelligence can be used when we share intelligence with other countries. We – it has to get used in a way that’s consistent with our values and our approach to the use of intelligence. So I think this will be a very thoughtful process.
Q: Is U.S. coordinating the Western groups in Abuja, Western expert (inaudible)?
A: I don’t know if we’d say we’re coordinating –
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: I think the key words is coordinating or coordinating with. Coordinating with, yes, we’re talking to a number of the other --
Q: But do you have a coordinator?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: We have a coordinator of our team.
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: Of our team.
ASST SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: We have a head of our team.
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: Right.
ASST SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And we’re coordinating very closely with the other teams. And the Nigerians have assigned a senior person who is their point of contact, and they’re working very, very closely.
Q: So you have (inaudible)?
AMBASSADOR KAIDANOW: Our team is multi-agency, mutli-disciplinary, and so you need a coordinator to bring all that together. And so that’s the natural locus. But we’re working very well not only with the Nigerians but with the others who are doing that (inaudible).
Q: Were there any signs coming out of the meeting today that there won’t be any – how do you say? – any commitment on behalf of Cameroon to actually work with Nigeria because these two countries are just not coordinating, speaking to each other, or cooperating in any way?
A: I think if you were there --
Q: I was (inaudible).
A: Then you saw that they were (a) sitting next with each other – next to each other. They were very collegial in the meetings we had. They are both committed to doing what is necessary. And it is – it was quite awful, actually, that Cameroon suffered its own attack on the eve of this meeting. And you heard the Cameroon president say we know this is not just a Nigerian problem, and unfortunately they had very fresh evidence of that fact. And so I think we are going to see ever-improving coordination and work together.
Q: (Inaudible) I think even President Jonathan has said, and certainly we’ve heard it from people within the Nigerian military, is there are fears that Boko Haram has infiltrated quite high within the Nigerian leadership, possibly as high as the cabinet. How is the U.S. dealing with intelligence sharing, knowing that that’s a concern?
A: As I said, we’re very – we have a whole protocol when we share intelligence not only with Nigeria but with any country, and we will follow that protocol.
Q: Were you worried when you heard the President Biya saying that his army generally sleeping the night?
A: Say that --
Q: Were you worried when you heard that President Biya from Cameroon saying that mentioning that his (inaudible) his army is most of the time sleeping during the night and they (inaudible)?
A: Oh, when he said that they attack largely between 12 and 1 and --
Q: And what do you think about – what is your assessment about this army, this local army?
A: Well, I think he was – the point he was making is that they have a pattern of attack that makes it more difficult. I wouldn’t – I’m not sure I would take that literally. I’m sure that Cameroon’s army is prepared to do whatever it needs to do.
Q: Thank you.
A: Or if you have none, that’s okay, too.
Q: Can I --
Q: Sorry, go ahead.
Q: During today’s meetings, were any sort of contingency plans discussed in terms of how a rescue operation might be conducted?
A: No.
Q: Okay.
A: It wouldn’t be appropriate for this meeting.
 |
|
The Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, has offered whistleblowers between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent of recovered stolen Nigerian assets held abroad for information that leads to their recovery.
Olukoyede disclosed this on Wednesday while delivering a lecture at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime in the United Kingdom.
According to him, the ability of EFCC operatives to trace assets, cooperation from the judiciary and access to credible intelligence have played important roles in the commission’s success in securing non-conviction-based forfeiture orders.
He also described the EFCC as having some of the best investigators in the world and stressed the importance of protecting and encouraging whistleblowers.
He said anyone with credible information about stolen Nigerian assets taken or hidden anywhere in the world could receive between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent of the recovered assets as an incentive, with payment made after the recovery.
Olukoyede further revealed that the EFCC had forfeited cash and assets worth more than $500 million to the Federal Government within the past three years.
He cited several cases involving the recovery and forfeiture of assets, including cases linked to a former Chairman of the Central Bank of Nigeria and a former Attorney-General of the Federation.
The EFCC chairman explained that the commission is legally empowered to seek the forfeiture of suspected proceeds of crime by applying to the High Court for an order. He said the process is similar to procedures used in countries such as Australia and Canada.
Olukoyede also recalled a case involving an aircraft allegedly acquired by an individual who was accused of receiving about $30 million in bribes in connection with a power project. He said the aircraft was forfeited about three months ago and had subsequently been added to the presidential air fleet.
He also referred to a property containing about 753 housing units that was forfeited from a former CBN governor, against whom the EFCC has filed criminal charges in three courts.
Speaking about the immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, Olukoyede said the EFCC opened an investigation following allegations of abuse of office. He claimed that investigators traced about 57 properties to Malami and that approximately 48 of them had been forfeited.
The EFCC chairman further mentioned the forfeiture of a private university allegedly linked to a director in the Federal Ministry of Health. According to him, the official voluntarily surrendered the property following the commission’s investigation.
Olukoyede said the measures demonstrate the importance of asset tracing, international cooperation, credible intelligence and whistleblower protection in the fight against financial crime and the recovery of stolen public assets.
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery has raised concerns over the growing volume of imported petrol entering Nigeria, warning that it could be forced to export more of its own production if the trend continues.
The refinery said imported Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) made up roughly 43 per cent of the petrol supplied to the Nigerian market in July. It argued that the development was creating serious difficulties for a domestic refinery with the capacity to produce enough fuel for the country.
Dangote Refinery explained that it has maintained sizeable petrol reserves since commencing operations to ensure that consumers across Nigeria have access to a reliable supply. Keeping those reserves, it noted, requires substantial expenditure on storage, transportation and working capital.
However, the refinery said the continued granting of import licences without adequate information about expected import volumes has made it increasingly difficult to determine how much petrol should be produced and stored for the local market.
The company said holding large quantities of petrol becomes financially burdensome when there is no certainty about how much imported fuel will compete for the same market. It therefore considers exporting surplus stocks a more commercially viable option than allowing them to remain in storage indefinitely.
According to the refinery, increased exports in recent months should not be interpreted as evidence that Nigeria lacks sufficient refining capacity. Instead, the exports are being driven by excess stock resulting from unpredictable import volumes.
Dangote Refinery maintained that it remains fully committed to supplying the Nigerian market and has the capacity to meet or surpass the country's petrol requirements. It said its decision to export surplus products was aimed at managing inventory efficiently and avoiding unnecessary storage and financing expenses.
The refinery also warned that market disruptions caused by excessive imports could make it harder for domestic refiners to accurately predict demand. Any resulting supply problems, it said, should not automatically be blamed on local refineries.
It urged regulators and other industry stakeholders to improve transparency around petrol imports and strengthen coordination within the downstream petroleum market.
The company argued that policies that give greater support to domestic refining would help Nigeria reduce its dependence on imported fuel, conserve foreign exchange, strengthen energy security and maximise the economic benefits of investments in local refining infrastructure.
Dangote Refinery said it remains prepared to supply the country but stressed that a more predictable and transparent market environment is necessary for efficient production and inventory management.
Business
In The Spotlight
A group of heartless carpetbaggers have captured the Nigerian state, and it appears that they, their biological and political descendants, will hold the levers of government and access to Nigeria’s commonwealth for a long time to come.
When you consider news reports of how previous and current state actors steal public funds, buy choice properties in the toniest districts of Nigeria’s major cities, acquire private jets, and even establish private universities, you wonder if some people have more than two heads, to adopt a Yoruba phrase.
Either because of an inability to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number of Nigerian citizens, or by intention, the political elite have kept the people poor, causing them to depend on the largeness of heart of the same elite to meet their existential needs.
That explains why poor, downtrodden, and unconnected Nigerians eagerly collect crumbs of measly N5,000, rice, gari and whatever else the politicians offer to obtain their election votes or acquiescence after rigging the elections.
When watching an economically disadvantaged individual tell a politician who is seeking to become a legislator the good news that his wife just had a new baby, and he needed to prepare for the naming ceremony, it felt like the oppressed poor were enabling his oppressor to further oppress him.
It was like the classic case of Stockholm syndrome, of victims collaborating with their “captors” to cement the oppressive stranglehold that they already had over the state and the commonwealth of the nation, thus unwittingly arresting their own future development.
A running mate to a former governorship candidate in a Southwestern state hilariously regaled Nigerians with the story of how constituents would have raided all the alcoholic drinks in his refrigerator in the early hours of the morning, even before he woke from the hectic campaign tour of the previous day.
The political elite have practically cornered the Nigerian state for themselves, children, tribesmen and acolytes, and have devised a way to admit only those that they have found to be loyal, or pliable, into their rank of oppressors.
The oppression of the citizens of Nigeria is easily accomplished because of the high illiteracy level amongst the poor masses. The use of the weapon of illiteracy is more evident in Northern Nigeria, whose political leaders somehow turn a blind eye to the illiteracy and underdevelopment of their people.
In 2024, UNICEF revealed that out of Nigeria’s 18.3 million out-of-school children, about 12.1 million, or 66 per cent, were resident in the Northwest and Northeast regions. Yet, instead of expanding educational facilities and opportunities, some Northern governors are arranging mass weddings for children who are hardly out of their teen years.
And this is not to deny the weaponisation of illiteracy even in Obafemi Awolowo’s Western Region, which is regarded as the Athens of Nigeria, after its pre-Independence head start of free, universal and compulsory primary school education.
As if he had a premonition that Nigeria’s so-called democrats would eventually compromise education, to the detriment of the lowest and marginalised masses, that Karl Marx described as the “lumpen proletariat”, French political thinker Montesquieu argued a long time ago that “It is in a republican government that the whole power of education is required.”
Western Nigeria’s free education scheme was gradually abandoned from the days of the Second Republic when some Yoruba members of President Shehu Shagari’s political party knocked it off its bottom with the argument that “qualitative” education was better than “free” education.
It is more than a shame that a free, universal and compulsory primary school education scheme was abandoned under President Shagari, who not only was a trained teacher, but had a career as a teacher before his political career.
Awolowo had warned Nigeria’s political elite with the following quip: “The children of the poor that you failed to educate will not let your children sleep peacefully.” The insecurity that currently occurs in nearly every part of Nigeria only drives Awolowo’s point home.
Probably the realm of the Nigerian republic that has been most complicit with the carpetbagger political elite is the media, whose members either serve the elites as press secretaries who kill media brushfires, or editors who either run planted stories, or spike stories that the politicians do not want published.
The media is so compromised that it can hardly perform those responsibilities assigned to it by Section 22 of the Nigerian Constitution, which are to “be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in (Chapter II of the Constitution) and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.”
Some apologists have argued on behalf of the media that the political elite have so run the economy aground that the media, which can only thrive as commercial enterprises within Nigeria’s quasi-capitalist economy, cannot stay afloat, especially with the devastating inroads that the digital media are making into their audience, advertising revenue and profit.
The absence of regional economies, the argument goes, prevents the emergence of regional newspapers that can thrive on advertising revenues from regional companies, the way it obtains in the economies of North America and Western Europe. Many Nigerian newspapers, that are essentially regional, often pretend to be national to receive advertising revenue from companies whose market is national.
Two other collaborators of the political elite are the election management agencies and the judiciary at both the national and sub-national levels of government. The conspiracy between these agencies and the political elite is almost like that of Siamese twins conjoined by the belly button.
After the election management agencies may have deliberately bungled (especially) governorship and legislative house elections, and declared false reports, the losers, who felt that they won the election, would then approach the temple of justice, with significant financial inducement to ask for justice(?).
From that point on, the justice that both contestants hope to corruptly obtain could swing according to the heft of the naira in the Ghana-must-go bag that they will be hauling into the chambers of the denizens of the corrupted judiciary.
Thus, the “award” of electoral justice is “a matter of cash”, to quote Basi, the protagonist of “Basi & Co”, the television sitcom produced by environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who himself was denied justice from the judiciary that served the regime of General Sani Abacha, Nigeria’s most notorious military dictator.
In Nigeria, the lines of separation of powers that demarcate the duties of the three arms of government –the legislative, executive and judiciary– and the checks and balances that empower each arm to check the others have become almost irredeemably blurred.
As legislators use constituency projects as a ploy to carry out the functions of the executive, the president issues executive orders that are essentially legislative in nature. Though the judiciary does not perform the duties of the other arms, it fails to check them as it indulgently winks at their excesses.
If those who are regarded as Nigeria’s political elite really know what is in their enlightened self-interest and would like to protect the future of their descendants from what Thomas Hobbes described as a short, brutish and nasty existence, they will use their current privilege to correct the evil they have done to Nigerians.
They must urgently redeem the future before it delivers violence against their children.
By Lekan Sote
In The Spotlight
Lagos alone is worth more than Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda and Mauritius combined.
Let that sink in.
With an economy of N41.17tn — about $102bn in 2021 — Lagos State dwarfed the entire gross domestic products of four countries. Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta and Bayelsa sit on oil wealth that funds nations. Ogun, Anambra and Imo churn out goods, services and commerce that would make small economies jealous.
By the numbers, Nigeria’s states are giants.
But walk the streets of Lagos, and you will still find mothers cooking with firewood. Drive through Port Harcourt, and you will see communities drinking water polluted by the same oil that makes the state’s GDP glow. Visit Umuahia, Abeokuta, or Minna and ask the average trader what “trillion-naira economy” means to her dinner table.
The answer is: nothing.
That viral video telling you “10 Nigerian states are richer than countries” is both true and a lie. True, because the 2021 BudgIT figures don’t lie — Lagos at N41.17trn, Rivers at N7.96trn, and so on. A lie, because those numbers are GDP, not prosperity. They measure how much economic activity happens _in_ a place, not how much of it reaches the people who live there.
A country with $7,778 GDP per capita, like Botswana, will still feed its citizens better than a state with $102bn in total output but $2,058 per capita, like Nigeria. A state can host a port, an oil rig, and a tech hub, yet fail to build a hospital that works.
So, the real question isn’t “Which state is bigger than which country?”
The real question, and the one our governors should lose sleep over, is this: When your economy is bigger than a nation, why are your people still living like they have nothing?
In this edition of The Bottomline, we follow the money from GDP to the gutter — and ask why Nigeria’s trillion-naira states have not become trillion-naira lives.
The viral numbers are not new. They were lifted straight from BudgIT’s 2022 State of States report and reflected 2021 estimates: Lagos at N41.17tn, followed by Rivers at N7.96tn, Akwa Ibom at N7.77tn, Imo at N7.68tn, Delta at N6.19tn, Anambra at N5.14tn, Ondo at N5.10tn, Ogun at N5.03tn, Bayelsa at N4.63tn and Niger at N4.58tn.
The trick is in the timing. To pitch those 2021 figures against 2025 country GDPs is statistical fraud. Nigeria has since rebased. The NBS moved the base year from 2010 to 2019, and the whole map shifted. Lagos itself has moved on: its 2025 _Lagos Economic Development Update_ puts the state at N43.06tn in 2023, with forecasts of N54.77tn for 2024 and N66.47tn for 2025. Those are projections, not fresh NBS post-rebasing observations, but they tell you the direction: up.
There is no debate that Lagos is Nigeria’s economic engine. From a colonial port to federal capital until 1991, it never lost momentum. Today, trade, manufacturing, ports, telecoms, tech, entertainment, real estate and finance all cluster in just 3,345 square kilometres. Compare that footprint to Botswana’s 581,730 sq km, Namibia’s 825,615 sq km, Rwanda’s 26,338 sq km, and Mauritius’ 2,040 sq km. Yet in 2021, Lagos’ $102 billion economy was several times larger than Botswana’s $19.9bn, Namibia’s $15.1bn, Rwanda’s $16.4bn, and Mauritius’ $16.2bn, according to 2025 World Bank figures.
That comparison is legitimate. The conclusion people draw from it is not.
GDP tells you how much value was produced in a territory. It does not tell you who owns it, who earns it, or whether the roads work, the lights stay on, or the hospital has drugs.
A state can run a trillion-naira economy and still have mothers boiling water on firewood. A country can have a smaller GDP and deliver a better life. Look at the per capita numbers: Botswana at $7,778, Namibia at $5,309, Mauritius at $11,819. Nigeria sits at about $2,058. Even Rwanda, at just $773 per capita, has pushed its $3-a-day poverty rate down to 38.6 per cent — proof that size is not destiny.
The oil states expose the fraud most brutally. Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta and Bayelsa rank high because petroleum inflates their GDP. But oil wealth does not flow into state coffers in equal measure, and it certainly does not flow into household wallets. BudgIT’s own fiscal sustainability index proves this. In 2022, Rivers topped overall fiscal performance despite Lagos having the biggest economy. A big economy without revenue discipline, jobs, and services is just a billboard.
Nigeria does not have a GDP problem. We have a translation problem.
We have pockets of enormous economic power. Lagos. Rivers. Akwa Ibom. Ogun. Anambra. Delta. The output is real. What is missing is the bridge between that output and ordinary life.
Until economic activity creates real jobs, until IGR rises and addiction to federal allocation falls, until infrastructure supports production instead of strangling it, those trillion-naira figures will remain a cruel joke.
So let the video go viral. Let Lagos be “bigger than Botswana”.
But governors, commissioners, and citizens should ask only one question:
If my state can outproduce a country, why can’t it out-deliver a decent life for the people who call it home?
Until we answer that, we are not rich. We are just big.
By Raphael Mbamalu